In Memoriam: Lynn Margulis (Introduction)
by David Turell , Monday, November 28, 2011, 21:05 (4722 days ago)
An old article; sex and death:
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=sex-death-kefir-lynn-margulis&WT.m...
In Memoriam: Lynn Margulis
by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Monday, November 28, 2011, 22:17 (4722 days ago) @ David Turell
In light of recent threads, I was tempted to take your link here and start another thread with it's own subject line, but I will leave that up to DHW. There were a few points in this article that I found REALLY interesting and thought were worth pointing out.
The certainty of death was absent at the origin of life. Unlike humans and other mammals, many organisms do not age and die. The process of programmed, inevitable death evolved only after our symbiotic microbial ancestors, some two billion years ago, became sexual individuals.
Unlike animals and plants that grow from embryos and die on schedule, all bacteria and most other microorganisms remain eternally young.
Sex began when unfavorable seasonal changes in the environment caused our protoctist predecessors to engage in attempts at cannibalism that were only partially successful. The result was a monster bearing the cells and genes of at least two individuals (as does the fertilized egg today).
There is an amazing similarity here between the process described and the Genesis account we have been discussing in the other thread. In the account, to provide the comparison:
Adam was a single individual which was not subject to death
Some form of division took place culminating in the existence of Eve who was also not subject to death.
Something was eaten that was not supposed to be
Only after this point is explicit mention of sexual relations made with subsequent offspring and the guarantee of death.
I just find the parallel striking. Any thoughts?
--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.
In Memoriam: Lynn Margulis
by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Tuesday, November 29, 2011, 00:50 (4722 days ago) @ Balance_Maintained
I am getting sick of coincidence.... I stumbled across this following a link from the Lucy article which I stumbled across following a link from an archaeological website surfing the news.
"Humans are unique among the primates in how walking fully upright is our chief mode of locomotion. This frees our hands up for using tools. Unfortunately, the changes made in our pelvis for moving on two legs, in combination with babies with large brains, makes human childbirth unusually dangerous compared with the rest of the animal kingdom. A century ago, childbirth was a leading cause of death for women. The lumbar curve in the lower back, which helps us maintain our balance as we stand and walk, also leaves us vulnerable to lower back pain and strain."
"I will greatly multiply
Your pain in childbirth,
In pain you will bring forth children"
--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.
In Memoriam: Lynn Margulis
by David Turell , Tuesday, November 29, 2011, 02:25 (4722 days ago) @ Balance_Maintained
"Humans are unique among the primates in how walking fully upright is our chief mode of locomotion. This frees our hands up for using tools. Unfortunately, the changes made in our pelvis for moving on two legs, in combination with babies with large brains, makes human childbirth unusually dangerous compared with the rest of the animal kingdom.
A 90 degree turn and a 90 degree rotation and a good squeeze to the lungs to clean out that nasty amniotic fluid, if you are head-first like you should be.
Mothers should deliver by squatting but no one does anymore. And as I noted in my book, how did the enlarging head get matched by an enlarging pelvic opening: two different individuals with differing DNA's? ID anyone?
In Memoriam: Lynn Margulis
by David Turell , Tuesday, November 29, 2011, 01:48 (4722 days ago) @ Balance_Maintained
Sex began when unfavorable seasonal changes in the environment caused our protoctist predecessors to engage in attempts at cannibalism that were only partially successful. The result was a monster bearing the cells and genes of at least two individuals (as does the fertilized egg today).
There is an amazing similarity here between the process described and the Genesis account we have been discussing in the other thread. In the account, to provide the comparison:
Adam was a single individual which was not subject to death
Some form of division took place culminating in the existence of Eve who was also not subject to death.
Something was eaten that was not supposed to be
Only after this point is explicit mention of sexual relations made with subsequent offspring and the guarantee of death.I just find the parallel striking. Any thoughts?
I didn't know that Adam & Eve could have lived together forever, if not eating the forbidden fruit of knowledge. Please remember I do not follow the Bible in my quest for knowlewdge.
In Memoriam: Lynn Margulis
by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Tuesday, November 29, 2011, 01:58 (4722 days ago) @ David Turell
I didn't know that Adam & Eve could have lived together forever, if not eating the forbidden fruit of knowledge. Please remember I do not follow the Bible in my quest for knowlewdge.
No worries, and yes, death came part and parcel with the Sin thing.
--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.
In Memoriam: Lynn Margulis
by David Turell , Tuesday, November 29, 2011, 02:29 (4722 days ago) @ Balance_Maintained
I didn't know that Adam & Eve could have lived together forever, if not eating the forbidden fruit of knowledge. Please remember I do not follow the Bible in my quest for knowlewdge.
No worries, and yes, death came part and parcel with the Sin thing.
If A&E started to have sex, it could only be outside of Eden? Was God creating a human race or just A&E in solitude. The ideas don't match up. God was intending to create a race of humans I thought. It seems He went about it the wrong way.
