Where did the Black Race come from??

Once again, xdx, and emphatically, I resent being told I am doubting the Bible. You need to learn the difference between doubthing the Bible and doubting what people tell you about the Bible.

Get that straight, and we'll talk.

 

Yes. But I'm one who is Melatoninally Challenged.
My American Indian friends call me 'pale face' :smilewinkgrin:

 

I don't doubt you but how do you explain the last chapter of Deut if there was only one writer. It records Moses death and Joshua becoming the leader. Keep in mind God clearly says in the account in Joshua, "Moses my servant is dead..."

 

Differences in skin tone are due to differences in the amount of a pigment called melanin in the skin, not melatonin.

It is genetically advantageous to have more melanin in parts of the world where there is more sun since the pigment absorbs sunlight to prevent sunburns. Sun tanning is actually the body producing melanin for this purpose.

It is genetically advantageous to have less melanin in parts of the world where there is less sun since the pigment blocks the sunlight which is necessary for our bodies to produce Vitamin D. Dark skinned folks in places with low sunlight are more prone to rickets which is due to vitamin D deficiency.

My assumption would be that Adam and Eve were dark skinned since they were likely in Mesopotamia which has a lot of sun and I would be asking where all the light skin races came from.

I'm chinese and I find the slit eye stereotype to be pretty inaccurate. While there are more Asians that have small eyes than non-Asians, the actual range of eye size is quite broad among asians. I have no idea where it came from because asian cultures don't seem to select for slit eyes.

 

Ok, so I'm gloomey cause i'm Melatoninally Challenged
and i'm pale cause i'm Melaninally Challenged.

Who can keep all these challenges straight anyway? :sleep:

 

I have Anthropology textbooks that show no Anthropologist has been able to document any significant difference in "race" (they can only say there are different skin colors and facial features). Their problem is that the use of the term "race" at its roots implies "species." If the different "races" were actually different "species" then they would not be able to procreate (like a fox can't breed with a dog). The Anthropologists acknowledge that there is only one "race" that being the human race. Anthropologists who work from an evolutionary science model are at a loss to explain their findings regarding race studies. The best they can do when someone proposes a new system for identifying the "races" is to ask why anyone would want to divide up the human race. Funny that...:smilewinkgrin:

 

From my own studies: there is one race -- the human race. The areas of the genetic codes in people which determine their facial and skin features are so tiny as to be almost negligible. Some studies have demonstrated that there are far more genetic differences within 'races' than between them!

Where did these divisions come from? Someone mentioned a great deal of genetic variablity in the first people. That is basically it. When we look at the Table of Nations in Genesis 10, we can see a broad range of 'colors' or pigment levels in each of the three branches of the human race. It is not just the descendants of Ham who are dark! Take a look at the descendants of Japheth, some of whom include the Ethiopians, who are about as black as anyone can be and have distinctly 'white' features.

The son which was being referred to as possibly being dark was Ham, and it had nothing to do with his behavior, for he would have been dark from birth. Some studies in linguistics indicate that his very name "Ham" means 'burnt one.' What is interesting to me is that it is a very short phonetic step from Ham to Herm, which means 'burning one', and there is evidence he may have been the first prototype of the pagan sun god.

As far as Genesis goes, I personally believe that Wiseman was quite correct in his analysis that this book is actually a series of eyewitness accounts, each of which is signed off by the author or authors who wrote. Moses was in a perfect position to take possession of these tablets, which would have been brought down via Noah and then Shem, for he was not only a prince in Egypt but later the leader of the Israelites. There are evidences of editorial comments inserted in a few places, but as he was the one who collated the tablets, they would carry his name, as did the books he actually did write. By the way, the fact that his death is mentioned is simply an addition, probably by Joshua, to formally close Moses' account.

At any rate, back to the original question, the 'races' originated simply due to genetic variation from Adam and Eve. They were most probably of a medium skin tone, which could then be emphasized for darker or de-emphasized for lighter.

If you take a look at how fast we have been able to isolate different characteristics in dogs, thus producing the various breeds, it should be kind of obvious that it doesn't take long for differences to show up.

 

The general consensus seems to be that we all started off as black and it was only when we migrated to more temperate climes that those of us who are now white lost most of our melanin because we didn't need it any more.

And TP's interpretation of Scripture is just as much a possibility as any other - why the closed minds?

 

Amen, Sister Helen -- You are so RIGHT ON! :thumbs:

 

What's to explain? You don't think Moses, who wrote the entire rest of the Pentateuch in third person could have recorded his own death? Moses didn't write Joshua. He was dead. God could certainly reveal to Moses how he would die and how to record it. It is also not inconceivable that a later writer added a footnote to explain the transition. That hardly compromises Mosaic Authorship of the Pentateuch, especially given the overwhelming scriptural testimony to it.

