Polygenist Creation Models

[Notedstrangeperson]

Note this last quote -

''Why this bias from the 'race denial' faction? This bias seems to stem largely from socio-political motivation and not science at all.''

Keep the politics away from science, please.

Nobody except Mark Kennedy claimed race does not exist. We're not all 'crackpot' liberals trying to shove our political agendas down your throat, we're debating you because your claims are incorrect.

You've claimed here and on other threads that only Caucasians or 'Adamites' can be Christians, that Caucasians were created directly by God while other races evolved from lower animals or hominids, and that God himself is literally a Caucasian. Nobody else here has agreed with these claims, and I find them particularly wrong as I am interested in the biological basis of race.

I don't think any of the users on this thread have mentioned what political group they favour or what country they come from - you could only tell by looking at their icons.

 

[Research2]

- You reject physical anthropology and science. On Pages 1 and 2 of this thread, you have claimed physical anthropology and racial typology is unreliable and that you reject it.

The only people who reject racial typology and classification are those with a political agenda.

And here are your posts on this topic (pages 1 and 2) -

To drive the point home, judging race by appearance is unreliable.

The 'Essentialist Concept' (also known as the Typological Model) is rarely used by modern anthropologists. It is especially unreliable when we think that races were 'assigned' certain features.

I'm not criticising the concept of race itself, I'm criticising the 'essentialist method'. Most anthropologists use the clinical model (based on genetics) rather than basing race on appearance

The so called 'essentialist concept' you reject, is what thousands of anthropologists and forensic scientists still use.

So you have exposed yourself again as being anti-science.

 

[Research2]

You are anti-science, and furthermore have shown you have virtually zero understanding of the Bible (even yourself admitting you didn't even know Genesis was set in Mesopotamia).

The debate can go no further, you also proved that when you started the insults, smears, lies etc which actually have backfired on you - and they just prove your unchristian behaviour. Wolf in sheep's clothing?

 

[Notedstrangeperson]

The so called 'essentialist concept' you reject, is what thousands of anthropologists and forensic scientists still use.

So you have exposed yourself again as being anti-science.

There are three methods of judging race: the Essentialist concept, which judges race by appearance, the Population concept, which judges race by populations who are genetically different from other local populations, and the Clinical method, which judges race by diveristy within populations.

I reject the essentialist concept in favour of the clinical method because it is more accurate. You actually quoted me writing:

"I'm not criticising the concept of race itself, I'm criticising the 'essentialist method'. Most anthropologists use the clinical model (based on genetics) rather than basing race on appearance." ​

Your particular scientific evidence and methods are out of date by about a century.

You are anti-science, and furthermore have shown you have virtually zero understanding of the Bible (even yourself admitting you didn't even know Genesis was set in Mesopotamia).

The Bible has many authors and was written in different languages over many centuries. I also doubt your own knowledge of the Bible, based on your odd ability to identify any patch of land outside Israel as Britain.

Would you like to continue the thread and - please - answer other user's questions? We can continue to squabble via PMs.

 

[Research2]

All your points were adressed, but you never answered the following:

- Where is the evidence Christianity is a universal religion?
- Where are the eskimos, polynesians, japanese etc in scripture?
- Why are the Libyans fair skinned, despite the fact living in a hot environment for thousands of years?

You also failed to provide evidence for your beliefs that:

-Climate mutates people, or changes their permanance.
-Natural selection/evolution created the races.
-Individuals somehow suddenly morph or can change their appearance by nature.
- Many others, i can't be bothered to list.

You also have claimed the 'essentialist concept' has been rejected by scientists (despite the fact thousands of forensic scientists still use it), so you need to back up your wild cranky claims in this thread with sources.

 

[Notedstrangeperson]

All your points were adressed, but you never answered the following:

- Where is the evidence Christianity is a universal religion?
- Where are the eskimos, polynesians, japanese etc in scripture?
- Why are the Libyans fair skinned, despite the fact living in a hot environment for thousands of years?

You also failed to provide evidence for your beliefs that:

-Climate mutates people, or changes their permanance.
-Natural selection/evolution created the races.
-Individuals somehow suddenly morph or can change their appearance by nature.
- Many others, i can't be bothered to list.

You also have claimed the 'essentialist concept' has been rejected by scientists (despite the fact thousands of forensic scientists still use it), so you need to back up your wild cranky claims in this thread with sources.

I answered them here. This comment links to several previous comments of mine. It may take a while but please take the time to read them

'Individuals somehow suddenly morph or can change their appearance by nature.' - I should point out this doesn't happen. Populations (even a group as small as a single family) can change their race, individuals cannot.

----------

The Essentialist Model versus other forms of measuring racial identity and ancestry: this link explains the differences betwen the three and why certain methods are more favoured than others.

