Schizophrenia And Genetics

[bornagainathiest]

If what End says is true, it'll stand up to criticism, no matter who asks the questions.

 

He's dodging because I'm onto him.

[midniterider]

Isn't it self-evident that eating pork doesn't damage your DNA?

 

What happens if we all make a group effort to wear two kinds of fabric simultaneously every day for the rest of our lives? Will it cause an increase in schizophrenia worldwide? :-)

[FreeThinkerNZ]

 

 

You are dishonest. Whether we call it sin or bad behavior or whatever, it's real. Address the reality of it.....millions upon millions consider sin real. You can't just dismiss it on some semantic technicality.

 

 

Ad hominem followed by mere assertion with a side salad of argument from popularity. (sdelsolray, you taught me well).

[bornagainathiest]

To Moanareina...

 

Thanks for pointing out that End's refusal to respond to me is a compliment.

.

.

.

 

Re: your numbered points.

 

1.

I now see what you mean about his mental jumps being an escape hatch he can bail out thru.  He makes a jump that nobody else can follow (huh?) and that causes us to spend time and effort trying to figure what he meant by it.  In the meantime, whatever flaw or gap in his argument that was in the spotlight gets overlooked or sidelined.  That's pretty much what you meant, isn't it?

 

But what do you think of End's place of work and what he does there?

He manages a state-of-the-art analysis lab for a $100,000,000 corporation.  So does he really make these mental jumps in the lab?  Or does he think and work and run the place logically, analytically and objectively, never speculating or using intuition, but following precise procedures and protocols?  Hmmm... it looks to me like he saves all of his mental jumps for use here, possibly for the very reason you've pinpointed. 

 

Can you think of any other reason why he behaves differently at the lab than he does here?

 

2.

Yes, his usage of ad hominem attacks is quite telling isn't it?

If he was presenting a valid argument, backed up by strong evidence, then he wouldn't need to resort to attacks on my character, right?  If something is true, it'll stand up to criticism... no matter who's asking the questions.  You'd agree?

 

3.

Thanks for pointing this one out too.

Yes, I've seen him do that before now - but never quite realized the why of it.  I'd always given him the benefit of the doubt and concluded that he genuinely didn't see the logic of our arguments.  But now I see how neat that dodge really is.  When things get too hot for him he'll claim that he can't see our argument (he does in reality, but he just wants out) so that we think he genuinely doesn't get 'it'.  Then we waste more time and effort trying to explain 'it' to him.  This buys him a breathing space and also deflects the thread away from whatever was proving too difficult for him.

 

Since we now know that he thinks logically and analytically for a living, when he claims he doesn't get something, it can't be because the logic of it escapes him!  So, can you think of a genuine reason why he can't follow the logic of our arguments, Moanareina?

 

Thanks,

 

BAA

[moanareina]

 

end only responds to those he feels he has arguments...when he runs out of em he has three ways to deal with it.

 

1. Trying to play stupid, do some mind jumps that no one gets so he can entangle you into a whole other discussion.

 

2. Calling you names and telling you that you don't get his original thought.

 

3. Leave the conversation and answer the posts he feels cosy to answer because he does not see where they are going so far...

 

So BAA, end not responding to your posts actually is a compliment. Because he shows you he can't really compete with your logic and sharp thinking.

 

And I guess that sounds insulting to end but this is how he made himself look in those 11 pages of nonsensical discussion.

And additionally, y'all have left unaddressed many poignant points I have made....so right back at you sister.

 

 

Ah...haha. Yeah. Tell me about it.

You ever thought of the fact that we do not get sidetracked by you to get away from the original issue?

And why you call me sister. I am not your sister.

[bornagainathiest]

End3 wrote...

 

"Address the reality of it... millions upon millions consider sin real.  You just can't dismiss it on some semantic technicality."

 

This line of argument fails because the reality of sin isn't decided by a consensus of opinion - it's decided by the evidence and the facts.  This argument doesn't need to be dismissed by a sematic technicality. The argument itself is flawed and invalid.

 

If sheer weight of numbers decided the truth of something, then the following examples would be true.

 

1.

The world is flat. 

Everyone (millions upon millions) considered this to be real, for thousands of years.

 

2.

The Sun goes round the Earth. 

Everyone (millions upon millions) considered this to be real, for thousands of years.

 

3.

Madness is the work of evil spirits.

