Religions > Atheism > Sacred Sex Was Practiced In Jewish Temple, Says Da Vinci Code
| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Sound of Trumpet" |
| Date: |
28 May 2006 04:08:15 PM |
| Object: |
Sacred Sex Was Practiced In Jewish Temple, Says Da Vinci Code |
http://www.shns.com/shns/g_index2.cfm?action=detail&pk=RELIGION-FAITH-05-24-06
Sacred sex in the temple
By TERRY MATTINGLY
Scripps Howard News Service
24-MAY-06
In the beginning, Judaism was a faith built on sacred sex.
At least, that's what Dan Brown told 60 million readers in "The Da
Vinci Code," speaking though a fictional Harvard scholar named Robert
Langdon. And while the characters are fictional, the novelist continues
to affirm the statement that opens his book: "All descriptions of
artwork, architecture, documents and secret rituals in this novel are
accurate."
One of those "secret rituals" is an eye-opener.
"Langdon's Jewish students always looked flabbergasted when he told
them that the early Jewish tradition involved ritualistic sex. In the
temple, no less," wrote Brown, in one of many long speeches that
explain his iconoclastic plot. "Early Jews believed that the Holy of
Holies in Solomon's Temple housed not only God but also His powerful
female equal, Shekinah. Men seeking spiritual wholeness came to the
Temple to visit priestesses ... with whom they made love and
experienced the divine through physical union."
For most people, the big news in "The Da Vinci Code" story was its
message that Jesus was a brilliant and charismatic man _ but not the
Son of God _ who was married to St. Mary Magdalene, had a child and
tried to start a church built on secret truths and goddess worship.
But Jesus was killed and, after a few centuries, powerful men crushed
the Gnostic Christians. Meanwhile, the secret bloodline of Jesus, says
the novel, lived on in Europe.
That's the side of the book, and now the movie, that makes headlines.
But there is a message in the novel that is even more controversial
and, for traditional Christians and Jews, more radical, according to
philosopher Vishal Mangalwadi, who was born and educated in the diverse
religious culture of India.
"The Da Vinci Code" is absolutely right when it states that the
Judeo-Christian tradition, through the ages, did everything that it
could to suppress sexual mysticism, fertility rites and goddess
worship. The early church, he stressed, emerged in a world that was
packed with pagan sanctuaries filled with scores of temple prostitutes.
The Judeo-Christian tradition emphasized the holiness of marriage, but
never taught that sexual intercourse was _ in and of itself _ a sacred
rite in which the spirit escapes the body and is able commune with some
all-embracing deity.
"Dan Brown is right about the following: some pagan converts to Christ
did bring sexual mysticism into the early church," said Mangalwadi, in
a speech he delivered this week at Hollywood (Calif.) Presbyterian
Church. In fact, the Book of Revelation condemns two early churches
that tolerated believers who "practiced religious sex. It is possible
that before becoming Christians these women and men had participated in
prostitution in pagan temples ... .
"Given the fact that Christianity was an ascending religious force,
they may have found it to their advantage to attract customers in the
name of Christ. Some may well have re-written the life of Christ in the
light of pagan spirituality to justify their preferred 'religious'
practice."
In "The Da Vinci Code" itself, Brown stresses that the use of sexual
rituals to create union with the gods and goddesses is older than the
Christian faith and could, he claimed, be seen in Judaism. A one point,
a central character witnesses a modern ritual in which a couple has
sexual intercourse while surrounded by a circle of other members of the
secret society that is preserving the true Christianity.
Thus, Brown's alter ego explains: "Historically, intercourse was the
act through which male and female experienced God. The ancients
believed that the male was spiritually incomplete until he had carnal
knowledge of the sacred feminine. Physical union with the female
remained the sole means through which man could become spiritually
complete and ultimately achieve gnosis _ knowledge of the divine. ...
'By communing with woman,' Langdon said, 'man could achieve a climactic
instance when his mind went totally blank and he could see God.' "
The key is that this experience is the "sole means" for transformation.
This theme is explicit in the novel, even though the movie does not
stress it.
"Dan Brown is promoting a mystic experience in which our mind goes
'totally blank' _ beyond words, thoughts, ideals, beliefs and values,"
argued Mangalwadi. "This is a non-rational experience. Mystics promote
it because they consider the intellect to be the source of ignorance,
not a means to gaining knowledge."
(Terry Mattingly (www.tmatt.net) directs the Washington Journalism
Center at the Council for Christian Colleges & Universities.)
.
|
|
| User: "Mike Schilling" |
|
| Title: Re: Sacred Sex Was Practiced In Jewish Temple, Says Da Vinci Code |
31 May 2006 10:19:00 AM |
|
|
"Richard Eney" <dicconf@radix.net> wrote in message
news:127rceab678p7fa@corp.supernews.com...
In article <Jp3fg.29907$fb2.9094@newssvr27.news.prodigy.net>,
Mike Schilling <mscottschilling@hotmail.com> wrote:
"Linda Lee" <lindagirl444@juno.com> wrote in message
news:1149026765.557755.57140@38g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Btw, the real idea of 'sacred sex' is that the normal sexual union
between man and woman is considered sacred because the partners are as
close as they can be to their original state before the fall when Adam
was divided into man and woman.
When Adam was what?
Had a woman cloned from one of his ribs,
Yes. That's hardly the same as "divided into man and woman".
because the original woman,
Lilith, who was _created_ at the same time as Adam, wasn't happy always
being on the bottom in the Missionary position. Golly, doesn't anybody
read the Talmud these days?
