Adam of Eden - Double standards

Started by Private User on Monday, February 1, 2016
Problem with this page?


Profiles Mentioned:

Related Projects:

Showing 91-120 of 251 posts
2/13/2016 at 9:49 AM

I don’t feel we will have a definition of life until we more fully understand the origins of life at least 3.7 billion years ago. The current theory is that the transition from pre-biotic chemistry to life occurred via RNA. RNA works as a molecule of data-storage, replication and it can be folded to catalyze reactions without proteins. Ribosomes which translate RNA codons to amino-acid sequences are composed of RNA and the active site is entirely compared of RNA. Many of the important energy carrying molecules and co-factors common to all life such as ATP, Acetyl-CoA and NADH are related to RNA in their synthesis. Harold White in 1972 called them "fossils of nucleic acid enzymes." I love that :) DNA evolved later as a more stable form of storage and proteins largely replaced RNA as catalysts due to the greater variety of their structural components. But the basis would have been RNA.

I have several criteria for defining life but to me personally the single most fundamental criteria is that life uses a template based digital mechanism that can potentially encode, decode and replicate genetic data that defines, organizes and sustains the phenotype of itself and its replication units under specific environmental conditions. And as an information storage system and self-organizing unit that can reproduce it by definition decreases system entropy. But I hesitate to define life at the earliest stage as being able to control enthalpy.

Crystals are fascinating because they can replicate across a substrate based on the nucleation of a single crystal. They exhibit some of the features of template based reproduction but they lack any means of digitally encoding, decoding and replicating their own genetic data.

Computers can encode digital data about their own design and manufacturing process but have no template based mechanism to construct their own phenotype or replicate.

I differ from most biologists because I believe that viruses are a relatively advanced form of life and that they meet the most demanding aspect of the definition. I feel that all living organisms must exist within strict environment al conditions or they will cease to be alive. We can’t exist in outer space for example. We require certain temperatures, gases, food sources, etc. The existence of a cell wall to me is just another environmental condition for some forms of life. To a virus the cell wall is provided by its environment. It has no need to manufacture one. We require certain conditions which we don’t need to manufacture ourselves so I find the distinction artificial at best. Some would argue that the definition of life should include at least the ability to complete a thermodynamic work cycle and that in turn requires a cell wall, etc. That is certainly true of life as we know it today. I’m not sure if that was the case during the transition to life when the system could have included a non-living energy source.

Interestingly while we tend to think of a virus as an RNA or DNA molecule surrounded by a protein coat there is a gray area: viroids. Viroids infect plants and may be comprised of just a couple of hundred nucleotides and no protein coat at all. They are the simplest naturally reproducing entities we know of. And their RNA is very simple and non-coding possibly the vestige of our earliest ancestors. Notably they lack any protein coding ability at all reflecting possibly an age where proteins were no a part of the biotic process. Diener published about their significance in 1989 but like all things related to botany it was completely ignored by the rest of academia. Remember Gregor Mendel and his pea experiment which quantified the rules of genetic heredity? Or the discovery of “jumping genes” (transposons) in corn by Barbara McClintock? Academia has a tendency to ignore any discovery made no matter how important if it relates to the field of botany :(

If we look at current theories regarding the origins of life RNA is supposed to have catalyzed reactions before the existence of a cell membrane possible under “flow cell” conditions. The flow cell theory has not been proven yet but certainly other methods of providing components necessary for life couldn’t have existing in the tar like goo created in Miller–Urey experiment.

We have to be careful to define “potentially reproduce” because a spayed cat or the last Dodo bird cannot reproduce but they could have reproduced in the correct environment but they are / were very much alive and otherwise fit the definition of a living organism.

And the phenotype requires a “specific environment.” My genes encode my fair skin but if you leave me in the sun for too long I become as red as a Maine lobster.