In Memoriam: Lynn Margulis
by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Tuesday, November 29, 2011, 03:27 (4722 days ago) @ David Turell
I dunno. I just know that it clearly describes Eve's creation as coming out of Adam. Then later, after they are expelled, the narrative explicitly states they had sex and had kids. The reason that struck me as odd, is: Why would the narrator feel that it needed to be stated explicitly if it was implied as part of normal marital relations prior to being expelled? While we may never know the answer to the question, it seems to imply that they weren't having sex prior to being expelled.
Another thing that is worthy of mention in identifying these little oddities, is that Adam is used to mean both mankind and a specific man. I am a little at odds about how they determine which is which. As for what it all means, I don't know, and to be quite honest all the pieces are still forming into a cohesive pattern that I can't quite put into words yet.
But, for the sake of argument, lets posit a scenario and see where the chips fall.
IF, as we have speculated elsewhere, there is some form of cyclical nature to humanities existence, and IF each cycle runs a full course from hunter gatherer to techno-industrial societies, how would the survivors of the fall of such a civilization try to preserve their knowledge.
The answer of course would be stories, either verbal or oral traditions. However, we can assume that survivors of a techno-industrial civilization thrust back into cave man status would lack the means or know how to generate simple things we take for granted, like pens, paper, ink, etc. So, within a dramatically short time span, knowledge becomes stories, stories become legends, legends become myths, and myths become religions. We can assume that language would devolve as well over time due to multi-lingual survivors having to come to a common language. This language would almost by necessity lack the complex structure needed to explain complicated scientific ideas.
So, with that in mind, taking everything that you personally know about evolution, cosmology, and all, if you were going to pass on that knowledge orally to your grandchildren, what would you tell them? How much of it would they remember? And how would they pass it on to their children?
How long until "Man evolved from lifeless particles via a process known as abiogenesis in the primordial soup of the oceans.' becomes, "Man was formed from the elements(dust) of the earth?" How long until, "As humans became bipedal, their hips migrated forward, greatly increasing the difficulties of labor." becomes "And the gods punished women by greatly increasing her labor pains?"
I don't know whether this actually happened or not. It was just a thought that struck me as I read the original article you linked.
--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.
In Memoriam: Lynn Margulis
by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Tuesday, November 29, 2011, 03:48 (4722 days ago) @ Balance_Maintained
http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-02-ancient-teeth-modern.html
More dang coincidences. This article implies that H.Sapiens existed in the middle east 200k-400k B.P.
--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.
In Memoriam: Lynn Margulis
by DragonsHeart , Tuesday, November 29, 2011, 04:35 (4722 days ago) @ Balance_Maintained
There are NO coincidences.
In Memoriam: Lynn Margulis
by David Turell , Tuesday, November 29, 2011, 05:36 (4722 days ago) @ DragonsHeart
There are NO coincidences.
Just early findings with lots of hype. Science news is now filled with this sort of thing.
In Memoriam: Lynn Margulis
by David Turell , Tuesday, November 29, 2011, 05:34 (4722 days ago) @ Balance_Maintained
http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-02-ancient-teeth-modern.html
More dang coincidences. This article implies that H.Sapiens existed in the middle east 200k-400k B.P.
That is quite an inexact spread of time. Lets wait for more study
In Memoriam: Lynn Margulis
by David Turell , Tuesday, November 29, 2011, 05:30 (4722 days ago) @ Balance_Maintained
Another thing that is worthy of mention in identifying these little oddities, is that Adam is used to mean both mankind and a specific man. I am a little at odds about how they determine which is which. As for what it all means, I don't know, and to be quite honest all the pieces are still forming into a cohesive pattern that I can't quite put into words yet.
In the recent translation I use it is quite clear that God intended a race of humans to have dominion over all: see 1:28. So the no sex/ expulsion and sex as a theory makes no sense. Also original sin is a Christian theological supposition to my Jewish way of looking at the story.
In Memoriam: Lynn Margulis
by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Tuesday, November 29, 2011, 23:19 (4721 days ago) @ David Turell
I'm not arguing that point, David. The note about the different uses of the word translated as Adam.
For example, this is a set of definitions for the word translated as man in verse 1:27:
another, hypocrite, common sort, low, man mean, of low degree, person
From 'adam; ruddy i.e. A human being (an individual or the species, mankind, etc.) -- X another, + hypocrite, + common sort, X low, man (mean, of low degree), person.
This is the same word that they translate as the name of Adam, the first man. The difference is that in 1:27-1:28, according to the translators, it is referring to the species.
So, my speculation, what I am curious about, is as to whether or not this first occurrence, along with all of its implications according to the definition, could in fact be referring in some measure to evolution. Not really trying to reconcile accounts here, just curious.
--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.