Many millions believed this to be true (and therefore, real) for thousands of years.  Many millions still do.  The facts and the evidence say otherwise.

.

.

.

End3's assertion...SIN  IS  REAL  BECAUSE  MILLIONS  CONSIDERED  IT  TO  BE  REAL... is false.

If he wants to convince us that sin is real, he must present a logical argument for this, backed up with strong evidence.

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

 

 

[moanareina]

To Moanareina...

 

Thanks for pointing out that End's refusal to respond to me is a compliment.

.

.

.

 

Re: your numbered points.

 

1.

I now see what you mean about his mental jumps being an escape hatch he can bail out thru.  He makes a jump that nobody else can follow (huh?) and that causes us to spend time and effort trying to figure what he meant by it.  In the meantime, whatever flaw or gap in his argument that was in the spotlight gets overlooked or sidelined.  That's pretty much what you meant, isn't it?

 

But what do you think of End's place of work and what he does there?

He manages a state-of-the-art analysis lab for a $100,000,000 corporation.  So does he really make these mental jumps in the lab?  Or does he think and work and run the place logically, analytically and objectively, never speculating or using intuition, but following precise procedures and protocols?  Hmmm... it looks to me like he saves all of his mental jumps for use here, possibly for the very reason you've pinpointed. 

 

Can you think of any other reason why he behaves differently at the lab than he does here?

 

2.

Yes, his usage of ad hominem attacks is quite telling isn't it?

If he was presenting a valid argument, backed up by strong evidence, then he wouldn't need to resort to attacks on my character, right?  If something is true, it'll stand up to criticism... no matter who's asking the questions.  You'd agree?

 

3.

Thanks for pointing this one out too.

Yes, I've seen him do that before now - but never quite realized the why of it.  I'd always given him the benefit of the doubt and concluded that he genuinely didn't see the logic of our arguments.  But now I see how neat that dodge really is.  When things get too hot for him he'll claim that he can't see our argument (he does in reality, but he just wants out) so that we think he genuinely doesn't get 'it'.  Then we waste more time and effort trying to explain 'it' to him.  This buys him a breathing space and also deflects the thread away from whatever was proving too difficult for him.

 

Since we now know that he thinks logically and analytically for a living, when he claims he doesn't get something, it can't be because the logic of it escapes him!  So, can you think of a genuine reason why he can't follow the logic of our arguments, Moanareina?

 

Thanks,

 

BAA

 

I findi it hard to imagine a guy who does not even know how genetic material is handed down to the offspring as he proves in post #234 to actually work in such a lab. To manage a lab is a different story because to manage something there is no need to understand science because you only manage...so you only need to understand economy. There are plenty of people understanding how economy works and managing whatever, but not really understanding what the company they are managing is doing. I work at the airport, doing airport security. When our manager shows up with some guys and gives them a tour it is quite remarkable what BS comes out of his mouth regarding our work...

 

So him bragging about his lab and managing it etc. has no real impression on me...or lets say to me this is a classic attempt of someone who has no substance to try and save his credibility. Like oh, he is the manager of a $100'000'000 corporation, well then, maybe his words do mean something...does not really work with me, the contrary. I have more respect for people saying smart things having entry level jobs then a guy managing a $100'000'000 corporation with the need of letting me know because his words sound so stupid that all I can think is, has this guy ever gone to school?

 

For point 1. I don't know if he does that intentionally or does not even realize how he does it but he does. He has done it in another discussion I was involved once and when I addressed it he denied but then later on he finally admitted he was afraid of being called a fool if he admitted he had no real argument for a relationship with God being real. And maybe it is laziness? Like he reads something and then forms an answer and is too lazy to go back and see if he answered in the was the question has been asked. Who knows...

 

For point 2. There is no need to attack anyones personality in an argument. I see it happen when people get frustrated because they want to keep on to their believes and can't let go of it. I have had this with other believers who suddenly started to call me a sassy pants who has the need to be right all the time when all I did was presenting a logical argument after another and they failed to even answer those and came up with the same over and over again. If they had a real case, there would be no need for that. Truth does not need defenders. Truth is truth and if it is not it is not...

 

For point 3. I see it happen with other Xtians on this site too. If it gets uncomfortable they start to ignore your points and move on with those they have an easy answer to. I let them go with it because it shows they have no real interest in discussing but only want to get their point across...for whatever reason...