Here are some others:

Essentialism, by focusing on differences, artificially simplifies individual and group identities and interactions. The essentialist viewpoint needs to be replaced with an ethnogenetic one, which recognizes that groups, cultures, and the individuals within them are fluid and complex in their identities and relationships.​

-journals.lww.com​

The anti-essentialist mood of today's anthropology fits with wider currents in philosophy (e.g., critiques of the autonomous, self-sustaining subject within Western metaphysics) as well as feminism and cultural studies.​

- Anthropology Quarterly.​

I should point out a lot of supporters of the clinical model (who trace ancestry using genetics) argue that, in terms of biology, race does not exist. I'm not one of them. I believe race does exist - however genetic evidence shows that all the races are very closely related, close enough to know we are all memebrs of the same species and shared the same ancestors.​

 

[Research2]

- Only evolutionists believe similarity in DNA proves common descent, creationists believes it proves a common designer. You cannot prove either view, so this is not worth any discussion.

Also last i knew scientists were saying how races are genetically more different than commonly believed*, and secondly chimp DNA has been reduced from 99% common with man, to 95%.

*Its now altered from 99.9% (i.e Human Genome Project), to around 98%.

- As science progresses it is showing how less we are all related. This is only a blow to the evolutionists.

 

[mark kennedy]

But what if a creationist starts denying the omniscience of God or the Trinity or the deity of Christ, or uses a scientific model in which the universe has neither beginning nor end, or claims that half the world is genetically disqualified from being a Christian?

I'm not aware of creationists who deny the omniscience of God, the Trinity or the deity of Christ. I have no idea what random thought you pulled that out of but since I see where you are going with it let's just write it off as hyperbole.

The great bazookas of faith arrayed against the evolutionists suddenly go quiet. The stalwart defenders let the most vile heresies be countered ... by the ones they constantly malign.

Notice this rambling satire is based on nothing substantive.

Here is an example of someone who believes something profoundly unorthodox, and believes that he believes so based purely on an accurate understanding of the Bible.

Go on, mark. You flay us evolutionists for rejecting original sin. Surely you won't pass up on someone who believes that a billion humans simply can never know God at all, right?

I have no idea what your talking about. Not a single person on earth can ever know God apart from the miracle of revelation, conviction and the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. To say otherwise is a vile heresy in my book.

Let me get caught up on this strange discussion and maybe we can get back to this.

 

[mark kennedy]

[/COLOR]

Nobody except Mark Kennedy claimed race does not exist.

First of all I was not arguing, I was making a clear statement of opinion. I was persuaded otherwise for reasons I won't go into but after finding that the races differ by less then 1 percent I decided the alleles were negligible.

I am a little disappointed that I'm the only 'crackpot' liberal willing to shove a unified race agenda down peoples throats. I did a little looking around and found very little in the way of a substantive or scientific basis for classifying ethnicities as races, even though the words are used interchangeably. I don't know if by race you mean genetic ancestry or social classification but I suspect you have not given it that much thought.

We're not all 'crackpot' liberals trying to shove our political agendas down your throat, we're debating you because your claims are incorrect.

Not really sure what his claims are but if your saying they are incorrect he must be a creationist.

You've claimed here and on other threads that only Caucasians or 'Adamites' can be Christians, that Caucasians were created directly by God while other races evolved from lower animals or hominids, and that God himself is literally a Caucasian. Nobody else here has agreed with these claims, and I find them particularly wrong as I am interested in the biological basis of race.

That is not incorrect, it's absurd. I wouldn't have posted to the thread a second time but when I saw my name in bold letters it annoyed me.

I deny that there is any such thing as race. I did not pull that statement off the top of my head, I seriously looked into the matter and found that term to be devoid of substantive and scientific merit. Of course that's one 'crackpot' liberals opinion and oh by the way...I'm a Democrat with strong left leaning tendencies. My only agenda is to see the day when Christians understand that there is no difference, Paul certainly did.

 

[mark kennedy]

- Only evolutionists believe similarity in DNA proves common descent, creationists believes it proves a common designer. You cannot prove either view, so this is not worth any discussion.

Also last i knew scientists were saying how races are genetically more different than commonly believed*, and secondly chimp DNA has been reduced from 99% common with man, to 95%.

*Its now altered from 99.9% (i.e Human Genome Project), to around 98%.

- As science progresses it is showing how less we are all related. This is only a blow to the evolutionists.

I honestly don't know what your central point is in this thread. However, I have spent a lot of time on the subject of the comparison of Chimpanzee and Human genomes and the grand total for the DNA of the two being the same is 96% at best. The Human Genome Project never compared the chimpanzee genome to the human genome but many of the Chimpanzee Genome Consortium's members were the same people.

