• Sign up or login, and you'll have full access to opportunities of forum.

Poll--Were you raised Catholic?

Go to CruxDreams.com
dfg42 said:
But the essence of the DNA is its information not its physical structure which indeed is only known since the 1950ies due to Wilkins (I think)
Click to expand...
Rosalind Franklin, actually.

dfg42 said:
That there is some kind of "information" transported via mother and father to the child (except in medival times) is know to all peoples in all times,
Click to expand...
Medieval "science" had adopted theories of Aristotle and Hippocrates, about 'acquired characteristics' ransmitted from parents to children. Some thought, the information was kept as substances in the blood, that were given to the foetus.

Jollyrei said:
the Holy Ghost likely doesn't have genes, in the physical sense, so where the X chromosome came from is anybody's guess.
Click to expand...
If I were a Catholic scholar, I would try to find out this intriguing question. Perhaps, God is the creator of everything, including DNA and chromosomes.
It is a similar problem as the question where Kain and Abel's wives came from?
 
Interesting thread regarding DNA… wonder if the shroud of Turin has been tested?
 
Loxuru said:
Rosalind Franklin, actually.


Medieval "science" had adopted theories of Aristotle and Hippocrates, about 'acquired characteristics' ransmitted from parents to children. Some thought, the information was kept as substances in the blood, that were given to the foetus.


If I were a Catholic scholar, I would try to find out this intriguing question. Perhaps, God is the creator of everything, including DNA and chromosomes.
It is a similar problem as the question where Kain and Abel's wives came from?
Click to expand...
Those are their sisters, when taking the biblical point, then the DNA did not degenerate that much as today, so incest is less a problem then. Actualy, in my point of view, well the bible accept the second law of thermodynamics, the evolution theory not

In mnedival times, there was the idea, that little mini-me's were in the sperm, so the "information" o the female was obsolete, but I think it is hard not to see that some children have characteristics of her mother.
 
Jollyrei said:
Religious stories don't go into that sort of detail
Click to expand...
Well, certainly the writers of the Gospels didn't know about genes, but I'd say that the Gospel-writers, and the leading thinkers of the early church, were very interested in just such details, in ways that today might seem quite obsessive. John, in particular, mentioned one detail, in a way which gave rise to huge arguments, heresies, persecutions etc., concerning what exactly went on in Mary's womb, especially when Christianity became 'official' and had to be codified: 'the Word was made flesh' (Greek 'Logos sarx egeneto', Latin 'Verbum caro factum est'). Just before that, he'd referred to 'those who believe in His name' becoming 'children of God, children born not of natural descent, nor of human decision or a husband’s (Greek andros, i.e. male's) will, but born of God'. So, in a sense, John already had a concept of 'genetic' descent, but implies that (whether or not a mother might normally have any influence on the physical make-up of her baby) whatever the Holy Spirit implanted in Mary 'became flesh' in some other way - which raised all sorts of difficult questions about the status of Jesus as both God and human. And John goes on, 'We have seen his glory, the glory of the one and only Son, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth', which just leaves us even more in the dark as to what He actually looked like!
 
dfg42 said:
It was, different traces were found,,,,,,

https://www.nature.com/articles/srep14484
Click to expand...
The "chain of custody" for the shroud is such a mess, no useful human DNA could ever be attained. The plant DNA is a little more interesting, but, still not very reliable.

A few years ago, a forensic scientist reconstructed the likely face of Jesus based on 1st century CE skulls from the Jerusalem area as well the styles of male beards and hair at the time.
Oddly he looks nothing like Jeffrey Hunter, Max von Sydow, Jim Caviezel, Joaquin Phoenix or Ted Neeley.
jesus2.jpg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom