I think kland’s points/questions have well debunked the ‘skin color and slavery’ assumption being made here. How about being factual/scientific here!! Like I said before, this may just have been a self-fulfilling prophecy, indeed based upon such shallow/“knee-jerk” rationalization and assumption for “darker skinned” people.

In regards to skin color, I have a working/hypothetical theory: It is known that too much exposure to the sun can modify one’s cells to cause skin cancer. Perhaps one’s genes can be in a similar way affected, but not detrimentally, by such constant exposure. And so, those who from Noah’s descendants, after the flood, (when the earth’s climate really became unbalanced and uneven due to the shifting of the earth’s axis by the flood,) went to reside in Africa, gradually became more and more dark skinned, to the point where it became coded in their genes/DNA and was thus passed on.

The science of Skin Color seems to make this theory possible. E.g.,



and



among others,

So Noah and his family may have all been the exact same color before and immediately following the flood, however, over time, the location where some lived came to cause a genetic mutation affecting their skin color. My view is that originally they were all “tanned” and those who live in the now arid and sunny areas became darker and those who lived in colder and more temperate areas became paler.

Succinctly said/summarized, From what I have read in the SDA Bible Dictionary on “Canaan” and “Shem” in relation to the curse in Gen 9:25-27):

-Canaan was actually the father of those who lived in the, so named, “land of Canaan” and Shem was the father of the Semitic Race (Hebrews, Babylonians, Assyrians, Arameans, Arabs) and so this curse may and been fulfilled when God dispossessed those who lived in the land of Canaan to give it to the Hebrews. This curse would have probably been fulfilled to a greater degree had Israel been more faithful to God.

So the assumption that the descendants of Canaan are “black” people is further shown to be non-factual and mere conjecture.

The contributors to this webpage (Creation Ministries International - Christian Answers) have a biological and then “natural selection” theory for the differences in skin color as well as the regional grouping. I still think that my theory can be scientifically substantiated, however I find their view acceptable (for now). They also address other issues in this thread (See at the bottom of the webpage).

voktar said:
Horizontal gene transfer is huge. In bacteria, plasmids carry genes that can be transferred horizontally between individual bacteria and indeed different species. In humans, transposons, mobile genetic material can move between individuals and species. A virus is an example of horizontal gene transfer. Viruses inject their DNA/RNA into an individual, the viral genome gets transcribed in the nucleus, and new viral particles made. Viral DNA can be incorporated into the host's DNA. Retroviruses such as HIV, contain RNA, which is reverse transcribed to DNA which can be incorporated into the host's genome. There are many retroviruses, 25000+ in the human genome. There are other classes of transposons also.

Classes of transposons, Class 1 are the retrotransposons spoken about above. Class 2 are DNA transposons. These guys can things like copy and paste DNA around the genome, or cut and paste, destroying genes. There are "LINES" and "SINES". ALUs are a type of SINE and are paracytic with L1s, which are LINES. Lots of jargon, but the point I'm trying to make is that trasposons are every where all over the genome, and these guys are bad actors, period. Gene "copy number variation", CNV, is transposon mediated. CNV is associated with the most common type of muscular dystrophy, and a common feature in Autism.

If one wanted to make it look like evolution was true, then just look at Australia, where there a lot of different types of marsupials. The interesting thing is that the genes that code for proteins in marsupials, are the same as genes that code for proteins in placentals. What is the difference then? Transposable elements, transposons. Transposons can bring it alternate gene promoters, which highjack gene functions altering gene expression. Marsupials are like placentals, except for the transposable elements.

Transposable elements, TEs, when they just around the genome are not random. Transposons can target very specific locations in the genome. Today, genetic engineering uses transposon concepts to target locations with a few base pairs out of billions.

I've made this suggestion before and have been shot down, but transposons may represent the physical aspects of sin. The wages of sin is death. Transposons alter telemeres in the genome, which is responsible for aging and death. One might say, if transposons are "sin", then just take them out. No can do. Transposons alter the genone. Cut and paste, or just cut, and you now have missing DNA. How do you replace that? You can't. You can't, but God can.

