Thank you John, that was kindly of you.
Thereâs a reason for that. Adam, for example, was not cursed to sweat. âSweat of the browâ just means âhard workâ; the curse could as easily have mentioned âcalluses of the handsâ. Adam is cursed to have to work for his food, and any other interpretation is focusing on the words rather than what the sentences mean. And itâs Adam and Eve, specifically, who are cursed. Their brains would have to be increased in size personally and quickly, rather than having a gradual increase in their descendants.
Did you ever ask anyone? I think everyone youâve ever talked to would agree that God, if he existed, could do anything. Thatâs hardly the point, and I donât think it was the point for anyone youâve ever talked to. He could have, but why would he?
Oh, I see you get to chose a translation you like, but I donât. Really NICE! lol I see how this game works, heads you win; tails I lose.
It says sweat, not work. True sweat comes from hard work, but sweat also comes from other activities.
Secondly, the hunter-gatherer life can be quite nice if one is correctly located.
âScattered throughout the world, several dozen groups of so-called primitive people, like the Kalashari Bushmen, continue to support themselves that way. It turns out that these people have plenty of leisure time, sleep a good deal, and work less hard than their farming neighbors. For instance, the average time devoted each week to obtaining food is only 12 to 19 hours for one group of Bushmen, 14 hours or less for the Hadza nomads of Tanzania. One Bushman, when asked why he hadnât emulated neighboring tribes by adopting agriculture, replied, âWhy should we, when there are so many mongongo nuts in the world?ââ ~ Jared Diamond, âThe Worst Mistake in the History of the Human Race,â Discover, 1987, in in D. Bruce Dickson, ed. Readings in Archaeology, (New York: West Publishing, 1994), p. 22
Not every human earns his living by the hard work you hold to.
The fact is that other animals donât sweat on the brow or much of anyplace else. We are unique in that regard. It wasnât until Dean Falkâs work that the emissary veins were discovered.
Oh brother. not worth a reply.
Hostility and paranoia are not a good way to go. You may not understand metonymy, but Iâm sure the writers of Genesis did. Nor was Adam a hunter-gatherer. Letâs remember that his first two sons were farmer and herdsman, respectively. No hunter-gatherers are ever mentioned in the bible, though there is a certain amount of hunting and a little gathering mentioned. But not as full-time occupations.
Not true. Various mammals sweat in various parts of their bodies. Itâs a primitive trait.
You are avoiding the issue. Do you actually know of anyone who claims that God couldnât have made a snake talk?
John, this doesnât get you out of the problem. I didnât say other animals didnât have sweat glands. They donât sweat like usâindeed, as far as I have learned, we are sweatier than pigs. Sure other animals all have a few apocrine and eccrine glands and sweat tiny amounts, that donât do much for cooling. Here is what anthropologists say about humans:
âIn extreme heat, the body is capable of sweating off a maximum of twenty-eight liters of water in a day. Thick hair would have reduced the effects of that cooling and would also have allowed salt and other wastes to build up in our fur or hair. Without that obstacle, sweat simply washes off our bodies.â ~ Chris Stringer and Robin McKie, African Exodus, (New York: Henry Holt and Company, 1997), p. 226
âSweat glands on the hairy skin of subhuman primates probably function subliminally or not at all, although they are structurally similar to those of man. The skin of monkeys and apes remains dry even in a hot environment. Profuse thermal sweating in man, then, seems to be a new function.â ~ âSkin, Humanâ, Encyclopedia Britannica,16, (Chicaco: Encyl. Brit., 1982), p. 843
âWhen the body temperature reaches a certain point,
blood vessels just beneath the skin of the face and scalp
dilate, bringing more blood to the skin where it is cooled
by sweating. (It is interesting to note that humans have
the greatest sweating capacity of any animal and that the
density of sweat glands on the forehead is especially high.)
This blood, now cooled, flows to the head and enters the
brain case by way of small veins passing through small
holes, or foramina, in the skull. Once in the brain case,
the relatively cool blood flows through the brain, helping
to keep it cool.â Philip L. Stein and Bruce M. Rowe,
Physical Anthropology, 6th ed. (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1996,
P. 428
Hmmm. density of sweat glands on brow is especially high. Wonder why that might be? Adamâs curse? So contrary to what John says human sweating is quite a unique feature and this feature is a result of our brains getting biggerâwhich by the way, is the same cause for pain in childbirth. John, write your paper and prove all these other folks wrong. I am just noting what they are saying. If you donât like what I say, which is what they said, go argue with them and show them the error of their ways.
âPeople he noted, can shed heat quickly-not by panting, like most animals, but by perspiring through millions of sweat glands. A lack of fur also helps dissipate heat more quickly.â
âOther researchers have proposed that such features emerged because our ancestors had to cope with the sun as they moved from a shady forest habitat to the scorching savanna. Carrier suspected that these traits were more relevant for handling physical exertion. The human body generates six times more heat when sprinting at top speed than when sitting in the sun. Most animals, humans included, must stop trotting when they overheat, or they die. (In one legendary experiment, Harvard biologists stuck a rectal thermometer into a cheetah, put the cat on a treadmill, and found that it refused to move once its temperature hit 105 degrees Fahrenheit, even though it was loping well below its top speed.) Controlling body temperature, Carrier once wrote, âis critical for animals that run for extended periods.â Given that humans excel at releasing heat and distance running, he speculated that we were built to run far and wide.â IngFei Chen, âBorn to Run,â Discover, May 2006, p.64
It isnât the existence of sweat glands that is unique. As usual you misunderstand me. It is the fact that the amount of sweat we produce is unique and its purpose is to keep our uniquely large brains cool.