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Linda Lee" |
|
| Title: Re: Sacred Sex Was Practiced In Jewish Temple, Says Da Vinci Code |
30 May 2006 08:00:15 PM |
|
|
Mike Schilling wrote:
"Linda Lee" <lindagirl444@juno.com> wrote in message
news:1149026765.557755.57140@38g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Btw, the real idea of 'sacred sex' is that the normal sexual union
between man and woman is considered sacred because the partners are as
close as they can be to their original state before the fall when Adam
was divided into man and woman.
When Adam was what?
Genesis 2:21-22
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mike Schilling" |
|
| Title: Re: Sacred Sex Was Practiced In Jewish Temple, Says Da Vinci Code |
31 May 2006 12:37:28 AM |
|
|
"Linda Lee" <lindagirl444@juno.com> wrote in message
news:1149037215.744652.259860@h76g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Mike Schilling wrote:
"Linda Lee" <lindagirl444@juno.com> wrote in message
news:1149026765.557755.57140@38g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Btw, the real idea of 'sacred sex' is that the normal sexual union
between man and woman is considered sacred because the partners are as
close as they can be to their original state before the fall when Adam
was divided into man and woman.
When Adam was what?
Genesis 2:21-22
"Divided into man and woman" is an odd way to describe that; it's not as if
he had previously had feminine qualities that went away with the rib.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "brique" |
|
| Title: Re: Sacred Sex Was Practiced In Jewish Temple, Says Da Vinci Code |
30 May 2006 11:42:13 PM |
|
|
Linda Lee <lindagirl444@juno.com> wrote in message
news:1149037215.744652.259860@h76g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Mike Schilling wrote:
"Linda Lee" <lindagirl444@juno.com> wrote in message
news:1149026765.557755.57140@38g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Btw, the real idea of 'sacred sex' is that the normal sexual union
between man and woman is considered sacred because the partners are as
close as they can be to their original state before the fall when Adam
was divided into man and woman.
When Adam was what?
Genesis 2:21-22
Oh yeh, that other movie....'Weird Science' or something..........
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "John Baker" |
|
| Title: Re: Sacred Sex Was Practiced In Jewish Temple, Says Da Vinci Code |
31 May 2006 01:25:36 AM |
|
|
On 30 May 2006 18:00:15 -0700, "Linda Lee" <lindagirl444@juno.com>
wrote:
Mike Schilling wrote:
"Linda Lee" <lindagirl444@juno.com> wrote in message
news:1149026765.557755.57140@38g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Btw, the real idea of 'sacred sex' is that the normal sexual union
between man and woman is considered sacred because the partners are as
close as they can be to their original state before the fall when Adam
was divided into man and woman.
When Adam was what?
Genesis 2:21-22
And this proves what, exactly?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Richard Eney" |
|
| Title: Re: Sacred Sex Was Practiced In Jewish Temple, Says Da Vinci Code |
31 May 2006 10:12:13 AM |
|
|
In article <2idq72lls37fiom77i47t62ha7ecpnn6fl@4ax.com>,
John Baker <nunya@bizniz.net> wrote:
On 30 May 2006 18:00:15 -0700, "Linda Lee" <lindagirl444@juno.com>
wrote:
Mike Schilling wrote:
"Linda Lee" <lindagirl444@juno.com> wrote in message
news:1149026765.557755.57140@38g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Btw, the real idea of 'sacred sex' is that the normal sexual union
between man and woman is considered sacred because the partners are as
close as they can be to their original state before the fall when Adam
was divided into man and woman.
When Adam was what?
Genesis 2:21-22
And this proves what, exactly?
Proves that it's OK to give women anaesthetics during childbirth, for one
thing.
-- ***** Eney
OPERATION CRIFANAC PUBLICATIONS
http://www.crifanac.net/Index.htm
prozines and fanzines 'n' stuff
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Martin Kaletsch" |
|
| Title: Re: Sacred Sex Was Practiced In Jewish Temple, Says Da Vinci Code |
31 May 2006 04:49:25 AM |
|
|
Linda Lee wrote:
Particularly, it does not make sense to plead that Jesus was a human
being - and at the same time, claim that his decendants are more than
human.
Excellent point. And the popularity of this book and movie proves that
many people want to bring God down to their level while exalting man in
place of God.
Fine old gnostic traditions just not dying out ;-)
Although I don't think most buyers of the book get that particular point.
Btw, the real idea of 'sacred sex' is that the normal sexual union
between man and woman is considered sacred because the partners are as
close as they can be to their original state before the fall when Adam
was divided into man and woman.
Has *that* ever been part of the teachings of any christian church?
--
Martin Kaletsch
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "3D Master" |
|
| Title: Re: Sacred Sex Was Practiced In Jewish Temple, Says Da Vinci Code |
29 May 2006 05:51:03 PM |
|
|
Terry Cross wrote:
r.rice@thevine.net wrote:
On 29 May 2006 07:59:29 -0700, wrote:
Sound of Trumpet wrote:
http://www.shns.com/shns/g_index2.cfm?action=detail&pk=RELIGION-FAITH-05-24-06
Sacred sex in the temple
By TERRY MATTINGLY
Scripps Howard News Service
24-MAY-06
In the beginning, Judaism was a faith built on sacred sex.
At least, that's what Dan Brown told 60 million readers in "The Da
Vinci Code," speaking though a fictional Harvard scholar named Robert
Langdon. And while the characters are fictional, the novelist continues
to affirm the statement that opens his book: "All descriptions of
artwork, architecture, documents and secret rituals in this novel are
accurate."
Like the artwork and the secret rituals are going to sue him
for slander.
Whatever sells books. What I haven't figured out is why the
religious hysteria.