EGW talks a lot about sin being heredity and cultivated. The latter is easy to understand, but heredity? Is sin just a thought problem, or is it a real physical problem.

Note, transposons greatly affect the CNS. Many (all?) psychiatric diseases is TE caused. All cancers that have been investigated have been shown to be TE mediated. Not all cancers have yet been investigated in this way.

EGW talks about the tares being by Satan's methods of amalgamation. This is clearly (to me) genetic engineering, "All tares are sown by the evil one. Every noxious herb is of his sowing, and by his ingenious methods of amalgamation he has corrupted the earth with tares. {16MR 247.2} "

{RH, April 16, 1901 par. 7} talks about Satan causing alcohol to form. And indeed we find that the yeasts commonly used to make alcohol have been genetically changed, via transpsons, to not be able to use aerobic metabolism, thus producing alcohol at great energy expense to themselves. This is genetic engineering!

Yes, I could go on and on. Random mutation and natural select as a theory just does not work. It can't. But transposons, can change everything, and they have.

To me, transposons represent a physical aspect of sin. Not the result of sin, but sin itself... The grand hypothesis, not yet proven of course, but there is a huge amount of data, is that all diseases are caused by transposons. Most might laugh, but I have many papers pointing that direction.

Note - there is also the field of study in genetics call epigenetics. Epigenetics also alters gene expression. That is a different topic, but also fascinating. Epigenetics can shut down or turn on genes. What we do, think, eat, etc., affects our epigenome. The Adventist health message is not a nice addition, but a necessary component of salvation. Or so it seems to me...

Interesting scientific post APL. I thought you could indeed chime in on this aspect. Would you say, from your perspective, that my hypothetical ‘sun exposure-skin color genes/DNA mutation’ all related to how the body intrinsically reacts to sunlight exposure, is plausible, even possible, i.e., under e.g., that mentioned ‘externally affected “epigenetics” category’?



I am one, perhaps the only “vocal” one, who disagreed with the claimed reaches of your hypothesis here, seeing instead that the absence of the Fruit of Life and its “supernatural element” would have resulted in the human body going inceptively haywire (I.e., genetic coding mis-writing), however how does your ‘sin and aging’ hypothesis stand in the light of the recent discovery of a drug that may prevent the aging process, at least, from ever beginning (see here).




I myself am not, “laughing”, per se, at your view here, but simply do not find it to be Theologically/Spiritually cogent. Indeed from these aspects, if the physical effects of sin came from something tangible concocted by Satan, then that would imply, with him surely not being deliberately suicidal, that he and other fallen angels cannot age or eventually naturally physically die, eventhough they have also/similarly “sinned.” Indeed they never physically ate of a ‘Fruit of Knowledge of God and Evil’! How do you explain this situation?

As I see it, once they were cast out of Heaven, they could no longer have access to the ‘aromatic Fruit of Life’ (sort of like an “inhaled breathing treatment” e.g., Vicks dispensing), he, as would Adam and Eve, began on this aging and gradual death process. My understanding is that this would take for them, given their “higher” angelic physical make-up, ca. 10,000 years (vs. man’s (initial) manifest ca. 1000 years).

Also, if “sin and aging” tangibly came through the Fruit of KG&E, then what need was there to have a Tree of Life. God simply would have told Adam and Eve to not ever eat of that forbidden tree. Clearly the Tree of Life was already working against something that was itself tangibly present, or to be present, if the eating of it ceased. And that is also why, as Gen 3:22-24 says, continuing to eat of the Tree of Life after sin would have physically fixed any dying/aging and death issue, and the “sin” issue would still have been present.

A further point in regards to the “supernatural (as corroborated by Biblical indications) Fruit of Life”:

I indeed see that it is utterly futile to try to find a “natural/scientific” answer for what is said to be “supernatural” (i.e., not “magical” but higher than any human capability and/or science). Indeed just as, e.g., it is futile to try to give a “natural/scientific” for Peter walking upon water, and that by simply having faith in Jesus doing the same, as a human, before him. Here the ‘beyond human capability/science’, behind the scenes action may have been angels providing some for of hard planks with each step of Jesus and Peter. And when Peter lost faith, these were removed and he sank. So since the Fruit of Life had a “supernatural ingredient” that prevent sickness, aging and thus death, I don’t see that the pointed physically corrupting cause for these will ever be found/figured out according to, or through, natural science and human understandings.

