Look up a topic in the Glossary     View the chapters of the concordance     Look up a verse in the cross-reference Index


    KJV      NAS      Parallel Gospels      Page Numbers      How to use this Website



Search Topics/Commentary        Search KJV/NAS

SEARCH ENTIRE WEBSITE -- Place "quotes" around words to search for an exact phrase


Chapter 3


An Epigenetic Theory for Generational Sins


The task is… not so much to see what no one has yet seen; but to think what

nobody has yet thought, about that which everybody sees.

—Erwin Schrodinger



People act like a flock of birds that change direction in flight all at once in an orchestrated fashion by some hidden signaling system they have perfected. Similarly, as a child all my neighbors knew each other on a first-name basis, but fifty years of misdirected cultural change has turned my charming neighborhood into the hood. How did so many people coordinate such a downward moral spiral in only a couple generations? The truly scary part about this is that any culture will see a rise in psychopathy whenever it undergoes a decline of moral fabric. A lack of morality is the perfect environment for such people, like growing a culture of bacteria in a petri dish. Social engineers similarly grow thoughts and ideas in society by evidence of people thinking and acting collectively with no one seemingly at the wheel. Culture is the soul of society. It has a mind of its own to believe what it wants, yet the mind of culture is not subject to any one person, because it doesn’t belong to anyone, but to the group, which has the power to shape peoples’ behavior, making them act as one person. Culture creates itself on a subliminal level, based on the general environment within the group.


Culture is so close to the human experience that we would not be human without it. This strange, inherent phenomenon of group behavior, sown into the human gene pool has proven itself central to humanity, always evolving and having free reign to express itself in each successive generation. How do we control the ebb and flow of change when society loses control of what it is becoming and elects fate as its leader? The least common denominator of cultural change always takes over and misdirects people into the shallows, invariably running them aground on the shoals of selfish hedonism.


In this chapter we will explore the connections between the brain and genetics to see just how much control we have to shape our own destiny and the incredible flexibility of the brain to accommodate us in whatever we set our minds to do, but if we get lost in our thoughts, there is no genetic stop button that turns off our DNA from accommodating us into the abyss of human depravity. This chapter posits a mechanism that powers human adaptation, equating civilization with domestication, suggesting that technology has made us soft, which has inadvertently compromised the human gene pool, making it easier to lead the world to its final solution. This chapter will examine how worldviews seep into our minds, alter our brains, are convert to biochemical molecules and reemerge in our children as predispositions for behavior, perpetuating the cycle of generational sins.


It is obvious that culture influences society, but it is more meaningful to consider how culture influences the individual. Using this thought we can define “Culture” as: The collective influence of individuals on society. Ironically, by this we can see that culture manages society, since it represents the group as a whole, and not the individual.


We have seen animals obeying their instincts, such as when fall comes and geese fly south for the winter. These animals are obeying certain genetic influences that are linked to seasonal changes in sunlight and temperature. Adaptation then as we observe it in nature should be viewed as developing shapes and sizes, behaviors and instincts that are flexible enough to accommodate a rapidly changing environment. The result is that it makes life on earth very flexible (plastic) in their ability to adapt, because they can draw from changes in their surroundings, or they can draw from their own genetic past, or they can press forward in completely novel directions.


There is compelling evidence that instincts and idiosyncratic behavior develop through a mechanism that universally exists in the genetic fabric of all living things for the purpose of acclimating to the environment. This inborn mechanism, belongs to a fast growing field called Epigenetics. It best explains the marvelously flexible system of checks and balances we observe in all living things, picking its target of selection based on what the animal most often uses for survival; for us it is our brains.


Before the industrial revolution, the father passed down his trade to his sons. Shoeman, Smith, Wheeler and Taylor are still common names that described what people did for a living. Back then the son inherited the name along with the trade, and after so many generations he inherited an aptitude and predisposition to carry on the family business. Teasing out the differences between nature and nurture is not easy, but there are examples in nature that totally eliminate the nurture side of this equation. For example, how do salmon instinctively swim upstream in a specific creek to lay their eggs in the place of their own origin without any instruction from their parents? A map of their destination must have been hardwired into their little fish brains while they were still in the egg. Does this happen only to salmon? How do some migratory birds instinctively know which direction to fly and how do they know when they have arrived at their destination, and how do they even know they are migratory birds if they have never received training from their parents? Again, perhaps everything they need to know is formed in them while they were in the egg? Do only certain animals have these gifts, or do they make it crystal clear that these things are happening in us all?


“…Genes are followers, not leaders, in evolution” is a quote by Mary Jane West-Eberhard in her book Developmental Plasticity and Evolution (p. 20), which is the theme of her work in genetics. The fact that genes do not lead but follow suggests a very flexible genome and requires very far-reaching and revolutionary changes in our thinking about genetics that has been teaching us for the last century and a half that we are the product of our genes. With a brain as big and powerful as our own it would seem impossible that we could use it to point ourselves in the wrong direction, but if all humanity throughout the ages could make one set of footprints, we would look back and see the progress of a man who appears to be totally lost. Society is disintegrating before our very eyes and no one knows how to stop it. God has apparently given man a very profound gift in our ability to manage the earth, and He has given us a very powerful brain, but it seems the responsibility is just too much for us. 


Following are three factors in order of influence that cycle through the generations, making us who and what we are:


1) Epigenetic: behavioral traits we receive at birth

2) Critical period: behaviors that form at home between the ages of 0-5

3) Culture: influences of society throughout life


Understanding how novel traits emerge in plants and animals would wrap up nicely if there were evidence to support the idea that our experiences directly edit the DNA molecule, but they don’t. According to the central dogma of genetics called Weismann’s Barrier, genetic information passes in only one direction: from DNA → to RNA → to Protein. In other words protein molecules cannot “upload” their information to DNA from which they originated. However, it is hardly necessary for information to pass directly to the next generation by editing germ cells, since there are other ways for this to happen without risking the integrity of genetic material.


Geneticists have calculated that about 98 percent of our genes do not code for proteins, making them available for other kinds of work, such as cell maintenance, much of which is epigenetic. Epigenetics – the prefix: Epi- means "above the genes." According to this definition, something is occurring at, near or against the genes to influence gene expression. That is, DNA may code for physical and behavioral traits, but Epigenetic molecules appended to the DNA has the final say about what those physical and behavioral traits will be! For example, when our brains develop during our critical period between the ages of 0-5, it forms around environmental conditions. These environmental changes to our DNA are expressed by epigenetic influences. The key question is: do we inherit these epigenetic changes? If we do, then we can inherit environmental influences on the gene, which would make us vulnerable to environmental change. Eva Jablonka and Marion Lamb say we do.


…For many years it was taken for granted that all memories of the “epigenetic past” had to be completely erased before cells became germ [reproductive] cells. This assumption ruled out any possibility that induced epigenetic variations could be inherited. The discovery in the 1980s that the epigenetic slate is not wiped clean—that some epigenetic information does pass from one generation to the next—was therefore totally unexpected (Jablonka, Page 139).


Epigenetic functions assign flags to certain genes, among other things. These flags (also termed switches) consist of small molecules that surround the gene, creating a microenvironment around them, appending additional instructions to their protein synthesis or else turning them on or off. For example, kidney cells are kidney cells because epigenetic effects on the cell turn on the sections of the chromosome that code for kidney cell production (Jablonka, page 113). When that cell divides, the resulting child cell is another kidney cell, which means epigenetic effects are inherited from cell to cell, and as previously stated, there is compelling evidence that they are also inherited from parent to offspring:


In genetic inheritance, traits are passed from one generation to the next via DNA sequences in genes. Differences in a DNA sequence specify differences in a trait. Epigenetic inheritance involves passing a trait from one generation to the next without a difference in DNA sequence. Known mechanisms of epigenetic inheritance include changes in molecular structures around the DNA so that while the gene is the same, the gene behaves differently. For example, genes switch on and off in response to hormonal signals. [i]


There is only a 1.1% difference in our DNA from chimpanzee's, suggesting that the major difference between them and us is epigenetic (West-Eberhard, p 335)! The way our genes function and express themselves are performed under a giant web of epigenetic influences which do far more than anyone expected in order to create the expressions of life and variation that we observe in nature and in ourselves. Take the Human Genome Project, scientists were disappointed about half way through the mission when they began to realize that what they were learning was never going to span the immeasurable variation of nature’s intricate complexity. The great hope of the Human Genome Project was to plot one gene to one trait, and with that they could heal any disease, modify our food production and genetically perfect humanity, but there wasn’t a one-to-one correspondence between genes and proteins. Scientists quickly realized that DNA doesn’t fit into the nice formula that they expected. There are only about ten thousand genes in the human genome. That may sound like a lot, until you begin adding up all the different tissues and organs throughout the body, along with our physiological systems and anatomic structures, etc....


When you consider that only about 2-3 percent of our genes are coding for proteins, it reduces the number of active protein coding genes to about 300. The only possible explanation for the complexity of life under such a small number of genes is that they are working in concert with each other in a near infinite array of combinations. When you consider that the possible combinations for 300 genes is about 3 X 10 384 (the number 3 with 384 zeros behind it), our observations of the rich variation of life are restored. This means we must revise our earlier notions of one gene coding for one protein. Genes mostly work in groups, are assigned to groups at birth, and are reassigned and rearranged throughout life, based on epigenetic information that attempts to support the survival needs of the organism, based on a built-in highly flexible genome that God designed to respond directly to the environment. However, since our genes cannot change their sequence, epigenetics is responsible for recombining our genes by various means that will be discussed shortly. To the degree that our genes are hardly different from that of a chimp is the degree to which something vastly unintuitive is transpiring within our cells.


Since these epigenetic forces are allowing us to acclimate to our environment, we can imagine the problems this could cause in society once our environment begins to disintegrate. Our biology will attempt to adapt to it, similar to a chameleon that changes its colors to blend into its surroundings. In other words, instead of trying to fix the emerging problems of society, we tend to adapt to them. All other animals do the same, assuming they are not causing the environmental changes, and our bodies have the same biology of all other animals, but what is different about us is that we are usually causing the changes to our own environment, which sets up a feedback loop that perpetuates the problems we are creating by acclimating to them. This is why it is so difficult to fix social problems. We have a huge blind spot in front of us that keeps us from seeing the solution, caused by epigenetic attempts to accommodate the changes to our environment. 


Genetic information that no longer serves a purpose, usually from a change in the environment, can be put aside as modules, and then later un-shelved and reused at a later time (called reversion). These modules make up the majority of our genetic material, serving as a history of our genetic past. They are bundles of genes that can be shelved and unshelved to combine forces with other genes and modules, and are capable of engineering very specific behavioral characteristics. Based on these insights, biological processes interpret the way we live as adapting to the environment by modifying the environment of the DNA to highly tuned instincts, designed to help us deal with a changing world. We can use the word culture in place of instincts.


In development, genes and environment have complementary quantitative effects on switches, such that an increase in the influence of one implies a commensurate decrease in the influence of the other. There is a sliding continuum in their proportional influences on switch determination, such that environmental and genetic factors in a sense compete with each other for control of regulation (West-Eberhard, p. 100).


In other words, as we mature throughout childhood there is one of two developmental pathways we will follow, either that of our parents and ancestors, or venturing into a brand new direction and blazing our own trail, depending on the similarities or differences of the environment. In the later case our bodies will essentially take over; modules of our genetic past will be unshelved and put back to use that often code for selfish and animalistic ways of surviving. In short, when a child is left to his own devices, he invariably reverts to a more primitive way of life. This just happens to be the growing trend in families all across America and is wreaking havoc throughout the world. 


Homology (Same-ology) is the study of biological similarities within all living matter. For example, fish eyes work similar to bird eyes that work similar to human eyes. Since there are so many similarities between biological systems, it should not surprise us to learn that there are functional similarities between our DNA and the neurons of our brain. Brain cells wire to other brain cells that fire in concert with the same outside stimuli, referred to Hebbian Plasticity that holds to the truism: ‘Cells that fire together wire together.’ Just as the brain is incredibly flexible (especially in children) and continually rewires itself throughout life to accommodate our mental and physiological needs, so our genes are doing the same things in very similar ways, suggesting there is a connection between the functionality of our brain and our genes. Our genes often need to trade positions along the DNA strand, controlled by epigenetic functions that reassign genes to work with other genes, causing them to produce completely different expressions to accommodate our needs based on our changing environment. In genetics jargon this process of gene sequencing is called Exon Shuffling.


