God Explained Genetics to Moses

[JoeMama]

Jacob took fresh-cut branches from trees and made white stripes on them by peeling the bark and exposing the white inner wood. Then he placed the peeled branches in all the watering troughs, so that they would be seen by the sheep when they came to drink. When the flocks came to drink and mated in front of the branches, they bore young [that were striped]. (Genesis 30:37-39)

Did God breathe this story into Moses’ ear as an example of genetics at work?

[1213]

Jacob took fresh-cut branches from trees and made white stripes on them by peeling the bark and exposing the white inner wood. Then he placed the peeled branches in all the watering troughs, so that they would be seen by the sheep when they came to drink. When the flocks came to drink and mated in front of the branches, they bore young [that were striped]. (Genesis 30:37-39)

Did God breathe this story into Moses’ ear as an example of genetics at work?

It is a matter of belief, but I would like to see that experiment replicated, would the water with same wood branches cause change in the offspring when the parents drink it.

[boatsnguitars]

It is a matter of belief, ..

No it isn't. I really isn't. Dna doesn't work that way. There is no mechanism that would cause it to happen. Stop pretending there might be, just because someone might believe it.

Just think about it. Is your childrens hair in the pattern of the wallpaper of the motel room you copulated in?

[1213]

It is a matter of belief, ..

No it isn't. I really isn't. Dna doesn't work that way. There is no mechanism that would cause it to happen. Stop pretending there might be, just because someone might believe it.

Just think about it. Is your childrens hair in the pattern of the wallpaper of the motel room you copulated in?

You don't seem to understand the case. Seeing colored stuff was not the point, drinking water that had certain substances could have caused a difference, as the Biblical story suggests.

[brunumb]

You don't seem to understand the case. Seeing colored stuff was not the point, drinking water that had certain substances could have caused a difference, as the Biblical story suggests.

Jacob took fresh-cut branches from trees and made white stripes on them by peeling the bark and exposing the white inner wood. Then he placed the peeled branches in all the watering troughs, so that they would be seen by the sheep when they came to drink. When the flocks came to drink and mated in front of the branches, they bore young [that were striped]. (Genesis 30:37-39)

The way to ensure that they would be seen was to put them in the water trough because they would have to come there to drink. Also, if it was due to substances in the water it would not be necessary to make them appear striped. Substances in the water would not have altered the DNA to produce striped offspring. You don't seem to understand the case.

[boatsnguitars]

It is a matter of belief, ..

No it isn't. I really isn't. Dna doesn't work that way. There is no mechanism that would cause it to happen. Stop pretending there might be, just because someone might believe it.

Just think about it. Is your childrens hair in the pattern of the wallpaper of the motel room you copulated in?

You don't seem to understand the case. Seeing colored stuff was not the point, drinking water that had certain substances could have caused a difference, as the Biblical story suggests.

Why must you do this? Just admit the people who wrote that were wrong. Even a rudimentary idea of genetics was still over 3000 years away. It's OK to admit they didn't know what they were talking about! They were wrong. Relieve yourself of the burden of looking foolish and doing mental cartwheels. No one is going to judge you poorer for it.

There is not - literally or figuratively - any pathway to drink something that would make your hair (or an animals hair) become striped. If it were the case, we'd know about it now. It would be a normal thing for us to do.

This is one of the many examples where Apologetics really messes with people. You don't need to defend the Bible. Let God and the Bible do that. It's so troubling to see how quickly Apologists will defend a ridiculous claim - throwing out any science because it doesn't fit with the understanding of men 3,000 years ago. If you don't think this hurts our society, you're gravely mistaken.

[TRANSPONDER]

The why is always interesting. I guess it's because the Bible (veracity) is the basis of their beliefs (religious) and it has to be right at least metaphorically, and some can't do that as they see clearly that 'metaphorically true' means 'Not true at all'.

But what is remarkable is how lack of understanding of the science is necessary for Genesis -literalist science - denial. I watched Amon -Ra (cognomen) discussing with one atheist gone Catholic and a 'skeptic' who queried evolution. Straight away the arguments were bad. The Catholic claimed to have a been a member of all kinds of atheist think -tanks and not a 'don't care' atheist, but he made Noob errors like pressing unknowns about consciousness as evidence for a soul/God. An experienced atheist should know better.

The other one questioned pretty well about clades compared to "kinds" and I could roll with how he couldn't grasp how we were chordates and thus descendants of fish, but Fish is not our clade. But when he started pushing Mt St Helens, I knew he hadn't done his homework. Even if he disagrees, he should know the atheist refutation of the claims that the volcano means that geological strata can be laid down quickly, or erosion (of valleys) can happen in weeks (yes, in soft sediment - not in hard rock) and I again got the feeling of a lack of knowledge of both the science they were trying to refute and of the apologetics of the atheism they claimed to have converted from.

I have said it before - "They claim to have been atheists - but they seem to have forgotten everything they thought as an atheist".

That by the way. Our pal doesn't claim to be a converted atheist, but the lack of understanding of the science is a regular thing. Often it is just repeating Creationist claims, like DNA codes. If they understood the science, they would know DNA is not a code, software or even very complex. It is a series of chemical on -off switches. They confuse design with complexity (very often ) and complexity with smallness and large numbers of molecules. And I can guess why. Starting with Godfaith, they project reverence onto the awesomeness of nature (which atheists share) and then try to fit the evidence to the adoration by fiddling it, usually with the help of Creationist claims, which do not understand the science nor do they care, and the apologists who use those claims do not care either and they do not check to see what the response is.

It only remains to note that they also confuse methods of rejecting the evidence for science (usually evolutionary but also archaeological) so as retain their faith, with making a persuasive counter - case that will convince those who are questioning. They think any kind of denial will do. Just as I said about the death of Judas - it doesn't matter that the believer can tell themself that the hanging and the falling headlong can be wangled together as an excuse to dismiss the contradiction, is it enough to convince those still not decided?

[JehovahsWitness]

Jacob took fresh-cut branches from trees and made white stripes on them by peeling the bark and exposing the white inner wood. Then he placed the peeled branches in all the watering troughs, so that they would be seen by the sheep when they came to drink. When the flocks came to drink and mated in front of the branches, they bore young [that were striped]. (Genesis 30:37-39)

Did God breathe this story into Moses’ ear as an example of genetics at work?

Could be. In any case evidently the narrative indicates it was God looked into the genetics of the herd and ensured Jacob prospered from his deal with his father-in-law to keep those with particular genetic traits. Jacob had no need to understand more than the basic husbandry he employed; namely to use selective breeding and stimulate particular animals on heat to mate and reproduce.



Farmers have used selective breeding methods for centuries and there is no reason to believe Jacob had not learnt a thing or two from decades of observation. While some have suggested Jacob may have come to understand the basic principle of recessive genes (ie have observed that two plain coloured animals can producing a speckled one) , even if that was not the case, the narrative indicates it was ultimately God that was manipulating events.





JW

[TRANSPONDER]

[Replying to JehovahsWitness in post #8]


Well, if you're going to explain it as selective breeding, thank the evolutionary process which humans used as a tool. Nothing to do with a god.

[boatsnguitars]

[Replying to JehovahsWitness in post #8]


Well, if you're going to explain it as selective breeding, thank the evolutionary process which humans used as a tool. Nothing to do with a god.

And we know exactly how it worked. The animals bred, and the hits were recorded as confirmation and the misses were ignored. The only mystery here is why people feel a need to defend 3000 year old goat herders on their grasp of science. This is the insanity religion brings to the world.

Christians, just say it: They were wrong. Free yourself from your inner slavery.