Polygamy left its mark on the human genome

New Scientist ^ | September 26, 2008 | Ewen Callaway

[Elsie]

 

Polygamy is all about lack of SELF CONTROL.

 

 

As well as clear DISOBEDIENCE of Scripture!!

 

TRUTH IGNORED

 

 

---

Smith, Young, Taylor, Pratt, Snow, Kimball, Woodruff ...

---

 

 

 

 1 Timothy 3:2-3
 2.  Now the overseer must be above reproach, the husband of but one wife, temperate, self-controlled, respectable, hospitable, able to teach,
 3.  not given to drunkenness, not violent but gentle, not quarrelsome, not a lover of money.

 

 

1 Timothy 3:12
   A deacon must be the husband of but one wife and must manage his children and his household well.

 

 

 Titus 1:6
   An elder must be blameless, the husband of but one wife, a man whose children believe and are not open to the charge of being wild and disobedient.

---

---

---

 

BEHOLD!!!!  The Restorative Power  of the Book of Mormon!!

 

---

---

---

 

THE BOOK OF JACOB
THE BROTHER OF NEPHI

CHAPTER 2

 

  24 Behold, David and Solomon truly had many wives and concubines, which thing was abominable before me, saith the Lord.
  25 Wherefore, thus saith the Lord, I have led this people forth out of the land of Jerusalem, by the power of mine arm, that I might raise up unto me a righteous branch from the fruit of the loins of Joseph.
  26 Wherefore, I the Lord God will not suffer that this people shall do like unto them of old.
  27 Wherefore, my brethren, hear me, and hearken to the word of the Lord: For there shall not any man among you have save it be one wife; and concubines he shall have none;
  28 For I, the Lord God, delight in the chastity of women. And whoredoms are an abomination before me; thus saith the Lord of Hosts.
  29 Wherefore, this people shall keep my commandments, saith the Lord of Hosts, or cursed be the land for their sakes.
  30 For if I will, saith the Lord of Hosts, raise up seed unto me, I will command my people; otherwise they shall hearken unto these things.
  31 For behold, I, the Lord, have seen the sorrow, and heard the mourning of the daughters of my people in the land of Jerusalem, yea, and in all the lands of my people, because of the wickedness and abominations of their husbands.
  32 And I will not suffer, saith the Lord of Hosts, that the cries of the fair daughters of this people, which I have led out of the land of Jerusalem, shall come up unto me against the men of my people, saith the Lord of Hosts.

 

 

[StayAt HomeMother]

Where does the author prove polygamy?

Looking at my family tree I see several men who lost their first wives, often in childbirth, but they fathered fifteen or more children counting second or third marriages.

Some of the women in my tree also had second or third spouses, but rare is the woman who gave birth to more than half a dozen children who survived to adulthood.

[SunkenCiv]

:’) Nowhere. It’s another goofy genetic “study”. One of my great-great-grandfathers had three wives, in succession, five kids by the first, thirteen by my great-great-grandmother. Gee, with big families, I wonder what happens down the line? ;’) There’s a similar problem with jumping to conclusions about relative antiquity or geographic origins, based on current distribution of gene snips.

[SunkenCiv]

Human populations are tightly interwoven
Nature | September 29, 2004 | Michael Hopkin
Posted on 09/30/2004 2:17:34 PM EDT by AZLiberty
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/1231661/posts

[snip] “the mystery person, from whom everyone alive today is directly descended, probably lived around 1,500 BC in eastern Asia” [end]

Maori Men And Women From Different Homelands
ABC Science News ^ | 3-27-2003 | Adele Whyte
Posted on 09/06/2004 5:15:41 PM PDT by blam
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1208808/posts

[PurpleMan]

Sheesh.

Nowhere was it advocated. Neither was polygamy.

It was just an observation of events that led to the changing of the gene p.

[TruthWillWin]

Marriages between cousins also could be a factor. Was real common a few generations ago.

[SunkenCiv]

...and today in the Moslem world (at least).

[TruthWillWin]

And Arkansas.

[LiteKeeper]

You have not answered the question, and so far, nothing has been demonstrated. Promises, promises.

[allmendream]

I showed a linkage of fossils. They are not “missing”. It is you who insisted that they could all be divided up into two species. So, where is the division?

[LiteKeeper]

Again: how do you explain the requirement for a male and female for reproduction? The male has to "evolve" certain "parts" The female has to "evolve" a different set of "parts." And each has to "evolve" "parts" which have to be combined in the "female" - to produce either another male, female, or some combination. How does the "male" of the species "know" to develop the right parts? How do you define the "right" parts?

These questions have not been answered. And saying you are going to answer them in a scientific journal doesn't answer the questions. Where and why did it all begin? That is the puzzle that has not been aswered.

[Elsie]

I like the biomass bootstrap theory.

Everything alive today EATS something that WAS alive in the past.

Just WHERE did all this STUFF come from, if all there was available was a bunch of mixed up chemicals?

[allmendream]

The answer is hermaphrodites. The first sexual organisms were hermaphroditic. In fact humans are originally hermaphrodites as well, but the hormone levels in the womb make one set develop and the other is absorbed (optimally). Sexual differences arose as a sort of specialization from the general trait of hermaphrodite.

There is no “knowing” in evolution. Just genetic variation and differential survival rates. A bacteria selected for heat resistance doesn’t “Know” to develop heat tolerating mutations, it is just that any heat tolerating mutations that do arise are selected for.

[FrogMom]

This was my thought.

When spouse was working on his geneology, I noticed 3 cases in his direct linage where the man had 3 or more wives. Genetically this would LOOK like polygamy, but investigation shows many died in childbirth.

[StayAt HomeMother]

Another case where genetics do not “prove” sociology is children with the same mother but different fathers.

Such genetics might indicate polyandry - but in humans more likely there was (1) a widow/divorcee who remarried or (2) voluntary or involuntary infidelity.

[LiteKeeper]

You speak with such confidence, and yet there is absolutely no proof that your theory is correct. And where did the blueprint for hermaphrodite sexual organs come from? Pure story telling on your part...zero evidence.

[allmendream]

Zero evidence you are willing to accept. Once again the links are not missing, they are living among us and evident in our own DNA and development. There is an entire Journal that studies this subject. Sexual organs would develop like any other biological structure, from modification of existing structures.

[LiteKeeper]

Baloney...again, you are putting great faith in randomness.

And you still have not accounted for two separate individuals required for reproduction. Who decides which partner carries which parts? In a single organism, maybe...but it is a stretch. In two separate organisms, no way. And I am speaking of origins, not changes once the organs exist. Two very different questions!

[allmendream]

Who said anything about randomness? Selection is not random.

[LiteKeeper]

Selection is absolutely random...without an intelligent decision maker behind it, it is by definition random.

You may say that "favorable" changes are retained...but pure matter, DNA, can not decide what is "favorable" and what is not. It has no way of "knowing" that. And then you have to ask the question, "favorable" for what? It has no way of knowing what the end state will be.