Again, Dean Falk talks about how unique our brain growth is. We have a very large encephalization quotient.
â'Gracileâ australopithecines eventually gave rise to the Homo lineage, in which brain size increased autocatalytically. Nothing like this increase in brain size has been seen in other mammals and, indeed, this phenomenon constitutes one of the greatest mysteries in paleontology, The work on cranial blood flow by Cabanacâs team may provide a key for resolving this mystery. Cabanac suggests that âbrain thermolytic needs have increased with its increasing sizeâ and that it is possible that emissary veins âwere developed for the defense of the brain temperature.â Both comparative and direct fossil evidence suggests that the frequencies of emissary veins have increased dramatically during human evolution. (It should be noted, however, that elaboration of the full network of emissary veins did not occur until relatively late, since the parietal emissary vein has yet to be observed in populations prior to archaic Homo sapiens.â ~ Dean Falk, âEnlarged Occipital/Marginal Sinuses and Emissary Foramina:Their Significance in Hominid Evolution,â In Frederick E. Grime (ed.), Evolutionary History of the Robust Australopithecines. New York: Aldine de Gruyter, pp. 85-112, p. 94
Because of our unique brain size relative to our bodies, we have to have a very efficient means of cooling it. Our sweating is what does it, and the emissary veins are a vital part of that cooling mechanism.
So, John do your research get your papers through peer review and prove all these supposedly idiotic other authors wrong. you will make a name for yourself!
edited to add: btw, John, one of my quotes in the Adam curse write up mentions that animals have both kinds of sweat glands. Why you think I said they didnât, I donât have a clue.
Glenn:
Thanks for your generous reply. I donât want to tire you out with more long posts from me, when Iâm sure you have more important people to talk to in your life, so Iâll try to keep this shorter.
OK, so you see God as having told the writers what happened in the past, rather than them getting it from flawed oral tradition. I understand that now. But did the writers understand the meaning of the words that they wrote? Did they understand about the Mediterranean Sea and the violence at Gibraltar and so on? Or were they just writing what God told them to, with no geographical or historical grasp of what it meant? (As you probably know, some of the sects see the writers of Scripture as merely recording devices for Godâs thoughts, rather than human beings using human intelligence to render Godâs thoughts into contemporary language.)
More important, perhaps, than what the writers understood, is what the readers would have understood, and that is really my focus. Revelation is supposed to be for the good of the masses who receive the revelation, not for the good of a small caste of chosen scribes or prophets who write it down. So even supposing that Moses had a full and true geological understanding, historical understanding, etc., as good as or better than what we have today, would his readers have understood the story as he did? Nothing in Christianity says that all readers are inspired by God to have the level of knowledge that Moses and the inspired writers had.
For example, would an Israelite of King Davidâs time (or pick a later time, if you think Genesis was written down later; itâs irrelevant to my point) understand âthe eastâ in Genesis 2-11 to mean not Babylon etc. but the eastern basin of the Mediterranean sea? Is there any evidence of that usage of âeastâ anywhere in the Hebrew Bible? And again, if they, unlike Moses, had no knowledge of the complicated and indirect ways the spring in sea-basin Eden connected up with (in many cases no longer existing) tributaries of the Nile, etc. (remember, they havenât seen your maps), wouldnât they be just a wee bit confused about the geography alluded to? It almost seems as if the earlier folks got a raw deal, living too soon to know the real meaning of the Genesis stories.
Thatâs all I have to say on the method question. Regarding me personally, I would reject your adjective âliberalâ, because I think the liberal/conservative divide â as those terms are commonly used â is a modern American Protestant invention (albeit with branch-plant echoes in Australia, Britain, Korea and other places) that doesnât capture how I think about Christianity at all. To me, for example, C. S. Lewis is a conservative, because he upholds an ancient/medieval set of sensibilities against an Enlightenment/Age of Revolution vision of life, but to many American âconservativesâ, he is a liberal for being open to evolution (even though hardly a vigorous defender of it), for not reading Genesis 100% literally-historically, and so on. (Iâll bet half the âconservativeâ seminaries and Bible colleges in the USA would not hire Lewis to teach there if he were alive today, and wouldnât hire Sayers or Chesterton or many other top-flight, orthodox Nicene Christian critics of modernity â which, when one thinks about it, is ludicrous! Sort of like banning Reagan or Nixon from the Republican Party for not being enough like Pat Buchanan.)
Anyhow, if my questions above are wearisome to you at this point, donât worry about further replies to me. Conserve your strength for more important things and more important people. Iâm naturally sorry to hear about the state of your health, and wish for your sake that it were otherwise, but Iâm impressed that you havenât let it deter you from your apparently nearly lifelong course of religious and intellectual synthesis. And we donât agree on details, but we do agree to a large extent on what the important questions are, and on what some of the important books are, Genesis being one of them. Thanks for clarifying your views for me.
Thatâs because you didnât say what you mean. What you mean is that humans sweat more than other mammals, not that, as you said, other mammals donât sweat. You must work on saying what you mean. This is of course peripheral to the actual issue, which is whether âwork by the sweat of your browâ means that the point of the curse is that you will start sweating from your forehead rather than that you will have to work hard to grow food. Metonymy happens throughout written literature, including the bible.
Eddie, I have no greater purpose now than what is in this thread, and like Elijah who when on his death bed still served God, I will too. When I sit, I feel ok, and my fingers can still type and thankfully other than normal old age forgetfulness, my mind still works pretty well. This is my purpose as I go out of this world. As a stupid 19 year old I told my roommate I would find a solution to this issue. I have prayed, searched and begged God to show me what happened with the flood and early genesis for 50 years, and finally at the very edge of my life, I figured out a way Gen 2:8-14 can be true. That doesnât mean that was what happened, I canât prove that. But it could have happened that way. WHile I was able to publish my flood theory and a few anthro articles in PSCF in the 90s and early 2000s, I didnât have the wow fact to make me feel I could fight for my view. I found it in early aprilâin the geology of the eastern Mediterranean which puts those four rivers together in one place and time.
It is at the time of the first hominids on earth.
It is at the time of the age of humanityâs oldest genes and thus the only time we could have had a primal pair, genetically speaking.
It is at the time of the only known REAL flood that actually matches the Biblical description of Noahâs floodâcovered high mountains (the basin was as deep as 5 km and seamounts and other features stuck up thousands of feet above the plain and are now covered with water. It is possible to match the 150 days of float time in the Eastern med while it was filling.
The breach at Gibraltar, when water poured in at 200 mph is a great imitation of the fountains of the deep, if it isnât the fountains of the deep (there are no fountains of the deep in Mesopotamia). The deep is the ocean.
It is at a time when the curses can be applied to small brained hominids and actually make sense. Cursing me with walking problems is no big dealâalready have that. Cursing Neolithic Adam and Eve with what they were cursed with is meaningless as well. They already had the effects of those curses.
Interestingly today our online preacher talked about persistence, from Luke 18âThat preacher doesnât know about persistence. Fifty years I have worked on this, and no one likes my time frame for Adam. I will enter heaven as a failure on this issue.
I keep thinking about the fact that God had to communicate both to them AND to us. If he only communicated to them, then that makes us 2nd class folk. If he only communicated to us, in a modern language, that would make them 2nd class. I think God figured a way to do both.
We donât fully understand Godâs revelation, and I donât think they fully understood it either. In fact, I agree with Paul that Abraham, when sacrificing Isaac, knew only that one of his descendants would die and rise again for our sins. In that light, Abraham didnât fully understand the gospel, but had a different, but wrong understanding and God stayed his knife because Isaac was not the Messiah. I think this one example shows that those who were inspired during Biblical times didnât fully understand the revelation. And that is ok, none of us fully understand things.
So we come to the past 200 years with the Bibleâs credibility taking a horrible beating. Christian response has been awful in my opinion. YECs created a false science, but, they do believe God, even if their understanding is awful. Others just say that the early Bible has nothing of reality in the stories and that they are to be taken as parables, or some suchâwhich technique one can apply to the Greco-Roman myths and we can drag morals of the story out of them, as with the Bible.
Such an approach means the Bible is no more special than the Greco-Roman myths, and when we do this, the atheist smiles because we agree with them, that the Bible has no reality in it.
Even if they thought âeastâ meant Babylon, that doesnât require that it was Babylon. And that location makes the Flood story factually false. It is a horrible place to try to concord with the Biblical account.
Water flowing off of a flooded Iraq pushes the ark south into the Indian Ocean. How did an ark pushed south end up in Turkey?
Such a flood would be hard pressed to last the year it claims. At a non flood rate of drainage, of 3 mph (floods often get as high as 22 mph) it would take only 7 days for an ark at the northern border of Iraq to get to the delta and enter the Persian Gulf.
No high mountains could be covered. I know people try to say Tells of 50 ft high are those high mountains, but that doesnât sound like high mountains to me.
Noah was afloat for 150 days. So he was in the Indian Ocean. The only way to get to the Mtns of Ararat from there is to go around Africa. During King Nechoâs day it took 3 years for that circumnavigation. Herodotus calls Africa, Libya
Libya is washed on all sides by the sea except where it joins Asia, as was first demonstrated, so far as our knowledge goes, by the Egyptian king Necho, who, after calling off the construction of the canal between the Nile and the Arabian Gulf, sent out a fleet manned by a Phoenician crew with orders to sail west about and return to Egypt and the Mediterranean by way of the Straits of Gibraltar. The Phoenicians sailed from the Arabian Gulf into the southern ocean, and every autumn put in at some convenient spot on the Libyan coast, sowed a patch of ground, and waited for next yearâs harvest. Then, having got in their grain, they put to sea again, and after two full years rounded the Pillars of Heracles in the course of the third, and returned to Egypt. These men made a statement which I do not myself believe, though others may, to the effect that as they sailed on a westerly course round the southern end of Libya, they had the sun on their right - to northward of them. This is how Libya was first discovered by sea. note [Herodotus, Histories 4.42; tr.Aubrey de SĂ©lincourt.]
I define it as Wiki does
Liberal Protestantism developed in the 19th century out of a need to adapt Christianity to a modern intellectual context. With the acceptance of Charles Darwinâs theory of natural selection, some traditional Christian beliefs, such as parts of the Genesis creation narrative, became difficult to defend. Unable to ground faith exclusively in an appeal to [scripture) or the person of Jesus Christ, liberals, according to theologian and intellectual historian Alister McGrath, âsought to anchor that faith in common human experience, and interpret it in ways that made sense within the modern worldview.â Liberal Christianity - Wikipedia
If that doesnât fit, Ok, I am in errorâwonât be the first time in my life. lol
You are quite welcome. As I said, this is the only way I can proclaim that God is greater than we envision him, by sitting at my computer and typing. My health is in Godâs hands and I am such an outlier statistically. I had gleason 8 cancer spreading into my gut at age 53. Statistics back in 2003 said I had about 20% of 2 years but my doctor at the time yelled at me that I would be his first patient to die since PSA came in. I had surgery and we thought we got it, so I went and lived in China. In 2006 my cancer came back and I had radiation in 2007, and the cancer returned in 2008. The new doc who I am still with, said I had about 5 years to live. Well I lived well past that and in 2016, she said I had 3 years most likely. I made it past 2019, and in January, 2 different oncologists told me I had 6 months. I think I will beat that, but, the way I am feeling, I donât really want to live this way for a long timeâthere comes a time we should all goâno I wonât take my lifeâlife is precious and we go in Godâs time. I have lived an incredible life so no one should feel sorry for me, I mention how bad I feel, because it does interfere occasionally with my time on the computer.
Thatâs not true. These âoldest genesâ are neither necessary nor sufficient for there to be a primal pair. There is also good evidence that there never was such a pair, i.e. the HLA genes with more than 4 alleles also present in other primates.
Itâs truly distressing to see you wasting what may be your last days on something nearly as absurd as YEC.
How a group could live on earth for millions of years with no trace of itself.
There is a large misunderstanding among non-geologists about the nature of the fossil record. It seems most people think that the oldest known fossil is the time the species arose. That isnât true for a lot of reasons. Because of the nature of the fossil record , H. erectus, H. hobilis could easily have lived long before their first fossils.
First. only 3% of living species are found as fossils. This means that MOST animals that have lived on earth never left a trace of themselves. Most people view the fossil record as showing us all of what was on earth in the past. It only shows 3% of what was on earth in the past. Here are two paleontologists talking about this.
" Logic dictates, too, that the oldest known fossils cannot possibly be the oldest representatives of their kind. Fossilization is a rare event, after all; and when animals first appear, they are rare. The earliest fossil bones are therefore likely to date from a time when their erstwhile owners were already common. Logic similarly dictates that if an animal is particularly unlikely to form fossilsâas primates seem to beâthen paleontologists are particularly unlikely to find the very earliest types. In fact, this logic can be translated into a mathematical formula (see Robert D. Martin, ââPrimate Origins: Plugging the Gaps,ââ Nature, May 20, 1993, pp 223-234). The fewer fossils there are (relative to the calculated number of extinct species), the older the group is liable to be, relative to the number of fossils found. " Colin Tudge, The Time Before History, (New York: Scribner, 1996), p. 172
" The number of living species that have been described is about 1.5 millionâŠIf we focus on the paleontologically important groups, present-day diversity is about 180,000 species. âŠSuppose we assume that the present-day level of diversity was attained immediately at the beginning of the Cambrian Period and has been maintained since then. Then 25 percent of 180,000 species, or 45,000 species became extinct and were replaced by new species every million years. In rough terms, the Phanerozoic is 550 million years log. this leads to an estimate that there have been 180,000+(45,000 X 550) or about 25 million species. Comparing this with the 300,000 described fossil species implies that between 1 percent and 2 percent of species are known as fossils . " Michael Foote et al, Principles of Paleontology, (New York, W. H. Freeman and Co., 2007), p 23
If the above is true, and it is, it has one important implication that for some reason I have been unable to get people to understand. When early man lived on earth and were few in number, he could have lived for millions of years and left not one single fossil of himself. Indeed, one can compare the earliest fossil of a group with the 2nd earliest fossil of the group, and you will find HUGE gaps of time where that group lived on earth but left no fossils.
Elephants demonstrably lived on earth for 8 million years without leaving a known fossil. The earliest elephant fossil comes from 60 myr ago. The second earliest fossil of an elephant is from 52 myr ago. That is a gap of 8 myr and no fossil record of them! The fossil record is very spotty. Below are some other groups.
Angiosperms (flowering plants) lived 10 my years between the first and 2nd fossil without leaving a fossil
Tyranosaurs lived 20 my years between 1st and 2nd fossil examples --no trace of them in that time
marine turtles 10 myr between the first and 2nd known fossil
Loris 20 myr between the first and 2nd known fossil
This is enough- I have a big list of these.
So now, letâs turn to mankind. A tiny population living in forests would have little chance of being preserved. Also from the Tudge quote above, the earliest fossil of H. habilis, dated to 2.4 myr. is not the moment he was createdâit is just the time of the first lucky fossil of that group! That group lived long before 2.4 myr ago. A fossil LD-350 lived 2.8 myr ago and depending on how it is classified he might be in the habilis clade. One thing to know about classifications, Ernst Mayr in 1950 was asked to study all the fossil available at that date and he claimed all should be in the genus Homoâincluding australopithecus. He said the differences between the creatures were less than what other taxonomic groups called the same genus. The differences were tiny in his eyes. The anthro community rebelled. lol. They wanted to emphasize differences.
I chose H. habilis as Adam because that is the earliest group that anatomy shows had pain in childbirthâa consequence of Godâs curse. Documentation available by looking here.
So how long did H. habilis live on earth prior to that fossil? We donât have anything other than statistics to say how long, But statistics donât give us a certain date. If my cancer stats had applied to me, I would have died around 2005. I have outlived now 3 statistical prognostications of my death-- I am the outlier of an outlier. So for habilis, we donât know if he is an outlier or not. Same with H. erectus who first leaves a fossil 2 myr ago(Drimolen published April 2020). Either of these could have lived undetected for millions of years. Either of them could have been created in Eden and been Adam and Eve. I would, of course, prefer it to be H. erectus, but I have no data. Because of the nature of the fossil record (3% rule) we are unlikely to ever get that information, which saddens me a lot, but that is reality and one must face reality.