But when we look at RNA we see that it encompasses all the requirements for the transition from pre-biotic chemistry to life 1) It has the ability to self-replicate 2) I can catalyze reactions 3) It can catalyze polypeptide bonds between amino acids to form structural and enzymatic proteins. It can also conjugate with amino-acids and other compounds itself making very complex molecules that could have played a role we know nothing about in early biotic systems. And it has been demonstrated that purine RNA bases can be produced without a biological system. Adenine is merely a pentamer of hydrogen cyanide. Sutherland has shown that abiogenic production of Pyrimidines is possible with a chirality of 60% although this is much more difficult than production of purines. In 2011 NASA showed that some meteorites on Earth contained building blocks for RNA (adenine and guanine) and last year NASA showed that complex strands of RNA and DNA could be formed in the conditions of outer space near carbon rich red giants. This biggest obstacle in understanding the origins of life is that assembly of RNA nucleotides requires a high energy phosphate bond on earth which is usually provided by ATP. Activation of AMP to ADP or ATP is not likely to occur abiogenically. But once you pass this hurdle you only need an autocatalytic ribosome to form life and this can be demonstrated with as few as five nucleotides. Several theories including flow-cells, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons and catalytic transition metal centers formed in volcanoes have all been put forth as plausible explanations for the provision and concentration of energetic compounds.

There are many other defining features of life as it exists now. But these include many advanced states that may not have been present in the first transition to a living form.

2/13/2016 at 10:21 AM

Wow, lots of great discussion here. I looked at

So, if we walk past the gabbroic polished memorial tablets with inscriptions at the entrance to the cemetery at the Moravian town of Telč (Teltsch) in the Czech Republic we are encircled with gabbro full of life, bacterial life.

The gateway at Telč is reminiscent of a sacred Indigenous site at a perched glacial erratic (shaped like a giant turtle) at a remote location on the Canadian Shield. The glacial erratic, estimated to be 30 tons, is balanced on two smaller support rocks which, in turn, sit on well glaciated exposed bedrock. The natural structure thus forms a "doorway". The bedrock is the sill of the doorway. The two support rocks form the sides. The underside of the 30 ton turtle-shaped erratic forms the upper frame of the doorway. Indigenous people visit this place with much reverence. By kneeling and looking westward through the "door" they are ready to perform a deeply spiritual ceremony when an Elder calls in the "departed" spirits who have "Gone out the western door", the terminology used in their culture to describe the westward journey of the spirit at the end of human life.

Like the passage through the gate of the cemetery at Telč (Teltsch), the passage through the doorway at the sacred Turtle Rock site is a life-filled frame leading to the ancestors. Sometimes widely divergent cultures are more similar than we realize.

3/5/2016 at 5:16 AM

It is against Geni Policy to create a "separate or identical lineage". Even if you did create one, sooner or later someone would come along and merge the two, and then you would have to start all over.

If everybody or anybody who wanted to, could have their own identical lineage, the tree would be a complete mess. That is the whole point of having a World Tree.

Shmuel-Aharon Kam (Kahn / שמואל-אהרן קם (קאן C
23/2/2011 às 2:38 AM this is your message


no double standard plz

3/5/2016 at 4:05 PM


The fact that the Hebrew Adam, Sumerian Adam and Assyrian Adam are all slightly different is the whole point of having separate NEAR identical trees for these lineages. If they were identical there would be no need for multiples.

It's not a double standard, it is an acknowledgement that life is not black and white but shades of grey.

Sorry if i am completely off base with my comment but you have not actually made a specific point and i have had to guess at your intent with your above post.

Ach!!! Stop this discussion. There will be no end to it.

3/6/2016 at 12:22 AM

Alex yess i like your point here and you made
it its very well explain

but my mind canot simply think of this and accept it

if the 2 adam line are diferent from 2 point of religious beleif we just have to make a 3 rd line as (virtualise geni godly fictious line) lolll

Adam of Eden is my 79th great grandfather. geni say
Adam (Assyrian mythology) . is my third cousin 154 times removed. geni say

of course all of this is speculativ

3/6/2016 at 7:28 AM

Geni needs to represent the sources.
Adam (assyrian mythology) needs to represent that source (with references).
Adam (biblical mythology) needs to represent that source (with references).
The place where this makes trouble is not where those lines start, it's where they meet. at the one with a parent conflict.

3/6/2016 at 3:46 PM

Martin as they are pretty much the same person i would be concerned that there is a difference of 75 generations between the two lines, clealy there must be a short circuit in there somewhen.

Private User
3/6/2016 at 10:39 PM

I know where the short circuit is. But I am told it cannot be solved as it is in conflict with different religions.

