Special notice to ALL
WHO DENY two seedline, #18
By: Teacher Clifton A.
Emahiser
1012 North Vine Street
Fostoria, Ohio 44830
Phone (419)435-2836
It is of the utmost
importance that it once more be loudly proclaimed that WE ARE AT WAR. We have
been since the account in Genesis 3; with verse 15 identifying the conflicting
parties as the �children of the serpent� and the �children of the woman.�
While we are at the very zenith of that battle, the anti-seedliners are
actually aiding and abetting the enemy on the opposing side, and use some of
the most outlandishly unrealistic arguments for their treasonous conduct. With
this Special Notice, we will scrutinize their hypothesis concerning �telegony�,
which is a superstitious belief that goes back hundreds of years. Before we
get involved in this discussion, it would be helpful to see how the 1996
Webster�s New Unabridged Dictionary defines it. While sometimes it is
advisable to refer to an older dictionary, in this case, with the many
advances in the knowledge of anatomy, a newer one would be more advantageous.
�telegony
... n. a former belief that a sire can influence the characteristics of
the progeny of the female parent and subsequent mates. [1890-95; TELE- + GONY]
...�
The Reader�s Digest
Great Encyclopedic Dictionary
(1986):
�telegony
... n. Biol. The alleged influence of a previous sire on the progeny of
the same mother from subsequent impregnation by other males. [<TELE- + GONY]
...�
In his 1978 book
The Babylonian Connection, Stephen E. Jones used �telegony�, along with
many other spurious arguments, in an ambiguous attempt to discredit Two
Seedline doctrine; thus, exercising his skills as a master of deception. At
the time he was able to get by with that false premise, as it was just prior
to the general awareness of startling, new technology coming on the scene. On
December 3, 1967 Dr. Christiaan Neethling Barnard of South Africa pioneered
the first heart replacement. By 1968, nearly 100 heart transplants had been
performed throughout the world. Some years later, the general public became
aware of the need for anti-rejection drugs when a recipient receives an organ
transplant. This factor of �immunity� alone will destroy the �telegony�
hypothesis, but there is much more evidence to show Stephen E. Jones�
conclusions on this to be flawed. Let�s take a look at his primary conclusion
on page 85:
�The
reason for including telegony in this discussion has been to relate it to the
sexual interpretation of Genesis 3. Those who teach that Eve�s act was to have
had sexual relations with, and to have been impregnated by, a negro, Satan, or
anyone other than Adam, cast doubt on the purity of Abel, or Seth, and indeed
upon Eve herself. And thus we may even doubt the racial purity of the entire
white race, including Jesus Christ Himself ...�
Had one followed
Jones� scheming line of reasoning up to this point, one would have fallen
disastrously headlong into his mental entrapment. Once he concocted his false
premise he was able to �establish� a perilous, erroneous, misleading
conclusion. Like pretzels and Swiss cheese, Jones� thesis is twisted and full
of holes. In order to impress his readers and make himself appear an expert on
the subject of �telegony�, Jones quoted from various publications predating
the modern discovery of DNA and the intricate world of chromosomes. Nowhere
did Jones address the modern-day study of genetics relating to DNA and
chromosomes. Anyone having a basic understanding of today�s developments in
genetics can quickly detect Jones� unmitigated lies.
In his book, pages
77-85, Jones cites Trofim D. Lysenko, Conway Zirkle, Scheinfeld and Herbert L.
Cooper, C. L. Redfield, V. A. Zhelnin, and Dr. Austin Flint. In citing these
men and their opinions, Jones uses some very biased quotations. I have before
me the 11th edition of The Encyclopedia Britannica (1910), which has an
unbiased account of �telegony�, vol. 26, pages 509-510 and vol. 13, page 354.
