Jonathan Bishop

I have previously shown how it might be possible, through huge advancements in science to refute the claim that we descended from humanoids (i.e. Adam and Eve) instead of simply being genetically different from chimpanzees purely through natural selection of genetic defects.

I now have a challenge to the world’s biologists. One of them, Paul Myers has already failed the challenge. Even though he can’t provide me with any evidence that my hypothesis is wrong, he has been very abusive because I dared question his religious biases as an Atheist.

Disgraced lecturer Paul Z Myers is known to be intolerant of non-Atheists viewpoints to the extent he is willing to desecrate the Quran and other sacred texts

It is my view that the Bible cannot be written off as a document until science is able to refute it. Science has already done this in some areas. For instance science has provided evidence to support the claim that Pi is not 3 as the Bible says, but 3.1415…

So, as I shown in the article referred to above it will be possible to show whether what made us split away from our chimpanzee cousins was a humanoid or inherited genetic mutations.

Let me provide you with some facts most biologists will support as accurate:

• The main difference between humans and chimpanzees is that chimps have Chromosomes 2A and 2B which in humans have fused as Chromosome 2;
• Our earliest descent when we split of was Lucy who had; Better working memory, better able to communicate and work with others, better child rearing capability;
• Lucy is likely to have been prone to Human endogenous retroviruses (HERVs)
• HERVs have been known to have drastic evolutionary consequences, as evidenced by tests on fruit flies who can transfer the virus.

Let me provide you with some facts most Biblical scholars with support as accurate:

• Adam and Eve increase their knowledge and reasoning ability through eating the forbidden fruit
• Eve had better child rearing capabilities

Classes of endogenous retroviruses - Could these be the key to the origin of life? Courtesy: Wikipedia

I therefore ask the biology community to refute the following:

• Lucy inherited the mutations that came from a HERV in part causing Chromosomes 2A and 2B to fuse in her which was carried forward to subsequent generations.
• Lucy’s differences from chimps are one of the reasons that humans have such a developed prefrontal cortex essential to social function
• It is the human prefrontal cortex that gives us our advanced social/emotional skills and impairment in this can lead to problems like schizophrenia, autism, etc. as I showed in this poster published in 2011.
• Lucy and her descendants are likely to have experienced many of the symptoms of autism as their frontal lobe would be developing at a faster rate than those primates who eventually became chimpanzees.

I ask the community of Biblical scholars to consider  the following:

• It is possible that the forbidden fruit could have been infected by a fruit fly carrying a retrovirus causing the mutations in Adam and Eve that were replicated in Lucy, who was a child of their son, whose wife was a primate?

Does science have all the answers today, or will it have to wait until tomorrow?

I am not presenting this as my version of the truth, as it is not in that category. I am merely showing one way in which Genesis 3 could be refuted. Real scientists like myself know that refute does not mean disprove, or even prove, but provide evidence that will support or oppose a claim. I argue that the claims above to the biologists are refutable, as science should be able to say whether I have got it right or wrong. I know Fanatical Atheists will shout their mouths off, but if they can’t provide evidence against what I am claiming then their opinion is just an opinion, no more than that.

In response to the claims against my religion by Giboff and Steve, I declare the following:

My religion is called: Mixed – Anglican Solomonite and Gnostic Scientist. Essentially I am saying that in so far as my religious beliefs are concerned where science refutes a claim in the Bible then that claim is not valid. Equally, where science cannot refute a claim in the Bible then that claim should be considered valid (i.e. fill in the gaps) until science can refute it.

From the way I see it, I am not trying to impose myself onto others, I put my views on this site and people can use them as they see fit. They are not compelled to come on this website. The only people who think I’m trying to impose myself onto them are those who are not able to justify their own position as rigorously as I can mine. The people who say to me “I don’t do politics” were doing politics up until the point they said that!

They only moral (i.e. a attitude/value one wants others to adopt as a general principle) I have is that I am against morals and don’t see a place for them in our society. Many other post-modernists share that view. I instead have a <a href=”/1790/unplugged-and-uncut/protocols-and-commandments-of-jonathan-bishop/”>personal code of ethics</a> which I live by as others do the 10 commandments – If you look at that code you’ll see that all of the ten commandments are in there!

I feel quite sad for you both, the way that despite how educated you are, the way you are attacking me for creating a belief system, when the basis on which you are attacking it is from an opposing belief system! You both appear to me to be empiricists – That is you think the truth is in the material world and that one should access it through objective observation.

As someone who started my philosophical journey as a constructivist, I think that is delusional myself. You can’t have an idea of an external reality without constructing it! You can’t know whether something is true, without reference to something that is not true. It is you both that are deluding yourselves thinking that you are anymore objective than me.

The fact is my belief system as a scientist reflects that more of an open-minded Agnostic. My religion is essentially that of a Confirmed Anglican who lost faith in the legitimacy of the Bible and Christ after reading beyond the Gospels. With my philosophy that of a constructivist then the only option for a religion beyond being Agnostic is being Gnostic. My Gnosticism is based on building what I know about the Bible, with what I know about science, with what I know about how Equality law recognises specific aspects of religion such as choices to do with food, clothes, jewellery, etc. which are my own personal likes and dislikes in reference to the scriptures. On this basis, it is quite fun trolling people who actually believe in their religion beyond its basis as a ‘philosophical lifestyle choice’ in Equality Law, especially Atheists like Steve and those who give Solomon legitimacy, like Jews, Christians, and Muslims.

So put simply Giboff – your hunch was right. My religion is more of an instrument shall we say to make life more interesting and justify my personality, especially when it goes up against those people who don’t see themselves as religious, like Steve, attack it in such a way that exposes their religious beliefs. For instance if you look at the definition of belief in the equality Act 2010:

Religion has the meaning usually given to it but belief includes religious and philosophical beliefs including lack of belief (e.g. Atheism). Generally, a belief should affect your life choices or the way you live for it to be included in the definition.

On that basis, I am legally entitled to have multiple belief systems, including religious, philosophical etc. Just because some of these are based on justifying my personality, which is a manifestation of various medical conditions and experiences, does not mean it is any less valid in law, as those who actually hold their religious beliefs on par with their philosophical, political and social/personal ones, among others.

Richard Wiseman posts a quiz on his blog. This type of quiz is used a lot in equality training to expose people’s prejudices. Often they try to get people to support saving a woman and child over a gay man or old man, or they try to get people to choose saving a surgeon over a disabled person or politician, or similar types of discrimination. Richard Wiseman’s was:

Time for a poll.  The sinking of the Costa Concordia has made me wonder whether the old adage of ‘women and children first’ still applies.  So, if you are a guy, imagine that you were on the ship.  It is sinking and there are a limited number of lifeboats.  You are not with your partner or children.  Would you follow the ‘women and children first’ rule?  Be honest – it is all anonymous!  Vote now….

My answer is simple: save myself and the child

It would be against my religion to put the woman and child before myself. My religion is Solomonite Scientist. In my religion I aim to be equal to King Solomon, who is equal to God. Therefore by putting a woman and child before myself I am committing Sin by saying I willing put put them above God, who I am equal to. God degrees that I shall have no God above him, so that means the woman and child would have to understand that to treat me equally on the grounds of my religious belief, would mean they could not come before me.

I answered both questions by the way. Whilst my sex is man, my gender is 19% female and 81% male so I had a right to answer the one relating to females. So I voted that most men would put women and children they have no relationship with before themselves. But then most of these men are probably walkovers who are pathetic excuses for human beings.

Survival of the fittest – If there were only two spaces on the boat, I’d take the kid and let the woman drown. Neither she, nor any other person is more important than me – they are certainly not above God!