 

So to be honest I am a bit at a loss if his appearance of stupid is a game or if he really thinks the way he displays it here. But a guy who does not even know basic genetics of sexual reproduction and calls the one who explains it to him wrong should definitely not start a thread about epigenetics linked to original sin.

[moanareina]

 

end only responds to those he feels he has arguments...when he runs out of em he has three ways to deal with it.

 

1. Trying to play stupid, do some mind jumps that no one gets so he can entangle you into a whole other discussion.

 

2. Calling you names and telling you that you don't get his original thought.

 

3. Leave the conversation and answer the posts he feels cosy to answer because he does not see where they are going so far...

 

So BAA, end not responding to your posts actually is a compliment. Because he shows you he can't really compete with your logic and sharp thinking.

 

And I guess that sounds insulting to end but this is how he made himself look in those 11 pages of nonsensical discussion.

No, BAA demands that you answer. He has control issues. And his posts are mind-numbing. Please don't speak for me.

 

 

Mind-numbing? If you think straight forward questions are mind numbing I really am at a loss here...

Has he control issues? Tell me more about it? References please?

 

Edited for not grammar reasons. Thanks to BAA's pointing out my error in using the word reverence which means something totally different I did not intend to say.

[moanareina]

 

A bit of biological reality:

 

1)  In sexual reproduction, inheritance comes from the germ cells, not from any other cells in the parent organisms.

 

2)  In humans (and many other species), the female germ cells (aka eggs) are formed early in life with all of that parent's genetic material for any offspring.  Changes to the DNA of any other cell in the organism is not relevant to the offspring.

 

3)   In humans (and many other species), the male germ cells (aka sperm) are formed on an ongoing basis with all of that parent's genetic material for any offspring.  Changes to the DNA of any other cell in the organism is not relevant to the offspring.

Wrong O Mary Lou.....the changes are passed on for a number of generations before they revert.

 

 

Please end, tell me when did you learn or not learn about genetics and how it is passed on? Have you ever had a biology class and have they taught you about sexual reproduction? Where you home schooled by fundamental Christians or did you go to a private Christian school?

[bornagainathiest]

For the attention of Directionless.

 

Please consider these two examples and try to answer the questions. 

I reckon you'll find this exercise quite illuminating.  Thanks. 

.

.

.

John 2 : 1 - 12 describes the wedding feast at Cana, where Jesus changed water into wine. 

Please have a Bible open to this page before you read on. 

 

Two pristine samples from that event arrive at End's analysis lab.  (Never mind how they got there, ok?  Just run with the argument for now.)  Sample A is taken from the ceremonial jar just before the master of the banquet tasted it.  Sample B is drawn from the same jar, but just after the master of banquet tasted it.  Therefore, sample A is water and sample B is wine.

 

End's instructions are twofold. 

His first task is to find the natural cause of this change.  

His second task is to find the supernatural cause of this change.

 

So Directionless, can he do either of these things?  If so, how?  If not, why not?  Or would you just like to tell me what you think he can discover from sample A (water) and sample B (wine)...?

 

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Here's an Old Testament version, if you'd like to try it.   

 

Please look up Numbers 17.

End's lab receives two pristine samples taken from Aaron's staff.  Sample A is taken from his staff, just before Moses placed all twelve staffs (staves?) in the tent of the covenant law.  Sample B is taken from the same staff, but on the next day, just after Moses retrieved them from that tent.

 

The same questions are given to End.

First, find the natural cause of the change to Aaron's staff.

Second, find the supernatural cause of this change.

 

Can he do either of these things, Directionless?  If so, how?  If not, why not?  Or would you just ike to tell me what you think he can discover from sample A and sample B? 

.

.

.

Thanks,

 

BAA

 

 

 

[bornagainathiest]

Hey Moanreina!

 

Is that a Freudian slip?    

 

I don't want End to revere me!  If I did, then he'd be right... I would have control issues!

[moanareina]

Hey Moanreina!

 

Is that a Freudian slip?    

 

I don't want End to revere me!  If I did, then he'd be right... I would have control issues!

 

Em, not sure where I said what wrong. I am not native in English and glad for entangling language confusion ;-)

 

Thank you

[bornagainathiest]

Moanareina,

 

I can't recall exactly where, but I do remember that (many) years ago End did mention that he worked in an analysis lab.