This encyclopedia cites nearly the same men, incidences and observations on
cattle breeding as Jones does but with many conclusions to the contrary. While
cattle breeding wasn�t the exact science in the 1800s as it is today, with the
knowledge of DNA and chromosomes, nevertheless, they carried on experimental
breeding under controlled conditions, proving the theory of �telegony� to be
false. Interestingly, many of the ideas about �telegony�, during that period
were coming from Charles Darwin, the inventor of the theory of evolution. In
this same encyclopedia, vol. 26, page 509, it says this:
�Darwin
says, �It is worth notice that farmers in south Brazil ... are convinced that
mares which have once borne mules when subsequently put to horses are
extremely liable to produce colts striped like a mule� (Animals and Plants,
vol. i. p. 436). Baron de Parana, on the other hand says, �I have many
relatives and friends who have large establishments for the rearing of mules,
where they obtain from 400 to 1000 mules in a year. In all these
establishments, after two or three crossings of the mare and ass, the breeders
cause the mare to be put to a horse; yet a pure-bred foal has never been
produced resembling either an ass or a mule.�
�The
prevalence of the belief in telegony at the present day [before 1910] is
largely due to a case of supposed infection reported to the Royal Society in
1820 by Lord Morton. A chestnut mare, after having a hybrid by a quagga,
produced to a black Arabian horse three foals showing a number of stripes � in
one more stripes were present than the quagga hybrid. The more, however, the
case so intimately associated with the name of Lord Morton is considered, the
less convincing is the evidence it affords in favor of �infection.� Stripes
are frequently seen in high-cast Arab horses, and cross-bred colts out of Arab
mares sometimes present far more distinct bars across the legs and other
zebra-like markings than characterized the subsequent offspring of Lord
Morton�s seven-eighths Arabian mare. In the absence of control experiments
there is therefore no reason for assuming Lord Morton�s chestnut mare would
have produced less striped offspring had she been mated with the black Arabian
before giving birth to a quagga hybrid. To account for the stripes on the
subsequent foals, it is only necessary (now that the principles of
cross-breeding are understood [before 1910]) to assume that in the cross-bred
chestnut mare there lay latent the characteristics of the Kattiawar or other
Indian breeds, in which stripes commonly occur.�
This evidence is
entirely opposite to what Jones tried to make it appear about Lord Morton�s
horses. It is glaringly obvious from this last quotation that Stephen E. Jones
has taken the same position as the infamous Charles Darwin. In turn, all of
the other anti-seedliners, in reading and believing Jones� book, (like Weiland
and company) have followed suit.
Returning to The
Encyclopedia Britannica of 1910, 11th edition, on page 510, we read the
following under the heading Telegony in Dogs:
�Breeders of dogs are, if possible, more thoroughly convinced of the fact of
telegony than breeders of horses. Nevertheless, Sir Everett Millais, a
recognized authority [before 1910], has boldly asserted that after nearly
thirty years� experience, during which he made all sorts of experiments, he
had never seen a case of telegony. Recent experiments support Millais�s
conclusion. Two of the purest breeds at the present day are the Scottish
deerhound and the Dalmatian (spotted carriage-dog). A deerhound after having
seven pups to a Dalmatian was put to a dog of her own breed. The result was
five pups, which have grown into handsome hounds without the remotest
suggestion of a previous Dalmatian mate of their dam.�
[with more incidences cited]
Continuing on page
510:
�Experiments
with cats, rabbits, mice, with sheep and cattle, with fowls and pigeons, like
the experiments with horses and dogs, fail to afford any evidence that
offspring inherit any of their characters from previous mates of the dam;
i.e. they entirely fail to prove that a female animal is liable to be so
influenced by her first mate that, however subsequently mated, the offspring
will either in structure or disposition give some hint of the previous mate.�
Now that we have
substantial testimony offsetting and overriding Stephen E. Jones� fraudulent
claims, let�s examine the process by which this hypothetical �telegony�,
according to his book, is supposed to take place. Jones claims the following
quotation is taken from �Applied Trophology.� This, in turn, was supposedly
translated into English from Russian by a Bennett McCutcheon from Arizona
State University. During the period leading up to 1978, when Jones was writing
this book, exchange of information with the Soviet Union was rather scarce
because of the imposed �Iron Curtain.� Thus, Jones was quite safe in
presenting alleged documentation from that area, for who could check on its
authenticity. After all, how many people are going to try to find a document
on the topic of telegony in an inaccessible land written in a foreign
language, and then have it translated into English? According to Jones, page
80, this article was marked �Circulation Restricted to Professional Use.�
Generally, when a document is translated from one language to another, the
flow of words are irregular and a bit difficult to read. Strangely, this
alleged translation is very smooth and very easy to read. From his
description, it is evident this article was never in any book or circulated by
any recognized authority. Anyway, this is what that reputed article allegedly
said, page 82:
�In
pregnancy the rapid cell division promotes the release of greater than normal
quantities of protomorphogens into the blood from the embryo, and the maternal
gonad becomes loaded up with embryo blueprints, as it were, which causes
subsequent germ cells of the female to be contaminated with the blueprints of
the father, for all embryo protomorphogens are one-half duplicates of the
genes of each parent.
