|
This entry is part of the Blogging-the-Bible series. To see a list of passages, covered so far click here. |
I just heard an excellent BloggingHeads talk between Robert Wright and David Plotz (whose Blogging the Bible series is the inspiration for my strangely-similarly-named series). The talk was about David publishing his Blogging the Bible as a book. David noted that there are lots of very weird stories, even in books we think we’re familiar with since their stories have circled the popular imagination (eg. Genesis). Gen 30 is a great example. [NOTE: The story is pretty unclear. Many commentators differ on what actually happened. This is my flawed reading]
Jacob’s just finished serving his uncle Laban for 12 years for the privilege of marrying Laban’s daughters Leah and Rachel. Now he wants to go home, and wants compensation for tending Laban’s flocks so well. He proposes an alternative to payment: Laban is to give him the unusually coloured animals from his flock (speckled, brown etc). Laban agrees, presumably because these are recognised as being inferior. However he’s also a great schemer. To minimise Jacob’s reward even more, he takes all the speckled animals away (to be pastured far from Jacob), leaving a perfectly white flock for Jacob to tend. Nice, huh?
Rather than praying for a miracle, Jacob gets to work. He places speckled rods near the watering troughs. The animals mate at the troughs and the ones that looked at the speckled rods when mating have speckled offspring. He then gets back at Laban in a nice counterstrike, placing the rods only before the eyes of the best animals. So after a while there are lots of speckled animals (that are also the choicest!) him to keep. Leaving his uncle with but the meanest dregs.
The story is probably the earliest record of artificial selection on livestock, with a repeated, methodical process of selective breeding and an understanding of basic inheritance (Laban knows how few speckled sheep will be produced by the flock once he “cleaned” it). But it also contains a bit of folk wisdom we don’t subscribe to: that looking at something whilst having sex influences the offspring. (And in a direct way too: speckled rods = speckled sheep.) There are a few ways for to get out of this:
- Plain denial (“of course looking at something while mating influences the offspring!”)
- It was a miraculous intervention by God to increase Jacob’s flock
- Natural laws have changed since Biblical times (several Talmudic commentators say this, at least for other stories)
- The story is symbolic (of what?!)
The miracle explanation is the nicest, being consistent. But the actual author treats the story in a very naturalistic way. God isn’t mentioned at all, and the language suggests this as an example of Jacob being exalted for his knowledge and cunning. Whilst this may undercut a pious reading of the story it also brings out the story’s strength.
The Bible’s an anthology documenting how a few related cultures made sense of the world over several thousand years. Is it surprising that it contains their science, their version of “genetic engineering”? Rather than laughing at how silly their theories were, this story makes me admire people’s curiosity and desire to explain the world systematically — even in a time that we usually (and rightly) associate with superstition.
41 comments ↓
Read the Bible as one would any ancient text of mythology and it is indeed interesting. And I agree that one refrain from laughing at the (what we now see as) ignorance of these ancient peoples. There were genuine attempts to understand nature, and they did the best they could with what was available to them.
Laughing at people in our modern times (when they really ought to know better) who try to defend the Truth and Profound Wisdom (when it goes against all that we understand via the Scientific Method and modern standards of Ethics) such passages provide is fine.
There are a few ways for to get out of this:
You leave out a fifth perspective, “this story is a charming folktale,” which doesn’t require one to “get out” of anything at all, nor to draw a symbolic meaning. That said:
The story is symbolic (of what?!)
I don’t have any special feelings about this story, but I can easily imagine a few ways to read it as a fable or metaphor. Maybe it means that what we think affects how we behave — focusing on something can alter the fruits of one’s labors, therefore focus on something that will produce the results you want. Maybe it’s just yet another tale about the clever underdog, reminding us that cleverness is more important than brute strength or that the “good guy” wins in the end. Maybe it’s a warning to reconsider our assumptions, because in this case, the brown and speckled sheep were the best of the flock. Etc., etc. I’m not saying any of these interpretations is correct — just that it’s silly and inaccurate to say that there’s no way the story could be read as symbolic.