Worked, as in used and calibrated the spectrographs (spectroscopes?), operated the gas chromatographs, the centrifuges, the computers, etc.  So I don't think that he's just a manager, managing things he doesn't know how to use and run properly. 

 

Which explains why I think he must have the skills I've been talking about.

Logic.  Rationality.  Objectivity.  Why he must be trained to follow procedures and protocols.  Why he must be trained NOT to make intuitive leaps in his thinking.  Why he can't afford to make the mental jumps in the lab that he makes here.

 

If that's so, then he CAN think logically and rationally.  He just chooses NOT to do it here.

Maybe he does this for the reasons you've given - to quit from something when he's in a corner.  Or maybe, he doesn't even know that he's operating on two totally different levels... one in the lab and the other, here. 

 

Your thoughts?

 

BAA 

[bornagainathiest]

Oh sorry... Moanareina! 

 

My bad!

 

If you ask someone to tell you more about something... that's reFerencing it.

 

ReVerencing something or someone means respecting them highly, idolizing and even worshiping them.

 

Sorry again about the confusion.

 

BAA

[moanareina]

Moanareina,

 

I can't recall exactly where, but I do remember that (many) years ago End did mention that he worked in an analysis lab.

Worked, as in used and calibrated the spectrographs (spectroscopes?), operated the gas chromatographs, the centrifuges, the computers, etc.  So I don't think that he's just a manager, managing things he doesn't know how to use and run properly. 

 

Which explains why I think he must have the skills I've been talking about.

Logic.  Rationality.  Objectivity.  Why he must be trained to follow procedures and protocols.  Why he must be trained NOT to make intuitive leaps in his thinking.  Why he can't afford to make the mental jumps in the lab that he makes here.

 

If that's so, then he CAN think logically and rationally.  He just chooses NOT to do it here.

Maybe he does this for the reasons you've given - to quit from something when he's in a corner.  Or maybe, he doesn't even know that he's operating on two totally different levels... one in the lab and the other, here. 

 

Your thoughts?

 

BAA 

 

Oh wow. Then I really am at a loss to why it is so hard for him to even get how sexual reproduction works...

 

What you say would point me to assume there was some Dissociative Disorder involved. But I am no doctor and give end the benefit of a doubt and don't want to take this as the easy explanation of his behavior. But yes I do wonder about his mind jumps and all. They are weird.

[moanareina]

Oh sorry... Moanareina! 

 

My bad!

 

If you ask someone to tell you more about something... that's reFerencing it.

 

ReVerencing something or someone means respecting them highly, idolizing and even worshiping them.

 

Sorry again about the confusion.

 

BAA

 

Ah, thank you. Learnt something

[bornagainathiest]

Here's another one for you, Directionless.

 

This one deals with human tissue, so it's directly relevant to End's argument that science can 'detect' sin.

In Luke 22 : 47 - 53 Jesus heals Malchus, the servant of the high priest.  Simon Peter cut off the man's right ear.  This means that Malchus had TWO right ears - one attached to his head and one lying on the ground next to him.  Samples of the genetic material are taken from Malchus' original ear tissue before it was cut off (Sample A) and afterwards, when it's lying on the ground, B.  A third sample, C is taken from Malchus' new right ear.

 

All three samples are given to End3 and he now has access to the very best genetics lab, anywhere in the world.  New questions are given to him as well.

 

Is there any genetic or chemical difference between sample A and sample B?

Ditto, between A, B and C?

 

What is the natural cause of the regrowth of Malchus' right ear?

What is the supernatural cause of this regrowth?

 

Same as before Directionless.

Can End3 make any more headway with these samples than he did with water/wine or Aaron's staff?

 

Thanks,

 

BAA. 

 

[directionless]

For the attention of Directionless.

 

Please consider these two examples and try to answer the questions. 

I reckon you'll find this exercise quite illuminating.  Thanks. 

.

.

.

John 2 : 1 - 12 describes the wedding feast at Cana, where Jesus changed water into wine. 

Please have a Bible open to this page before you read on. 

 

Two pristine samples from that event arrive at End's analysis lab.  (Never mind how they got there, ok?  Just run with the argument for now.)  Sample A is taken from the ceremonial jar just before the master of the banquet tasted it.  Sample B is drawn from the same jar, but just after the master of banquet tasted it.  Therefore, sample A is water and sample B is wine.