So, the best I can offer is that one of these species was the descendant of whatever Adam and Eve looked like. But I do believe that they were small brained. Both curses relate to problems arising from a bigger brain.
When I am gone, I think I have answers to most questions one can ask on this theory to be found on my blog but it will require some digging.
I appreciate your concern for how I spend my time, but I will continue and point out that it has been known since the late 1990s that most of the variability in the Major HIstocompatibility complex is not due to single point mutations, which indeed would say that there was no primal pair for the past 30 million years or so. I used to think like you do but it is not correct.
For those who donât know, when the vast diversity of HLA genes were claimed to rule out a primal pair way back in time. I wrote in Adam Apes and Anthropology:
âThe major histocompatibility complex controls much of the human immune response. Some of these genes, the DRB1 gene, have as many as 59 alleles.15 Since an original pair of humans could only have 4 of these alleles, the other 55 alleles must have arisen since the first pair. The difficulty for the Christian is that some calculations of the coalescence time for the DRB1 gene would indicate that there has been no population bottleneck, no original pair, for the past 60 million years.16 If this is true, then the entire biblical account of our origins is incorrect. Is there a solution? Only partially. The further back in time Adam and Eve lived, the less is the problem because there is more time for this much genetic diversity to have arisen. While at this moment there is not a solution for this problem, We cannot serve our case well by ignoring data like this and sweeping it under the rug. We cannot solve problems we do not discuss.â Glenn R. Morton, Adam Apes and Anthropology, 1997, p. 181
reference 16 was: 16 . Francis J. Ayala, âThe Myth of Eve: Molecular Biology and Human Origins,â Science, 270(1995):1930-1936, p. 1932
But things were changing even as I was worrying about this problem. Ayala thoughtt the differences were all due to point mutation. They are not. Immunology texts point out that recombination and gene conversion account for most of that variability.
âEvidence for gene conversion comes from studies of the sequences of different MHC alleles. These reveal that some changes involve clusters of several amino acids in the MHC molecule and require multiple nucleotide changes in a contiguous stretch of the gene. Even more significantly, the sequences that have been changed frequently derive from other MHC genes on the same chromosome, which is a typical signature of gene conversion. Genetic recombination between different alleles at the same locus may, however, have been more important than gene conversion in generating MHC polymorphism. A comparison of sequences of MHC alleles shows that many different alleles could represent recombination events between a relatively small set of hypothetical ancestral allelesâ Janeway CA Jr, Travers P, Walport M, et a, Immunobiology: The Immune System in Health and Disease. 5th edition. 2001 The major histocompatibility complex and its functions - Immunobiology - NCBI Bookshelf
" The important role that intragenic recombination and gene conversion play in generating HLA allele diversity also contributes to the sharing of SNPs among different HLA alleles (Parham and Ohta [1996]"(A genomic perspective on HLA evolution | Immunogenetics)).
Gene conversion is explained below. But more than one position is changed by Gene conversion. A sequence is copied to another chromosome, so that dating the time of this event by treating every difference as a single point mutation would yield too old an age. This means one canât count the mutations and treat them all as single point mutations which occur at the normal mutation rate. Such a procedure would give too old an age.
*Crossover between HLA loci was identified in 202 individuals. The frequency of recombination was found to be 0.73% (38/5219) in HSCT patients and 1.08% (164/15224) in related potential donors. The overall crossover rate was 0.99% in the study population. There were two potential donors with recombination on both haplotypes. Five individuals in four families inherited the recombinant haplotype from a parent. Seven families had two members with recombination haplotype. *The rate of recombination was 50.5% between HLA-B x DR, 36.63% between HLA-A x C, 9.41% between HLA-DQ** x DP, and 3.47% between HLA-C x B loci.
- Conclusion*
Crossover events were observed between nearly all the neighboring HLA loci (A-C, C-B, B-DR, DQ-DP) except for between HLA-DR and DQ. We didnât observe any recombination event between these loci in the study. The recombination rate is overall about 1% in the study population. The crossover hot spots appear to be between HLA-B and DR, HLA-A and HLA-C. Itâs interesting to note that crossover event was lower in patients with different leukemia malignancies than in healthy family members. The finding suggests that leukemia patients were not disadvantaged from recombination in HLA regions." Hermantkumar Patel, et al, " P115 Frequencies of recombination in the HLA class I & II regions in hematopoietic stem cell transplant patients and related donors" Human Immunology, 2016, 77:p. 133
This greatly reduces the time for HLA diversity. 1% change in a population over many generations would give rise to a rather large diversity.
Now,tonight, I looked for âconservedâ HLA alleles and found that HLA-E is highly conserved, and has been compared to other monkeys and apes. The results of one study showed that the homologues are not the same length, have different mutations in them etc. As near as I can tell from the literature, there are 11 alleles (not a large number) but in the monkeys only 2 alleles were found.
When I wrote my book in 1998, I didnât have a solution for the MHC issue. I wrote in it that this was a problem for my view, but tHat I thought a solution would be found. Gene conversion and recombination seems to have fixed the vast majority of the issue. If you have something that Isnât fixed by that, I will gladly acknowledge that it is a problem, and wait for an answer. I probably wonât be here when the answer appears.
Bad taphonomy. That 97% unpreserved consists mostly of species with poor preservation potential, i.e. soft-bodied invertebrates. I doubt itâs true that 97% of large mammal speciess are unpreserved. And of course it also depends both on the availability of fossiliferous strata of the right location and age, as well as intensity of effort. But hominids are one of the most intensively studied taxa. Comparisons, even with typical mammals, are problematic. I think even Footeâs calculation is off, since the bulk of the fossil species he talks about are shelled invertebrates, that have a species turnover time of 5-10 million years, not 1 million.