Stephen — sometimes it’s more apt to weep for a few modern defenders of such Truths
Daisy — I meant getting out of it if you have a commitment to the Bible as some infallible word of God. Because in that case the fact that it focuses on Jacob outsmarting someone doesn’t change that the method ascribed to Jacob in the story is wrong. As in, even as a metaphor it relies on an incorrect understanding of the world. Which would not be a problem for you but is a problem for those with a more literalist understanding.
Oh, indeed! But I save my weeping for those that have not had the benefit of knowing better.
Ah, okay — fair enough. The story, like much of the Bible, does indeed present some pretty intractable problems for literalists.
Yakub (Jacob) grafting process was the making of the albino race. According to science, white and albino at the molecular level, is one in the same. Scientific evidence reveals that people with blondhaired/blue eye and redhaired/green eye people share one common ancestor who lived about 6,000 years ago–the exact time of genesis and Yakub’s genetic engineering process on the island of Pelan (Patmos)! Yakub, also known as Jehovah I and King Yakubher of Egypt, a black scientist, subjected his followers to selective breeding, until the freckled and patchy albions turned white. They were quarantined in the Caucus Mountains, from whence they emerged 2,000 years later, wreaking havoc on society.
One more thing. The Albinos were known as lepers in the bible. Leprosy denotes white skin. Check it out! It was a plague and disease called albinism. Common symptoms today are pale skin, light eyes (blue, gree), light hair (blond, red), infertility, hypersensitivity to UV rays, low IQ, poor vision, weakened immune system…it has to do with the lack of melanin, which gets its blackness from Carbon, the building blocks of life. Black people are the only normal human gene, everything else is hybrid.
Scientific evidence reveals?! Well then there must be academic citations to quality peer-reviewed papers in CREDIBLE journals — I await…
I am intrigued. Maybe visual cues can effect the passing of genetic recessive traits. I am a scientist and not joking, I think this is worth researching.
Mabye the genetic splicing events are not entirely random, and can be controlled to some degree.
Sorry not splicing, homologous recombination of the DNA.
During intercourse new sperm cells are made by the process of meiosis (splitting a cell). This is where homologous recombination of the DNA occurs and effects what traits will be included in the sperm.
Therefore the final traits that are passed on to the sperm (and therefore offspring) are decided during intercourse, when the secondary spermatocytes divide into haploid spermatocytes. Like I alluded to, this is a meiosis event and therefore has homologous recombination (mixing) of the DNA to effect what traits are passed on the the offspring. The sites where the protien Spo11 will break the DNA for mixing is not random, but whether or not the break is made, and where that piece of DNA is inserted into the other chromosome is not known how that is regulated. There may be factors that effect this “mixing” of the DNA, visual cues might be a good place to start.
Making sperm is a complicated process involving (for your google pleasure): spermatocytogenesis, spermatidogenesis, and spermiogenesis. We need more research (I couldn’t find in my search, let me know if you can find anything) about which stages are undergone during intercourse. My thought is that spermatidogenesis and spermiogenesis are ramped up during sex and maturation of the sperm happens close to orgasm as the testosterone is increased.
This is how I imagine that the genetics of the sperm can be effected during intercourse; since cells are dividing during intercourse and therefore genetics can be effected.
Once again this biblical story seems to imply that the spotted gene was recessive and the plain white gene was dominant. Therefore these genetic events (meiosis) during sex could influence the genetics of the offspring (ie: factors during sex can effect the genetics of the babies), and whether or not the recessive gene of spotting was passed on. Then if the female had the recessive spotted gene and a dominant solid white gene (very plausible given the backstory of spotting before Laban breeded it out of the dominant position) then the recessive of the female could pair up with the recessive of the male and produce a spotted offspring.
The question that remains to be scientifically proven is: can visual queue’s (spotted rods for example) effect homologous recombination during spermatidogenesis?
What scientific institution do you work for? How is this investigation different to a physicist trying to come up with a quantum model that predicts the ability to turn water into wine a la Jesus in John?