Harald Tveit Alvestrand, DO the two trees meet ON the Geni tree? If yes, can you please point me to the connection and I will cut it. Adam (Assyrian mythology) . has BOTH a Curators' Note and an explanation in the description, that the [mostly] shared line continues through Biblical Adam. As such, NO-ONE should be able to claim descent from Mr. Assyrian.

Private User, can you please point me to the short-circuit. TTBOMK this is not a religious issue. The ONLY case known to me where this is an issue, is through the lineages of the ancient Arabs. In the past this line HAS been cut. So I have NO problem doing it again.

Everybody else, can we please let this topic rest. Don't worry, I promise that someone will bring it up again within a year or two.

Private User
3/6/2016 at 11:31 PM

Look at the father of A jump of 1452 years.

3/7/2016 at 12:12 AM

Shmuel, that's the one we were struggling with a few months ago.

3/7/2016 at 4:54 AM

lolll =Don't worry, I promise that someone will bring it up again within a year or two.

is this finish?

plz cut the line in this genealogy

Vaivaswat Manu
if 3 monotheist cant agree togheter i have to turn elsewhere (just for fun)

3/7/2016 at 1:56 PM

BTW, the title of this thread is entirely misleading.
When 3 monotheist Geni curators get together, we aim to have at least 5 opinions between us.

Double standards are just not entertaining enough.

Private User & Justin Durand,

OK, I CUT the line, and put a note in the descriptions at each end, linking the two. Blame it on my nasty mood. ENOUGH!

Martin RhNegativ,
I have cut that line towards the top. It was not self consistent to think that a Pharoah (who had 2 sets of parents), was a son of Nimrod King of Assyrie in Babylon.

This line probably needs AT LEAST another TWO cuts. One where connecting with the Kings of Judah, and the other somewhat later, in areas entirely out of my field.

Additionally, someone did a slash-and-paste on the Nimrod, putting him in the wrong spot! WTF is the matter with people.

3/7/2016 at 3:24 PM

thank you Shmuel

3/7/2016 at 11:01 PM

=When 3 monotheist Geni curators and one atheist get together= at least we know there's a good chance of objectivity :-)

3/8/2016 at 12:50 PM

Where is the proof that any of the biblical characters truly existed? I feel that it is all fictitious and should be stated as such. a family tree needs to be based on actual fact not fiction, as soon as one start to add fictitious characters there will be no end and sooner or later you will find that Spider-man or "Peter Parker" is actually your 8th cousin twice removed. Religion and fact just cant play nicely together as some fanatic will try to mix the two and then mess it up for everyone else.

Tjhanks Alex. I enjoy that one. Far better than spending hours on useless discussions.
Pieter van der Merwe, I consider the Bible a Primary source. Last night I read Jesus`s line up to Adam (the son of God) It is in Luke.

3/11/2016 at 4:02 AM


I am this close to begin adding Hercules as the ancestor of everybody who was born in Sparta.

3/11/2016 at 4:18 AM

Volodya Mozhenkov, HAHA yes if they like fiction that much that is what they will get... it will be anarchy

3/11/2016 at 4:32 AM

Right Dries, I hope you are being satirical , one can not base your research on only one book and take it as absolute fact, the book you refer to also claim that Unicorns are real...
Numbers 23:22
Numbers 24:8
Deuteronomy 33:17
Job 39:9
Job 39:10
Psalm 22:21
Psalm 29:6
Psalm 92:10
Isaiah 34:7

3/11/2016 at 7:07 AM

We need another Gif - QUICKLY!! :-)

Thanks Pieter , I will read that up tonight, after that I will pray for you and Sharon . I believe The Unicorn is actually a Rhino.
Sharon you know I am not good at Modern English (slang) What is "Gif" I prefer to speak' "British." but to say it in Afrikaans " my tale is my tale.

Private User
3/11/2016 at 11:15 AM

Hope to meet in you in paradise someday Dries, then we can discuss religion. ; )

Private User
3/11/2016 at 11:33 AM

I believe I come from the Arab side but I total know it was God who created Adam but my lineage takes me to the other believe ! I can see why this is a hard issue.

Donna Dee , Neither Mee, Mohammad the prophet is my 43rd Great Grandather.

Ulf we vikings will meet in Valhalla


we are just discussing nonsense

Showing 91-120 of 251 posts

Create a free account or login to participate in this discussion