You know, I actually saw the movie with some friends. Our general
opinion was: entertaining, there are some places where you just have
to go with the flow of the movie, and we wouldn't have cast Tom Hanks
in it. But the one thing I don't understand is why, if there are
genetic descendants of Jesus, do they need special protection and
guarding? Apparently, in the last 2000 years they haven't done
anything special, so if you didn't make a fuss of them they would just
fade into the background of general society. And if they can blend
that well, does it matter if they have divine blood? And then I
remind myself, it's just a movie, it doesn't have to make sense.
Rebecca
Particularly, it does not make sense to plead that Jesus was a human
being - and at the same time, claim that his decendants are more than
human.
They didn't claim his descendants are more than human. In fact, quite
the opposite. The were royalty though.
3D Master
--
~~~~~
"I've got something to say; it's better to burn out than to fade away!"
- The Kurgan, Highlander
"Give me some sugar, baby!"
- Ashley J. 'Ash' Williams, Army of Darkness
~~~~~
Author of several stories, which can be found here:
http://members.chello.nl/~jg.temolder1/
.
|
|
|
| User: "Terry Cross" |
|
| Title: Re: Sacred Sex Was Practiced In Jewish Temple, Says Da Vinci Code |
29 May 2006 10:55:59 PM |
|
|
3D Master wrote:
Terry Cross wrote:
r.rice@thevine.net wrote:
On 29 May 2006 07:59:29 -0700, wrote:
Sound of Trumpet wrote:
http://www.shns.com/shns/g_index2.cfm?action=detail&pk=RELIGION-FAITH-05-24-06
Sacred sex in the temple
By TERRY MATTINGLY
Scripps Howard News Service
24-MAY-06
In the beginning, Judaism was a faith built on sacred sex.
At least, that's what Dan Brown told 60 million readers in "The Da
Vinci Code," speaking though a fictional Harvard scholar named Robert
Langdon. And while the characters are fictional, the novelist continues
to affirm the statement that opens his book: "All descriptions of
artwork, architecture, documents and secret rituals in this novel are
accurate."
Like the artwork and the secret rituals are going to sue him
for slander.
Whatever sells books. What I haven't figured out is why the
religious hysteria.
You know, I actually saw the movie with some friends. Our general
opinion was: entertaining, there are some places where you just have
to go with the flow of the movie, and we wouldn't have cast Tom Hanks
in it. But the one thing I don't understand is why, if there are
genetic descendants of Jesus, do they need special protection and
guarding? Apparently, in the last 2000 years they haven't done
anything special, so if you didn't make a fuss of them they would just
fade into the background of general society. And if they can blend
that well, does it matter if they have divine blood? And then I
remind myself, it's just a movie, it doesn't have to make sense.
Rebecca
Particularly, it does not make sense to plead that Jesus was a human
being - and at the same time, claim that his decendants are more than
human.
They didn't claim his descendants are more than human. In fact, quite
the opposite.
Less than human?
The were royalty though.
Born to rule over other human beings by right of birth. And you claim
that is not "more than human?"
You should have your batteries checked, mister.
TCross
.
|
|
|
| User: "3D Master" |
|
| Title: Re: Sacred Sex Was Practiced In Jewish Temple, Says Da Vinci Code |
31 May 2006 10:31:18 AM |
|
|
Terry Cross wrote:
3D Master wrote:
Terry Cross wrote:
r.rice@thevine.net wrote:
On 29 May 2006 07:59:29 -0700, wrote:
Sound of Trumpet wrote:
http://www.shns.com/shns/g_index2.cfm?action=detail&pk=RELIGION-FAITH-05-24-06
Sacred sex in the temple
By TERRY MATTINGLY
Scripps Howard News Service
24-MAY-06
In the beginning, Judaism was a faith built on sacred sex.
At least, that's what Dan Brown told 60 million readers in "The Da
Vinci Code," speaking though a fictional Harvard scholar named Robert
Langdon. And while the characters are fictional, the novelist continues
to affirm the statement that opens his book: "All descriptions of
artwork, architecture, documents and secret rituals in this novel are
accurate."
Like the artwork and the secret rituals are going to sue him
for slander.
Whatever sells books. What I haven't figured out is why the
religious hysteria.
You know, I actually saw the movie with some friends. Our general
opinion was: entertaining, there are some places where you just have
to go with the flow of the movie, and we wouldn't have cast Tom Hanks
in it. But the one thing I don't understand is why, if there are
genetic descendants of Jesus, do they need special protection and
guarding? Apparently, in the last 2000 years they haven't done
anything special, so if you didn't make a fuss of them they would just
fade into the background of general society. And if they can blend
that well, does it matter if they have divine blood? And then I
remind myself, it's just a movie, it doesn't have to make sense.
Rebecca
Particularly, it does not make sense to plead that Jesus was a human
being - and at the same time, claim that his decendants are more than
human.
They didn't claim his descendants are more than human. In fact, quite
the opposite.
Less than human?
The were royalty though.
Born to rule over other human beings by right of birth. And you claim
that is not "more than human?"
You should have your batteries checked, mister.
TCross
Rolling my eyes.
3D Master
--
~~~~~
"I've got something to say; it's better to burn out than to fade away!"
- The Kurgan, Highlander
"Give me some sugar, baby!"
- Ashley J. 'Ash' Williams, Army of Darkness
~~~~~
Author of several stories, which can be found here:
http://members.chello.nl/~jg.temolder1/
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Sacred Sex Was Practiced In Jewish Temple, Says Da Vinci Code |
29 May 2006 12:44:06 PM |
|
|
wrote:
On 29 May 2006 07:59:29 -0700, wrote:
Sound of Trumpet wrote:
http://www.shns.com/shns/g_index2.cfm?action=detail&pk=RELIGION-FAITH-05-24-06
Sacred sex in the temple
By TERRY MATTINGLY
Scripps Howard News Service
24-MAY-06
In the beginning, Judaism was a faith built on sacred sex.