My scientific institution has nothing to do with this. What I proposed is science. You have a hypothesis and test it im order to see if it is true. Science is the aquiring of knowlege, nothing more and nothing less.
The institution was to get more details on your credentials over and above “I’m a scientist”. Still keen to hear your answer to my main question above before saying anything about sheep…
I don’t believe people should be listened to for their credentials, but rather what they are saying makes sense or is proven. So I am not going to ask you what your credentials are.
Your asking me how my proposed experiment is different than a physicist figuring out using quantum theory whether or not we can explain how water could be turned to wine? I’m not familiar with that though to be able to weigh the similarities and differences. Mabye if you gave me a source I could help you think about it.
I happened upon your site because this part of the bible came to mind and how this passage describes what seems to be genetic engineering, which I then googled and found this site. This is incredibly interesting to me, especially ancient science and technology like that. It was refreshing to see others thinking about this same topic, however from a different perspective.
Many of us think all ancient civilizations were primitive, but not all were at any given time. Many ancient civilizations we know had technology we can’t even match today such as stonework and the civil engineering at Maccu Piccu. That is something we can see, imagine how much knowlege some civilizations could have had that was not preserved.
The reason I proposed my ideas was for nothing other than bounce them off you all who are thinking about this too. I tend to trust that the writers of the bible would offer as historically accurate of a presentation as there exists otherwise, since I know what values they stood for; truth, humility, and standing up for the poor and oppressed.
Not to say that the stories are ones we see in our everyday life; but I do trust the writers character, that they would not intentionally (or otherwise) decieve.
That said I think it is a great book to find lost ancient knowlege like this method of genetic engineering. This method goes a step beyond traditional selective breeding. My input is that I think it would be a valuable thing to test to see if we can improve our current selective breeding genetic engineering technology and make the world a better place.
Yes our “monsanto” type genetic engineering may be faster, but if this biblical method works, then it could offer a much cheaper and side effect free alternative. I am all about finding new and once lost methods like this so that we can help the people that need help the most to get on their feet. I was once (and still am in many respects) a person who was “down and out” so I understand that I want to do everything I can to create or discover new technology or knowlege that can help these people.
To clarify: I think we should perform experiments to see if we can replicate the findings of Jacob (who I believe was a scientist in this regard).
That is what you do when you happen upon any piece of scientific work, you attempt to replicate it before you either support the findings or deny them. No one has a corner on the truth, and that is why we in science tend to come to consensus instead of absolute truth, since it only takes 1 experiment to change what we think we know.
By “monsanto” type genetic engineering I mean insertion of a foreign gene into the genome of a sample in the lab.
And by “down and out” I mean people who have trouble making it in society or staying alive in general. I have been in both these cases; when I was born I had the umbilical cord wrapped around my neck three times. Had it not been for our medical technology I would have died. On the flip side in college I didn’t want any part in society and almost “dropped out of the society” because I was so angry with the superficiality and meaninlessness that people were content living in. While it isn’t necessarily bad to leave society, society should be something people want to be in. That is why I am now laboring to make society better and more inclusive.
Hi Marc
You’re the one who brought up that you’re [allegedly] a scientist — if you didn’t I wouldn’t have mentioned anything about credentials!
Ok, forget the quantum physics experiment, let’s take an analogy from biology instead. How is your experiment different to someone reading Genesis 1-2 (about YHWH making a woman from a man’s rib), forming some hypothesis about this using biological terms (eg. that the ribs contain stem cells which can be taken out and [more] easily manipulated to fertilise an embryo) and then trying to create an experiment to test this hypothesis? As you can see the specifics I listed don’t matter much, I just mean would you consider that on the same footing as your proposed experiment or not and why?
I don’t mind if you don’t want to continue the discussion if you think you’re wasting your time with me — but until this is sorted out I don’t see the point in addressing Machu Picchu, lost worlds, the alleged accuracy of the Bible and the many other things you brought up.
Thanks for the reply.
