Telegony - What a mess - is it true???

[mes228]

The thread on Chuck Missler/Angels & Women leads me to ask this. In the past "Telegony" which is the belief that the father of the first child/animal in some way can effect the mothers future offspring, even if another male is the next father. This was seen as a racist position/teaching/belief and lead to sterilization of the mentally ill, retarded, drunks, drug addicts, etc. It has been out of vogue for many years, mainly because the KKK etc. used it to decry inter-racial marriage. Also most scientist today still decry it as fable and quackery.

However recently the Orthodox Church has embraced telegony, and believes and teaches this. Also the Catholic College of Genetics in Italy did a scientific study/research paper that seems to support telegony (very interesting reading). About 99% of all serious dog, horse, cattle breeders believe telegony to be true and take it into account in their breeding program.

If telegony is remotely true, think of what has been done to the DNA/Genetic structure of the millions of women that have had abortions. The millions of divorced women with multiple husbands etc. The millions of single Mothers that will later marry. The inter-racial marriages that are common today (not that I believe this is sin).

Frankly, after reading the paper from the College of Genetics I believe it to be possible, and very likely true. It does also seem to support the the intelligence of God in designing genetics and DNA etc. It makes the "one man one wife" Christian position make a lot of sense from a science position. It very much supports the position of chastity and virginity before marriage for the good of man. If telegony is true it makes moral conduct more than just a social position.

Telegony is not a matter of salvation. But if it's true we've really made a mess of our DNA and there's no way to straighten it out that I see. Appreciate your comments and I'll be out of town for a while so won't post much on this topic . but will try to check it out. Best regards and have a great day.

 

[mes228]

Telegony

I cannot find the paper I read from the Catholic College of Genetics. So I'll briefly re-state MY LAYMAN'S UNDERSTANDING of it (take this with a grain of salt as it's "memory"). The gist was that a mother, when she becomes pregnant, her system would reject the foreign tissue since only 1/2 of the genetic code is hers, the other half the fathers. The mother does not reject this "invader" as a form of "communication" ie genetic transfer takes place between this tissue and her "genetics" (DNA??) via stem cells. These stem cells do not vanish from the mother after birth, but become permanently a part of the mothers womb. Thus this altered "code" is carried forward permanently. Which may influence future births, even from different fathers. As an aside, I know that many dog breeders believe that there can be "throw backs" to prior sires. So do many horse breeders. They take great care that the first mating of the mother be with a top notch, outstanding sire, to prevent this influence on future offspring. The first mating is crucial in their eyes.

If this turns out to be fact, think of the consequences. Millions of women have abortions and think they've "escaped" the consequences. Not realizing that their
genetic code has perhaps been altered. Serial marriages, same consequences (although perhaps not sin) ie altered genetics forever down the line. A fathers
progeny would not be "pure" or entirely "his" but a combination of his wifes, her first "mate" and and his genetics. I think that originally only 6-7% of our DNA was considered "useful" and the other 94% was technically labeled "junk" DNA.
Perhaps they were wrong. Today a few of the chronic illnesses have been tracked to this previously thought unimportant DNA. Perhaps a lot of things are hidden in this junk genetics. Could it be that God wasn't a fool? Perhaps chastity before marriage, virginity, faithfulness, are really necessary things for the good of human kind. Just a thought.

 

[Magnetic Poles]

Ridiculous idea. Each individual has unique DNA. Mating with a male doesn't alter the female's DNA, nor does the male's DNA get changed. This idea just views women as breeding machines.

 

[James_Newman]

Thats right. We know they are good for cleaning too. I'm going to leave now.

 

[Magnetic Poles]

Thats right. We know they are good for cleaning too. I'm going to leave now.

James, I'm guessing you're a single man. :laugh:

 

[James_Newman]

Not yet. I have currently subjected my wife to almost 13 years of psychological torture.

 

[rbell]

Um...Mrs. Newman...put down the knife...I'm SURE James was kidding...

 

[Scarlett O.]

However recently the Orthodox Church has embraced telegony, and believes and teaches this.

From what I can find on the internet, it is taught as scare tactic to keep women virgins until they are married and is used a "proof" of unfaithfulness. I can't find anywhere in these same informational sites where they are concerned with men being pure.

About 99% of all serious dog, horse, cattle breeders believe telegony to be true and take it into account in their breeding program.

Do you have any links for these stats?

Frankly, after reading the paper from the College of Genetics I believe it to be possible, and very likely true. It does also seem to support the the intelligence of God in designing genetics and DNA etc. It makes the "one man one wife" Christian position make a lot of sense from a science position. It very much supports the position of chastity and virginity before marriage for the good of man. If telegony is true it makes moral conduct more than just a social position.

It supports none of these things because this theory is poppycock.

Every site that I can find says that this theory was introduced by a man name Lord Morton in the 19th century and perpetuated by Darwin.

Lord Morton bred a white mare with a zebra. I don't remember if there was an offspring or not. Then he bred the same white mare with a white stallion. The offspring of the white mare/white stallion had some unusual "stripe-like markings" on one of it's back legs.