I don't know if that helps but clarification seemed in order.

Finally, I have made a big deal out of the known divergence going from 1% to at least 4%. The reason isn't that I think it proves or disproves common ancestry but because evolutionists have such a hard time admitting this fact. What would decide whether or not we are related to chimpanzees by lineage would have to be differences in highly conserved genes at specific loci.

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[Greg1234]

That is false, since if you believe in monogenism you have to believe in evolution to explain the features. If you think not, explain how all the races came about if they all came from Adam?

It calls for some radical views. But if an accommodation were to be attempted, it would go something like the following.

In using Christ as a model, we have the restoration of the kingdom of God. Just like Jesus was one man, Adam was one man. And just like Jesus was no ordinary man, neither was Adam. For the sake of this discussion, in Genesis 6:3, after the fall we have:

Then the LORD said, "My Spirit will not contend with man forever, for he is mortal;
​

Then in Jesus (John 14:16) we have:

I am the way the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.

​

In that sense, we have original sin, coming through one man, and in his body, all descended from him. To put it backwards (for the sake of discussion), "I am the non-way the non-truth and the non-life, no one comes to mortality except through me". In that sense also, we are all descended from Adam with the body he established. We also have [original] sin being absolved by one man (Jesus) in the body he established through the resurrection.

I say body because some here have alluded to a pre-mortal state which I agree with. In this pre-mortal state is there the separation of races? It may not be so. As was given in Galatians 3:28,

There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.


​

So if we are one in Christ, does that mean that we are separate in Adam (Note that I am only using this as a model and working the reverse here, for the sake of this discussion, to get an idea of what the Adamic lineage is like)? If Christ's body is the restoration of the kingdom in the "pre-mortal" state, is Adam's body the opposite? If all races and even sexes are unified in Christ, are they then made separate in Adam?

We don't know much about what took place during the course of the fall, but if perfection makes all races into one, does the descent into non-perfection make one, separate? I would liken it somewhat to shining a beam of white light through a prism. On one side, you have perfection, on the other side you have pure mortality. Would the fall be like immortality going through a prism, and the return from mortality going back through that same way? That would mean of course that yes, there are races but there is no separation per se. We all same- Adam, although dispersed for the sake of mortality. And we are all one in Christ.

 

[Research2]

I honestly don't know what your central point is in this thread.

- That races were created seperately by God, and that they were not the product of mutation or evolution. And i have given the basic evidences for this - which so far have not been refuted.

 

[Research2]

I say body because some here have alluded to a pre-mortal state which I agree with. In this pre-mortal state is there the separation of races? It may not be so. As was given in Galatians 3:28,

There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.

- This passage does not contain the word gentile, but instead Greek (ellen, from Hellen = Hellenic i.e Greek).

- There is no difference between Jew (Judahite) and Greek, because if you read 2 Maccabees, the Spartans are called ''Abraham's kindred'', they are Semites - meaning of the same ethnic stock.

- This passage does not ''do away'' the distinction in race. It is merely saying the Jew and Greek are of a common root, nothing to do with other ethnicites or races.

So if we are one in Christ, does that mean that we are separate in Adam (Note that I am only using this as a model and working the reverse here, for the sake of this discussion, to get an idea of what the Adamic lineage is like)? If Christ's body is the restoration of the kingdom in the "pre-mortal" state, is Adam's body the opposite? If all races and even sexes are unified in Christ, are they then made separate in Adam?

- Note that Gal 3: 28 states there is no difference between male or female (in Christ), but of course that does not mean men and woman are the same -we are biologically, mentally etc different, we are the opposite sexes. So using this passage to try and deny the distinction in race is highly fallacious, it doesn't work.

 

[Notedstrangeperson]

Only evolutionists believe similarity in DNA proves common descent, creationists believes it proves a common designer. You cannot prove either view, so this is not worth any discussion.

Also last i knew scientists were saying how races are genetically more different than commonly believed*, and secondly chimp DNA has been reduced from 99% common with man, to 95%.

We aren't dicussing the relatedness between man and ape, we are discussing the relatedness between the races. No, non-whites are not 'apes'. Common design would be evidence of convergent evolution, the ablity to interbreed is a sign of relatedness.

Polygenism still has to explain why man cannot breed with an ape but all the races can interbreed with each other.

First of all I was not arguing, I was making a clear statement of opinion. I was persuaded otherwise for reasons I won't go into but after finding that the races differ by less then 1 percent I decided the alleles were negligible.

I am a little disappointed that I'm the only 'crackpot' liberal willing to shove a unified race agenda down peoples throats.

Sorry Mark I wasn't claiming you were a 'crackpot liberal' , I meant you were the only person who claimed race doesn't exist.

