Races?

[Karl - Liberal Backslider]

My personal veiw is that they were different then us in a lot of ways, and in fact, "neandrathal skulls" were just the skulls of humans who aged veeeeeerrrrry slowly. But I wasn't there, so can't say for sure.

Even the skulls of neanderthal children?

 

[JillLars]

Maybe someone can help me out here, I didn't think there was any evidence that increased amounts of melanin lowered the risk of skin cancer.

Edit:
Ok, I think I was mistaken, the amounts of melanin do have some affect on the rate of skin cancer, but do not have any affect on withstanding hot conditions.

 

[pudmuddle]

Even the skulls of neanderthal children?

Sure.

 

[Karl - Liberal Backslider]

Sure.

So. Neanderthal children's skulls show features that are the result of them aging very slowly?

OK. Fill in your model a bit. How old was a 'neanderthal' child who appeared to be nine years old at death?

What is the evidence for your conclusion?

Why does this slow aging not happen to modern humans from strata of the same age?

Did you just take this idea from Jack Cuozzo?

 

[wonderflex]

Back onto the race theory. There is quite a bit of truth to the fact that there are different races, based totally on the makeup of the innerbody. Just as we may all look different, we all also are different inside.

We have as many varients as dogs. At times it is hard to tell one breed of dog from another (Jindo to Korean Jindo), and then at other times it is quite obvious (Puuli to English Setter). We are just as diverse internally depending on race.

This has been proven mostly by the work of a Brittish man, named James M. Tanner, in the early 1960's who was attempting to find the perfect body type for the various events in Track and Field. We'll use Muscle composition for an easy example of these differences he discovered.

We all have two types of fibers in our muscles Fast-twitch (white), and Slow-twitch (red). The white is used for bursts, the red for endurance. Of both types, white and red, there is two varients. In white fibers the two types are: one that is more metabolically efficient, and another which is faster.

When looking at the make up of the different races we note drastic contrasts in the various make-up's the muscles.

Whites in general have a higher level of red fiber, making us slower, but giving us more distance ability. Blacks, specifically from West Africa though on the other hand have nearly all white fiber, and mostly of the high speed type.

Now, at first many thought this was all due to physcial surroundings, and the cultural upbringing, but was later proven to be untrue.

People from Kenya started winning distance races like crazy, starting in 1988 when they took the 800m, 1500m and 5,000 meters, plus the 3,000m steeplechase. Right in the middle of this area prime for sprinters, came distance runners, who were slower than all get out in the sprints. This was do to the fact that Kenya, unlike the surrounding area's, were origionally from a mixture of invading Arabs and Middle Easterners.

So in all effects, I guess we can say that the term, "race," can actually just stand for, "breed." I am in no way implying though that we are in any way on the same scope as dogs though; rather that we just share the same gift of genetic diversity.

Now, if we wanted to go deeper into the differences, simply in muscles, then we could go on forever. Like how certain races exibit a higher tollerance to lactic acid, or actually produce less; completely independant from the physical environment brought about it.

It's kinda like the old saying us track people say, "Your either born fast, or you don't last."

 

[truthnluv]

Where do the different races of the world come from? 

 

honest question,

Gideon

There is only one race... the human race. Everyone descended from Adam. Even Eve came out of Adam. Within Adam was the genetic variety for all of the various ethnic groups.

The concept of different "races" is an evolutionary concept and is innapropriate for any Bible believing Christian to adhere to. God made all men of one blood and then separated them based on language at the tower of Babel. Different species did not evolve at different rates from various groups of monkeys(which descended from fish of course).

As far as everyone that is on the earth right now, we are all Sethites. Noah and his sons were a Sethites. Everyone on the planet is a descendent of one of Noah's three sons.

The genetic variation for all of the different ethnic groups on the planet was contained within Noah's three sons; Ham, Shem, and Japeth.

Ham had five sons:
1.Put(Libya, Somaliland[south of Cush])
2.Mizraim(Egypt)
3.Cush(Ethiopia, Sudan)
4.Canaan- Inhabitants of the promised land also called Canaan.. these are the descendants cursed by Noah. They were all killed or conquered and assimilated into the ethinic group of their conquerers. During their existence those left alive were servants to Isreal. So, not only was Noah's curse fufilled a long time ago, but these ethnic groups no longer exist. HAM WAS NOT CURSED, BUT RATHER THE DESCENDANTS OF CANAAN.
5.Sidon(Phoenicia-Lebanon, Carthage)

The descendants of the grandsons of Ham would also include South and North American Indians(Navahoe, Cherokee, Incas, Mayans), Phoenicians, Polynesians, Chinese(and related groups; Filipinos, Japanese, etc.), Kenyans, Nigerians, etc.