NKJ - I "think" I know all EGW quotes on both fruits. Yes, the TOL was an antidote for death. But what kind of life would that be with sin? And yes, the reason there is not immortal sinner is because they were banned from the TOL. (see Genesis 3:22)

Now, eating the fruit opened the floodgates. Question, was it the eating of the fruit, or being banned from the TOL?

Other places she, to me, clearly speaks of genetic engineering. Example: So, when did Satan plant the "seeds" into the system? When he tempted Adam to eat of the TOKGE.

All death can be blamed on God because He is the one that banned A&E from the TOL. But if genetic engineering was part of the sin problem, then the question that would be unknown is what would have happened if Satan's experiment was allowed to go on to completion? EGW tells us that Satan's appearance has changed. We are not clearly told how sin was spread to other angels in heaven. We do know from EGW that Satan wanted to "amend the law of God", he wanted to supply an amendment. How do you do that? What do you change? We know that in God, we are free. Also that Satan abused his freedom. An alcoholic is free to abuse his body, but the end results are not pretty. We can even sustain an alcoholic's life. Liver transplants for cirrhosis, etc. The TOL could perpetuate life, but what kind of life?

Yes, the TOL was required eating. Without it, life would become extinct. But this could have represented a compound that simply altered cell division. Lack of access to the TOL does not explain thorns and weeds. Transposon do.

Yes, this is a multifunctional problem.

I don't see Satan as being deliberately suicidal. I think he was trying to be like God. If there was something in the fruit, it was not meant to kill A&E. It was meant to take them captive, alter that CNS to be receptive to him. And then have them eat from the TOL and live forever, being on Satan's side of the controversy.

Under this paradigm, Christ would have had a full complement of transposons, being born of a women. EGW says, "By taking upon Himself man's nature in its fallen condition, Christ did not in the least participate in its sin. {16MR 116.3}" Christ was made to be sin. How? This is one possible explanation. Hebrews 1:3 AKJV "... when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high:" Are our sins purged? Or did he resolve the sin problem in His own body, worked out the details. The enmity put in place in the Garden, was removed at the cross demonstrating clearly the effects of sin, and it killed him (See Genesis 3:15)

This is a hypothesis to be sure. But there is a lot of discussion of genetics in the Bible and in EGW. It also explains how sin "accumulates" from generation to generation. "Christ bore the sins and infirmities of the race as they existed when He came to the earth to help man. {RH, July 28, 1874}. Sins as they existed - interesting terminology. No?

As for skin color - I do think this has to do with gene expression, and this can be epigenetic or TE mediated, or other. Is it "lamarckian"? I don't think so. By that I mean, get sun exposure and you get darker, then you pass this on to your offspring. But other thing influence color. Google, "Russian tame foxes". This is an interesting experiment which led to the production of foxes which were tame like Dogs, in just 10 generation. They were foxes, but tame. But other interesting things happened also, making them useless for the Russian fur industry. These tame foxes looked like dogs. They coats changed. They go white splotches, they tails curved, or changed length. There are interesting videos and pictures on the Internet of these tame foxes. But they were still foxes! What changes was their temperament. And this may have changed the amount of adrenal hormones which affects everything else including other morphology such as coat colors and tails. Genetically, they did not change, but gene expression changed. Darwin finches are another example of epigenetic change. This is NOT evolution. Transposons are a complete different animal all together. However, epigenetics can play a roll in keeping them in check. The health laws are not arbitrary.

Note, I'm just scratching the surface of the whole genetic issue.