At least, that's what Dan Brown told 60 million readers in "The Da
Vinci Code," speaking though a fictional Harvard scholar named Robert
Langdon. And while the characters are fictional, the novelist continues
to affirm the statement that opens his book: "All descriptions of
artwork, architecture, documents and secret rituals in this novel are
accurate."
Like the artwork and the secret rituals are going to sue him
for slander.
Whatever sells books. What I haven't figured out is why the
religious hysteria.
You know, I actually saw the movie with some friends. Our general
opinion was: entertaining, there are some places where you just have
to go with the flow of the movie, and we wouldn't have cast Tom Hanks
in it. But the one thing I don't understand is why, if there are
genetic descendants of Jesus, do they need special protection and
guarding? Apparently, in the last 2000 years they haven't done
anything special, so if you didn't make a fuss of them they would just
fade into the background of general society. And if they can blend
that well, does it matter if they have divine blood? And then I
remind myself, it's just a movie, it doesn't have to make sense.
But it does have to make sense. Remember: "Truth is stranger
than fiction, because fiction has to make sense." The problem is,
the DVC _does_ make sense, a low, derivative, dumb kind of sense
but adequate to a film shoot-em-up (or whatever they do -- carve
them up? Burn them at the stake?) But that doesn't explain
either the huge sales figures or the religious hysteria.
By the way, I'm told the book has been banned in India and in
Muslim countries, where religious hysteria seems to be the
default situation.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "quibbler" |
|
| Title: Re: Sacred Sex Was Practiced In Jewish Temple, Says Da Vinci Code |
29 May 2006 07:40:43 PM |
|
|
In article <qt9m72hl4u43dc7osqdd707ljlhh44048d@4ax.com>,
r.rice@thevine.net says...
Apparently, in the last 2000 years they haven't done
anything special, so if you didn't make a fuss of them they would just
fade into the background of general society.
Plus, the lineage would be so dilute after 2000 years. Furthermore, if
his descendant was a female then, right away, in the first generation,
they lost his Y chromosome. At best Sophie could carry ribosomal DNA
from Mary Magdaline. But it's not clear that any significant DNA from
Jesus would be retained.
--
Quibbler (quibbler247atyahoo.com)
"It is fashionable to wax apocalyptic about the
threat to humanity posed by the AIDS virus, 'mad cow'
disease, and many others, but I think a case can be
made that faith is one of the world's great evils,
comparable to the smallpox virus but harder to
eradicate." -- Richard Dawkins
.
|
|
|
| User: "Midnighter" |
|
| Title: Re: Sacred Sex Was Practiced In Jewish Temple, Says Da Vinci Code |
30 May 2006 12:08:38 AM |
|
|
"quibbler" <quibbler247@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.1ee54278c91a57d89899db@news.readfreenews.net...
In article <qt9m72hl4u43dc7osqdd707ljlhh44048d@4ax.com>,
r.rice@thevine.net says...
Apparently, in the last 2000 years they haven't done
anything special, so if you didn't make a fuss of them they would just
fade into the background of general society.
Plus, the lineage would be so dilute after 2000 years. Furthermore, if
his descendant was a female then, right away, in the first generation,
they lost his Y chromosome. At best Sophie could carry ribosomal DNA
from Mary Magdaline. But it's not clear that any significant DNA from
Jesus would be retained.
Have you read preacher? The descendants of christ were inbred to the max.
they were a pretty messed up family. lol. its kind of funny what happens
in that one.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Terry Cross" |
|
| Title: Re: Sacred Sex Was Practiced In Jewish Temple, Says Da Vinci Code |
30 May 2006 12:19:34 AM |
|
|
Midnighter wrote:
"quibbler" <quibbler247@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.1ee54278c91a57d89899db@news.readfreenews.net...
In article <qt9m72hl4u43dc7osqdd707ljlhh44048d@4ax.com>,
r.rice@thevine.net says...
Apparently, in the last 2000 years they haven't done
anything special, so if you didn't make a fuss of them they would just
fade into the background of general society.
Plus, the lineage would be so dilute after 2000 years. Furthermore, if
his descendant was a female then, right away, in the first generation,
they lost his Y chromosome. At best Sophie could carry ribosomal DNA
from Mary Magdaline. But it's not clear that any significant DNA from
Jesus would be retained.
Have you read preacher? The descendants of christ were inbred to the max.
they were a pretty messed up family. lol. its kind of funny what happens
in that one.
Scientifically, inbreeding is not always a bad thing. If you believe
in Evolution, you have to believe that every new species begins with a
single breeding pair whose offspring inbreed continually to produce a
population.
Inbreeding is only bad when it enables recessive genetic flaws to
become manifest.
TCross
.
|
|
|
| User: "Llanzlan Klazmon" |
|
| Title: Re: Sacred Sex Was Practiced In Jewish Temple, Says Da Vinci Code |
30 May 2006 10:41:18 PM |
|
|
"Terry Cross" <tcross77@hotmail.com> wrote in news:1148966374.833618.211080
@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com:
Midnighter wrote:
"quibbler" <quibbler247@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.1ee54278c91a57d89899db@news.readfreenews.net...
In article <qt9m72hl4u43dc7osqdd707ljlhh44048d@4ax.com>,
r.rice@thevine.net says...