 

Individuals cannot have a huge gene pool. A gene pool is expressed as the diversity of genes held by a population. 2 people cannot have all that much diversity in their genes. Each gene will have a total of 4 possibilities in the gene pool, 2 from each person.

Whether you believe in evolution or not, genes natually increase in diversity with every generation because of a wonderful biological mechanism that God created called meiosis that results in new gene combinations whenever sperm or eggs are generated by parents.

While continually marrying within the same family causes things like recessive genes to manifest themselves and certain genes to become selectively bred for, there is still an overall increase in genetic diversity in each successive generation if each generation has more people than the previous one (exceptions being identical twins, triplets, etc).

All of the above is high school genetics that is independent of any evolutionary theory.

 

Don't sprain an ankle jumping through hoops, now.

:laugh:

 

Are you saying that if blacks marry and interbred then they might one day get white children? I don't think so. But Adam and Eve might have had a different DNA than we have today. They had the information for black skin, white skin, yellow skin and so on all in their genes and this means that they could get white children, black children and so on.
What does meiosis have to do with this? Can you tell me? When I have sugar and only sugar then can I get salt from mixing the sugar in 100 different combinations? I don't think so. We are talking about the loss of information. if you have blonde people which have lost the information for black or brown hair and interbreed them then you will always get blonde offspring, this is how it works.

 

You think incorrectly, then. Read some history, then get back to me. I'm still waiting for you to acknowledge my earlier point, by the way.

 

I haven't jumped through any hoops. I gave two legitimate explanations that do not require calling Jesus a liar. Why do you presume that Jesus didn't tell the truth? That makes no sense to me.

 

While the genes that determine black skin or not have
yet to be found,
the genetic structure that causes depression has
been found:

Blue Genes (Jeans) :smilewinkgrin:

 

Why do you accuse me unjustly? I never called Jesus a liar, nor would I.

Jesus forfeited His place in the Trinity while on earth. This is clearly delineated in Scripture. Thus He would have known what "everybody" knew back then, and referred to Scripture as everyone else did. To lie, one has to knowingly present a falsehood. Jesus did no such thing, and I resent deeply your false accusation against me.

Why don't you, in lieu of the apology you should give but will not, explain how Moses wrote the first five books of the Bible in no less than four different styles and from at least four different points of view?

And try to do so without making more false accusations. I will not stand for it.

 

I don't know how well I can explain this, but here's an explanation of how we could have the various races. The production of melanin is controlled by two pairs of genes. If we call them Aa and Bb, the capital letters are the dominant genes and the small letters are the recessive genes. Thus, AABB would be the blackest and aabb would be the lightest. The more capital letters, the more melanin and the darker the individual.

If Adam and Eve were both AABB, then all their offspring would only be the darkest. If they were both aabb, then all their offspring would be the lightest, and there would be no differences in skin color.

If however, both Adam and Eve were AaBb, then every combination is possible. AaBb people are like many of those in the middle east, sometimes described as "middle brown". In fact, if there are various combinations that can result from two people both with AaBb genes.

AABB - The darkest of all
AABb - Dark Brown
AaBB - Dark Brown
aaBB - Middle Brown
AAbb- Middle Brown
AaBb - Middle Brown
Aabb - Light
aaBb - Light
aabb - Lightest

If they had 16 children, then genetics say they would have had 1 that is darkest of all, 4 dark brown, 6 middle brown, 4 light, and 1 lightest of all.

 

I didn't accuse you unjustly. Jesus said Moses wrote the Pentateuch. You say he didn't. Only one of you is telling the turht.

No he didn't. He couldn't. God cannot quit being God. I hope you are merely uninformed on this. I hope you are not thoughtfully embracing heresy.

Why should I apologize? I didn't do anything wrong. Second, I don't agree that Moses wrote in four different styles and from four points of view. That he wrote differently is to be expected when he wrote on different topics. We all do that. That's not strange. But there is absolutely no evidence for multiple authors. That view has long been discredited by very able OT scholars. It cannot be taken seriously.

I never made the first false accusations, which means you are the one making false accusations. As for standing for it, you don't have a choice. You said what you said. You can retract or explain why you believe God didn't tell the truth. And you can apologize for accusing me of making false accusations when I clearly did no such thing.

 

Only if heresy is defined as doctrines contained in Scripture.

Unless speaking against Scripture is wrong. Evidence above.

"Long discredited?" By which "very able scholars?" And why would Moses have interspersed the differing styles within the selfsame narrative? You're treading water here, and poorly.

Get over yourself. I have clearly explained why I have said what I said, and how I was not calling God a liar. You are wrong, and should be used to being wrong, as you seem to do it often.