Interesting. I'll think about that.

Don't forget this part: "The atmosphere, once so mild and uniform in temperature, was now subject to marked changes..." I would like to see the genetic mechanism for that.

I said all living things can be explained by DNA.

I didn't say there is no physiological mechanism. What I question is the notion that it is ALL physiological.

I don't know the answers to these questions. But then, I never claimed that I know it all.

You seem to have a penchant for thinking I said things that I did not. Perhaps that penchant also applies to your Bible reading....

But inspiration says Adam's sin affected even non-living things. So, would you admit that there may be a non-physiological mechanism going on here?

EGW: As the Supreme Ruler of the universe, God has ordained laws for the government not only of all living beings, but of all the operations of nature. Everything, whether great or small, animate or inanimate, is under fixed laws which cannot be disregarded. There are no exceptions to this rule.

What controls all animate creation? ALL of it is controlled by the genome.

By inspiration, Adams sin freed up satan to become the god of this world. If amalgamation is not genetic engineering, then I do not know what it is.

If a child is adopted, is it possible for him to inherit sin from his adopted parents, even though there is no genetic heredity? Yes.

2 Corinthians 3:18
But we all, with unveiled face, beholding as in a mirror the glory of the Lord, are being transformed into the same image from glory to glory, just as by the Spirit of the Lord.

Through the medium of influence, taking advantage of the action of mind on mind, he prevailed on Adam to sin. Thus at its very source human nature was corrupted. And ever since then sin has continued its hateful work, reaching from mind to mind. Every sin committed awakens the echoes of the original sin. {RH April 16, 1901 Par. 5}

That first sin is at work still; it is constantly being reproduced, as one mind is brought to bear upon another for evil. {ST December 21, 1891 Par. 4}

There is another mechanism for the spreading of sin - the first one. Through the influence of one mind to another, sin can be passed on to our posterity as well as to our neighbor.

Does that answer to everything? No. But it is yet another example that disproves the idea that genetic heredity is the one and only mechanism available.

Amen, Arnold, well said. There are a great many ways to influence the mind, character, and even the genome that extend beyond DNA. If I should up and drink alcohol all of a sudden, and become an instant alcoholic, it was not because my action was "in my genes" (or I would have to accept that some people are truly "predestined" to their fates and they had no freedom of choice), because I have never drunk once in my life, nor did my parents, nor did their parents. Yet just this sort of thing does happen to some people. Foolish choices are available to the best of us.



Really? This statement is patently false. Since when are the sun's rays governed by DNA? How are the ocean's tides controlled by the DNA? Whose DNA? The moon's?

Your concepts are so much like those of the "flat-earth" society that I wonder how you can come to have truly believed them. They are certainly not well-thought out and foolproof. There are a great many reasons to reject such a notion as that "ALL of it [animate creation] is controlled by the genome." How do the sun's rays, which control plants, become "genetic" influences upon them? How do the ocean's tides, which influence a great many organisms, become "genetic?" They do not.

I happened to have done a research paper for a college course titled "Marine Phycology" upon a particular type of seaweed that lives in the intertidal zone called a "fucus." It is a common seaweed that many people will see who visit the coast. But it has a special ability to rehydrate after looking to be apparently totally dehydrated in the hot sun for hours between tides. Not all of the seaweeds have this ability. But, did the tides have something to do with its DNA? Do you suppose that tides existed before the Flood? What if they didn't? Where would the "DNA" have come from for the fucus? If tides existed from before the flood, did such "DNA" come from Adam's sin? And why would "sin" have caused something of benefit for the fucus?

The holdfasts of the seaweeds (I know, I know, I should be calling them "marine algae"), attach to rocks. The fucus attaches itself to visible rocks in the intertidal zone. But Mrs. White informs us that at the time of Creation, no rocks were visible on the surface of the earth. This tells me that the fucus' ability to attach to rocks and remain in the intertidal zone came after sin.

As for Jesus having been born without sin, yes, He had no sin at all at any time. He was made as was the first Adam--perfect. Nor did Adam's sin come as a result of his DNA. If such were truly the case, then God erred in making Adam.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

Sorry, that last post should have been split into two. My internet wasn't working well and they ended up joined. (The last part literally was pasted in after I had clicked it sometime earlier and had given up and typed the first paragraph already when suddenly it appeared.) The first part addresses Arnold and the latter part addresses APL.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.