There is no evidence that anyone has Abraham's genes, since there is no evidence that Abraham existed .

1.4 billion athiest Chinese people may beg to differ...

So first of all, prove scientifically that Abraham even existed.

Next prove that he really fathered as many people as this person assumes.

Then, prove that he believed what people say he believed.

Finally, prove that what he believed is true.

I reject my current parents' religion. I see no reason to accept some ancient dead guy's religion, even if he is a direct ancestor.

How does a fictional character spread it's genes ???

To best of my knowledge, there is no proof that an "Abraham" figure from the Abrahamic religions actually ever existed. Can not pass on genes from a fictional character, that is unless you're Kurt Vonnegut (lol).

"Even if religion X or ideology Y is very successful, that does not imply that I should embrace it and subscribe to its tenets." Quite; or give any credit to its beliefs. And if J Sacks is really gullible enough to believe in the literal idea of decent from Abraham, how much credit should be given to any of his views.

"No genes have spread more widely than Abraham's...."????
WTF are you babbling about?
"Lucy" DNA from 6,000,000 years ago can be found in Everyone.........

There is no proof of Abrahanic gene linking. There sure as Hell are a lot of people related to Genghis Khan however. Science.

Is there any scientific evidence that Abraham's genes are as widespread as they claim? And even if they are, why should that be proof of god? Some guy, a long time ago, manages to produce a bunch of kids who manage to stay alive long enough to produce their own kids and so on. That's end of story, in my opinion. You could draw the same conclusion about any large family.

I'll just stick with the old Darwinism.

This has zero scientific validity. Firstly, neo-Darwinism is no more a real thing than the illusory genetic code barrier. And secondly, the speaker hasn't provided any evidence that 1 Abraham's lineage still exists, 2 That Abraham existed, or 3 That the Abrahamic religion was a factor in his lineage's supposed success. Not scientific even a little.

Maybe surgeons should put away their scalpels and let the lord do the healing

Biological evolution is real. Social, cultural economical and political Darwinism are false human constructs used to promote privilege, and as a basis for discriminating against other groups, classes, cultures, and ideologies. Indeed, they are the tools of individuals and groups that are would=be tyrants.

Who the fuck is Jonathan Sacks and why should I care about his moronic viewpoint? I googled the name and this orthodox rabbi is a member of the british parliament, who the fuck cares about the musings of an orthodox rabbi about a character from the old testament that is as cruel as he is fictional? Waste of time.

It appears to me that if we follow this kind of logic, then it would be Neanderthals who should be reversed for their genetic fitness over Abraham. All those outside of Africa bear somewhere between 2% and 5% of Neanderthal genes. Since we have no reason to believe that Abraham's descendents spread into the Asian race and ethnicities, we have a very significant number (like, a couple billion) more individuals descended from Neanderthals than descended from Abraham. Of course, this assumes Abraham was a real historical figure (as so many others have pointed out) and that his descendents are as wide spread as claimed.

I also recently read a headline that claimed it was likely that all those with western Europeans anscestry were descended fro Charlemagne. Anyone who has looked into their geneology much knows that certain ancestors had large families and created a large number of descendants. Unless incestous relastipns were common, the number of descendants increases exponentiolly each generation. A large descency from someone who lived thousands of years ago is hardly proof of anything except that they had some surviving offspring. The same claim made of Abraham is likely as true for Omar the camel trader who lived at the same time. Perhap, Omar should be equally revered as Abraham is supposed to be?

Here we are discussing “Abraham”. And the only evidence of his existence, is a bunch of books that everyone outside of a clan mentality, considers to be cruel and evil fiction. The evolution of any savage, on any continent, could have been “Abraham”. The resulting “Abraham” was obviously the result of many factors. Famine, wars, disease and who knows what, would have allowed “him” to have occurred at about the time the species began to record thoughts and dreams. Many of those thoughts and dreams occurred when that individual was high on poison mushrooms, etc.

Illogical .

Genghis Khan has the most descendants I thought from dna evidence

There's no truth at all to that quote. What idiot would let a fairy tale override meticulous research?

I agree totally with the second part or your post. Even if there were to be a range of deities, they are no more enlightened than ourselves so why adhere to a doctrine that doesn’t sit right with one.

I don’t think that being descended from Abraham is anything special. Almost everyone is descended from not only Abraham but from just about everybody else from ancient times who reproduced. For example, it is said that anyone with European roots descended from Charlemagne.

The tree branch model doesn’t do justice to genealogy. Genealogy is more like a rope, with a person represented by a fiber. The length of the fiber represents the lifetime of the person.Where a male and female fiber touch a new fiber might begin.

Looking at the fiber that represents Abraham, we can see that it is of little significance to the rope as a whole. A single fiber would be of interest only if it possessed a valuable new mutation in its genes.

I doubt if the development of monotheism caused enhanced survival of its adherents. More likely the strong, intelligent, creative tribes that were capable of formulating monotheism survived because they were strong, intelligent, and creative.

Besides that, what about China and India? They aren’t noted for monotheism, yet their populations haven’t been petering out.

It’s allegorical. All part of the oral tradition. A literal take on any ancient text, whether an adherent or otherwise, will just lead to argument and dispute as we see, both in the world and the microcosm of this forum. Perhaps we should listen with our minds and not our ears.

I would counter that with the fact that the wealthier a country becomes the lower is the birthrate. For example even the birthplace of Roman Catholicism .Italy, has a birthrate of around 1.6/1, much less than the replacement rate of 2.1/1.
So using the above logic to be successful we should throw all our possessions away,cut of the electricity and walk everywhere.

A major part of evolutionary theory relates to fitness in the face of NATURAL selection. There's not much that is natural about the last 5000 years of human history.

The concept of memes comes from Dawkins' Selfish Gene, and those who understand that definition do compare self-replicating ideas as potentially parasitic. The formulation of religions as memes has more to do 1) with understanding how ideas spread; and 2) with the proposition that ideas may exist as nucleic acid polymers (either RNA or DNA) that are stored and retrieved memories. Plainly, memes have nothing to do with germline DNA unless you're a Lamarkian.

Why do you keep posting the absurd writings of Sacks? Other comments effective dissect the many flaws in his statement. What he's really doing is advancing a reason for atheists to be believers, which might be viewed as part of his calling (to disseminate disinformation). Lacking a basis in truth or logic, Sacks statement is just silly BS, and for you to repost it reflects on your own intellectual rigor. Why don't you tell us why you have an interest in this guy?

"it is nonsense, as some atheists do, to treat religious ideas as mental parasites"

"Some atheists," huh?

I dare you to give me one example of that actually happening.

(I think will block you after this. Your atheism jabs are really boring.
It's funny how the "pure" agnostic crowd get off on sneering at atheists for taking time to argue about religion, while the pure agnostics find it wholly acceptable to bash "some atheists".)