I see that question as being besides the point. The fact is they could live forever, and you cannot do this with a physically decrepit body. Sure the world would be filled with sin, just as it can be seen in the life of living hell-bent sinners today, however the difference is that they would never (naturally) get sick, age or die. At the very least, the “healthy/health conscious” sinner would live forever. And much of the self-inflicted diseases today are done by people who have a “live it up” attitude because they know that one day or the other, they will surely die, no matter what they try to do to prevent/prolong this. So this may have been different with people who know as a fact that avoiding certain things will surely result in them continuing to live eternally.



Strictly speaking, I rather see neither, but merely the spiritually issue of “transgression” which gave Satan full access to this “world”. However in terms of their own physical issues, this to me clearly came from being banned access to the TOL.



I think you are literalising the figurative aspects of this quote. Perhaps the entire passage was meant figuratively. I.e., in regards to Adam and Eve, this ‘seed planting’ to me is merely in terms of what was mentally suggested to them, which indeed resulted in the intangible act of “disobedience to God”. In regards to the planetary system, sure Satan would have tangibly worked to effectuate many other adverse effects. Still it seems to me that a figurative/spiritual “seeds” link is being made to the disobedience of Adam and Eve resulting in the damage to nature.



If the consequences of sin could “genetically mapped” then I think that God would have produced that result a long time ago and avert the GC all together. There were clear mental/spiritual intangibles involved and genetical deficiency would not have been part of this equation had access to the TOL been maintained. Surely the Heavenly beings would understand genetic degradation (e.g., through a scientifically factual and true modelling) and also “death” itself without this to have to be demonstrated over 6000 years. To me it clearly is the intangible free choice of men over this time that is the main controversy at hand.



If, according to you, “genetic manipulation” was quasi-explicitly spoken of by EGW in regards to humans, than why not also for what would have similarly been done in Heaven. Some sort of “fruit” would have been mentioned.



In EGW’s writings, I only see that the “Law” discussed here is the Ten Commandment Law, so exegetically speaking, according to her understanding, I would say that she meant the 10C.



In regards to thorns and weeds, which do have to be originally/distinctly planted, i.e., to my knowledge, cannot derive from good seed, this is where I would see a literal application of the ‘Satan’s noxious herb planting’ statement.



Of course, that’s the big “IF” here... I rather the effect of eating that banned fruit as only being Spiritual. If a sinner becomes “chemically dependent” then sin is no longer a free choice. Like a drug addict, they virtually have no choice but to get another hit, no matter how much they would not want to.



Just looking at this from the Theological paradigm that a sinless God was born as a man to a mother who was living 4000 years after sin is, to me, enough to explain how Jesus ‘took upon Himself the fallen nature of man’. I.e., He did not exist on earth in only a Divine Nature.



Again here, I do not see that such statements need to go to your genetical extreme. Sin hereditary human nature would have sufficed.

I also don’t see, at least here, a support for your “accumulation” view.



I think/see that the effect of the sun on the body is more deeply rooted, and since it can affect the cellular, even genetic structure in e.g, skin cancer development, that change can also be hereditary passed on.

Perhaps God designed the skin cells to be so adaptive (cf. Acts 17:26, even if the word “blood” has been supplied (KJV)). E.g., in the case that (sinless) man should migrate and live on another planet in this galaxy, so that they can still get the sufficient amount of sunlight given the possible exposure.



Seems to me here, the reason why their genes where not changed was because the change was merely temperamental, even quasi-psychosomatic, and not as physical as the sun’s effect on the body. Manifestly Jacob also knew of such tricks (Gen 30:32-43).

This is your assumption. Perhaps the point is that as sin "accumulates", an individual does become more decrepit. It may be torture to maintain an individual in this state.