That races were created seperately by God, and that they were not the product of mutation or evolution. And i have given the basic evidences for this - which so far have not been refuted.

That's because you conveniently read only the comments you an answer with your racialist rubbish. You haven't answered any of the questions other users have posted.

 

[Greg1234]

- This passage does not contain the word gentile, but instead Greek (ellen, from Hellen = Hellenic i.e Greek).

- There is no difference between Jew (Judahite) and Greek, because if you read 2 Maccabees, the Spartans are called ''Abraham's kindred'', they are Semites - meaning of the same ethnic stock.

- This passage does not ''do away'' the distinction in race. It is merely saying the Jew and Greek are of a common root, nothing to do with other ethnicites or races.

Yep, you can be of the same race and different persuasion, but this passage was meant to show oneness.

- Note that Gal 3: 28 states there is no difference between male or female (in Christ), but of course that does not mean men and woman are the same -we are biologically, mentally etc different, we are the opposite sexes. So using this passage to try and deny the distinction in race is highly fallacious, it doesn't work.

It would be, except that I'm not arguing against race distinction. It's a bit outlandish and complicated but it's just for the sake of this discussion. I gave the analogy of light through a prism regarding the fall from grace.
http://www.phy.duke.edu/~hsg/54/table-images/light-through-prism.jpg

 

[shernren]

I'm not aware of creationists who deny the omniscience of God, the Trinity or the deity of Christ. I have no idea what random thought you pulled that out of but since I see where you are going with it let's just write it off as hyperbole.

Just remember the first Christians denied the virgin birth theory, as well as the trinity - as both these concepts are not Biblical. This thread was not about this topic, but of Adam and the genealogies in Genesis.

What amazes me is that there are liberal Christians/Catholics/evolutionists in this thread who reject the idea of a 'literal' Adam because it to them is 'fairytale' or 'myth' yet oddly without any skepticism believe in the virgin birth theory, which science has revealed is completely crackpot.

That's two out of three, and in this thread from long ago ClearSky argues that God created the heavens and the earth in six days because He was impatient, and goes on to argue from the Scriptures that God changes His mind.

Hence, hardly hyperbole. Having said that, I do have respect for vossler and busterdog for arguing against the open theism position in that last thread I linked to.

 

[Research2]

Yep, you can be of the same race and different persuasion, but this passage was meant to show oneness.

Oneness between Jews and Greeks only (who sprung from Abraham according to 2 Maccabees), not everyone...if it meant all races, why does Gal 3: 28 not mention eskimos, native americans, australian aborigines etc?

This is typically how Christians with a political agenda add to the Bible to twist it.

 

[Research2]

The Human Genome Project found all humans to have a 99.9 % similar genetic content and identity, but this is challenged by a new more detailed research suggesting a higher genetic diversity.

12 % of the DNA Differs Amongst Human Races and Populations - Softpedia

- There is a far higher genetic diversity between the races than commonly first believed, which favors polygenism.

 

[Notedstrangeperson]

This is typically how Christians with a political agenda add to the Bible to twist it.

Indeed!

There is a far higher genetic diversity between the races than commonly first believed, which favors polygenism.

I thought you wrote that DNA evidence didn't mean anything?

This article focuses on genetic variation, specifically copy number variations. Thinking that increased variation means we are not related is like saying there are so many breeds of dogs they can't possibly be descended from wolves.
We also have to remember that this is still evidence that the races are related - all humans are more genetically similar to other humans than we are to other animals.

The new data also shows that our species is so recent that the vast majority of CNVs, around 89 %, was found to be shared among the 269 people belonging to Mongoloid Race (Japanese and Chinese), African Negroid (Yoruba Nigerians) and Caucasoid (of Northern and Western European ancestry). But there are also widespread specific differences in CNVs according to the race and even inside the same race according to population (geographical origin). This means that over 200,000 years or so, natural selection favored subtle variants allowing different humans populations to adapt to their different environments, with specific climate, pathogens, and food resources.​

-Softpedia (your source)​

I'm not sure why you provided that link as it's evidence of what I've been trying to say - in particular, that racial features are a result of environment and natural selection.​

 

[Research2]

- The article debunks the claim races are 99.9% identical, when recent genetic research has concluded a far wider gap in percentage between the different races proving we are far less related than commonly believed. This is only a problem for monogenism.

- The article was written from the perspective of an evolutionist, the only reason i quoted it was for the reason outlined above.

- You have come to this thread making wild claims, you have never supported. So for the tenth time, i ask for your evidence that races evolved and that climate produced the physical variations. So far you have not backed up one of your claims, and all you are doing is picking holes in my beliefs, instead of presenting anything of your own - typically what evolutionists/atheists do. Its easy to sit behind your keyboard just attacking others isn't it?