An Exon as defined by the American Heritage Dictionary as: “A nucleotide sequence in DNA that carries the code for the final messenger RNA molecule and thus defines the amino acid sequence during protein synthesis.” According to this definition, exons constitute the end product of gene expression, so that when these units change places the body can make any protein it needs, with the goal of establishing highly specific behavioral modules for the purpose of accommodation. Barlow (1977) wrote: “A cornerstone of ethological theory is the belief that behavior comes in discrete packets…” (referring to modularity p. 98), and as West-Eberhard also wrote, “Traits can be lost and regained as units” (p. 234). So then, we think and behave in a manner similar to our biology, but that shouldn’t surprise anyone. The process of exon shuffling is partly summarized by West-Eberhard, p.317:


Since biochemistry and molecular biology focus on the fundamentally modular structure and behavior of biological molecules, it is perhaps not surprising that they arrived early at a combinatorial view of evolution, and that it was a molecular biologist (Jacob, 1977) who described evolution as “tinkering” with preexisting pieces. The lowest level of combinatorial evolution is based on the “changeability” of the genetic code—its ability to undergo rearrangement without loss of functionality (Maeshiro and Kimura, 1998).


Combinatorial adaptation refers to groups of genes that form modules to produce new protein molecules that alter physical and behavioral traits, effectively fine-tuning the organism. Phenotypic plasticity is a popular genetic term that describes the flexibility of gene expression, that is, it describes how our genes make us what and who we are. In other words,


Genes can produce alternate effects by differences in transcription from different promoters. Another way is by differences in how the transcripts are joined together, or spliced. RNA splicing cuts and then joins together (splices) sections of transcribed pre-RNA into the mRNA that will form the functional gene product. Alternative splicing produces alternative molecular phenotypes, and as might be predicted, it is involved in the origins of molecular novelties (West-Eberhard, pp. 318-323).


These alternative expressions are best seen as genetic modules that are pre-built and self-contained components designed for easy assembly and flexible use that can be invoked by a single switch. “A switch implies some change in state, for example, between on and off, under certain conditions… so a condition sensitivity is an implicit quality of all switches. They mark developmental decision points that depend on conditions. Conditions in this case may refer to the internal environment, the social environment, or the external environment” (West-Eberhard, p. 68).


Now that we understand that epigenetic functions are commonplace and important, let’s take a closer look at what is happening around the DNA molecule to make it respond so concisely to environmental demands when these switches are applied. Switches refer to, “Some element of a phenotype [that] changes from a default state, action, or pathway to an alternative one” (West-Eberhard, Page 67), referred to as an Alternative Phenotype (an alternative gene expression). The greatest strength of epigenetic switches is their ability to determine which genes work in concert with other genes. 


Genes are assigned partners at birth, but throughout our lives they trade partners with other genes in an attempt to accommodate environmental demands. This is amazingly similar to dendrite reconfiguration within the brain as we mentally adapt to our environment, suggesting that genetic change can effect changes in the configuration of our brains, and even more significantly, dendrite configurations can change gene functioning. This means, how we think and act may have some bearing on our genetic configuration. Since there are so many similarities between functional processes of DNA and mental processes of dendritic change within the brain, perhaps they are indeed interrelated. That is, just as the eye is the window to the soul, so maybe the brain is the window to our DNA. Perhaps our DNA has the ability to observe the changes that take place within the brain and use that information as a blueprint for its own genetic rearrangement. Perhaps the regulating forces of epigenetic change are looking to the brain as a model to tweak the somatic DNA molecule before it reproduces in the next cell generation to reflect the changes in the way we live. 


How we view the world around us and ourselves slowly builds over a course of millions of decision points by accepting or else rejecting messages that come to the brain. We think in terms of on and off, yes and no. This physiological process that governs the way we make choices on a moment-by-moment basis is happening just below our conscious ability of discernment, about 350-milliseconds faster than we can think, in that our perception ability begins at around 500-milliseconds. This means that the brain is making most of the decisions for us. The result of certain scientific experiments that kept track of these tiny particles of time allowed scientists to see the brain light up in their MRI machines before the individual being tested had a chance to make a conscious decision to act. They have shown that instead of our brain responding to us, we are responding to it by accepting or else suppressing the brain’s petitions that it presents to us. [brain] activity leading to [moving your hand, for example,] is well under way before the subject makes what he thinks is a conscious decision to act. The neuronal train has indeed left the station. If free will exists, it seems to be like a late passenger running beside the tracks and ineffectually calling, “Wait! Wait!” (Schwartz, p. 306). Such research findings are barely palatable to the ego. This means that we are not the ones initiating our own actions, but the brain is suggesting what to do next! If that is the case than it makes us wonder who (or what) is in charge? If it is our brain, then what role do we play in our life or even in the formation of our personality? What does our brain know that we don’t know? 'Who am I, now that I find myself second in command?' We appear to be merely agreeing or else disagreeing with a lot of minuscule atoms and molecules suspended in aqueous solution. In that case what sense of ownership do we realistically have in our own perception of reality?