In our discussions before, you attribute all death and deformity in nature due to the absents of the TOL. I do not see this fitting the SOP, just as shown in the thorns quote.And here we disagree.
OK - were the 6 days of creation literal? is the TOL literal? Is the TOKOGE literal? Are all these things just metaphors, or spiritual? Where to you make the break from literal? I'm surprised you did not analyze the verse (Gen 3:15). The word translated "seed" is "zera": seed, offspring, descendants, semen. Is this just "spiritual" and "intangible"? Genetics can fit.
This is your interpretation. The GC is about a number of things, but freedom is one of them. Do we have freedom? Not everything we are free to do is good to do. Here is a hypothesis - and it is just that: Satan, a very intelligent being, with untold time of existence. He was second only to Christ. Satan discovered how his own make up works. He thought he could "improve" is make up. "Is God's law imperfect, in need of amendment or abrogation, or is it immutable? Is God's government in need of change, or is it stable?" {ST, August 27, 1902 par. 3} "Satan sought to correct the law of God in heaven, and to supply an amendment of his own. {ST, November 19, 1894 par. 2}". Satan started on himself. Read {GC 495.3}. Satan lied about God. Accusing God of being arbitrary, or blocking freedom. God let Satan and sin play out, thus demonstrating the truth and justice of His Law. The wages of sin is death (Rom 6:23), not an arbitrarily imposed penalty. If God had let Satan die from the effects of sin, then the universe, not having seen death, would have then served God out of fear. Only at the cross was the penalty of sin clearly demonstated. And how was God involved? Did God execute his Son? No. The wages of sin is death. Death not just from being barred from the TOL. Adam and Eve were tricked, deceived into sin, or which the fruit was the medium. The heavenly angels were not necessarily tricked into the experiment. EGW talks of sin as an experiment. PP42, GC499 and others. The experiment will protect the universe for ever. Why? How? Will not new beings be created? Will they have questions about God? Yes. And this experiment will show that God is true and right. You can't mess with what God has made, it will destroy you. Again, it is more that an intangible, it is physical.OK, then try this quote. Is it just the 10C? Natures laws are part of God's law.yes, and he planted them when he tempted Adam to eat, per EGW. THAT is the point! All have sin. Romans 5:12, death passed to all men because of Adam's sin. You say this is only because they no longer have access to the TOL. IF that is true, and I do not think so, then Romans 5:18 does not fit. Christ did not need to die to restore life, just put the tree back.

But sin does take us captive. It destroys free will. Only because of the enmity that God supernaturally placed has man had free will to resist sin. Consider this quote:See? Held fast in the snare, taken captive. To set us free, Christ must change the WHOLE NATURE. Not just a thought pattern, but the hardware on which thought runs needs transformation. That is the point I'm making!He was sinless, but "He took upon His sinless nature our sinful nature, that He might know how to succor those that are tempted. {MM 181.3}". 2 Corinthians 5:21 AKJV For he has made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him. How was he made to be sin? He never had doubts about His Father, never believed the lies. He took or sinful nature upon Himself. It is in the genes...It is not my view. It is EGW's view. TE accumulate over time, they don't go away. It fits. Well, you will have to provide a mechanism for this. The only way to pass on genetics to our offspring is via the gametes. When you get a sunburn, it burns the skin, affecting the cells of the skin. Sunburn does not give you heartburn. I see no science for this view.I don't think you understand epigenetics. Google this: NOVA epigenetics "tale of two mice". Perhaps that will help.

Summarily said APL, as stated before, as this Genetic/TOKGE topic is not one that is of primary importance to me, especially as it is merely a hypothesis on your part, I don’t see a need to try to discuss it further. Still I see that your are making way too much of what I see has merely Spiritual implications, all revolving around one’s free choices. Through your ‘genetic hypothesis view’ you obviously see and read different meanings in all “related” Bible and SOP passage. I just don’t see the Theological validity of this, as also previously discussed and answered. The sin trickery, sin chemical dependence, etc., premises, are just not Biblical to me. When I have my needed resources, I will likely engage/address your view in more detail. (By the way, it is God who said that a sinner can live forever. You are the one who effectively thinks that He made a mistake here.)

In regards to the amalgation subject at hand: My, albeit, hypothesis, is that God could have expressedly wired man to be able to recode the skin cells in order to deal with various sunlight exposure, depending on where exactly one lives, including elsewhere in this universe. So the body having to constantly deal with extreme sunlight exposure, resulting in it darkening the skin color, could then be encode for that color in the genes and indeed genetically passed on through the gamete, as any other gene information. And that would occur at the sub-epigenetic level.