Cushites:
1.Seba- Associated with upper Egypt
2.Havilah-"Sea land"- North Arabia on Persian Gulf
3.Raamah and Sabtechah-Southern Arabia
4.Sheba-Southwest Arabia
5.Dedan-Northern Arabia

Nimrod is believed to be the first ruler of the world after the flood. He was also a son of Cush. His kingdom included Babel, Erech, Accad, Calneh, Assyria, Nineveh, Rehoboth Ir, and Calah.

Shem had five sons:

1.Elam-Persia:Iran, area east of Babylon and Persian gulf
2.Assur-Assyria
3.Lud- Lydians, western Turkey(Sardis).
4.Aram-Aramaic Armenia, Mesopotamia, Syria
-Uz was a son of Aram... Job came from the land of Uz(just a sidenote).
5.Arphaxad-Chaldeans, ABRAHAM.... This is really the point of all the geneologies. Seth to Noah to Shem to Arphaxad to Eber to Peleg to Reu to Serug to Nahor to Terah to Abraham. And this is who the promise of the Messiah given to Adam and Eve was to come through. Geneologies of the other nations are given only for contrast.

Sons of Japheth:

1.Javan-Ionians; Greece, Cyprus
-the olive skinned people of greece and Spain would be included in this Japethic branch
2.Gomer-Cimmerians; Germans, Wales, Black Sea area north of Mesopotamia
-Ashkenaz- Germany, Armenia, Scandanavia, Denmark, N.islands of Eur. west coast.
3.Madai-Medes of Medo-Persian Empire, East Indians(notice not all of these descendants are fair skinned).
4.Magog-Scythians; Romania, Ukraine, etc.
5.Tiras-Thracians; Macedonia, Yugoslavia, Goths, Scandanavian peoples, etc.
6.Tubal-Tibarenians..Tobolsk; Russia
7.Meshech-Moschians..Moscow;Russia
-The brown skinned peoples of Southern Russia and Alaska would also be included in this particular Japhetic branch.

This is not an exact science and there has been so much migration, war, and mixture of the ethnic groups that many of them no longer exist as distinct groups. For example, Morrocans are the result of a mixture of ethnic groups from all three of Noah's sons. The same can be said of most ethnic groups to some extent.

Hope that was helpful and not too confusing.

truthnluv

 

[thirasian]

u guys have it all wrong thiras was only ancestor to the thracians because thiras had a red skinned mom which made him red skinned and dark haired and thats why thracians are red skinned and mostly dark haired and thracians have alot of red haired people because thiras had a red haired wife and a dark haired wife i know thise because im a decendent from thracians romanians are decendents of thracians thats why romanians are mostly dark haired or red haired.and thracians are not related to any other race besides there tribes.

 

[DailyBlessings]

The fact is, you can check for racial groups the same way you can check for sickle-cell anemia, or eye color, or skin color, or any of hundreds of other fairly simple traits. Often, the answer is "a bit of everything", but you can check for the traits, they're in the genes, just like everything else.

You can identify individuals through ethnicity (sometimes), but the notion of "race", at least as popularly perceived, has been proven invalid. No boundary can be drawn, for instance, between "white" and "black", because each group is more diverse genetically within itself than between each other. If you had a lot of data, DNA analysis could maybe tell you what village in Southern Nigeria a person came from, through common physical traits common to that village. But they would have little more in common with a Tanzanian than a Swede, save for a scattering of popular phenotypes.

 

[gluadys]

There is only one race... the human race.

Good. We are on the same page to begin with.

Within Adam was the genetic variety for all of the various ethnic groups.

This is not biologically possible. No one individual contains all the genetic variety inherent in the species gene pool even in his/her own generation. Definitely not for all generations of the species.

The concept of different "races" is an evolutionary concept and is innapropriate for any Bible believing Christian to adhere to.

Yet the concept of "races" was well established in Christian society long before the concept of evolution. It was a bulwark of the defence of colonialism and slavery. Furthermore, the defenders of colonialism and slavery often adduced scriptural support for their racist beliefs. Even today, most groups supporting racism disown evolution and claim to be Christian.

It is very difficult to make the case that evolution leads to racism. One has to completely distort evolution to make it supportive of racism.

The genetic variation for all of the different ethnic groups on the planet was contained within Noah's three sons; Ham, Shem, and Japeth.

This is still biologically impossible.

 

[gluadys]

You can identify individuals through ethnicity (sometimes), but the notion of "race", at least as popularly perceived, has been proven invalid. No boundary can be drawn, for instance, between "white" and "black", because each group is more diverse genetically within itself than between each other.

All true.

If you had a lot of data, DNA analysis could maybe tell you what village in Southern Nigeria a person came from, through common physical traits common to that village.

It is a wee bit more complex than that. Traits common to that village might also be common to neighbouring villages. Commonality alone is not sufficient as an identifying marker. So to tie a person to that village the traits in question would not only need to be common to that village, but also unique to that village i.e. not found in neighbouring villages.

