Do all humans come from Africa?

Papias

Listening to TW4
Dec 22, 2005
3,967
985
58
✟57,276.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Five. As there is enough evidence that evolution is not true, yes it is delusional to promote it as a fact.......
Nine. Skin colour did not evolve over millions of years as mankind has only been on the earth for 6,000 years give or take.

Here you assert things as facts, but just back at post #289, you said that there were no facts (that truth is relative). For reference:

By the way, falsehoods are in the eye of the beholder.

One. What I have been told is that what I said applied to people on this forum, which is untrue because what I said was "what I have been told..." past tense, therefore, it is impossible for it to apply to what I have been told by people here..... In my scheme of things and as a retired English teacher, sarcasm is the lowest form of wit.

If that nonsensical word salad where you deny that things that are past tense are actually past tense is representative, and you used to be an English teacher, then I have little more to say.

The rest of your post is a bunch of claims unsupported by facts.

*******************************************
Is it a mystery their appearance?

No, it's not. Skin color matches location quite well. This is one of many examples showing that the flood story shouldn't be read literally. After all, if 8 people came off a boat in the middle east and they were each different skin tones, then what are the odds that they would "just happen" to have all the darker skin toned people settle along the equator, all around the world?
As shown a few posts ago:
Skin color, like many other human/ape traits, evolved in response to the environment over hundreds of thousands (often millions) of years. That's why darker skins are found in people who have ancestries close to the equator. Here's a diagram.

skinmap_540.jpg


and a good explanation of our skin colors: The skin we're in » Scienceline

In Christ-

Papias
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Episaw

Always learning
Nov 12, 2010
2,547
603
Drouin, Victoria, Australia
✟38,829.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
CA-Conservatives
Here you assert things as facts, but just back at post #289, you said that there were no facts (that truth is relative). For reference:

If that nonsensical word salad where you deny that things that are past tense are actually past tense is representative, and you used to be an English teacher, then I have little more to say.

The rest of your post is a bunch of claims unsupported by facts.

Papias

The rest of your post is a bunch of claims unsupported by facts. This comment of yours proves that truth is relative.

then I have little more to say.
Probably a good idea for me, you and everyone else.
 
Upvote 0

more4less

Well-Known Member
Nov 23, 2016
488
98
58
Houston Tx
✟29,971.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
I recently accepted that Jesus the Christ was in fact middle eastern and not Caucasian like the pictures that some churches have of Jesus. Which leads me to the study of my origins as a white person.

Then I was reading in the Human article on wikipedia Human - Wikipedia and I saw under the illustration slightly down on the page the "human timeline" that homoerectus or homohabilis migrated from Africa.

So if I am to accept some sort of mixture between creationism and evolution, than also does that illustration mean that all humans are from Africa also? So that although I'm not African my ancestors are from Africa at some point?
Not according to the scriptures. Because after the flood, they had settled down in places that they can grow crops and stay warm most of the year. That is why most tribes around the equator were naked, that they did not bother to clothes themselves because of the warm climates. But I guess that they had territorial fights, and which the weak moved away to places that were cold and settled down their. The weaker that they are, the more that they were pushed into cold climates territories. But science stills doesn't knows what had really happened.

 
  • Agree
Reactions: devin553344
Upvote 0

SolomonVII

Well-Known Member
Sep 4, 2003
23,138
4,918
Vancouver
✟147,506.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
CA-Greens
Humans have only been in the New World for some 20 or 30 thousand years, as far as I remember.
If it takes hundreds of thousands or millions of years to evolve skin tone, the skin map doesn't leave enough time for evolution to happen in the New World at least.
 
Upvote 0

more4less

Well-Known Member
Nov 23, 2016
488
98
58
Houston Tx
✟29,971.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
I believes that that some of the earliest Americans had traveled to the new world by canoe. They probably were on a three hour tour, until they had ran into a storm that had washed them ashore several thousands miles away.


What’s more, Naia’s skull and facial characteristics are different from those of modern Native Americans and has characteristics more in common with people from Africa and Australia. But after a rigorous genetic analysis of the enamel on her teeth and the minerals found in her bones, the scientists discovered that although she was found in Mexico, Naia shares certain genetic characteristics with the earliest hunter-gatherers thought to have crossed the Bering land bridge from northeastern Asia into the Americas 18,000 to 26,000 years ago. Scientists discover oldest intact skeleton in New World


 
Upvote 0

SolomonVII

Well-Known Member
Sep 4, 2003
23,138
4,918
Vancouver
✟147,506.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
CA-Greens
No, it's not. Skin color matches location quite well. This is one of many examples showing that the flood story shouldn't be read literally. After all, if 8 people came off a boat in the middle east and they were each different skin tones, then what are the odds that they would "just happen" to have all the darker skin toned people settle along the equator, all around the world?
As shown a few posts ago:
Skin color, like many other human/ape traits, evolved in response to the environment over hundreds of thousands (often millions) of years. That's why darker skins are found in people who have ancestries close to the equator. Here's a diagram.

skinmap_540.jpg


and a good explanation of our skin colors: The skin we're in » Scienceline

In Christ-

Papias
Just a small criticism that your time line of evolution over hundreds of thousands or even millions of years would not fit. New World man has only been inthe Americas for 20k years, maybe 30k at the earliest.
Yet the pigmentation map shows populations in the New World follows the same trend as the rest of the globe. Differentiation in pigmentation therefore would have had to happen within closer to ten thousand than to a million years. After all, the skeleton in Mexico of paleo-americans dates back to 13k years ago.