In Memoriam: Lynn Margulis
by David Turell , Wednesday, November 30, 2011, 01:05 (4721 days ago) @ Balance_Maintained
So, my speculation, what I am curious about, is as to whether or not this first occurrence, along with all of its implications according to the definition, could in fact be referring in some measure to evolution. Not really trying to reconcile accounts here, just curious.
The translation I use is a book: 'In the Beginning of', by Judah Landa, 2004. He is a biblical scholar who has retranlated Genesis. His starts by changing the tranlation of biraishit (the first word) as "in the beginning of" which changes the whole meaning as he explains. He cites other areas where this is the accepted translation.
In Memoriam: Lynn Margulis
by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Wednesday, November 30, 2011, 04:29 (4721 days ago) @ David Turell
Do you have a link for the book. I would LOVE to get my hands on a copy of it. The translation of Genesis is something of fascination of mine.
--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.
In Memoriam: Lynn Margulis
by David Turell , Wednesday, November 30, 2011, 05:58 (4721 days ago) @ Balance_Maintained
Do you have a link for the book. I would LOVE to get my hands on a copy of it. The translation of Genesis is something of fascination of mine.
I suspected that on your part.
http://books.google.com/books/about/In_the_beginning_of.html?id=hCXFPQAACAAJ
jalel923@aol.com
http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Dstripbooks&field-keywords...
Those should help. Amazon has two copies
In Memoriam: Lynn Margulis
by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Wednesday, November 30, 2011, 13:26 (4720 days ago) @ David Turell
He doesn't by chance mention a translation or meaning of the letters 'et' did he? It's a word that is not translated into English, but it is found over 11000 times in the original Hebrew.
--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.
In Memoriam: Lynn Margulis
by David Turell , Wednesday, November 30, 2011, 15:53 (4720 days ago) @ Balance_Maintained
He doesn't by chance mention a translation or meaning of the letters 'et' did he? It's a word that is not translated into English, but it is found over 11000 times in the original Hebrew.
et means 'also' and 'and' as I look at his translations. My Hebrew lexicon only gives 'also'. Apparently no important meaning, just a connection between important words.
In Memoriam: Lynn Margulis
by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Wednesday, November 30, 2011, 17:30 (4720 days ago) @ David Turell
But it is not translated as such.
×ֵ֥ת
וְ×ֵ֥ת
In the translation of Genesis 1:1, the first set of characters Aleph and Taw, or 'et' are not translated at all, the second set of characters were translated as 'and'. These are clearly different words, and they are not used interchangeably throughout the entirety of the old testament. Hence, my curiosity about the two untranslated letters.
As pure speculation, the use of Aleph and Taw bear a striking similarity to later use of the Greek Alpha and Omega, first and last, beginning and end. It as led me to speculate as to whether the two letters could used to represent 'everything' or some similar sentiment.
--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.
In Memoriam: Lynn Margulis
by David Turell , Wednesday, November 30, 2011, 18:44 (4720 days ago) @ Balance_Maintained
But it is not translated as such.
×ֵ֥ת
וְ×ֵ֥ת
In the translation of Genesis 1:1, the first set of characters Aleph and Taw, or 'et' are not translated at all, the second set of characters were translated as 'and'. These are clearly different words, and they are not used interchangeably throughout the entirety of the old testament. Hence, my curiosity about the two untranslated letters.
As pure speculation, the use of Aleph and Taw bear a striking similarity to later use of the Greek Alpha and Omega, first and last, beginning and end. It as led me to speculate as to whether the two letters could used to represent 'everything' or some similar sentiment.
I'm sorry but not in the references I have. I don't know what translations you are using. In 5:22 the lexicon has 'with'. You are using modifers. The Torah does not use those and my lexicon does not show any. But searching:
Best reference I can find supports your proposal:
In Memoriam: Lynn Margulis
by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Wednesday, November 30, 2011, 20:22 (4720 days ago) @ David Turell
Thank you, David!! This website is excellent.
DHW,
David has just unwittingly offered some support to one of the concepts that I was hashing out in our other threads.
http://www.ancient-hebrew.org/thelivingwords/wisdom.pdf
This is an article talking about the original root of word Wisdom. It is very informative in its simplicity.
--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.
In Memoriam: Lynn Margulis
by BBella , Wednesday, November 30, 2011, 05:04 (4721 days ago) @ David Turell
So, my speculation, what I am curious about, is as to whether or not this first occurrence, along with all of its implications according to the definition, could in fact be referring in some measure to evolution. Not really trying to reconcile accounts here, just curious.
The translation I use is a book: 'In the Beginning of', by Judah Landa, 2004. He is a biblical scholar who has retranlated Genesis. His starts by changing the tranlation of biraishit (the first word) as "in the beginning of" which changes the whole meaning as he explains. He cites other areas where this is the accepted translation.
Excellent book! I really appreciated the research Mr Landa did to bring to the table another look at Gene-sis from his expanded point of view.