But they would have little more in common with a Tanzanian than a Swede, save for the single phenotype of skin color.

Again, true.

 

[billwald]

"White" is (obviously by visual inspection) a recessive characteristic.

Anyone claim there are no differences between terriers (dogs) and retrievers? If not, then why no differences between the human breeds?

 

[gluadys]

"White" is (obviously by visual inspection) a recessive characteristic.

Anyone claim there are no differences between terriers (dogs) and retrievers? If not, then why no differences between the human breeds?

Domestic breeds of plants and animals are kept separate from each other by breeders who normally do not permit cross-breeding.

So they are genuine breeds with their own sets of characteristics.

There is no such separation imposed on humans. Even geographical separation is no longer what it used to be.

So there are no human breeds as such. We are all more or less mongrels.

 

[DailyBlessings]

Domestic breeds of plants and animals are kept separate from each other by breeders who normally do not permit cross-breeding.

So they are genuine breeds with their own sets of characteristics.

And even so, it is mostly visible characteristics that are bred for. While purebred or nearly purebred animals have other characteristics distinctive to their breed (because their breeding population is actually quite small and isolate) the forced homogeneity quickly dissipates in non-controlled environments. "Mutts" are much better represtentatives of what dogs would look like if we did not maintain very strict artificial limits to their reproduction. And for that matter, they are considerably healthier.

 

[gluadys]

"Mutts" are much better represtentatives of what dogs would look like if we did not maintain very strict artificial limits to their reproduction. And for that matter, they are considerably healthier.

Right. And that is what we do have in humans. No maintenance of strict artificial limits to reproduction. So we are all "mutts".

(I used the term "mongrel" above, but it means the same thing.)

 

[DailyBlessings]

Right. And that is what we do have in humans. No maintenance of strict artificial limits to reproduction. So we are all "mutts".

(I used the term "mongrel" above, but it means the same thing.)

Exactly. Have you ever seen the spatial ethnic congruity diagram from a DNA analysis? Rarely are all of the significant matches from the same "race", even in very isolated populations.

 

[gluadys]

Exactly. Have you ever seen the spatial ethnic congruity diagram from a DNA analysis? Rarely are all of the significant matches from the same "race", even in very isolated populations.

No, I am not familiar with those diagrams, but I am not surprised at the findings.

 

[billwald]

>There is no such separation imposed on humans. Even geographical separation is no longer what it used to be.

Was but no longer. What will happen? I predict that people will mate on the basis of intelligence and ambition thus producing a self segregation into winners and losers.

 

[Dannager]

>There is no such separation imposed on humans. Even geographical separation is no longer what it used to be.

Was but no longer. What will happen? I predict that people will mate on the basis of intelligence and ambition thus producing a self segregation into winners and losers.

This is possible. Sexual selection teaches that mating preference plays a role in the outcome of evolution. If the environment (in this case, modern society) is favorable to those with intelligence and ambition, it is likely that intelligence and ambition will be selected for.

 

[SoldierOfTheKing]

Domestic breeds of plants and animals are kept separate from each other by breeders who normally do not permit cross-breeding.

So they are genuine breeds with their own sets of characteristics.

There is no such separation imposed on humans. Even geographical separation is no longer what it used to be.

Natural variations within species of domestic animals and plants were augumented by human breeders to make these animals and plants more suitable for certain purposes.

There was in fact, thousands of years of separation imposed on humans that effectively prevented cross-breeding. (see Genesis 11) Different populations were placed in different environments in which the genetic traits most advantageous to survival were different. The effects of such a long period of history are not something that spontaneously disappears from the gene pool. In addition to geographical factors, cultural taboos against miscegenation (cross-breeding) have also served to reinforce these differences.

So there are no human breeds as such. We are all more or less mongrels.

More or less. However, this is tantamount to arguing that there are no chemical compounds as such because in practice nearly all substances, more or less, have impurities. The water that comes out of your tap is not pure water. It contains trace minerals that occur naturally in the water supply, but nobody would claim that for this reason it is not accurate to call it "water".

 

[WAB]

Where do the different races of the world come from? 

 

honest question,

Gideon

Acts 17:26a.... "And He has made from one blood every nation of men to dwell on all the face of the earth..."

As someone no doubt will point out, the word "blood" does not appear in some manuscripts, but that does not change the meaning of this Scripture. As a matter of fact, it strengthens the fact that the Creator made from one individual, all nations/tribes of men. That individual of course was Adam.

As far as color goes, there is only one reason for skin color, and that is the substance known as melanin.

The difference between "black" and "white" people groups is due to cultural differences far more than how we are put together.

Of course, after the nations were scattered, some folks who were of a darker or lighter color tended to stick together, and the more they interbred, the darker or lighter that people group became.

But we are all descendants of Adam and Eve, and there is a good likelihood that they were mid-brown when the Lord made/formed them.

Shalom....