I don’t feel my time is being wasted because I don’t think my time is any more valuable than yours. Also I don’t believe being a scientist is any more important than any other job, every job is uniquely important. Hence why I don’t feel it necessary to prove what my occupation is. I just stated it because I felt it was relevant.
Well, how is what I am proposing different than trying to prove that you can make a person out of a rib?
First of all, it is easier to test. While in theory with pluripotent stem cells you can create every cell in the body, i’m not sure about the autologous stem cells in the bone marrow. Anyway to try to replicate creating a person out of bone is unimaginable.
Second, its done by a man.
My idea is something that was already done by a man (according to record). Therefore if we replicate his methods, we should be able to replicate his result.
Ok, a cruder analogy: how is it different to investigating whether bran, pins and needles when mixed together and injected into the brain will improve cognitive ability a la the Scarecrow in Wizard of Oz? (Injected by a man, ie. the Wizard).
I’m glad you have taken an interest in corresponding with me.
The first difference is Fiction vs Non-fiction
The Wizard of Oz is a fictional story. While it could be argued whether the Bible is fiction or non-fiction, It can be safely concluded from world history that at least the early israelites and the authors of the bible considered it to be non-fiction, not to say anything of the new testament.
I suppose by this question you would like to draw similarities between the wizard of oz and the bible; including talking animals, and other things in the bible that don’t seem to reflect real life, and therefore conclude that the bible is the same type of fiction as the story of the wizard of oz.
What constitutes non-fiction? Recording something historical. Is the bible a historical account of ancient Israel? Yes, it is proposed to be. Is the Wizard of Oz a historical account? No.
While some people believe the wizard of oz is an allegory to real life, if that were true, it still wouldn’t make the story non-fiction.
The second difference is whether or not the author intended that the situation would apply to real life.
The author of that book in the bible seems to be proposing that this could work in our world. The author of the wizard of oz doesn’t seem to be saying this, based on the fact that the ‘bran, pins, and needles’ wasn’t actually used in the book to improve brain function, but rather to fill up his head with something. This can be supported by the fact that the wizard gave the lion a silk heart; possibly implying that there was nothing there before.
Even since the wizard of oz is fiction, the author could still propose something that could be applied to real life (ie: science fiction often does this), but he doesn’t seem to be doing this in the wizard of oz for the above reasons.
I am not an expert on the brain and treatments to neurodegenerative diseases, even an idea who’s source is questionable, could spark innovation.
A micro or nano surface resembling “bran, pins, and needles” put on a micro particle or device may be something worth researching in medical treatments of the future.
You seem to be a deep thinking young man in search of answers, which I can relate to a lot, and am myself.
I was very angry when I was younger because my family couldn’t answer my most basic questions like “what is the point of life” and “where do we go when we die”?
I figured ‘how can they just go on living thier life without knowing the answer to these things’?
So I figured that if no one else would care, I would, and began on a quest to answer these questions and see if there was anything behind our senses or if the world was just all superficiality and pointlessness.
After near death experiences and trying out anything I thought could help me find my answers, I finally found it.
Needless to say I found that there is something behind life that we see, and it is good. That is all I ever really needed to know. What is behind real life is good. And while yes there are bad things trying to hurt us, the supreme power is good, and that was it for me. Now I am at peace.
This post was supposed to be before the last but it wouldn’t go through, sorry
I’m glad you have taken an interest in corresponding with me.
The first difference is Fiction vs Non-fiction
The Wizard of Oz is a fictional story. While it could be argued whether the Bible is fiction or non-fiction, It can be safely concluded from world history that at least the early israelites and the authors of the bible considered it to be non-fiction, not to say anything of the new testament.
I suppose by this question you would like to draw similarities between the wizard of oz and the bible; including talking animals, and other things in the bible that don’t seem to reflect real life, and therefore conclude that the bible is the same type of fiction as the story of the wizard of oz.
What constitutes non-fiction? Recording something historical. Is the bible a historical account of ancient Israel? Yes, it is proposed to be. Is the Wizard of Oz a historical account? No.
While some people believe the wizard of oz is an allegory to real life, if that were true, it still wouldn’t make the story non-fiction.
