Identical by State or Descent?
by Jared* on June 5th, 2006Elder Russell M. Nelson recently gave an interview where he speculated on the resurrection. As quoted in the Deseret News:
I’ve got a DNA that’s specifically mine, a blood type that’s specifically mine. Those formulas are written in every cell of my body. No doubt those are on file in that great, heavenly filing cabinet. It’s much easier for me to believe that the same individual can be created again with those formulas and elements available.
Elder Nelson seems to be saying that if every part of his body were obliterated, perhaps a record of his genetic code could be used to create an equivalent and unique body. Let us further speculate that the code would be refurbished to eliminate problems or unneeded code and to add any improvements or corrections needed.
In trying to understand the relationship of organisms to one another, scientists face an important question: is a characteristic identical by state or descent? The simplest way to illustrate the question is to consider DNA sequence. Whether you are comparing species or individuals within a species you will find groups that share unique DNA sequences. That sequence may indicate that all individuals sharing it are closely related, but not necessarily. Mutations can occur independently in different individuals who do not share a close relationship. In this case, the characteristic is identical by state (IBS). In contrast, a mutation that originates in an individual and spreads to his/her progeny–each inheriting the characteristic from their ancestor–results in groups that are identical by descent (IBD) (and also by state). In order to avoid being misled into thinking that a DNA sequence is identical by descent when it is really just by state, scientists try to pick more complex characteristics that would be less likely to happen independently.
A central LDS doctrine is that man is created in the image of God, but the details of the creation have not been revealed. Are we in His image by descent or state? Some LDS attacks on evolution seem based in defending the proposition that we are literal descendants of God, with an unknown fudge-factor introduced by the Fall. We could call this “in God’s image by descent.” For those who hold to a theistic evolution scenario, humans have been formed in the image of God to unknown precision by natural processes (perhaps with some divine intervention)–something we could call “in God’s image by state.”
This brings me back to Elder Nelson’s speculation on the resurrection. What meaning does biological descent have when refracted through the Fall, and then the Resurrection? If we are in God’s image by descent, the perfection of that image will apparently be by state. But if that is so, is the thought that the original creation was one of mere(!) state so terrible? I think that any path to God’s image is good enough for me.
I agree. The doctrine of the resurrection is the best theological evidence for the special creation of Adam and Eve, if not everyone else.
Mark,
Can you clarify what you mean by special creation? Elder Packer believes in special creation, but I don’t think he means the same thing as you.
I suspect there is only a very superficial relationship between the earthy body and the perfected resurrected one. Moreover, DNA sequence isn’t everything, even in our earthly realm. Most people overlook the DNA imprinting phenomenon that determines actual DNA expression. Hence, even identical twins aren’t identical. And as we’re now finding out, a clone isn’t just a younger copy of the donor organism, etc.
Special creation as I intend here is that Adam and Eve were created / born / quasi-(re)surrected whatever separately than the rest of life here on this earth.
The more general sense of special creation any system of creation that is not based on common descent, where all primary species are (re)surrected into place from spiritual master plans, engineered genetics or whatever.
I am generally in favor of a “surrectionist” (as opposed to *natalist*) view of the former, and ambivalent about the latter.
Mark,
Well, maybe you and Elder Packer are in closer agreement than I thought. I wasn’t arguing for special creation, only questioning the allure of descent from God.
Steve EM,
You make legitimate points. I don’t know if resurrected beings have a biology based on DNA. As for epigenetic influences, when I said “an equivalent body,” I didn’t mean it as exactly the same, just close enough–whatever that is.
Well, I don’t really no what to think about Adam, Eve and the Fall, because the story seems riddled with contradictions, as if somebody corrupted or made up the account in Genesis 2-3 and its PGP equivalent.
For the even the basic outline of the account to make sense to me, I have to assume that Adam and Eve were created on a spiritual earth, some several billion years or more before present, then the world that we know was created, and pre-history, evolution or whatever elapsed, lots of primitive peoples lived and died for tens of thousands of years, and then Adam and Eve are reverse translated down to their historical positions in ~4000 B.C.
However, I think it is more likely that Genesis 2-3 is a pathetically bad allegory of the human condition, worse than having no account at all. The whole story is responsible for much more evil in the world than good - Original Sin, Total Depravity, Adam made me do it, and so on. In LDS discourse it is almost a contradiction in terms - the favorable fall that magically had to be triggered by a *violation* of divine command, the ultimate set up. As theology, in the form we have it, it is a joke - we spend more time explaining away its noxious features than getting anything out of it.