�It is
obvious, these protomorphogens circulating in the maternal blood influence
repair and reconstruction to a tremendous extent.
�It will
be obvious that this presence of paternal �blueprints� in the blood of a
female who has had a child by one husband and subsequently remarries, the
children of the latter marriage will be carrying characteristics of both male
mates.�
Then, Jones comments
on that quotation by stating:
�When this
newly-fertilized cell begins to divide itself and grow, they say, there is
a subsequent release of some protomorphogens into the blood of the mother
... and thus the paternal genes could have a definite effect upon the mother
herself and all subsequent offspring.�
[emphasis mine]
It�s at this point
that Jones really blows his argument and exposes his ignorance. It�s common
knowledge that there is no connection between the mother�s blood and the
embryo or fetus. The fetus makes it own blood. The only use of the umbilical
cord between the mother and fetus is for nourishment and oxygen in one
direction and the elimination of waste products in the other. As the mother
has an entirely different immune system than the fetus, the mother�s immune
system would reject and destroy any part of the fetus, or the other way
around. All this bull manure on the part of Jones is nothing more than
conjecture, yet he finds those who agree and support his finagling! The
Collier�s Encyclopedia, published in 1980, vol. 2, page 174, under
�Anatomy, Human; The Reproductive System� says:
�...
There usually is no continuity between the mother�s blood and that of the
embryo or fetus.�
This is common knowledge and is found in many medical related publications.
The definition of �continuity� is: (1) state or quality of being
continuous, (2) a continuous or connected whole. The definition of
�trophology� (trophoblast) from the 1995 Webster�s New Universal Unabridged
Dictionary is:
�...
n. Embryol. the layer of extraembryonic ectoderm that chiefly nourishes
the embryo or develops into fetal membranes with nutritive functions.�
Notice: it�s �fetal membranes� and not tissue of the mother. Jones and all
those anti-seedliners use some of the most distorted arguments I ever heard!!!
Well, let�s continue.
Again, Jones uses
Darwinian logic on pages 83-84 where he quotes Dr. Austin Flint�s Textbook
of Human Physiology, when Jones comments:
�Dr. Flint then
commented on the belief that when a man and a woman have been married to each
other for a long period of years, they begin to resemble each other. This
phenomenon is called saturation. Dr. Flint asked of telegony: �May we
not have here the explanation of the fact, which has frequently been pointed
out, that husband and wife show a tendency to grow like each other, both
physically and mentally, the resemblance after a long married life being
sometimes very striking?��
Do you comprehend the
inference of what is being said here? Both Flint and Jones are implying that
gradually the genetics of the couple are changing until they are alike.
Can you understand the implications here? Well, if we understand the mechanics
of intercourse, surely, with this hypothesis, only the wife�s genetics could
change to that of the husband�s. Or could it be that the husband is affected
genetically by kissing?!?! Surely, Judah, being married to the Canaanite woman
Shuah for several years didn�t take on her Canaanite features! This convoluted
hypothesis suggests that the wife loses the genetics of both her father and
mother and gradually changes to that of her husband. Now if that isn�t
Darwinism, I don�t know what is!!! For a moment, let�s take a look at what
happens at conception. Science knows today that each single cell of the human
body has two sets of 23 chromosomes, or a total of 46. I will now quote The
World Book Encyclopedia, volume 9, page 192d:
�Every human
body cell contains two sets of 23 chromosomes. These two sets look very much
alike. Each chromosome in one set can be matched with a particular chromosome
in the other set. Egg cells and sperm cells have only one set of 23
chromosomes. These cells are formed in a special way, and end up with only
half the number of chromosomes found in body cells. As a result, when an egg
and a sperm come together, the fertilized egg cell will contain the 46
chromosomes of a normal body cell. Half of the chromosomes come from the
mother, and half from the father.�
We can clearly see
that every cell in our bodies contains these same 2 sets of 23 chromosomes.