Now of course the bottom of the Mediterranean hasnât been intensively searched for human fossils, but the Middle East has, where Noah the habiline supposedly landed and restarted the species. And so has Africa, where the habilines are actually found, and the other northern continents, where they arenât.
âDiggingâ: was that a paleontology joke?
Once again you fail to understand the point, and I suspect you never thought as I do because you donât understand what I think. This has nothing to do with the number of alleles in the human population or their degree of divergence from each other or with estimates of coalescence time. Your quote is irrelevant. Again, the point is that alleles shared with non-human primate species must be older than the split between humans and those species. There are more than four such alleles at at least two MHC loci. Note: not âmore than four allelesâ; not âdivergent allelesâ; but alleles shared with other primates. You seem not to understand this point and have ignored it in favor of a point you wish I had made. None of your quotes are relevant to this question.
1 Like
There Was No Iron in the Preflood World. Technology part 3
Glenn R. Morton April 12, 2020
I am going to start this one to show how we misunderstand their culture and clearly, they would misunderstand ours. What phrases meant to us didnât mean the same to them. Look with a passage from Jeremiah 6:28
â They are all grievous revolters, walking with slanders: they are brass and iron ; they are all corrupters"
Why would Jeremiah equate corrupters to brass and iron? Obviously this is some sort of metaphor or euphemism. This was written at a time when iron was the top technological metal. The rules of what to do with iron were âironed-outâ experimentally. At some point it was learned that mixing brass and iron together didnât work and resulted in a corrupted product. Brass is mostly copper and it is the copper which is the problem. I could through up a phase diagram that few would understand or I can use some discussion boards on exactly this topic. Here are some of the answers metalurgists gave to a guy who wanted to use brass and iron in a game he was writing. These answers are easy to understand:
" If cu content is more then .4% it is considered as unwanted element and it will show cracks on surface after rolling or forging of steel , " https://www.quora.com/If-you-mix-copper-and-iron-is-the-resulting-alloy-a-bronze-or-a-steel?share=1
Copper and iron are like oil and water, they wonât mix. Immiscible = unmixable. From an article.
" Moreover, a large undercooling tended to promote the coagulation of the separated droplets, so the size of the separated Fe-rich spheroids in the microstructure of the immiscible CuâFe alloys increased with the increase in the undercooling . Junting Zhang. Liquid phase separation in immiscible CuâFe alloys International Journal of Cast Metals Research Volume 31, 2018 - Issue 2
One can heat them to high temperatures and stir vigorously and unless you quench it immediately the copper will form lumps in the iron, ruining the product.
One metalurgist said: " Youâd have distinct crystals of the copper-rich and iron-rich phases, the relative size of which are dependent on your alloying ratio ."
[Necro]Is an Iron/Copper alloy possible? (and useful?)
In other words, lumps of copper and lumps of iron somewhat glued together, but useful for nothing.
Phil McCurdy in a response to this on Biologos provided the most exquisite reason for this euphemism, brass and iron. The two metals, when put in close contact (as would be the case with objects with lumps of copper inside an otherwise iron object) Phil pointed me to an article on the galvanic corrosion issues with iron and copper next to each other. Galvanic corrosion - Wikipedia
This article gives an example of what happens to the iron in contact with copper.
âIn the 17th century,[vague] Samuel Pepys (then serving as Admiralty Secretary) agreed to the removal of lead sheathing from English Royal Navy vessels to prevent the mysterious disintegration of their rudder-irons and bolt-heads, though he confessed himself baffled as to the reason the lead caused the corrosion.[7]â
The problem recurred when vessels were sheathed in copper to reduce marine weed accumulation and protect against shipworm. In an experiment, the Royal Navy in 1761 had tried fitting the hull of the frigate HMS Alarm with 12-ounce copper plating. Upon her return from a voyage to the West Indies, it was found that although the copper remained in fine condition and had indeed deterred shipworm, it had also become detached from the wooden hull in many places because the iron nails used during its installation âwere found dissolved into a kind of rusty Pasteâ Galvanic corrosion - Wikipedia
I started with this topic to show why Jeremiah used this euphemism for corrupters. It was a high tech euphemism of that day. This euphemism appears once more in Scripture, back in Genesis 4 and it says more about the time the account was written than it does about the technology those people had. Here I am letting the Bible itself interpret the Bible.
Genesis 4:22-24 says:
19And Lamech took unto him two wives: the name of the one was Adah, and the name of the other Zillah.
20And Adah bare Jabal: he was the father of such as dwell in tents and have cattle.
21And his brotherâs name was Jubal: he was the father of all such as handle the harp and pipe.
22 And Zillah, she also bare Tubal-cain, the forger of every cutting instrument of brass and iron: and the sister of Tubal-cain was Naamah.
23 And Lamech said unto his wives:
Adah and Zillah, hear my voice;
Ye wives of Lamech, hearken unto my speech:
For I have slain a man for wounding me,
And a young man for bruising me:
24 If Cain shall be avenged sevenfold,
Truly Lamech seventy and sevenfol d.(Genesis 4:22-24 ASV)
We will analyze this passage to show that it is easily possible to translate this in another way. So, the answer to Dickâs question lies in the power of the first person to translate a passage. But first the background. This is the last generation before the flood. Of this generation, the Bible says, âAnd Jehovah saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.â(Gen. 6:5 ASV) I note this because this passage is actually very strange. If one groups verse 22 with verses 19 and 20, the translation makes sense. The passage seems to be speaking of technological things. But the strange thing about this passage is the sudden proclamation of Lamech to his wives claiming the protection that God gave to Cain (Gen 4:15). One can legitimately ask, âWhat on earth is the guy talking about?â âWhere did this claim come from?â The narrative seems to be missing something here because in the middle of talking about technology, Lamech makes claims about killing people. Lumping 22 with the rest of that passage brings another meaning out. Letâs look harder at verse 22
There is a clue in Tubal-cainâs name. The last part of that name is Cain, the very man whose name is invoked two verses below. According to Strongâs Tubal-cain means âoffspring of Cain â . But there is more. If one looks up the meaning of Tubal, Strongâs says it comes from a primitive root meaning to flow, which makes one think of âflowing from Cainâ.
