When did icest become a sin?

If you believe the biblical tale of Adam and Eve, they had children. Ok, so who are they going to procreate with and not have incest? So Just when did incest become taboo? Clearly not in the beginning. What say you, religious types.

Originally posted by sonhouse
If you believe the biblical tale of Adam and Eve, they had children. Ok, so who are they going to procreate with and not have incest? So Just when did incest become taboo? Clearly not in the beginning. What say you, religious types.

Certainly not before Lot was seduced by both his daughters on successive nights, in order to preserve the bloodline.

http://www.thebricktestament.com/genesis/the_seduction_of_lot/gn19_31-32.html

Why did I never hear this passage in church?

Originally posted by sonhouse
If you believe the biblical tale of Adam and Eve, they had children. Ok, so who are they going to procreate with and not have incest? So Just when did incest become taboo? Clearly not in the beginning. What say you, religious types.

Just so you know, not every one is a rabid fundamentalist.

Originally posted by sonhouse
If you believe the biblical tale of Adam and Eve, they had children. Ok, so who are they going to procreate with and not have incest? So Just when did incest become taboo? Clearly not in the beginning. What say you, religious types.

And more importantly, how come incest leads to stupidity and all kinds of unhealthy physical mutations these days, but it didn't back then?



No wait! I see. :

Originally posted by Conrau K
Just so you know, not every one is a rabid fundamentalist.

You're saying your ok with incest?

Originally posted by sonhouse
If you believe the biblical tale of Adam and Eve, they had children. Ok, so who are they going to procreate with and not have incest? So Just when did incest become taboo? Clearly not in the beginning. What say you, religious types.

Assuming the abiogenesis myth is the correct scenerio, how do you get around this dilemma? Our beginnings would still have been an incestuous one, no? Does this mean that atheists approve of incest as well?

Originally posted by whodey
Assuming the abiogenesis myth is the correct scenerio, how do you get around this dilemma? Our beginnings would still have been an incestuous one, no? Does this mean that atheists approve of incest as well?

myth (mĭth) pronunciation
n.

1.
1. A traditional, typically ancient story dealing with supernatural beings, ancestors, or heroes that serves as a fundamental type in the worldview of a people, as by explaining aspects of the natural world or delineating the psychology, customs, or ideals of society: the myth of Eros and Psyche; a creation myth.
2. Such stories considered as a group: the realm of myth.
2. A popular belief or story that has become associated with a person, institution, or occurrence, especially one considered to illustrate a cultural ideal: a star whose fame turned her into a myth; the pioneer myth of suburbia.
3. A fiction or half-truth, especially one that forms part of an ideology.
4. A fictitious story, person, or thing: “German artillery superiority on the Western Front was a myth” (Leon Wolff).

[New Latin m[ymacr]thus, from Late Latin m[ymacr]thos, from Greek mūthos.]


Strangely, abiogenesis doesn't fit into the category of a "myth". It's more of a hypothesis or perhaps conjecture.

ANyway, why do you think that abiogenesis requires incest? The earliest living things are posited to be asexual, not sexual. Humans on the other hand.....

Originally posted by scottishinnz
myth (mĭth) pronunciation
n.

1.
1. A traditional, typically ancient story dealing with supernatural beings, ancestors, or heroes that serves as a fundamental type in the worldview of a people, as by explaining aspects of the natural world or delineating the psychology, customs, or ideals of society: the myth of Eros and Psyche; a c earliest living things are posited to be asexual, not sexual. Humans on the other hand.....

I like this definition you provided. "A fiction or half-truth, especially one that forms part of an ideology" I think this fits like a glove. We were created from the earth, but not by ourselves.

As far as your comment in regards to asexual reproduction, at what point did creation deviate from asexual reproduction? Also, once the human species came into existence, did this happen with only 1 or 2 or 3 or 4 etc. humans at one time? I suppose if you say that a large group evolved simultaneously, you could possible get around the notion of any type of incestuous activity. It then begs the question as to how this could have occured?

Edit: I like your frog much better than that of Lenin. The frog is much easier on the eyes. Its almost as if someone kissed Lenin on the cheek and he turned into a beautifal frog.

Originally posted by whodey
I like this definition you provided. "A fiction or half-truth, especially one that forms part of an ideology" I think this fits like a glove. We were created from the earth, but not by ourselves.

As far as your comment in regards to asexual reproduction, at what point did creation deviate from asexual reproduction? Also, once the human species came int ...[text shortened]... eyes. Its almost as if someone kissed Lenin on the cheek and he turned into a beautifal frog.

Thanks for the frog related comment. It's merely a play on words. Thomas Henry Huxley was referred to as "Darwin's Bulldog", so....


As for the definition, well, I wouldn't class abiogenesis as either a "fiction" or a "half-truth". I mean, all the evidence we have points to it. Even some of the experiments done, such as the Miller / Urey expt.