Further, one set is found only in the male sperm and the opposite set found
only in the female egg. In essence, both Flint and Stephen E. Jones are
intimating that somehow one or both parties of this marriage lose the 23
chromosomes each of their parents contributed to their genetic makeup. Such a
thing would only create greater complications, as conception starts with one
united cell containing 46 chromosomes (23 from each parent). As these cells
divide and redivide they are directed to become various tissue such as muscle,
heart, brain, bone etc. In doing this, every cell making up the body has this
same genetic code built into it as was in the original cell (half from the
father and half from the mother). Are Jones and Flint trying to suggest there
is some kind of device that goes to all the millions of cells and gradually
changes their DNA makeup from their original genetic code, and does it in
synchronization? I find that idea fantastically unrealistic! Does this device
somehow trade the wife�s chromosomes she got from her two parents in exchange
for the chromosomes of her husband�s two parents?!?! Well, this seems to be
the impetus of their intent. If what Flint and Jones are implying is true, at
what point does a man�s wife become his sister?; and at what point in time
does that married couple discontinue having normal lawful sexual relations and
start to commit unlawful incest? Surely, if a wife takes on the genetic makeup
of her husband, she would be genetically equivalent to his sister!
Moreover, eventually
by that hypothesis, one or the other of that couple could receive an organ
transplant from the other without requiring anti-rejection drugs, which brings
us the subject of organ transplants. Before we consider that, let�s first look
into DNA. Here is what the 1980 Collier�s Encyclopedia said 22 years
ago in vol. 4, page 180:
�The gene theory
states that the characteristics of each generation are transmitted to the next
by the
units of
inheritance
known as genes. The genes are composed of deoxyribonucleic acid, or DNA. The
large complex molecules of DNA are made up of four kinds of subunits, called
nucleotides, which are arranged in a double helix. The information in each
gene resides in a particular order of these subunits. Since each gene is
composed of 10,000 or so nucleotides arranged in some specific sequence, there
is a very large number of possible combinations of nucleotides and therefore a
large number of different sequences representing different bits of genetic
information ...
�The
information in each gene is transmitted from one generation to the next by a
code, called the genetic code,
which involves the linear sequence of the four nucleotide units making up the
gene. In each cell generation the gene undergoes replication,
so that when
the cell divides each of the two daughter cells gets an exact copy of the code.
Also in each cell generation one or more transcriptions of the code may be
made by which the genic [genetic] information is used to regulate the
assembly of a specific enzyme or protein.�
[emphasis mine]
It
is overwhelmingly apparent, the Almighty created us with a well regulated
genetic code which can only be violated through miscegenation, and once
defiled can never be repaired. Our body cells are controlled by this �genetic
code�, not telegony. Ladies, you�ll always be the genetic daughter of your
father and mother, not your husband. Genesis 1:11 says the �seed is in
itself ... after his kind.� In other words, our Creator has placed safeguards
within us to protect that genetic code. That is why, when one receives an
organ transplant, one must forever continue to take anti-rejection drugs to
suppress one�s immunity. The subject of the �rejection process� is quite
complex, but the following from the 1980 Collier�s Encyclopedia, vol.
18, page 219, under the topic of �Organ Transplantation� will serve for this
discussion:
�... When the donor and the recipient are identical twins or members of the
same inbred line of animals, the procedure is known as isotransplantation ...
Transplants performed between two individuals of different species or of the
same species but not identical twins are subject to a process known as
rejection. Identical twins, being derived from a single ovum, are exactly
alike in all their tissues and therefore will accept tissue from each other
without rejection ... According to present concepts, the immunological
reaction is called forth by the exposure of the recipient to certain
substances that are present in or on the living cells of the donor organ but
are lacking in the recipient. These substances are called histocompatibility
antigens. Histocompatibility antigens are determined by histocompatibility
genes in much the same way as an individual�s hair color or iris color is
determined:
Each individual inherits a set of genes,
basic units of heredity,
and thereby antigens
from each of the parents.