So, therein lies the ENTIRE basis of telegony.

Every site that I looked at said that the process had been repeated over and over using horses, rabbits, and other animals without success.

And Lord Morton never at all took into account the fact of recessive traits carried by the parents that they got from the grandparents.

Did the man know the markings and colorations of the 4 horses who were the grandparents of this horse who had solid white parents, but with funny markings on it's back leg?

I have a dear friend who is a brunette and her husband is a blonde. Both of their children are red-heads. To exclude the genetic facts of recessive genes carried by us ALL, and to believe in telegony, then the hair color of those children is factual evidence that my dear friend was unfaithful to her husband.

As I said......poppycock.

 

[Scarlett O.]

These stem cells do not vanish from the mother after birth, but become permanently a part of the mothers womb. Thus this altered "code" is carried forward permanently.

It doesn't matter if she has jelly beans that become a permanent part of her womb. What does her womb (uterus) have to do with conception of a child and the child's genetic makeup?

The womb is just the "oven". The sperm and the egg are the "ingredients".

That's like saying that if you baked a chocolate cake in your brand new oven last week, that when you cooked lasagna in it this week, the lasagna will be full of chocolate and every other food item that you cook in that oven will come out of the oven tasting like chocolate.

For telegony to be a reality, her genetic code found in the billions of egg cells that she is born with that are contained in her ovaries would have to change. And how do you propose that that happens? I would be interested in hearing that theory, let me tell you. :saint:

Again, that would be like saying that when you baked that chocolate cake in your brand new oven, that all of the food items in your pantry and refrigerator turned to chocolate.

And her genetic code isn't just found in her egg cells. It's the same genetic code or DNA found in her hair, her skin, her fingernail, her gums, and her eyelashes. How can one have a genetic code for part of one's body and an alternate genetic code for the rest?

As an aside, I know that many dog breeders believe that there can be "throw backs" to prior sires. So do many horse breeders. They take great care that the first mating of the mother be with a top notch, outstanding sire, to prevent this influence on future offspring. The first mating is crucial in their eyes.

Again, I have never heard of this and you say that 99% of animal breeders believe this.

I've heard of "throw backs" with animal breeders, but that is not in reference in previous mates, but previous generations, i.e. grandparents, great-grandparents...... The term "throw backs" is in reference to the sometimes uncontrolled variable of recessive genetic traits that the biological mother and father carry.

Yes, the breeders that I know are very careful whom their animals mate. Not just the first time, but every time. Yes, they do want "top-notch" studs. And they want them every time and pay a hefty price for them. But that's because they want a new generation of animals that will sell for a great price.

If telegony is true, then why are breeders hyper-careful every single time their female are in season? If telegony is true, then you could mate your prize-winning mare with a prize-winning stallion and from then on, for all of the rest of the breedings across her lifetime, it wouldn't matter what pathetic jackass (literally a mule) she mated with.....that first stallion's DNA would override them all.

Think of all the stud fees you could save money on!!

:laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

 

[mes228]

Telegomy

I'm not competent to have an opinion, as I know next to nothing about DNA or genetics. I did find the paper fascinating and wish I could give reference to it. I surely would not want anyone to take my "overview" of the paper as being the science behind the paper. It was only my understanding of it. Also I misspoke and shouldn't have said that "it was very likely true". After reading the study I could appreciate that it may be more than just an old racist saw. Most of the comments made here are not science, or fact, just re-stating things that came up when people googled the term. It surely would not be a popular thing to accept if it turned out to be true, would it?

 

[Scarlett O.]

I'm not competent to have an opinion, as I know next to nothing about DNA or genetics.

Competent or not (I can't make that evaluation), you are deserving of an opinion. Everyone is.

It surely would not be a popular thing to accept if it turned out to be true, would it?

That was my quest in my two rather lengthy posts. It's something can't seem to break.....rambling on and on.....:BangHead:

I wanted to know how it could possibly be true when documented and tested and genuine science tells us that it cannot be true.

 

[Hope of Glory]

I wanted to know how it could possibly be true when documented and tested and genuine science tells us that it cannot be true.

Remember, there's a lot of "tested and genuine science" that says that AIDS cannot be passed via blood transfusions. Of course, that "tested and genuine science" was wrong, and has now been changed.

 

[Scarlett O.]

Remember, there's a lot of "tested and genuine science" that says that AIDS cannot be passed via blood transfusions. Of course, that "tested and genuine science" was wrong, and has now been changed.

While what you say is quite correct, I don't think that you can compare the still necessary and voluminous research into communicable diseases to the concrete understanding of where babies come from! :thumbs:

If we are wrong on that, then heaven help us! :laugh: :laugh:

 

[npetreley]

While what you say is quite correct, I don't think that you can compare the still necessary and voluminous research into communicable diseases to the concrete understanding of where babies come from! :thumbs:

If we are wrong on that, then heaven help us! :laugh: :laugh:

LOL, everyone knows it's the stork.