So, who was Cain? Cain was the first murderer. His name also means spearâa weapon of violence. A spear doesnât have to be made of metal. Fire hardened wooden spears work just fine and dandy. Everything about Cain involves violence. While the account doesnât say how Cain struck Abel, given that Cain had a name meaning spear, one might wonder if it is a name earned after the dirty deed. So, did Tubal-Cain get his name from what he did? In other words, could he be a spiritual offspring of Cain? In light of this, one can take a new view of Genesis 4:22.
With the Hebrew in parenthesis, we see that Tubal-cain was the forger ( latash ) of every ( kol) cutting instrument( choresh ) of brass ( nechosheth ) and iron( barzel) . Latash appears five times in the Bible. Brown-Driver-Briggs says it means âto sharpen, hammer, whetâ But nowhere else is this word translated as forger. In Ps 52:2 it is translated as sharp: â Like a sharp razor .â In 1 Sam. 13:20 it is translated as sharpen: â all the Israelites went down to the Philistines, to sharpen every man his share, and his coulter, and his axe, and his mattock ;â. In Job 16:9 it is translated as âmy adversary sharpens his eyes against meâ. And finally in Ps. 7:2 it is translated as âwhetâ: â he will whet his sword â. Whetting is sharpening so this verse says, âhe will sharpen his swordâ. So, letâs use the words sharpen, as the meaning for this word since all instances seem to fall into that category rather than as a forger.
So, now we have Tubal-cain being the sharpener of every, what? The word translated above as instrument is choresh Strongâs says this word means âfabricatorâ and that it is the active participle of charash , which has the meaning, according to Brown-Driver-Briggs of â to cut in, plough, engrave, devise; to plot evil ; to be deaf; to be silent â. The ASV and RSV translations translate this as âinstrumentâ, but the problem is that instrument is not a Hebrew active participle. An example of an active participle would be â Tubal-cain was a sharpener of every cutterâ or âTubal-cain was a sharpener of every fabricator⊠â This verse is used to claim that iron working was the invention of Tubalcain, the Neolithic child of Adam. But it is mis-read as â Tubalcain was the forger of every cutting instrument of brass and iron â, when in fact, Tubalcain was the forger of every fabricator! A fabricator is a person, not an instrument; not a utensil. This is the reason that the King James translates â latash â as âinstructorâ rather than forger. If one wishes to believe that this verse is talking about literally forging things, they need to remember that what is being forged is a person. To be literally true, then Tubal-cain needs to be putting people into his forge and burning them (which clearly isnât the meaning). Nor is Tubal-cain literally sharpening people as one would a knife.
The interesting thing is what words the Bible doesnât use. The passage doesnât use chariyts , keliy , or magzerah , all of which are iron instruments, or implements. If Tubal-cain were sharpening a chariyts (a cutting instrument) or a keliy (utensil) or magzerah (axe) that would make sense if it is really brass and steel implements. But the Bible doesnât use those words. Instead of these words, Tubal-cain is sharpening a person! Whatever the verb latash means, it was being done to a person. To forge a person is to be that personâs instructor or to have a person burning in the hot coals of the forge. I strongly suspect that the latter is not the meaning. To sharpen a person, like iron sharpens iron, is to teach him. Of the two choices, I know what I would opt forâhe is an instructor of people. For better or worse, it can be said of my wife and I, that we forged our childrenâs lives, meaning we instructed their lives. That is what Tubal-cain did. He forged people, not iron. To deny this is to deny the Hebrew grammar with the fabricator.
This point is utterly crucial to my argument. Now, what was Tubal-cain instructing that person in? Letâs look at one of the other possible meanings of charesh . In particular, one meaning caught my eye; one possible meaning of the root word means âa plotter of evilâ. If one read this verse using that definition, it would read âTubal-cain was the instructor of every plotter of evilâŠâ This would clearly be an entirely different meaning to the verse and it illustrates the power of the first translator. He who translates first, influences everyone in the future on the meaning of the verse. But, the reader will ask, if Tubal-cain was the instructor of every plotter of evil, why does this verse say brass and iron? What I have learned and you saw above is that it is because âbrass and ironâ is an idiom for rebellious or corrupt people. Jeremiah 6:28 says:
â They are all grievous revolters, walking with slanders: they are brass and iron ; they are all corrupters .â (ASV) [my emphasis]
This is the only other place in Scripture where this phrase occurs. While it might be uncertain in Genesis, it is clear that âbrass and ironâ is an idiom in Jeremiah 6:28. And that sheds light upon the meaning of Genesis 4:22. If brass and iron is an idiom for spiritual rebellion, then it totally fits what is about to happen to the world in Genesis 4:22. It plays right into the reason for the Flood, which is about to come upon the earth. So, this verse may explain Genesis 6:5, â And Jehovah saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. â
I would submit for the readerâs consideration, that this verse says nothing about metal working as has been commonly assumed for millennia, but it says everything about human rebellion and who was the leader of it. Tubal-cain is the last generation before the flood of Noah; brought upon the earth because of manâs rebelliousness. Genesis 4:22 would then read:
â Tubal-cain was the instructor of every plotter of evil corruption .â
Or
â Tubal-cain was the instructor of every plotter of evil rebellion .â
This would group this verse with the Lamech proclamation in the following verses rather than with the technology in the earlier verses. Lamechâs claim to have killed a man would fit in a world of increasing rebelliousness. But who was it that Lamech killed? I think it was his own son. Lamech lamented:
âfor I have slain a man to my wounding, and a young man to my hurtâ (Gen. 4 23 KJV)
It would grieviously hurt a father to kill his own son. It wouldnât hurt that much to kill an unrelated young man, at least not to the same degree.
