Both here and on other sites, I see the assertion that “Adam and Eve had perfect genomes.” For this reason, they had outstanding intellects and abilities, and did not suffer the frailties of disease and death before the entrance of sin, and apparently neither did anything else, so I guess all the animals had perfect genomes as well. (Maybe that is why they could talk…) But , back to Adam and Eve. Since a perfect genome is proposed, what would such look like? How do you define a perfect genome?
Our current genome includes a broken gene to produce vitamin C. Would a perfect genome have one, or would it be functional, even though unneeded in the Garden with all the fruit?
Would a perfect genome include genes for light skin to help make vitamin D, or dark skin to help avoid sunburn?
Would it have a persistent lactase production gene to help digest animal milk, or would it shut it down? Or would it have one at all, assuming Adam never nursed a mother’s breast?
Would it code for a tall stature capable of great physical feats, or a small stature better able to slip through the woods and needing fewer calories.
Would it have a gene for sickle cell anemia, with the problems that entails, or would it not, leaving the population more susceptible to malaria? Would there be malaria? If not, why would he have the gene. If he did not have the gene, was getting it a benefit or a curse?
These are just a few things off the top of my head, sure there are many many more. So, if it were real or possible, what would a perfect genome look like?
The more I think about it the more incomprehensible it is. A perfect human genome would probably need to be rewritten from front to back to the point that it no longer resembles a human genome, and certainly couldn’t be ancestral to modern human genomes, especially given the 6,000 year time span.
At best, removal of known deleterious disease alleles would prevent known diseases, but you would still be stuck with the ~120 year upper limit on human age. You still wouldn’t have the DNA repair mechanisms needed to completely prevent cancer causing mutations in oncogenes, as one example. I don’t think it is possible to produce a “perfect” genome by changing the current genome by 5% which is way more than could have occurred over 6,000 years.
It’s like asking how would you change the Earth so that it never produced any life threatening challenges to humans.
In thinking about it, a perfect genome would have to have built in diversity and malleability, something that can only be had in a population and with the ability to mutate to meet changing environmental pressures. Pretty much what we’ve got, so maybe not so far fetched after all, so long as Adam is interpreted as being mankind.
I’d settle for a perfect immune system including DNA repair.
And whatever it would take to be able to live thousands of years (with, of course, my body from when I was 20 and aced phys ed in the first week of the school year).
And if we could all live thousands of years, all we would have to worry about is 1) overpopulation, 2) “meatloaf for dinner AGAIN?” 3) 900 years with a pacemaker, and 4) your favorite sports team which has not made it to the Super Bowl in over 2000 years!
Perfect copies of all the genetic data in a single human cell is “honored more in the breach than the observance.” Mutations are inescapable and evolution [[ the gradual deselection of flaws hence the slow steamroller effect of improvements ]] leads to continual upgrades and enhancements.
Should there have been a perfect genome at any point in time, it would only have been perfect just so long as the environment was granite-like in never changing.
Or in other words if there ever was a perfect genome it could no longer exist in its original state.
Corollary to that, the continual fuzzy effect of mutations make attaining some mythical perfection a practical impossibility,
In heaven there are only perfect bodies.
Alas they will be incapable of sex (neither marriage nor giving in marriage.) That may be a harsh extrapolation but it is hard to guess otherwise.
Not quite. A perfect genome is a recipe. A recipe for a perfect copy-error-fixing plant or animal does not exist; some errors fall outside any particular algorithm. Mutations arrive very slowly but (as in the mills of the gods grind slowly but inexorably) mutations are also inexorable.
A hypothetical “perfect” genome would freeze the species thus make it incapable of adapting to changes in the environment.
Or in other words this degree of “perfection” turns out to be fatal.
Groundless nonsense. Circumstances and environments change. There is no such thing as a phoenix rising from its own ashes - {{ yes in science fiction - I read such a story }} but Creation is real.
That’s a common conjecture but isn’t necessarily the case – we may just have control of our desires instead of them controlling us.
Thus one able to adjust to mutations, either discarding them, leaving them neutral, or adopting them. So a perfect genome isn’t one that is static, it’s one that keeps following the command to “Bring forth!”
That depends on one’s definition of “perfect”.
And that’s on of the big problems with YEC: it’s imposing human definitions on divine literature.
So why wouldn’t a perfect genome be one that can adapt to whatever comes along for it to deal with?
There are two definitions of perfect; one is static, the other is dynamic. I think dynamic is the “mnore perfect” way.
Perfect bodies should be devoid of temptation; the ability to procreate absent marriage may have been important to science fiction writer Robert Heinlein, but misses the point.
The original point was perfect reproduction of the current genome, i.e. zero mutations to begin with. To wrap an extraneous infinite wisdom regarding the perfect adjustment to an environmental change is precious to Intelligent Design folk; since their platform begins with “I have dreamt up a mathematics that precludes gradual evolution {{ and I have failed utterly to understand the premise of gradual evolution in the first place }} therefore gradual evolution is impossible.” There is no difficulty understanding why real practitioners of real DNA research ignore I D folk entirely.
Yes, definitions are beyond price. Let me suggest that a genome capable of foresight is infinitely costly.
Perfect in the ethereal sense is one thing. Perfection within the limits of Creation, the universe we inhabit, falls short of the infinite.
A perfect genome wouldn’t have a single base that isn’t needed. Each unneeded base would be that much more energy the cell needs to expend in maintenance and during replication.
A perfect genome would also encode for a DNA polymerase that made no errors, and DNA repair mechanisms with 100% accuracy and effeciency. Therefore, no mutations. A perfect genome would more closely resemble a bacterial genome where there is very little extraneous DNA. As one example, really long introns are quite wasteful.
The same would apply to RNA transcription and protein translation. No unnecessary transcription or translation in a perfect genome. Large introns can also be slotted into this category. They are costly both at the DNA and RNA level.
A perfect genome would already be able to handle any and all circumstances or changes. No need for mutations.
Nothing follows. Perfect transcription rules out anticipatory change.
Anticipatory changes made to a system already perfect at transcription may fall in line with Irreducible Complexity and Intelligent Design; both I C and I D are vaporous notions founded on failure to comprehend how mutations, after passing through the make-or-break filter of natural selection, permit adaptation on an on-going basis. Thus it also explains “smooth” evolution, via useful mutations arriving in sufficient quantity such that, at any point in time, many are in process of displacing the original allele.
Think in terms of a thousand generations to do that, yet with viable candidate mutations arriving one to two orders of magnitude faster, e.g. one per one to ten generations, depending on population size. The math is sketchy, but connects well with observed behaviors seen in the life sciences.
Not at all. A perfect genome would be able to shift gene expression to fit any and all challenges.
A perfect genome wouldn’t need to adapt because it is already capable of meeting any and all challenges.
What you are describing is real genomes, the ones that actually exist. The genomes we see in the real world are good enough for right now since they are the product of a process that only produces genomes that are good enough for right now. A lack of mutations in existing genomes would be a massive problem.
The penny drops - your focus was on the same plane as Plato’s ideals - the ideal chair is the infinite perfection which no real chair can achieve.
Thank you.