Well said, and I agree with this. However, many evolutionists would disagree. Even against evidence otherwise. I recall reading about aphids becoming resistant to a pesticide. They had some populations from before (elsewhere, preserved, whatever), and discovered the resistant gene was already present in those from years prior to the pesticide. This indicated they (the population) always had that gene and the pesticide merely selected against those who didn't have it.

However, sin and a curse can mess with the genes and that will be added to the genome.

Could she be using a more general sense of the word and the specific details could be different for man than for beast?

I would agree with most of it. The part I would be uncomfortable with is specifically any part that did not involve God's original creation, e.g. amalgamation. I don't believe any portion of genetic variation which might have descended from God's original creation would have been "sin." "Amalgamation" clearly created races of men (in the mind of Ellen White) and was clearly "sinful." The obvious conclusion, then, is that there are aspects to our modern genetics which were not part of the original Creation, i.e. Adam and Eve.

When God put a mark upon Cain, we are not told what that mark was. We do know, however, that it was on account of his sin, murder, that he received it. And we know also that it changed his appearance. Significantly. God, doing things thoroughly as He usually does, would not have found it difficult nor unreasonable to have actually adjusted Cain's genes. This, too, would not have been a part of the original creation.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

Actually, the statement was, "Since the flood, there has been amalgamation of man and beast, as may be seen in the almost endless varieties of species of animals, and in certain races of men. {1SP 78.2} "

Again, could she be using a more general sense of the word and the specific details could be different for man than for beast?

Did Noah and his boys or their wives carry the marked genes of Cain? Or, did the mark of Cain die with Cain? The post-Flood amalgamation that resulted in "certain races of men" is not the result of scientists uniting animal and human genes in a laboratory. Hopefully we can agree on this point. Therefore, we are left with two options (I'm sure somebody else can think of other options) - 1) "certain races of men" are a result of natural copulation, and 2) "certain races of men" are a result of genetic manipulation in laboratories.

The best answers to the amalgamation controversy that I know of can be found in the book, "Dinosaurs - An Adventist View" by David C. Read (most specifically the chapter entitled defending the amalgamation theory).
It seems evident that Ellen White used the word amalgamation in three different contexts:
1. What Satan did in creating noxious herbs and tares.
2. What the antedeluvians did, which constituted the 'one sin above another which called for the destruction of the race by the flood.'
3. What happened after the flood, without any mention of a specific Satanic or human agency involved.

Read proposes that the amalgamation which happened after the flood was due to 'horizontal genetic transfer' resulting to a large degree in the rapid speciation and diversification of animal and human life.

Read also proposes that the wicked antedeluvians did indeed possess genetic engineering capability resulting in the amalgamated creatures singled out to be destroyed in the flood. The great violent monster dinosaurs fell into this category. Many of them were genetic mixtures of created kinds. Most often mixtures of egg laying animals such that the engineering could take place outside of the body by tampering with the eggs. (ie. reptiles and birds etc) They were specifically bred for wicked purposes and threatened to over-run the created kinds making them extinct - hence God placed the created kinds on the ark to prevent their extinction.

Finally, there was nothing to prohibit the antedeluvians from tampering with human genetics in a similar way as well. In fact, given their completely superior knowledge, intellect, and longevity (as well as their advanced wickedness) - we would fully expect them to do this. This would have been the sin above all others that called for their destruction (not just intermarrying with unbelievers).

Voktar,

You bring up some good points. And to the forum!

I'm not exactly sure what the "horizontal genetic transfer" might refer to, or why it would have been a sin. There must always be a "transgression" of God's law to be called "sin." It is not my belief that it was a transgression to marry or to have children. Mrs. White even tells us this. It was not the mere fact of the "marriages" before the flood that made the antediluvians so sinful. Marriage is lawful.

So we have to find some other aspect that was unlawful. Furthermore, if God created all the genes in the gene pool, and then made marriage lawful, even commanding that mankind be "fruitful and multiply," it would be a rather unfair God which would then call it a sin when the genetics began to take on natural variations after some generations. Someone needs to help me see how it could be a sin for a human to marry a human who happened to have a different set of genes. In fact, if such actually were a sin, I think we should all be marrying our siblings and first-cousins, right? To marry outside of the family would be to encourage greater genetic diversity. If this sort of thing is "amalgamation," then it is sin.

Obviously, that cannot be the best conclusion here.

Regarding the antediluvians tampering with genetics, I believe you are on to something there. Certainly they were more brilliant and longer-lived than our modern scientists, and look what our scientists do today?

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

Great points on this issue, voktar. I don’t particularly understand the first proposal that well (perhaps you can elaborate/explain) but the last two make great sense to me. (Cf. here)

It further seems to me that EGW was only shown a final picture representation of this but was not given those underlying scientific facts as to how it was achieved. However, once again, science confirms the SOP view.

It is my belief that Ham's wife was a descendant of Cain. Their son, perhaps having an appearance like Cain, was named "Cainan." He is the one whom Noah cursed with slavery and servanthood. It is readily apparent when looking at history how much this curse has indeed been fulfilled. Yes, there have been slaves of every race. But if you were to take a survey of which race, above all others, was thought to have been most subjected to slavery, I think blacks would be selected the majority of the time. This curse dates all the way back to Noah.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

A sort of “self-fulfilling prophecy” as the enslavement of black people was largely due to this “Biblical” belief. Nonetheless, I do not necessarily see it as a “racial curse”, but a “descendants curse” and if most of Cainan’s descendants formed the black race, that is the pointed reason why it applied. And if God can actively/deliberately keep the descendant of Esau, to this day even, in a state of slow progress as a curse for Esau’s rejection/snubbing of the Israel blessing (Mal 1:2-5), then He can, and probably has, kept the, actually anterior to Esau, descendants of Cainan, (whoever the entirely are), in a state where other races would see them as prime candidates for enslavement. And black people, by being probably the most visible racial group of these descendants, probably have unfairly be imposed the entirety of this curse.

That, of course, does not mean that racial or “descendants” slavery should Biblically be reinstituted. I think by now any curse here has been fulfilled, and in some way, as with any pronouncement of God, just like the descendants of Esau served in time to keep in check, and help end, the medieval reign of Catholic Church, the enslavement of the (or at least some) of the descendant of Cainan probably had some GC positive contribution, which I have some idea what this could be.