There are two different Hebrew words translated as âmanâ here. The first is iysh and that word simply means âmanâ. But the second, which is translated âyoung manâ is a different word, yeled , which means âchild, son, boy, offspring, youthâ according to Brown-Driver-Briggs. Four of the five meanings are of a personâs child. Lamech killed his own son. And that is why he goes on to talk about being avenged 77 times because the crime of killing your own son is that much worse than killing your brother. When he says he has slain his son to his hurt, that has new meaning given the above interpretation.
If the traditional interpretation of Tubal-cain being the inventor of metal work is correct, then it makes no sense why Lamech, Tubal-cainâs father, claims to have killed his son. But, if Tubal-cain was a rebellious corruptor of others, this declaration of filicide, the killing of oneâs child, makes perfect sense. Rebellious children often bring ruin to family relationships.
Now, one other connection here is that this translation makes Tubal-cain a corruptor of other people. Notice again that Jeremiah 6:28 effectively defines the phrase âbrass and ironâ as corruption. And then notice that Genesis 6:11, 12 says about why the world was about to be destroyed:
â The earth also was corrupt before God, and the earth was filled with violence. And God looked upon the earth, and, behold, it was corrupt ; for all flesh had corrupted his way upon the earth .â
This recurring theme of corruption from Tubal-cain on, makes sense in a world gone mad.
"Scientifically mindedâ Christians (a term used her on Biologos) proud of the fact that they donât conflict with modern science in their theological interpretation. While most of that conformity has been achieved by declaring the Bible false, they do mostly maintain a Neolithic Adam. But this temporal placement of Adam creates for them another conflict with science, and not just with genetics. We have seen that archaeology does not support the concept that tents, harps, flutes and tending sheep were invented in the Neolithic, after the time when Neolithic Adam lived. Thus a Neolithic Adam does not get the âscientifically mindedâ Christian out of a scientific conflict with the Bible. None of the post-Adamic events match archaeology. Thus, if one interprets these events as being Neolithic, then the Bible would simply be wrong. Why do we do this to ourselves? Why do we place the Bible in a position to be false? But reading Genesis 4:22 as follows will allow us once and for all to reject the Bible-falsifying view that Adam was Neolithic.
â Tubal-cain was the instructor of every plotter of evil corruption .â
Nothing strange about that. Cf Musk deer.
No John, the guy was talking about species which had high preservation potential and still they get 1-3%. Sheesh.
Iâm assuming that you never read past the first thing you disagree with and respond to that, ignoring everything following. Thatâs not a good way to hold a conversation.
I stand corrected Roy, thanks. I still think the thing looks like a vampire. lol
John, I just donât find our discussions of much use. I would honestly say the same about you. Here is a guy who limits his study to marine invertebrates. This was on my web page. I thought I had put this info in my post above, I didnât, cause I canât put everything on my web page here. Thus I apologize for thinking I had this in the past and responding accordingly.
" Let us just focus on nine well-skeltonized phyla of marine invertebrates and see if we come up with better estimates. These nine phyla are the Protista, Archaeocyatha, Porifera, Cnidaria, Bryozoa, Brachiopoda, Mollusca, Echinodermata, and Arthropoda (excluding insects). In these groups, there are about 150,000 living species, but more than 180,000 fossil species. To translate these numbers into completeness estimates, we need to know the turnover rate of species and the number of coexisting species through time. Different values have been used for each of these variables, but the results of the calculations are remarkably similar. Durham estimated that about 2.3% of all the species in these nine phyla were fossilized. Valentine gave estimates that ranged from 4.5% to 13.6%. No matter which method we use, we must conclude that 85% to 97% of all the species in these nine well-skeletonized phyla that have ever lived have never been fossilized. "5
5 Donald R. Prothero, Bringing Fossils to Life: An Introduction to Paleobiology, (New York: Columbia University Press, 2013), p.21.
A note: Should I disappear, it is health issues. I am seeing a doctor this afternoon. This morning my vocal cords closed and I thought I was going to suffocate. I ran into our bedroom to wake my wife, but as I went into the room, it dissipated. One never knows when God will call us or how. God is still very good and loving even in this bad time.Why should I be mad at God for my upcoming death? I have always known it was coming from my childhood. But time is now short.
Jesus loves you John, remember that.
I plan to talk more about the âtechnologyâ of Gen 4 and how current translations are totally illogical. I will also talk about the âcityâ Cain supposedly built. It isnât a city but a redoubt to stave off those who want to kill him for murdering Abel. The man was paranoid.
Not a good sample. In three of these groups (Protista, Cnidaria, and Arthropoda) only a small minority of living taxa are readily preservable. Unless heâs limiting his â150,000 living speciesâ only to the well-skeletonized subgroups within them, which I see no indication of, heâs comparing extant apples to extinct oranges.