• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Genetics and Genesis

athon said:


Interesting story behind this.

The Bible's Genesis is indeed a 'trimmed' version. The mythos around the time (Genesis is based on the stories used by all three of the major monotheistic religions) talked about Lilith, as well as other children.

Around which time? Which major monotheistic religions? (Not judaism, christianity and islam I hope, since the two last just build on the first.)
I know that the mystic sects of judaism incorporates a lot of stuff that's not in the old testament, but how old are the sources?
 
bjornart said:


Around which time? Which major monotheistic religions? (Not judaism, christianity and islam I hope, since the two last just build on the first.)
I know that the mystic sects of judaism incorporates a lot of stuff that's not in the old testament, but how old are the sources?

You're right about that. Judaism is the oldest, with the others being modifications. But I hesitate to refer to it as the foundation monotheistic religion, as it has evolved so much over the past few thousand years that when the myths first formed, Judaism would have been unrecognizable.

The middle east was a melting pot of many different sub-cultures. People think gods are stable elements of any ancient society - nothing could be further from the truth. As for Yaweh being a monotheistic deity from the beginning, again it's rather misleading.

A culture adopted and forgot deities with the seasons, it seems. The origins of the Jewish god can be traced in some form back to a pantheon at Ur in Mesopotamia (which is one of several reaosns why Abraham can be tied with that city). He brought the god west with him, and other cultures adopted him along the way. He became enmeshed with other deities, changed, and even married at one stage!

The thing is, religous myths tend to follow the same trends. Pre-Islamic religions were pantheonistic, and pre-Christ, tended to be rather Hellenised through Egyptian influences. Quite a few myths were also influenced in this way - we have the same thing today with foreign influences changing our tastes in movies and books.

The creation myth has recurring themes from all over the Middle East, Mesopotamia, and the Mediterranian. By the time the first canon was decided on for Christianity in the fourth century A.D., many Christians had moulded the creation myth into what we see today, choosing to ignore other elements. Some modern Islamic cults still refer to scriptures where Heva was a replacement for El-Karineh - Eve vs. Lilith.

So asking how old the sources are is somewhat impossible to answer. The whole system of theology is an evolution in itself - it would be like trying to date the rise of Homo sapien down to a decade.

Athon
 
I thought this NY Times op/ed (7-11-03) might be interesting to some in the context of this discussion. I apologize in advance as I am probably breaking a rule by posting the full piece, but the NYTimes requires a registration to reach the content, and some here have expressed reluctance to do so...so sue me. Hope you find this interesting too...

OP-ED COLUMNIST
Is Race Real?
By NICHOLAS D. KRISTOF


OXFORD, England


I had my DNA examined by a prominent genetic specialist here, and what do you know! It turns out I'm African-American.

The mitochondria in my cells show that I'm descended from a matriarch who lived in Africa, possibly in present-day Ethiopia or Kenya.

O.K., this was 70,000 years ago, and she seems to be a common ancestor of all Asians as well as all Caucasians. Still, these kinds of DNA analyses illuminate the raging scientific debate about whether there is anything real to the notion of race.

"There's no genetic basis for any kind of rigid ethnic or racial classification at all," said Bryan Sykes, the Oxford geneticist and author of "The Seven Daughters of Eve." "I'm always asked is there Greek DNA or an Italian gene, but, of course, there isn't. . . . We're very closely related."

Likewise, The New England Journal of Medicine once editorialized bluntly that "race is biologically meaningless."

Take me. Dr. Sykes looked at a sequence of my mitochondrial DNA to place me on a kind of global family tree. It would have been nice to learn that my ancestors hailed from a village on Loch Ness, but ancestry can almost never be pegged that precisely, and I appear to be a mongrel. One of my variants, for example, is scattered among people in Finland, Poland, Armenia, the Netherlands, Scotland, Israel, Germany and Norway.

On the other hand, is race really "biologically meaningless"? Bigotry has been so destructive that it's tempting to dismiss race and ethnicity as artificial, but there are genuine differences among population groups.

Jews are more likely to carry mutations for Tay-Sachs, Africans for sickle cell anemia. It's hard to argue that ethnicity is an empty concept when one gene mutation for an iron storage disease, hemochromatosis, affects fewer than 1 percent of Armenians but 8 percent of Norwegians.

"There is great value in racial/ ethnic self-categorizations" for medicine, protested an article last year by a Stanford geneticist, Neil Risch, in Genome Biology. It warned against "ignoring our differences, even if with the best of intentions."

DNA does tend to differ, very slightly, with race. Profilers thought a recent serial killer in Louisiana was white until a DNA sample indicated he was probably black. (A black man has been arrested in the case.) As genetic science advances, the police may eventually be able to recover semen and put out an A.P.B. for a tall white rapist with red curly hair, blue eyes and perhaps a Scottish surname.

On the other hand, genetic markers associated with Africans can turn up in people who look entirely white. Indians and Pakistanis may have dark skin, but genetic markers show that they are Caucasians.

Another complication is that African-Americans are, on average, about 17 percent white: they have mitochondria (maternally inherited) that are African, but they often have European Y chromosomes. In other words, white men raped or seduced their maternal ancestors.

Among Jews, there are common genetic markers, including some found in about half the Jewish men named Cohen. But this isn't exactly a Jewish gene: the same marker is also found in Arabs.

"Genetics research is now about to end our long misadventure with the idea of race," Steve Olson writes in his new book, "Mapping Human History."

When I lived in Japan in the 1990's, my son Gregory had a play date with a classmate I hadn't met. I asked Gregory, then 5, whether the boy's mother was Japanese.

"I don't know," Gregory replied.

"Well," I asked sharply, "did she look Japanese or American?" Although he'd lived in Tokyo for years, Gregory replied blankly, "What does a Japanese person look like?"