Apparently, in the last 2000 years they haven't done
anything special, so if you didn't make a fuss of them they would just
fade into the background of general society.
Plus, the lineage would be so dilute after 2000 years. Furthermore, if
his descendant was a female then, right away, in the first generation,
they lost his Y chromosome. At best Sophie could carry ribosomal DNA
from Mary Magdaline. But it's not clear that any significant DNA from
Jesus would be retained.
Have you read preacher? The descendants of christ were inbred to the max.
they were a pretty messed up family. lol. its kind of funny what happens
in that one.
Scientifically, inbreeding is not always a bad thing. If you believe
in Evolution, you have to believe that every new species begins with a
single breeding pair whose offspring inbreed continually to produce a
population.
Your ignorance of biology would be laughable if it weren't shamefull.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-intro-to-biology.html
Klazmon.
<SNIP>
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "quibbler" |
|
| Title: Re: Sacred Sex Was Practiced In Jewish Temple, Says Da Vinci Code |
30 May 2006 04:41:13 PM |
|
|
In article <1148966374.833618.211080@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com>,
tcross77@hotmail.com says...
Midnighter wrote:
"quibbler" <quibbler247@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.1ee54278c91a57d89899db@news.readfreenews.net...
In article <qt9m72hl4u43dc7osqdd707ljlhh44048d@4ax.com>,
r.rice@thevine.net says...
Apparently, in the last 2000 years they haven't done
anything special, so if you didn't make a fuss of them they would just
fade into the background of general society.
Plus, the lineage would be so dilute after 2000 years. Furthermore, if
his descendant was a female then, right away, in the first generation,
they lost his Y chromosome. At best Sophie could carry ribosomal DNA
from Mary Magdaline. But it's not clear that any significant DNA from
Jesus would be retained.
Have you read preacher? The descendants of christ were inbred to the max.
they were a pretty messed up family. lol. its kind of funny what happens
in that one.
Scientifically, inbreeding is not always a bad thing. If you believe
in Evolution, you have to believe that every new species begins with a
single breeding pair
BZZZZZZZZZZZZT. That's not how it happens, chuckles. Two populations
end up getting isolated to the point that they can no longer interbreed,
but it doesn't require a single pair of founders.
whose offspring inbreed continually to produce a
population.
Well there isn't much point in breeding if you continually get the same
genes in only slight reassortment. Populations are more robust with
higher degrees of variation.
Inbreeding is only bad when it enables recessive genetic flaws to
become manifest.
And that's frequently what actually happens.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mark K. Bilbo" |
|
| Title: Re: Sacred Sex Was Practiced In Jewish Temple, Says Da Vinci Code |
30 May 2006 06:36:14 AM |
|
|
Previously, on alt.atheism, Terry Cross in episode
<1148966374.833618.211080@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com>...
Scientifically, inbreeding is not always a bad thing. If you believe in
Evolution, you have to believe that every new species begins with a single
breeding pair whose offspring inbreed continually to produce a population.
Where did you get *that?
--
Mark K. Bilbo
--------------------------------------------------
"As hip as it is for outsiders to blame New Orleans
for everything bad that happened during and after
Hurricane Katrina, the truth is that the people
who lived here were much more prepared for a big
storm than the federal government that promised
us flood protection." [Jarvis DeBerry]
http://makeashorterlink.com/?V180525DC
"Everything New Orleans"
http://www.nola.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "Terry Cross" |
|
| Title: Re: Sacred Sex Was Practiced In Jewish Temple, Says Da Vinci Code |
30 May 2006 12:31:36 PM |
|
|
Mark K. Bilbo wrote:
Previously, on alt.atheism, Terry Cross in episode
<1148966374.833618.211080@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com>...
Scientifically, inbreeding is not always a bad thing. If you believe in
Evolution, you have to believe that every new species begins with a single
breeding pair whose offspring inbreed continually to produce a population.
Where did you get *that?
Would you assert that migration across species boundaries happened with
herds of individuals? If so, what was the size of the average herd?
Say, how MANY fish discovered legs among their scales and walked out of
the sea on any given day?
TCross
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mike Schilling" |
|
| Title: Re: Sacred Sex Was Practiced In Jewish Temple, Says Da Vinci Code |
30 May 2006 12:53:48 PM |
|
|
"Terry Cross" <tcross77@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1149010296.620327.19120@r44g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Mark K. Bilbo wrote:
Previously, on alt.atheism, Terry Cross in episode
<1148966374.833618.211080@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com>...
Scientifically, inbreeding is not always a bad thing. If you believe
in
Evolution, you have to believe that every new species begins with a
single
breeding pair whose offspring inbreed continually to produce a
population.
Where did you get *that?
Would you assert that migration across species boundaries happened with
herds of individuals? If so, what was the size of the average herd?
Say, how MANY fish discovered legs among their scales and walked out of
the sea on any given day?
Even if evolution worked that way, ("Oh look, the baby has an opposable
thumb.") why would you assume the answer is precisely "two"?
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Wayne Throop" |
|
| Title: Re: Sacred Sex Was Practiced In Jewish Temple, Says Da Vinci Code |
30 May 2006 12:42:31 PM |
|
|
Ah, an inappropriately cross-posted flaim-bait. How jolly.
Ah, upthread I see it came from Sonic Strumpet. That explains
the trollish crossposting.
::: "Terry Cross" <tcross77@hotmail.com>
::: Scientifically, inbreeding is not always a bad thing. If you
::: believe in Evolution, you have to believe that every new species
::: begins with a single breeding pair whose offspring inbreed
::: continually to produce a population.
That turns out not to be the case.