When one species evolves into another it rarely happens with a big "whooshing" noise, Whodey. It's more likely that groups evolve out of others. The problem for any taxonomist is to delineate species. What separates humans from other apes? Brain size? Is that all? So why aren't dolphins classified as human then? Is it to do with hairiness? Is it somthing else? Actually, species are normally classified by a number of characteristics, not just one. That's one reason that I think it's probably impossible to nail down the moment that humans first evolved.

Originally posted by whodey
I like this definition you provided. "A fiction or half-truth, especially one that forms part of an ideology" I think this fits like a glove. We were created from the earth, but not by ourselves.

As far as your comment in regards to asexual reproduction, at what point did creation deviate from asexual reproduction? Also, once the human species came int ...[text shortened]... eyes. Its almost as if someone kissed Lenin on the cheek and he turned into a beautifal frog.

There was not a hard line between being human and not human. The whole point of Evolution is that the changes are small enough that the mutants can still reproduce with the main population. Otherwise they would die out and the population would remain the same.

EDIT: Talk about timing.

Originally posted by XanthosNZ
There was not a hard line between being human and not human. The whole point of Evolution is that the changes are small enough that the mutants can still reproduce with the main population. Otherwise they would die out and the population would remain the same.

EDIT: Talk about timing.

Thinking about that, if a mutation occured that gave a protohuman longer legs, say, and that ultimately proved to be usefull getting out of the clutches of a predator, since that individual would be the first with that particular mutation, it would get weakened by mating with the population around it so the mutation would have to get around quite a bit of the population before it would be considered dominant.
So it would be one step forward and two steps back for a few generations.

Originally posted by sonhouse
Thinking about that, if a mutation occured that gave a protohuman longer legs, say, and that ultimately proved to be usefull getting out of the clutches of a predator othe first mutation for that happened, since there would be only one, at least in a small population, then that individual still having the ability to have offspring with its unmutated buddies ...[text shortened]... ions down the line. So it seems a mutation is bound to get weaker before it gets stronger again.

Depends on alot of things. First, it depends on whether the mutant allele is dominant or recessive. Dominant alleles for longer legs would quickly thrive in a population where long legs are favoured by females. Recessive alleles would still stand a chance though, since genes cannot be "watered down" and remain discrete, even when not expressed. You are right though, and the study of mutant genes spreading through a population is a fascinating study in it's own right.

Originally posted by Conrau K
Just so you know, not every one is a rabid fundamentalist.

Wow, revelation upon revalation!🙂 So are you just a plain vanilla fundamentalist then? Anyway, I didn't bring up the F word!

Originally posted by scottishinnz
Depends on alot of things. First, it depends on whether the mutant allele is dominant or recessive. Dominant alleles for longer legs would quickly thrive in a population where long legs are favoured by females. Recessive alleles would still stand a chance though, since genes cannot be "watered down" and remain discrete, even when not expressed. You ...[text shortened]... tudy of mutant genes spreading through a population is a fascinating study in it's own right.

Love the Bullfrog! I got the connection🙂 So if an allele was recessive, it would have to occur several times independently I assume, if it was ever to be bumped up to dominant status, right? Several times in the available population I mean, not one in Australia and another in New Zealand where they could not interbreed because of geography. I was thinking about the way mutations happen and a thought occurred to me ( I try to have thoughts at least once a month): can we think of the genome as a functioning computer in its own right so the conditions that lead to mutations may occur multiple times in the same population and allow recessives to get together and become dominant? It seems to me there would have to be some kind of computing going on for an ecological or predatory stress to result in a mutation that happens to favor the recipient. That would explain this kind of seemingly self-directed mutation we see where the following generations have an edge over the previous. Otherwise wouldn't we have to conclude some kind of nervous system feedback into the gene structure to alter it for the next generation? I don't see these kind of mutations as being totally random, I would think randomness would be so slow as to take millions of years to advance a species but we see some changes like the moths observed in the UK that within a few generations had mutated to a type that matched the new color of the trees for camouflage, remember that story? Random mutations wouldn't cut it there I would think, leading one to conclude an active feedback going on with a projective feature that would say, "I see if my color got more mottled, I would be able to hide myself better on these newly recolored trees which changed colors not by biology but by simply being in the path of the newly industrialized London and started turning brown and mottled by the smog, the moths were able to mutate rather quickly to compensate.
Sounds like computation to me. What do you say? I am thinking the DNA itself is the computer.

Originally posted by sonhouse
If you believe the biblical tale of Adam and Eve, they had children. Ok, so who are they going to procreate with and not have incest? So Just when did incest become taboo? Clearly not in the beginning. What say you, religious types.

were they brother and sister? i dont think they could have been if they were created to be brother and sister they have to have the same mom and dad but they didnt have neither, and i dont remember the bible ever saying they were related.