The second difference is whether or not the author intended that the situation would apply to real life.
The author of that book in the bible seems to be proposing that this could work in our world. The author of the wizard of oz doesn’t seem to be saying this, based on the fact that the ‘bran, pins, and needles’ wasn’t actually used in the book to improve brain function, but rather to fill up his head with something. This can be supported by the fact that the wizard gave the lion a silk heart; possibly implying that there was nothing there before.
Even since the wizard of oz is fiction, the author could still propose something that could be applied to real life (ie: science fiction often does this), but he doesn’t seem to be doing this in the wizard of oz for the above reasons.
I am not an expert on the brain and treatments to neurodegenerative diseases, even an idea who’s source is questionable, could spark innovation.
A micro or nano surface resembling “bran, pins, and needles” put on a micro particle or device may be something worth researching in medical treatments of the future.
This post was supposed to be before the last but it wouldn’t go through, sorry
I’m glad you have taken an interest in corresponding with me.
The first difference is Fiction vs Non-fiction
The Wizard of Oz is a fictional story. While it could be argued whether the Bible is fiction or non-fiction, It can be safely concluded from world history that at least the early israelites and the authors of the bible considered it to be non-fiction, not to say anything of the new testament.
I suppose by this question you would like to draw similarities between the wizard of oz and the bible; including talking animals, and other things in the bible that don’t seem to reflect real life, and therefore conclude that the bible is the same type of fiction as the story of the wizard of oz.
What constitutes non-fiction? Recording something historical. Is the bible a historical account of ancient Israel? Yes, it is proposed to be. Is the Wizard of Oz a historical account? No.
While some people believe the wizard of oz is an allegory to real life, if that were true, it still wouldn’t make the story non-fiction.
The second difference is whether or not the author intended that the situation would apply to real life.
continued next
The author of that book in the bible seems to be proposing that this could work in our world. The author of the wizard of oz doesn’t seem to be saying this, based on the fact that the ‘bran, pins, and needles’ wasn’t actually used in the book to improve brain function, but rather to fill up his head with something. This can be supported by the fact that the wizard gave the lion a silk heart; possibly implying that there was nothing there before.
Even since the wizard of oz is fiction, the author could still propose something that could be applied to real life (ie: science fiction often does this), but he doesn’t seem to be doing this in the wizard of oz for the above reasons.
I am not an expert on the brain and treatments to neurodegenerative diseases, even an idea who’s source is questionable, could spark innovation.
A micro or nano surface resembling “bran, pins, and needles” put on a micro particle or device may be something worth researching in medical treatments of the future.
The author of that book in the bible seems to be proposing that this could work in our world. The author of the wizard of oz doesn’t seem to be saying this, based on the fact that the ‘bran, pins, and needles’ wasn’t actually used in the book to improve brain function, but rather to fill up his head with something. This can be supported by the fact that the wizard gave the lion a silk heart; possibly implying that there was nothing there before.
continued next
Even since the wizard of oz is fiction, the author could still propose something that could be applied to real life (ie: science fiction often does this), but he doesn’t seem to be doing this in the wizard of oz for the above reasons.
I am not an expert on the brain and treatments to neurodegenerative diseases, even an idea who’s source is questionable, could spark innovation.
A micro or nano surface resembling “bran, pins, and needles” put on a micro particle or device may be something worth researching in medical treatments of the future.
Even since the wizard of oz is fiction, the author could still propose something that could be applied to real life (ie: science fiction often does this), but he doesn’t seem to be doing this in the wizard of oz for the above reasons.
continued next
I am not an expert on the brain and treatments to neurodegenerative diseases, even an idea who’s source is questionable, could spark innovation.
A micro or nano surface resembling “bran, pins, and needles” put on a micro particle or device may be something worth researching in medical treatments of the future.
I am not an expert on the brain and treatments to neurodegenerative diseases, even an idea who’s source is questionable, could spark innovation.
continued next
A micro or nano surface resembling “bran, pins, and needles” put on a micro particle or device may be something worth researching in medical treatments of the future.