 

End's instructions are twofold. 

His first task is to find the natural cause of this change.  

His second task is to find the supernatural cause of this change.

 

So Directionless, can he do either of these things?  If so, how?  If not, why not?  Or would you just like to tell me what you think he can discover from sample A (water) and sample B (wine)...?

 

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Here's an Old Testament version, if you'd like to try it.   

 

Please look up Numbers 17.

End's lab receives two pristine samples taken from Aaron's staff.  Sample A is taken from his staff, just before Moses placed all twelve staffs (staves?) in the tent of the covenant law.  Sample B is taken from the same staff, but on the next day, just after Moses retrieved them from that tent.

 

The same questions are given to End.

First, find the natural cause of the change to Aaron's staff.

Second, find the supernatural cause of this change.

 

Can he do either of these things, Directionless?  If so, how?  If not, why not?  Or would you just ike to tell me what you think he can discover from sample A and sample B? 

.

.

.

Thanks,

 

BAA

Well, I don't know what goes on in an analytical laboratory. I assume they analyze the chemical composition of samples. Probably your water to wine scenario is more appropriate for an analytical laboratory because it is claimed to be a chemical change.

 

So I think the lab could determine that sample A is water and sample B is wine. The lab would not be able to determine that sample B was originally identical to sample A, and it would not be able to determine how the supposed transformation happened. The scientists who brought the samples for analysis would need to do that part of the job.

 

As for your questions about natural vs. supernatural, I assume you are arguing that natural and supernatural can't be distinguished? IMO as a non-scientist, natural is when a future event can be determined from the current physical state of the universe - i.e. deteministic. Apparently there is a lot that happens that is not deterministic. QM seems to make randomness and probability a real force as opposed to simply an acknowledgement of limited knowledge.

 

So my non-scientist idea is that randomness might be the interface that allows the supernatural world to determine the natural world. If we observe patterns and intentions in the randomness then this might be a clue.

 

So if you are arguing that supernatural is meaningless or cannot exist, then I would disagree. Of course we can't prove it exists, because we can't measure supernatural state (otherwise it would be natural).

 

I'm not sure if that answers your questions. I'm not a scientist so what do you expect.

[directionless]

Here's another one for you, Directionless.

 

This one deals with human tissue, so it's directly relevant to End's argument that science can 'detect' sin.

In Luke 22 : 47 - 53 Jesus heals Malchus, the servant of the high priest.  Simon Peter cut off the man's right ear.  This means that Malchus had TWO right ears - one attached to his head and one lying on the ground next to him.  Samples of the genetic material are taken from Malchus' original ear tissue before it was cut off (Sample A) and afterwards, when it's lying on the ground, B.  A third sample, C is taken from Malchus' new right ear.

 

All three samples are given to End3 and he now has access to the very best genetics lab, anywhere in the world.  New questions are given to him as well.

 

Is there any genetic or chemical difference between sample A and sample B?

Ditto, between A, B and C?

 

What is the natural cause of the regrowth of Malchus' right ear?

What is the supernatural cause of this regrowth?

 

Same as before Directionless.

Can End3 make any more headway with these samples than he did with water/wine or Aaron's staff?

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

I'm not sure how I can answer this any differently than your earlier question. The wine example seemed ideal for an analytical laboratory. In this ear example, End3's lab might verify that there are two right ears after the miracle. (Of course maybe Jesus reattached the right ear that was severed, but we can pretend he created a new right ear.)

 

There might be differences between the right ears that would indicate the mechanism of the miracle. Maybe the cellular ages are different. Maybe there are some hormones present in one sample.

 

Sorry if I'm missing the point in your questions.

 

BTW Here is a link on regenerating body parts using pig "extracellular matrix" in case you were unaware. Maybe the lab would find something like that.

http://discovermagazine.com/2011/jul-aug/13-how-pig-guts-became-hope-regenerating-human-limbs

[Guest end3]

A bit of biological reality:

 

1)  In sexual reproduction, inheritance comes from the germ cells, not from any other cells in the parent organisms.

 

2)  In humans (and many other species), the female germ cells (aka eggs) are formed early in life with all of that parent's genetic material for any offspring.  Changes to the DNA of any other cell in the organism is not relevant to the offspring.

 

3)   In humans (and many other species), the male germ cells (aka sperm) are formed on an ongoing basis with all of that parent's genetic material for any offspring.  Changes to the DNA of any other cell in the organism is not relevant to the offspring.