So in general I do not think the events in the Garden of Eden *ever* took place, and that doctrine of the Fall is a commentary on the human condition, *even in pre mortal life*. This life is a good thing, we did not need to be tricked into making it happen. That is one of the silliest ideas I have ever heard - the Manichean heresy right there in the second chapter of the Bible.
See - when I am tired my brain spells phonetically…
Whatever you think about it at least Brigham Young’s alternate version is rationally coherent. He thought the version in the Bible was a nursery school story. I think it is worse than that - a corruption by a pathetically naive ancient writer (cf. the Documentary Hypothesis)
Well, if I had to pick only one book of the bible and discard the rest, I would pick Genesis. The issues you bring up Mark, only arise when someone thinks that anything more than an allegory of creation, human origin and human condition is there. As allegory, it is a masterpiece.
I disagree. The problems include:
1) The account teaches that evil, including *death* is a result of knowledge. Implying that it would be better for Adam and Eve to remain in a state of ignorance, naive little sheep. Unfortunately the road to hell is paved with naive intentions. More evil is a result of ignorance, than was ever a consequence of knowledge.
2) The account teaches that there is a necessary choice between salvation and knowledge. That Adam and Eve could have partook of the tree of life, and thwarted God’s plan. Taking a short cut to salvation without any learning or effort of any kind.
3) The account promotes a version of the Manichean heresy - that good and evil are magical substances that we are infused with, comparable to the doctrine of Irresistable Grace - that salvation is something that God does to us, not something that we have to work out in fear and trembling.
4) The account implies that all evil in this world is a result of our corrupted natures, not our free decisions to obey or disobey God, to change our character to conform to his.
5) The account implies that evil *began* in the Garden of Eden, when in fact it was prevalent in the War in Heaven, before the world was made, when the plan was still being discussed.
6) The account implies that all of the opposition in this world, from noxious weeds to bee stings and spider bites is a consequence of Adam’s sin.
7) The account implies that the necessity to work to sustain one’s life and family is a consequence of sin. That in heaven we will just kick back and watch Superbowl games for the rest of eternity.
Now admittedly some of these errors can be explained away, however, allegory and analogy has a cost / benefit ratio, or return on investment, and in my opinion Genesis 2-3 as allegory has a negative ROI, which makes it shoddy, ill-defined, and unwise, one of those things that should be re-written (a la Brigham Young) or discarded.
Again Mark, you’re following the common LDS tradition of hanging on every word and get caught in all the tangled baggage that entails. That’s how we LDS get nonsense like sexual sins being next to cold blooded murder or grace coming only after all you can do, conclusions contrary to the whole of scripture and life experience, because one verse of scripture (written by a man, entitled to mistakes) or one person overstates something. Then the interpretations go to the absurd, such as masturbation being an LofC violation.
The expanding knowledge, realizing the reality of death and harshness of life, etc after eating the fruit are likely symbolic of the arrival of the first modern human forbearer, the first self aware individual capable of abstract thought, art, music, worship, etc. Quite possibly, it is a reference to Y chromosome Adam, born about 60,000 years ago, but presented as an allegory that ancient people could appreciate. Good allegory is like a good painting or sculpture, having many meanings for many people. The Genesis story is a masterpiece in that regard, once you get outside of dogma.
I am not hanging on every word, I am pointing out the superfluousness of many of those words - words that teach nothing useful at all, but rather promote false beliefs. If you do not want unjustified conclusions the best way is not to propagate a senseless account to begin with (the whole tree of life / good and evil thing + plus a ridiculous divine “setup” apologetic. It is a waste of breath, and hours upon hours in Sunday School classes that would be better devoted to the truth, and not the apologetics of insanity.
Well, it seems we’re at least in agreement regarding the silliness of some LDS dogma. I’m surprise you’re a New Thang fan.
For those who haven’t seen it, I have a post about the meaning of Adam and Eve at my blog.
Well, the point of New Cool Thang is to actually defend a position with rational argument, not just look it up in the Journal of Discourses, and mutter vague things after that. I have yet to see anyone other weblog seriously attempt to discuss systematic theology. It nearly everywhere boils down to a contest of authorities.
So few LDS know how to *think* about the coherence of religious principles. Most of the interesting ideas not read out of the Journal of Discourses are cribbed from other denominations without much in the way of reflection, rather more like passing on theological rumours.