: "Terry Cross" <tcross77@hotmail.com>
: Would you assert that migration across species boundaries happened
: with herds of individuals?
Not quite. I would observe that species boundaries are fuzzy
and indistinct, rather than sharp and absolute. "Being a different
species", even in the steady state, doesn't mean you can never breed
with anything not in your species. Mutual fertility of members of two
distinct populations drops the longer they are isolated, but nobody is
ever fertile with just one coincidentally-born individual.
So nobody proposes the starting point is a "breeding pair". Instead,
it's an isolated poulation, possibly a fairly large one, and new
traits are introduced into an individuals in that population. Any such
individual can breed with most everybody else of appropriate gender in
the population. If advantageous, these traits will eventually be had
by all the population members some generations hence, without any single
absolute pinchpoint of genetic diversity. And after enough generations
in isolation, members of the population will no longer be interfertile
with descendants of the population they've been isolated from.
The point being, if you're going to argue that evolution is unsound or
implausible, you actually have to direct your criticism towards what
evolutionary biologists actually state, not towards your own straw man.
Consider that the so-called mitochondrial Eve most likely never met the
Y-chromosome Adam. And that humans today have genes that never came from
either of those individuals (that is, genetic diversity is larger than
a simple "adam and eve" scenario would imply). Specifically, consider
how that could be so, and why it's not even surprising.
Wayne Throop http://sheol.org/throopw
.
|
|
|
| User: "Terry Cross" |
|
| Title: Re: Sacred Sex Was Practiced In Jewish Temple, Says Da Vinci Code |
31 May 2006 01:19:17 PM |
|
|
Wayne Throop wrote:
Ah, an inappropriately cross-posted flaim-bait. How jolly.
Ah, upthread I see it came from Sonic Strumpet. That explains
the trollish crossposting.
::: "Terry Cross" <tcross77@hotmail.com>
::: Scientifically, inbreeding is not always a bad thing. If you
::: believe in Evolution, you have to believe that every new species
::: begins with a single breeding pair whose offspring inbreed
::: continually to produce a population.
That turns out not to be the case.
: "Terry Cross" <tcross77@hotmail.com>
: Would you assert that migration across species boundaries happened
: with herds of individuals?
Not quite. I would observe that species boundaries are fuzzy
and indistinct, rather than sharp and absolute. "Being a different
species", even in the steady state, doesn't mean you can never breed
with anything not in your species. Mutual fertility of members of two
distinct populations drops the longer they are isolated, but nobody is
ever fertile with just one coincidentally-born individual.
So nobody proposes the starting point is a "breeding pair". Instead,
it's an isolated poulation, possibly a fairly large one, and new
traits are introduced into an individuals in that population.
Proposing an "isolated" population does not change Darwin's parameters
or mechanisms of Evolution. Instead, is simply hides the mechanisms
for the actual change from the fossil record, and proposes a Ta-Da! All
done just when we are hoping to see the change in the act of happening.
Whatever mechanisms you propose must still be operant within that
"isolated" population.
Any such
individual can breed with most everybody else of appropriate gender in
the population. If advantageous, these traits will eventually be had
by all the population members some generations hence,
All individuals who have the new feature must be relatives of each
other.
Suppose the advantage is a 6th digit on each hand (forepaw). The
mutancy happened first with an individual, the Ancestor. All
subsequent examples of the 6th digit are descendant from the Ancestor
(unless you propose multiple mutancy within the same generation, like a
Royal Flush).
For each generation, the 6th digit individuals must interbreed with
relative exclusion of the 5-digit individuals. We may naturally expect
them to do this, given that they have higher survival aptitude than
their 5-digit cousins.
without any single
absolute pinchpoint of genetic diversity.
The obvious pinchpoint is the Ancestor. Those not descendant from the
Ancestor die out.
And after enough generations
in isolation, members of the population will no longer be interfertile
with descendants of the population they've been isolated from.
That part is not interesting. Whether our isolated group ever becomes
un-isolated and travels to the big cities of Mars is irrelevant. The
mechanisms of Evolution must work within the isolated group, or nothing
ever happens.
The point being, if you're going to argue that evolution is unsound or
implausible, you actually have to direct your criticism towards what
evolutionary biologists actually state, not towards your own straw man.
Evolutionary biologists are a slippery lot, with many tricks in logic
such as the one you exhibit here. Proposal for isolation accomplishes
nothing.
Consider that the so-called mitochondrial Eve most likely never met the
Y-chromosome Adam. And that humans today have genes that never came from
either of those individuals (that is, genetic diversity is larger than
a simple "adam and eve" scenario would imply). Specifically, consider
how that could be so, and why it's not even surprising.
Consider also that these theories are just half-baked ideas that come
and go with the dandelions on the front law - each is short lived, but
the phenomenon is always with us:
"A recent challenge to the Eve theory has been the observation that the
mitochondria of sperm are sometimes passed to offspring. Still other
evidence suggests that sperm and egg mitochondrial DNA may "recombine",
or swap pieces of sequence with each other. So mitochondria may not be
so pure a matrilineal marker as they were supposed when the theory was
advanced. Depending on how frequently paternal inheritance and
recombination occurred, as well as when they occurred, it may be that
no Eve even existed. But scientists still disagree on whether these
processes do occur, and if they do, whether they occur frequently
enough to rule out an Eve."
http://www.reference.com/browse/wiki/Mitochondrial_Eve
TCross
.
|
|
|
| User: "Wayne Throop" |
|
| Title: Re: Sacred Sex Was Practiced In Jewish Temple, Says Da Vinci Code |
31 May 2006 02:17:30 PM |
|
|
: "Terry Cross" <tcross77@hotmail.com>
: Proposing an "isolated" population does not change Darwin's parameters
: or mechanisms of Evolution. Instead, is simply hides the mechanisms
: for the actual change from the fossil record, and proposes a Ta-Da! All
: done just when we are hoping to see the change in the act of happening.