 

[Hope of Glory]

It's not about where they come from, but about how it affects the DNA. Personally, I don't see how it could. But, then again, I don't see how an HIV postive mother can give birth to a baby that's not HIV positive, since they share blood.

 

[LadyEagle]

This is an interesting story - wonder if it could have anything to do with this topic?

Genesis 30:31-70 (King James Version)
King James Version (KJV)
Public Domain

31And he said, What shall I give thee? And Jacob said, Thou shalt not give me any thing: if thou wilt do this thing for me, I will again feed and keep thy flock.
32I will pass through all thy flock to day, removing from thence all the speckled and spotted cattle, and all the brown cattle among the sheep, and the spotted and speckled among the goats: and of such shall be my hire.
33So shall my righteousness answer for me in time to come, when it shall come for my hire before thy face: every one that is not speckled and spotted among the goats, and brown among the sheep, that shall be counted stolen with me.
34And Laban said, Behold, I would it might be according to thy word.
35And he removed that day the he goats that were ringstraked and spotted, and all the she goats that were speckled and spotted, and every one that had some white in it, and all the brown among the sheep, and gave them into the hand of his sons.
36And he set three days' journey betwixt himself and Jacob: and Jacob fed the rest of Laban's flocks.
37And Jacob took him rods of green poplar, and of the hazel and chesnut tree; and pilled white strakes in them, and made the white appear which was in the rods.
38And he set the rods which he had pilled before the flocks in the gutters in the watering troughs when the flocks came to drink, that they should conceive when they came to drink.
39And the flocks conceived before the rods, and brought forth cattle ringstraked, speckled, and spotted.
40And Jacob did separate the lambs, and set the faces of the flocks toward the ringstraked, and all the brown in the flock of Laban; and he put his own flocks by themselves, and put them not unto Laban's cattle.
41And it came to pass, whensoever the stronger cattle did conceive, that Jacob laid the rods before the eyes of the cattle in the gutters, that they might conceive among the rods.
42But when the cattle were feeble, he put them not in: so the feebler were Laban's, and the stronger Jacob's.
43And the man increased exceedingly, and had much cattle, and maidservants, and menservants, and camels, and asses.

 

[Baptist Believer]

I don't see how an HIV postive mother can give birth to a baby that's not HIV positive, since they share blood.

They don't.

At least, in healthy pregnancies, they don't.

While the bloodstream of the mother and bloodstream of the fetus flows in very close proximity in the placenta, transferring oxygen and nutrition between the systems, it is very dangerous if they mix... especially if the mother and child have different blood types. My mother lost her child in her second pregnancy in the ninth month because of that kind of mixing since my mother and father have different blood types. (He had A+ and my mother had A-. My brother and I have A+.)

 

[Scarlett O.]

This is an interesting story - wonder if it could have anything to do with this topic?

Genesis 30:31-43

Close, but no cigar. :laugh:

This is a great story of God's provisions for His people when the world tries to cheat them and manipulate them, but it has nothing to do with telegony.

Jacob asked for all of the spotted, speckled, and dark sheep for his wages. Laban thought he would trick Jacob by taking these animals out of the herd and giving them to his sons.

The reason that the some of the sheep that were left bore spotted, speckled, and dark babies had nothing to do with the science of genetics. It had to do with Almighty God performing a miracle.

When Jacob took all of the animals to the water them, he peeled branches of various trees, leaving streak marks in them, and place all of those branches in front of the some of the sheep who were mating at the watering hole.

Those babies were born with streaks.

AND it says that Jacob separated the weak adults from the strong adults and did not place those branches with streaks in them into front of the weak animals who were mating. And the weak adults bore non-streaked babies.

So...strong, solid-colored sheep mated in front of the streaked branches and got streaked babies. Those strong babies went to Jacob.

Weak, solid-colored sheep mated in front of no branches and got non-streaked babies. Those weak babies went to Laban.

So.....no genetics, no altering of DNA, no telegony.

Just Almighty God keeping Jacob wealthy and under His care.

 

[James_Newman]

I was thinking about this thread for some reason, probably because I was psychologicaly abusing my wife and this verse came to mind:
Jeremiah 3:1
1 They say, If a man put away his wife, and she go from him, and become another man's, shall he return unto her again? shall not that land be greatly polluted? but thou hast played the harlot with many lovers; yet return again to me, saith the LORD.
I don't think it refers to the topic, but it could I suppose.

 

[Hope of Glory]

They don't.

At least, in healthy pregnancies, they don't.

While the bloodstream of the mother and bloodstream of the fetus flows in very close proximity in the placenta, transferring oxygen and nutrition between the systems, it is very dangerous if they mix... especially if the mother and child have different blood types. My mother lost her child in her second pregnancy in the ninth month because of that kind of mixing since my mother and father have different blood types. (He had A+ and my mother had A-. My brother and I have A+.)

Well, they still share bodily fluids.