Micro or nano surfaces resembling “bran, pins, and needles” put on a micro particle or device may be something worth researching in medical treatments of the future.
Maybe micro or nano surfaces resembling “bran, pins, and needles” put on a micro particle or device may be something worth researching in medical treatments of the future.
Micro or nano surfaces resembling “bran, pins, and needles” put on a micro particle
I am having trouble posting my comments, sometimes they will show up, other times they don’t.
The final thing I wanted to say that even though the source may be questionable, the idea of bran pins and needles may be of value in medicine.
How about making a nano or micro surface that looks similar to “bran, pins, and needles” and using that coating into micro injectable particles or other devices as a treatment for certain diseases? Obviously hold to the hippocratic oath of “first do no harm” while carrying out the research.
I think some comments were caught in spam because of duplicate posting or they were too long. I’ve approved them but don’t have time to remove duplicates.
To cut to the chase, if you have ANY evidence that (A) Jacob was a historical figure (B) the story in Genesis is anything but a completely invented story, I would love to hear it and I’m sure so would millions of others — it would be earth-shattering or revolutionary.
Either way, the idea that you can affect colouring is so ludicrous that my original responses were genuinely baffled but I can’t any more. For this to be right, incredibly large swaths of everything we know about biology have to be wrong. Of course I am not a scientist and do not have any training in biology whatsoever. However:
1. According to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spermatogenesis meiosis of sperm takes about 64 days. More details at http://www.embryology.ch/anglais/cgametogen/spermato03.html — I really doubt that it would be that different for sheep. Alas, the signals in the sheep’s visual system corresponding to Jacob’s rods will have to accelerate beyond the speed of light and go back in time to affect the sperm.
2. This is a highly specific mechanism since it only affects certain traits and not the whole process of spermatogenesis. To say that it’s wildly implausible that such a mechanism could have evolved (unless I’m missing something really big) is an understatement. Furthermore, if an animal could direct the genetic makeup of its offspring based on semantic features of its visual field it’s evolution would not look like what we see for any domestic or non-domestic animal.
3. The point of the biblical story is there’s a correspondence between what the animal sees (speckles) and its offspring’s coat. This is nothing more than sympathetic magic, the idea that essenses can be transferred like that. The steps needed to (say) write an artificial computer program that takes inputs like that of a visual system and then outputs instructions for reproducing the image on a coat colouring (through development, no less), would be worthy of several dozen Nobel prizes. If there was such a system, it might be as much of a gamechanger as (say) the evolution of multicellular life. That such a system would have no effects that we’ve noticed seems, ahem, strange.
The science beside the point, if this were true it would have to mean that out of the possibly millions of people who have engaged in animal breeding nobody had found this out except a guy called Jacob and then the knowledge was lost. It requires that no breeder had tried this (a bit far-fetched considering how many millions of animal breeders who believed in a literal Genesis there probably would have been). This is especially interesting given the incredible care and attention that’s been given to prize breeds of various mammals for coat colour, as well as the fact that a much higher percentage of the world’s population was involved in agriculture even 50 years ago. Alternately, if someone had done this and it had worked, for us not to have heard of it, this knowledge was somehow lost, even though controlling this would make the person who developed it incredibly rich? On the suppressed side, it would mean a conspiracy worthy of a thousand of the most outlandish 9/11 conspiracies.
I cannot adequately express how low a probability this has of being true, this comment box would probably run out of zeros. But to top it all off, to suggest this is true because of an ancient story for which there’s not an iota of evidence — and which is found right next to other stories with egregious scientific inaccuracies — is mind-boggling. I am hence promoting highlights from this thread to a new post as a testament to mind-bogglement. I’ve seen lots of stuff by creationists so I’ve got experience with biologically-mind-boggling arguments but this is shocking even to me.
Closing comments for this one since I’m writing a top-level post on this now.
[...] forth that was so strange and dare I say ridiculous that I just have to share it. It’s about this old post where I discuss the story in Genesis where Jacob puts speckles in front of sheep so they see them [...]