Nothing is hidden. Your assumptions about what makes a species
a species are simply defective.
: Suppose the advantage is a 6th digit on each hand (forepaw). The
: mutancy happened first with an individual, the Ancestor. All
: subsequent examples of the 6th digit are descendant from the Ancestor
Gee. You say that almost as if it were significant somehow. It isn't,
because all the descendants aren't descended ONLY from the ancestor.
(You *are* aware that you have two parents, four grantparents, and so on,
are you not?)
: For each generation, the 6th digit individuals must interbreed with
: relative exclusion of the 5-digit individuals.
No, five digit individuals merely need to die more often over time.
Eventually, everybody around will be a descendant of the original
6-digit individual, and also descended from most of the other members
of the population at that time.
You *are* aware that sexual reproduction involves recombination,
so that an Nth generation descendant has genes from more than one
of his Nth-great-grandparents, yes?
: We may naturally expect them to do this, given that they have higher
: survival aptitude than their 5-digit cousins.
Which means, they don't need to "interbreed" exclusively with 6-digit
individuals as something they choose to do; they simply will have fewer
and fewer 5-dgit individuals to mate with, over time.
But in the meantime, in a 5/6 digit mating, half the children will
have the six-digit gene. If those half tend to survive more often,
then more and more of hte population will have the six-digit gene. Yet,
they will not be losing the genetic contribution of the 5-gene parent,
since half the genes of each child came from the 5-gene parent.
Due to the recombination you seem to have been overlooking.
: The obvious pinchpoint is the Ancestor.
Only if by "obvious" you mean "wrong".
: Those not descendant from the Ancestor die out.
True. But that doesn't make it a pinchpoint.
Because they are still descended from all of their Nth-great-grandparents,
most of whom are not "the Ancestor".
: Evolutionary biologists are a slippery lot,
No, they merely have critics that don't actually listen to what they say.
These critics mistake rejecting their straw men for being "slippery".
: "A recent challenge to the Eve theory has been the observation that
: the mitochondria of sperm are sometimes passed to offspring. Still
: other evidence suggests that sperm and egg mitochondrial DNA may
: "recombine", or swap pieces of sequence with each other.
Which, of course, is irrelevant to the issue at hand, which is
whether an "eve", if she existed, was a genetic pinchpoint generally.
She wasn't. Nor did she necessary know the Y-chromosome Adam.
And he, if he existed, wasn't a poinchpoint either.
And this has nothing to do with being "slippery" or any esotetric theory.
It's simple reproductive biology. Meiosis can be seen in a microscope.
And the fact that selection effects operate differentially on different
genes (so that hypothetically the 6-finger gene becoming fixed in a population
does not mean the genetic diversity for other genes is reduced at all),
is also directly observed.
The fact that you are ignoring these observations, and misconstruing the
process of a particular gene becoming fixed in a population, does not
make evolutionary biologists "slippery".
Wayne Throop http://sheol.org/throopw
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mark K. Bilbo" |
|
| Title: Re: Sacred Sex Was Practiced In Jewish Temple, Says Da Vinci Code |
01 Jun 2006 12:30:49 PM |
|
|
Previously, on alt.atheism, Terry Cross in episode
<1149099557.508349.102300@c74g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>...
Wayne Throop wrote:
Ah, an inappropriately cross-posted flaim-bait. How jolly. Ah, upthread
I see it came from Sonic Strumpet. That explains the trollish
crossposting.
::: "Terry Cross" <tcross77@hotmail.com>
::: Scientifically, inbreeding is not always a bad thing. If you
::: believe in Evolution, you have to believe that every new species
::: begins with a single breeding pair whose offspring inbreed
::: continually to produce a population.
That turns out not to be the case.
: "Terry Cross" <tcross77@hotmail.com>
: Would you assert that migration across species boundaries happened
: with herds of individuals?
Not quite. I would observe that species boundaries are fuzzy and
indistinct, rather than sharp and absolute. "Being a different
species", even in the steady state, doesn't mean you can never breed
with anything not in your species. Mutual fertility of members of two
distinct populations drops the longer they are isolated, but nobody is
ever fertile with just one coincidentally-born individual.
So nobody proposes the starting point is a "breeding pair". Instead,
it's an isolated poulation, possibly a fairly large one, and new traits
are introduced into an individuals in that population.
Proposing an "isolated" population does not change Darwin's parameters or
mechanisms of Evolution. Instead, is simply hides the mechanisms for the
actual change from the fossil record, and proposes a Ta-Da! All done just
when we are hoping to see the change in the act of happening.
Okay you're just making this ***** up right?
--
Mark K. Bilbo
--------------------------------------------------
"As hip as it is for outsiders to blame New Orleans
for everything bad that happened during and after
Hurricane Katrina, the truth is that the people
who lived here were much more prepared for a big
storm than the federal government that promised
us flood protection." [Jarvis DeBerry]
http://makeashorterlink.com/?V180525DC
"Everything New Orleans"
http://www.nola.com
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Sacred Sex Was Practiced In Jewish Temple, Says Da Vinci Code |
31 May 2006 02:13:33 PM |
|
|
Terry Cross wrote:
...
Suppose the advantage is a 6th digit on each hand (forepaw). The
mutancy happened first with an individual, the Ancestor. All
subsequent examples of the 6th digit are descendant from the Ancestor
(unless you propose multiple mutancy within the same generation, like a
Royal Flush). ...