Upon exposure to the donor�s antigens, the recipient responds by recognizing
the tissue as foreign.�
[emphases mine]
This data is sufficient to demonstrate, if any sperm cells survived from a
former sire, and somehow found their way into the blood of the mother, they
would be recognized as �foreign� and would be rejected by her immune system�s
response to them. Secondly, if somehow the sperm cells of that sire survived
in the blood and managed to find their way to her egg supply, they could in no
way alter the genetics of those eggs. The 23 chromosomes of the male are
paired to the 23 chromosomes of the female, and are directly opposite each
other. Therefore, there is no way the male sperm could modify the 23
chromosomes of the female. Under such a hypothetical condition which Jones and
Flint suggest, the chromosomes would be so mis-aligned and confused, if a next
pregnancy were to occur, it would only result in a genetically deformed
disorderly mass of twisted flesh. We only have to look at Down�s syndrome for
comparison. For this, we will again use Collier�s Encyclopedia, vol.
16, pages 454-455:
�MONGOLISM,
now usually called Down�s syndrome, a development disorder characterized by
mental retardation as well as by abnormalities of bone growth and other
physical malformations ... The disorder is characterized by the presence of
physical traits that are normal at an early stage of fetal development. Among
these fetal traits are the narrow, slanting eyes which give such cases a
superficial resemblance to Asiatic races ... Down�s syndrome actually has no
racial connotations, but is a pathological condition that may occur in any
human race ...
�Causes.
Although many factors have been proposed as causes of Down�s syndrome, it has
now been established that persons with this disorder typically have 47
chromosomes instead of the normal 46. The occurrence of the additional
chromosome results from an abnormality in the process of reproductive cell
formation. In the normal process of reproduction cell division,
one member
of each chromosome pair goes to each cell
... In Down�s syndrome, the failure of one specific chromosome pair to
separate (non-disjunction) results in the occurrence of that particular
chromosome in triplicate in the offspring ...�
If only one misplaced
chromosome can cause that much havoc, consider the complications that would
develop under Jones� imagined concept.
For further proof that
Stephen E. Jones was using Darwinian theory in his The Babylonian
Connection, pages 77-85, endorsing the hypothesis of �telegony�, I will
now quote a paragraph from The Etiology of Racism in Europe from
website http://www.mfa.gov.tr/grupe/eg/eg17/04.htm saying:
�Later, when racist theories took hold of the �scientific community�, the
racial inferiority of the Semites [Jews] was explained by the long-term
adverse effects of their religion on the blood. This went so far as to revive
telegony which implied that the fetus engendered by a mongrel male in a pure
blood female modified the mother in its image in such a way that the latter
descendants of the same mother were also condemned to impurity. It is
noteworthy that this idea was forwarded by Spencer
and found
support in many writings of Darwin.
Hence the source of Hitlerian laws prohibiting mixed marriages. Another
consequence of
Darwinian
science was the reinforcement of heredity, promoting it to the rank of a
universal law, and greatly contributing to racist theories and practice.�
While we can agree to
a small degree with this last quotation, we must differ somewhat with the last
sentence, for Darwin was interested to a greater degree on environment
affecting future generations rather than heredity. The reason for including it
here is to show the Darwinian connection and his unproved theory of telegony.
On one occasion Darwin, because he couldn�t account for the many various
features of a particular breed of cattle, said it was due to �spontaneous
variations.� Based on modern DNA genetic science, it would be ridiculous to
account for any variations in man or animal somehow happening in such a
haphazard way. Evidently, Darwin, like today�s anti-seedliners, never read
Genesis 1:12 �after his kind.� That�s comparable to saying all the races came
from Eve. Inasmuch as the anti-seedliners love Darwin�s theories, wait �till
they start spreading that one. From all this you can see that when Stephen E.
Jones spouts Darwinism loudly, the rest of the anti-seedliners, like an animal
in heat in mating season sniffing at the air, couples with
�
believes it strongly
�
and purchases Jones� �Brooklyn Bridge.�
There are many in
Israel Identity who point out that a woman must go through seven gestations
after relations with another race in order to purify herself. I don�t agree,
as it insinuates that the first six children, although Adamic (or pure)
parentage, are no good. This is not true, and neither is there any evidence of
there being six children between Abel and Seth. I would rather believe a
waiting period would be necessary to see if any venereal diseases developed as
a result of such a union.
HOME