*            *            *            *            *            *

There is a well-known story about a Russian man named Dmitri Belyaev, who bred silver foxes for tameness in Novosibirsk, Russia. Prior to his breeding efforts, these foxes were afraid of people and would snarl at anyone who came too close, or would hurt themselves trying to get away. Some would overheat or suffocate from fear. Although they had been raising these foxes for eighty years, they still had not become tame. People who have attempted to raise wolves encountered the same problems. Belyaev reported that 40 percent of them were aggressively fearful, 30 percent were extremely aggressive, 20 percent were fearful and 10 percent “displayed a quiet, exploratory reaction without either fear or aggression.” Belyaev separated the ten percent based on their flight distance, which was measured by two attributes: 1) how close he could get to the foxes before they ran away, and 2) how far away they would run. It only took eighteen generations to tame these foxes, after which they would look for their keepers and jump on their laps to get petted; they would let people rub their bellies, let them give them their shots and answered to their names. In short, they began to look and behave like dogs. At the beginning of Mr. Belyaev’s selective breeding experiment there was not a single fox that came close to being as tame as the foxes that resulted from his efforts. As these foxes became tamer other totally unexpected physical attributes began to emerge outside of Mr. Belyaev’s selective control. In other words they were byproducts of selection.


Their tails turned up at the end, like a dog’s. Their coats were often piebald [black and white spotted or patched], their ears drooped [floppy], and the females came into heat twice a year instead of once. Belyaev noted, “They even sound like dogs.” (Coppinger, P. 64)


… but for the most part, while the dog is in its first few weeks of life, and growing its brain, it is making the cell connections and rearranging them in a specific way, according to the signals that are coming from outside. This development predetermines its adult behavior. In other words, imprinting changes the dog forever. (Coppinger, P. 105)


Understanding brain growth should dispel the nature/nurture controversy once and for all. It is never, ever either nature or nurture, but always both at the same time. But liver cells make more liver cells because that is the environment they respond to. Behavior is always epigenetic—above the genes—an interaction between the genes and the developmental environment.  (Coppinger, P. 113)


Coupled with Mendelian genetics, this epigenetic mechanism allows us to create the many breeds of dogs that are in the world today, using Mendelian genetics to control the anatomic traits of the dog and Epigenetics to control the behavioral traits. There is a definite look and behavior of tameness in the canine family. Is there a definite look and behavior of tameness in humans—Tameness being tantamount to civilization and human domestication? The short answer is yes. What are the byproducts of domestication for us? Dogs go into heat twice a year instead of once and have smaller skulls than wolves, suggesting that being more sexually active and the loss of intelligence are natural byproducts of tameness, because any creature that is tamed no longer relies on its wits to survive, and if food is abundant, populations will naturally increase. There are probably many other negative byproducts of domestication, but the loss of intelligence I should think would trump them all.


Mendelian genetics cannot account for novel traits, including tameness in these foxes. Pure Mendelian genetics merely modifies traits that already exist and you simply get more of the same, but Epigenetics is the road that leads to behavioral change and novel traits. This is why Mr. Belyaev not only selected for tameness in the foxes (Mendelian Genetics), but also worked with them from pups during their critical period to increase the characteristic tameness in them (Epigenetics). In the process of raising these foxes from pups Mr. Belyaev encouraged the epigenetic connections in their brains to form around the characteristic tameness, and then selected the tamest foxes from the litter for mating. In this way he combined genetics with Epigenetics to increase the measure of tameness in the foxes from one generation to the next. This well documented account makes it crystal clear that some of the epigenetic information that the foxes acquired during their critical period was passed to the next generation and accumulated in the foxes’ gene pool through the course of selection. We humans also have a critical period, between the ages of 0-5, and we also have a selection regimen called culture. This critical period is when we develop epigenetic connections within the brain that transmits adaptive information to our DNA as the first step in transcribing those traits to our offspring. 