Before embarking on arguments like this, you might try learning
something about genetics, the ways in which genes affect the
phenotype, and so on.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Roy Jose Lorr" |
|
| Title: Re: Sacred Sex Was Practiced In Jewish Temple, Says Da Vinci Code |
31 May 2006 11:06:13 PM |
|
|
Wayne Throop wrote:
Ah, an inappropriately cross-posted flaim-bait. How jolly.
Ah, upthread I see it came from Sonic Strumpet. That explains
the trollish crossposting.
::: "Terry Cross" <tcross77@hotmail.com>
::: Scientifically, inbreeding is not always a bad thing. If you
::: believe in Evolution, you have to believe that every new species
::: begins with a single breeding pair whose offspring inbreed
::: continually to produce a population.
That turns out not to be the case.
: "Terry Cross" <tcross77@hotmail.com>
: Would you assert that migration across species boundaries happened
: with herds of individuals?
Not quite. I would observe that species boundaries are fuzzy
and indistinct, rather than sharp and absolute. "Being a different
species", even in the steady state, doesn't mean you can never breed
with anything not in your species. Mutual fertility of members of two
distinct populations drops the longer they are isolated, but nobody is
ever fertile with just one coincidentally-born individual.
So nobody proposes the starting point is a "breeding pair". Instead,
it's an isolated poulation, possibly a fairly large one, and new
traits are introduced into an individuals in that population. Any such
individual can breed with most everybody else of appropriate gender in
the population. If advantageous, these traits will eventually be had
by all the population members some generations hence, without any single
absolute pinchpoint of genetic diversity. And after enough generations
in isolation, members of the population will no longer be interfertile
with descendants of the population they've been isolated from.
The point being, if you're going to argue that evolution is unsound or
implausible, you actually have to direct your criticism towards what
evolutionary biologists actually state, not towards your own straw man.
Consider that the so-called mitochondrial Eve most likely never met the
Y-chromosome Adam. And that humans today have genes that never came from
either of those individuals (that is, genetic diversity is larger than
a simple "adam and eve" scenario would imply). Specifically, consider
how that could be so, and why it's not even surprising.
Nuts. change has a definite beginning -- cause and effect.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Wayne Throop" |
|
| Title: Re: Sacred Sex Was Practiced In Jewish Temple, Says Da Vinci Code |
31 May 2006 11:34:28 PM |
|
|
: Roy Jose Lorr <Kenthz@comcast.net>
: Nuts. change has a definite beginning -- cause and effect.
It's a long way from "change has a definite beginning",
to "every new species begins with a single breeding pair
who's offspring inbreed continually". The former is true.
The latter is not. The latter is, in fact, nuts.
Wayne Throop http://sheol.org/throopw
.
|
|
|
| User: "Roy Jose Lorr" |
|
| Title: Re: Sacred Sex Was Practiced In Jewish Temple, Says Da Vinci Code |
01 Jun 2006 01:51:53 AM |
|
|
Wayne Throop wrote:
: Roy Jose Lorr <Kenthz@comcast.net>
: Nuts. change has a definite beginning -- cause and effect.
It's a long way from "change has a definite beginning",
to "every new species begins with a single breeding pair
who's offspring inbreed continually". The former is true.
The latter is not. The latter is, in fact, nuts.
Where do the breeding pairs come from? In any case, no
[new] species are formed from original pairs. There is no
evidence to support one species changing into another.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Wayne Throop" |
|
| Title: Re: Sacred Sex Was Practiced In Jewish Temple, Says Da Vinci Code |
01 Jun 2006 10:55:09 AM |
|
|
: Roy Jose Lorr <Kenthz@comcast.net>
: Where do the breeding pairs come from?
What breeding pairs? There are no new-species "breeding pairs" in the
evolutionary model. As has just been explained extensively in the thread.
If you want to criticize evolutionary biology, you have to start with
what it actually says, not with your own straw men.
: There is no evidence to support one species changing into another.
Only in the sense that there's no evidence that can't be ignored if
you plug your ears and says "LA-LA-LA-LA" loud enough.
Wayne Throop http://sheol.org/throopw
.
|
|
|
| User: "brique" |
|
| Title: Re: Sacred Sex Was Practiced In Jewish Temple, Says Da Vinci Code |
01 Jun 2006 11:33:51 AM |
|
|
Wayne Throop <> wrote in message
news:1149177309@sheol.org...
: Roy Jose Lorr <Kenthz@comcast.net>
: Where do the breeding pairs come from?
What breeding pairs? There are no new-species "breeding pairs" in the
evolutionary model. As has just been explained extensively in the thread.
If you want to criticize evolutionary biology, you have to start with
what it actually says, not with your own straw men.
: There is no evidence to support one species changing into another.
Only in the sense that there's no evidence that can't be ignored if
you plug your ears and says "LA-LA-LA-LA" loud enough.
So, where did the original LA-LA breeding pairs come from then? Where they a
mutant sub-set of the TRA-LA species or did aliens land and interbreed
LI-LI's and TA-TA's? What happened to the TI-TI's that were left over?
Wayne Throop http://sheol.org/throopw
.
|
|
|
| User: "Wayne Throop" |
|
| Title: Re: Sacred Sex Was Practiced In Jewish Temple, Says Da Vinci Code |
01 Jun 2006 11:50:17 AM |
|
|
: "brique" <briquenoir@freeuk.c0m>
: So, where did the original LA-LA breeding pairs come from then?
La Brea, of course. That's where all the fossils in LA are.
Wayne Throop http://sheol.org/throopw
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