I don't know the methylation happens so I can't say if this is true. No idea whether something cell cell happens in the process.

[Guest end3]

One thing is apparent, I must be methylated all to hell....

 

Reading a little bit more, the implications of this are rather staggering in my opinion.

[TheRedneckProfessor]

 

A bit of biological reality:

 

1)  In sexual reproduction, inheritance comes from the germ cells, not from any other cells in the parent organisms.

 

2)  In humans (and many other species), the female germ cells (aka eggs) are formed early in life with all of that parent's genetic material for any offspring.  Changes to the DNA of any other cell in the organism is not relevant to the offspring.

 

3)   In humans (and many other species), the male germ cells (aka sperm) are formed on an ongoing basis with all of that parent's genetic material for any offspring.  Changes to the DNA of any other cell in the organism is not relevant to the offspring.

I don't know the methylation happens so I can't say if this is true. No idea whether something cell cell happens in the process.

 

Do you know the difference between gametes and somatic cells, End3?  Knowing the difference is key to understanding what sdelsolray is trying to explain to you.

[Guest end3]

 

 

A bit of biological reality:

 

1)  In sexual reproduction, inheritance comes from the germ cells, not from any other cells in the parent organisms.

 

2)  In humans (and many other species), the female germ cells (aka eggs) are formed early in life with all of that parent's genetic material for any offspring.  Changes to the DNA of any other cell in the organism is not relevant to the offspring.

 

3)   In humans (and many other species), the male germ cells (aka sperm) are formed on an ongoing basis with all of that parent's genetic material for any offspring.  Changes to the DNA of any other cell in the organism is not relevant to the offspring.

I don't know the methylation happens so I can't say if this is true. No idea whether something cell cell happens in the process.

 

Do you know the difference between gametes and somatic cells, End3?  Knowing the difference is key to understanding what sdelsolray is trying to explain to you.

 

Appears you were way ahead in the conversation while my mind was/is catching up. Didn't know what you meant by referencing you two other threads but think I do now. So without beating down biology, it appears that it goes back to the A&E things we were speculating on before....free will/original sin/ how much did they know....sin definition, science.

 

Would be interesting to see what recent research has revealed.

[Guest end3]

 

 

A bit of biological reality:

 

1)  In sexual reproduction, inheritance comes from the germ cells, not from any other cells in the parent organisms.

 

2)  In humans (and many other species), the female germ cells (aka eggs) are formed early in life with all of that parent's genetic material for any offspring.  Changes to the DNA of any other cell in the organism is not relevant to the offspring.

 

3)   In humans (and many other species), the male germ cells (aka sperm) are formed on an ongoing basis with all of that parent's genetic material for any offspring.  Changes to the DNA of any other cell in the organism is not relevant to the offspring.

I don't know the methylation happens so I can't say if this is true. No idea whether something cell cell happens in the process.

 

Do you know the difference between gametes and somatic cells, End3?  Knowing the difference is key to understanding what sdelsolray is trying to explain to you.

 

It's hard for my mind to rule out some incidental mechanism between....that's why I said what I said.

[directionless]

 

 

A bit of biological reality:

 

1)  In sexual reproduction, inheritance comes from the germ cells, not from any other cells in the parent organisms.

 

2)  In humans (and many other species), the female germ cells (aka eggs) are formed early in life with all of that parent's genetic material for any offspring.  Changes to the DNA of any other cell in the organism is not relevant to the offspring.

 

3)   In humans (and many other species), the male germ cells (aka sperm) are formed on an ongoing basis with all of that parent's genetic material for any offspring.  Changes to the DNA of any other cell in the organism is not relevant to the offspring.

I don't know the methylation happens so I can't say if this is true. No idea whether something cell cell happens in the process.

 

Do you know the difference between gametes and somatic cells, End3?  Knowing the difference is key to understanding what sdelsolray is trying to explain to you.

 

I also don't understand the significance of the gamete/somatic cell point. I assume epigenetics can affect a gamete cell just like it can affect a somatic cell. Apparently epigenetic effects can be inherited by offspring (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transgenerational_epigenetics).

 

So we have the possibility that a "sin" like eating pork might affect epigenetics in a gamete that would result in a more "fallen" offspring.

 

So I would appreciate if somebody can explain what you guys are arguing.