*            *            *            *            *            *


In historical times of desperation people have suddenly changed overnight (the German nation in the 1930s and 40s), as though someone flipped off a switch and the lights went out. In the brain, something analogous to epigenetic switches that control genetic modules for cells suddenly reverted to a more primal mode of survival, directing them to take on characteristic traits of psychopathy. We saw that these modules are bundles of genes created from the epigenetic past that work in concert with each other to create a certain physical or behavioral expression, but have been shelved from disuse. They are like replacement parts that can be deactivated and reactivated through a process called reversion, and are triggered into service usually by an outside stimulus. With regard to enditme prophecy the mark of the beast will act as a switch, only instead of turning on certain switches in genes, it will turn on switches in the brain that control inclinations of psychopathy, causing an endtime social disease outbreak of epigenetic proportions. A process similar to our genes is also happening in the brain, only having a much faster reaction time; our genes change through the generations, but switches in the brain can activate in a matter of moments. 


This may sound like science fiction, but we already have a historical example of this kind of social behavior in the Third Reich, illustrating an instance of genetic reversion simultaneously affecting individuals of an entire country. Germany was suffering under serious oppression after signing the Treaty of Versailles, which rightly vilified the German people responsible for WWI, so when they voted Hitler into power, Germany was ready to shed their guilt and oppression imposed on them by other countries. Hitler offered Germany freedom from oppression in the opportunity to believe in themselves as the “greatest nation in the world,” and they embraced it with raw insanity. Does that sound like something America would do? Lust for power and selfish ambition for glory and national pride turned Germany into monsters almost overnight. The seed of malevolence was germinating just under their skin, so when Hitler came along and watered the seeds of vengeance in their hearts, they blossomed into a field of bloodlust among those who suddenly lost the ability of feel compassion for their fellow man. The United States has placed itself in the position of Germany; we are in debt up to our ears, and one day the world economy will collapse, and a man will arise promising to deliver us from oppression. Will we too take the bait for the same motives of greed, lust and pride? 


The fact that sin accumulates in the human gene pool is the reason God had to start over many times throughout history. Had God not intervened during these times, man would have continued in his wickedness until he destroyed himself before the time. Following is a list of historical beginnings:


1. Noah’s ark

2. The tower of Babel

3. God raised up Israel to destroy the wicked nations of Canaan (our modern-day Middle-East terrorists: Deut 9-4,5) 

4. Jesus interceded for mankind by dying for our sins, giving the world an opportunity to launch into a new, positive direction

5. The end times – it is not the end of time, but the beginning of a new age


Jesus said in Mat 23,29-36, "Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you build the tombs of the prophets and adorn the monuments of the righteous, and say, 'If we had been living in the days of our fathers, we would not have been partners with them in shedding the blood of the prophets.' So you testify against yourselves, that you are sons of those who murdered the prophets. Fill up, then, the measure of the guilt of your fathers. You serpents, you brood of vipers, how will you escape the sentence of hell? Therefore, behold, I am sending you prophets and wise men and scribes; some of them you will kill and crucify, and some of them you will scourge in your synagogues, and persecute from city to city, so that upon you may fall the guilt of all the righteous blood shed on earth, from the blood of righteous Abel to the blood of Zechariah, the son of Berechiah, whom you murdered between the temple and the altar. Truly I say to you, all these things will come upon this generation."


Jesus accused the Pharisees of being sons of those who murdered the prophets, but the ancient prophets were ancient even to the Pharisees, so there was no way the Pharisees learned by example the murderous ways of their fathers. That is, the Pharisees’ great, great grandfathers who murdered the prophets had an indirect influence on them. How can people act like their ancestors whom they have never met? Rejecting the truth and killing Christ came naturally to them through genetically instilled predispositions, similar to instincts.


Jesus sentenced the Pharisees to hell based on their genealogy, which is what partially determined their behavior. He accused them of murdering Zechariah, who lived hundreds of years before they were even born. The Pharisees did not murder Zechariah, but Jesus held them personally responsible for his blood. When Jesus posed the rhetorical question to them, “How will you escape the sentence of hell?” He based His judgment on their sin, not the sins of their forefathers. Therefore, Jesus was saying that the Pharisees’ ancestors pushed down their sins to their offspring, while the Pharisees were simultaneously tugging their sins from their own chromosomes!