From wiki, this accelerated rate of evolution is noted:

Human skin color ranges in variety from the darkest brown to the lightest hues. An individual's skinpigmentation is the result of genetics, being the product of both of the individual's biological parents' genetic makeup. In evolution, skin pigmentation in human beings evolved by a process of natural selection primarily to regulate the amount of ultraviolet radiation penetrating the skin, controlling its biochemical effects.[1]

The actual skin color of different humans is affected by many substances, although the single most important substance is the pigment melanin. Melanin is produced within the skin in cells called melanocytes and it is the main determinant of the skin color of darker-skinned humans. The skin color of people with light skin is determined mainly by the bluish-white connective tissue under the dermis and by the hemoglobin circulating in the veins of the dermis. The red color underlying the skin becomes more visible, especially in the face, when, as consequence of physical exercise or the stimulation of the nervous system (anger, fear), arterioles dilate.[2] Color is not entirely uniform across an individual's skin; for example, the skin of the palm and the sole is lighter than most other skin, and this is especially noticeable in darker-skinned people.[3]

There is a direct correlation between the geographic distribution of UV radiation (UVR) and the distribution of indigenous skin pigmentation around the world. Areas that receive higher amounts of UVR, generally located closer to the equator, tend to have darker-skinned populations. Areas that are far from the tropics and closer to the poles have lower intensity of UVR, which is reflected in lighter-skinned populations.[4] Researchers suggest that human populations over the past 50,000 years have changed from dark-skinned to light-skinned and vice versa as they migrated to different UV zones,[5] and that such major changes in pigmentation may have happened in as little as 100 generations (≈2,500 years) through selective sweeps.[5][6][7] Natural skin color can also darken as a result of tanning due to exposure to sunlight. The leading theory is that skin color adapts to intense sunlight irradiation to provide partial protection against the ultraviolet fraction that produces damage and thus mutations in the DNA of the skin cells.[8] In addition, it has been observed that adult human females on average are significantly lighter in skin pigmentation than males. Females need more calcium during pregnancy and lactation. The body synthesizes vitamin D from sunlight, which helps it absorb calcium. Females evolved to have lighter skin so their bodies absorb more calcium.[9]
 
Upvote 0

Papias

Listening to TW4
Dec 22, 2005
3,967
985
58
✟57,276.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Just a small criticism that your time line of evolution over hundreds of thousands or even millions of years would not fit. New World man has only been inthe Americas for 20k years, maybe 30k at the earliest.
Yet the pigmentation map shows populations in the New World follows the same trend as the rest of the globe. Differentiation in pigmentation therefore would have had to happen within closer to ten thousand than to a million years.

Yes, good point. I think that your point shows that both my statement and the map are a little off. On one hand, I agree with you that my statement should read "10's of thousands of years" on the low end. Because, as you point out, Native American have only been here in NA for at most 20-30 K years. However, I think that the evidence does show that at least 10K is needed for full adaptation (such as whitening in the North), because the Inuit (or the old name "Eskimos") still have partially dark skin even living in the North. At the same time, we do see some evolution in just the 10-20 K years for them, as the Inuit are noticeably lighter than tribes Amazon tribes, etc.

So two tweaks - change my statement to "10's of thousands" on the low end, and change the map in North America due to their recent arrival. Sound good?

Papias

*******************************************
Because after the flood, they had settled down in places that they can grow crops and stay warm most of the year. That is why most tribes around the equator were naked, that they did not bother to clothes themselves because of the warm climates.
Um, that's treating the flood as a literal event as opposed to a legendary one. (and the idea that all the dark skinned people just happened to migrate to the equator makes no sense anyway). There is no evidence for (and a ton of evidence against) the idea of a literal, global flood - or even the reduction of the human population to 8 people at any time in the past.

In Christ- Papias
 
Upvote 0

Papias

Listening to TW4
Dec 22, 2005
3,967
985
58
✟57,276.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
The rest of your post is a bunch of claims unsupported by facts.

False. I supported my claims, such as explicitly showing supporting quotes, even making it easy to understand with text color, post #, etc.

This comment of yours proves that truth is relative.

Quite the opposite. My post shows that actual facts can be seen by the supporting evidence. If truth were actually relative, then one would have to say that all religions are equally true. I don't agree with you there.

then I have little more to say.

Is that true? Or relative?

In Christ-

Papias
 
Upvote 0

gordonhooker

Franciscan tssf
Supporter
Feb 5, 2012
1,883
1,045
Wellington Point, QLD
Visit site
✟274,602.00
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
I recently accepted that Jesus the Christ was in fact middle eastern and not Caucasian like the pictures that some churches have of Jesus. Which leads me to the study of my origins as a white person.

Then I was reading in the Human article on wikipedia Human - Wikipedia and I saw under the illustration slightly down on the page the "human timeline" that homoerectus or homohabilis migrated from Africa.

So if I am to accept some sort of mixture between creationism and evolution, than also does that illustration mean that all humans are from Africa also? So that although I'm not African my ancestors are from Africa at some point?

No.... for instance I am from Australia and I know some people from California and New Zealand. :)
 
Upvote 0