He was ahead of his time. Genetics increasingly shows that racial and ethnic distinctions are real — but often fuzzy and greatly exaggerated. Genetics will increasingly show that most humans are mongrels, and it will make a mockery of racism.

"There are meaningful distinctions among groups that may have implications for disease susceptibility," said Harry Ostrer, a genetics expert at the New York University School of Medicine. "The right-wing version of this is `The Bell Curve,' and that's pseudoscience — that's not real. But there can be a middle ground between left-wing political correctness and right-wing meanness."

I'll be searching for that middle ground this year as I'm celebrating Kwanzaa.

* * *
 
If you tried to produce humanity from only two people via sexual reproduction wouldn't the group eventually die as a result of birth defects?
Maybe Cain mated with some giant women, after all, "there were giants in the earth in those days." (Gen 6:4)


Wait, I want to change my answer to microevolution.
 
Actually, I've read that the general consensus is that the giants were killed in the Flood, as (presumably) were all of their ancestors. Noah was a descendant of Seth, wasn't he?

Some sources even go so far as to suggest that abominations such as the giants were part of why God decided to flood the Earth.
 
athon said:

You're right about that. Judaism is the oldest, with the others being modifications. But I hesitate to refer to it as the foundation monotheistic religion, as it has evolved so much over the past few thousand years that when the myths first formed, Judaism would have been unrecognizable.

<snippety>

The creation myth has recurring themes from all over the Middle East, Mesopotamia, and the Mediterranian. By the time the first canon was decided on for Christianity in the fourth century A.D., many Christians had moulded the creation myth into what we see today, choosing to ignore other elements. Some modern Islamic cults still refer to scriptures where Heva was a replacement for El-Karineh - Eve vs. Lilith.

<snippety>

So asking how old the sources are is somewhat impossible to answer. The whole system of theology is an evolution in itself - it would be like trying to date the rise of Homo sapien down to a decade.

Yes, this is why I was asking. In the first post you said that

The Bible's Genesis is indeed a 'trimmed' version. The mythos around the time (Genesis is based on the stories used by all three of the major monotheistic religions) talked about Lilith, as well as other children.

I looked around and I could only find references to Lilith in connection with the jewish kabalah and no information about the age of the legend. But while writing this I looked again (to find out how to spell kabalah :)) and found this:

The Alphabet of Ben Sira is the earliest form we know of the Lilith legend familiar to most people (that is, to most people who are familiar with Lilith at all). It is here that we find Lilith as Adam's first wife. Scholars tend to date the Alphabet between the 8th and 10th centuries, CE. Whether the story itself is older, or, if so, how much older is not possible to say.
-http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/~humm/Topics/Lilith/alphabet.html

The page also mentions older stories about the existence of a predecessor to Eve, but state they don't refer to Lilith.
 
Interesting find, bjornart.

I'd be hard pressed to find anything earlier than the 10th century, although I think I'd be hard pressed to find any reference earlier than that at all - writing has barely been around that long in itself.

The texts I have rarely make date references, and those that do vary a bit. I tend to like the pre-Islamic myths the most, and they are usually from the first few centuries BC.

Athon
 
Then there's Orthodontist-cum-neanderthalologist John Cuozzo's theory that humans have "DEvolved" from Neanderthals, who lived to Methusalah ages. Devolution is a consequence of Adam's Fall, and is the reason behind ill-grown wisdom teeth and other ills.
And, of course, there's a conspiracy to keep this information from spreading. He's got a Web page, www.jackcuozzo.com, that plugs his book "Buried Alive", in which all the startling Truths are revealed.
 
This is one of the biggest mis-concepts of evolutionary biology - that of the concept of devolution.

De-evolving assumes that evolution has direction. It doesn't. The archetype or 'ideal' organism does not exist outside the the concept of its environment. While I doubt the strength of the Methusalah theory, I can't see why dying younger could be a step backwards in terms of evolution if it continued to produce numerous variable and viable offspring. As it is, our own old age is only a consequence of social interaction, a form of kin selection. Otherwise it would make no difference if we died at 300 or at 60.

Athon
 
Yes, the irony is that transition from neanderthal (whether giant saint or mere brute) to modern human (& I won't go into evidence that such does not appear to be the case) would still be "evolution" even if you prefer to make up a different name for it. Almost like trying to figure where microevolution leaves off and macroevolution begins.
 
The Thrasher said:
Recently I was pondering the book of Genesis in the bilble and I stumbled upon an intersting question. The book states that all of humanity decended from Adam and Eve. It is my understanding that children of sibilings tend to have severe birth defects.
So, isn't this yet another whole in the creationist myth? If you tried to produce humanity from only two people via sexual reproduction wouldn't the group eventually die as a result of birth defects?


Thrasher, my good man. What on earth were you doing reading the bible? Surely after the age of 11 you've read/heard all the stories or are you one of these chaps who can read a book several times over? My daughter is reading the Harry Potter collection for the fifth time, ( it must be said we are from poor breeding stock).
 
Re: Re: Genetics and Genesis

clusterm2 said:
Thrasher, my good man. What on earth were you doing reading the bible? Surely after the age of 11 you've read/heard all the stories or are you one of these chaps who can read a book several times over? My daughter is reading the Harry Potter collection for the fifth time, ( it must be said we are from poor breeding stock).

He didn't say he read or reread it, he just said he was pondering, and he could be doing that based on memory from when he was 11.

Anyway I think there are plenty of stories in the bible that aren't mentioned much. The story of Jephthah, springs to mind. (Judges 11)
 
As far as I understand it, the still-controversial 'mitochondrial Eve' is only the most recent female common ancestor of all modern humans.
 

Back
Top Bottom