Jesus spoke as though they were inherently guilty of being sons of their fathers, as though being born into their respective families made them guilty of murdering the Son of God, saying, “Fill up, then, the measure of the sin of your forefathers!” There must be some truth to this, otherwise Jesus would not have said it. He was referring in part to ancestral sin. It doesn’t predestine anyone to act a certain way, but it does predispose them to certain behaviors. Born and raised to mirror their genetic past without thinking, by reflex as though trusting a voice that reverberates in their flesh, feeling a destiny to explore their corrupt desires, they move impetuously on command, having learned obedience to carnal impulses from childhood.


A more accurate interpretation of this verse might be that He held the generation of the Pharisees personally responsible for all the blood spilled on the earth since the beginning of time, saying, “I tell you the truth, all this will come upon this generation” (Mat 23:36). When Jesus was speaking to the spirit of murder, He was prophesying about his own crucifixion. God intended to heap upon Him the sin of the whole world committed since the beginning of time, so that He might destroy the power of sin and break the chains of ancestral regression perpetuated by demons off those who would believe in Him for eternal life through faith. In other words He offered the world a new beginning, and it worked for a while, but now man has slumped back into a deep spiritual apathy where religion has replaced a true faith in Jesus.



James R. Wuthrich 





Memory Hackers  52:03


Warning - Do Not Take the C0VID V@ccine  14:57

The Psychopath Next Door  44:37


Differences between: Narcissist, Sociopath and Psychopath  12:04


James Fallon, Neuroscientist - A Scientist's Journey Through Psychopathy  32:33


Wolves In Sheeps' Clothing  8:05


The Truth About Dishonesty  11:08






Jose Sanchez. Quoted in the New York Times, July 7,1989.


American Heritage© Dictionary of the English Language, Third Edition Copyright© 1992 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Electronic version licensed from and portions copyright© 1994 by InfoSoft International, Inc. All rights reserved.


Barlow, G.W. (1977). Modal action patterns. In: How animals communicate, T.A. Sebeok (ed.). Indiana University Press, Bloomington, pp. 98-134


Coppinger, Raymond and Lorna. (2001). Dogs, A New Understanding of Canine Origin, Behavior, and Evolution. University of Chicago Press.


Dennett, Daniel. (1995). Darwin’s Dangerous Idea. Simon & Schuster Paperbacks, New York.


Downes , Stephen M. (2003) Evolution and Learning: The Baldwin Effect Reconsidered. MIT Press. Cambridge, Massachusetts.


Fabian, B. 1985. Ontogenetic explorations into the nature of evolutionary change. In: Species and Speciation, E.S. Vrba (ed.). Transvaal Museum Monograph No. 4. Transvaal Museum, Pretoria, pp. 77-85


Hare, Robert D. (1993). Without Conscience: The disturbing world of the psychopaths among us. The Guilford Press, New York (London, England).


Hare R. D. (1970). Psychopathy: Theory and Research. New York: Wiley.


Jablonka, Eva and Lamb, Marion (2005). Evolution In Four Dimensions, genetic, epigenetic, behavioral, and symbolic variation in the history of life. MIT Press, Massachusetts (London, England).


Jacob, F. 1977. Evolution and Tinkering. Science 196:1161-1166


Jackson, R.R. and Wilcox, R.S. 1993. Spider flexibly chooses aggressive mimicry signals for different prey by trial and error. Behavior 127:21-36


Kandel, Eric R. (2006) In Search of Memory: The Emergence of a New Science of Mind. W.W. Norton & Company, Inc. New York, NY.


Maeshiro, T. and Kimura, M. 1998. The role of robustness and changeability on the origin and evolution of genetic codes. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA 95:5088-5093


Merriam-Webster's Medical Dictionary. Merriam-Webster, Inc. (accessed: January 09, 2007).


Parmesan, C., Singer, M.C. and Harris, I. 1995. Absence of adaptive learning from the oviposition foraging behavior of a checkerspot butterfly. Animal Behavior 50:161-175


Rutter, Michael. (2006) Genes and Behavior: Nature-Nurture Interplay Explained. Blackwell Publishing. Oxford, UK.


Schwartz, Jeffrey M. and Sharon Begley (2002). The Mind and the Brain: Neuroplasticity and the Power of Mental Force. Harper-Perennial. New York.


Stephens, D.W. and Krebs, J.R. 1986. Foraging Theory. Princeton University Press, Princeton


West-Eberhard, Mary Jane (2003). Developmental Plasticity and Evolution. Oxford University Press. New York, NY.