Another good explanation is found at SecretsUnsealed on their current newsletters.

I'm not sure he was saying this, but regarding the quote in relation to what he was saying "confused" means (polygamy)
what if she had said
Does that really change anything? That is, does leaving those words out really subtract from what she was saying? That is, polygamy was going on before the flood and has happened after the flood in almost all the animals and in certain cultures. I have observed it's considered a rare thing to come across a species of animal where they mate for life.


I agree with him that these kind of complaints merely serve to discredit and distract from Ellen White.

Polygamy does not create a new variety or species of animal. Nor would it have such an effect on humans. Polygamy is bad, but it cannot fully summarize what Mrs. White is alluding to in her statement.

As for animals, they seem to be designed the way they are. I was just looking at how bacteria reproduce today. They are rather interesting. Some animals are hermaphrodites...by design. I believe God created life on this planet with variety, not just in "kinds," but in design and function. Animals are not all created to be monogamous, nor sexual. Many reproduce asexually or via parthenogenesis. For example, worker honey bees can all lay eggs. But only the queen can lay eggs that will become females. The workers' eggs become drones, because they are not fertilized.

To be able to produce a new variety or species of animal or race of mankind requires more than mere polygamy.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

I'm sorry Green, but it seems we aren't even talking about the same thing. Did you read the newsletter?

Steve Bohr tries hard to make amalgamation polygamy. It may be part of the problem (think micro chimeras) but I don't think that was entirely what EGW was talking about.

A better explanation can be found in the following presentations:
R. Melashenko - the Science of Sin (Part 1)
and
R. Melashenko - The Science of Sin (Part 2)

No, you mentioned polygamy in your post. I was responding to that.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

As APL pointed out, maybe there was a reason I mentioned polygamy?

Let me know when you read it.

Polygamy was practiced at an early date. It was one of the sins that brought the wrath of God upon the antediluvian world. . . . It was Satan's studied effort to pervert the marriage institution, to weaken its obligations and lessen its sacredness; for in no surer way could he deface the image of God in man and open the door to misery and vice. {CC 36.5}


In the beginning, God gave to Adam one wife, thus showing his order. He never designed that man should have a plurality of wives. Lamech was the first who departed in this respect from
God's wise arrangement. He had two wives, which created discord in his family. The envy and jealousy of both made Lamech unhappy. When men began to multiply upon the face of the earth, and daughters were born unto them, they took them wives of all which they chose. This was one of the great sins of the inhabitants of the old world, which brought the wrath of God upon them. This custom was practiced after the flood, and became so common that even righteous men fell into the practice, and had a plurality of wives. Yet it was no less sin because they became corrupted, and departed in this thing from God's order. {1SP 93.2}
The Lord said of Noah and his family who were saved in the ark, "For thee have I seen righteous before me in this generation." Noah had but one wife; and their united family discipline was blessed of God. Because Noah's sons were righteous, they were preserved in the ark with their righteous father. God has not sanctioned polygamy in a single instance. It was contrary to his will. He knew that the happiness of man would be destroyed by it. Abraham's peace was greatly marred by his unhappy marriage with Hagar. {1SP 94.1}