How diffrent races came to exist

[Morning_Star]

Maybe its climate you come from? When you think people in cold countries are light skinned and people from such as the carribean are much darker. But then there must be something genetically too! arrrrggghhh!! i confused myself now! Well God knows anyway

 

[calidog]

Maybe its climate you come from? When you think people in cold countries are light skinned and people from such as the carribean are much darker. But then there must be something genetically too! arrrrggghhh!! i confused myself now! Well God knows anyway

likely an interaction geographically/genetically. Suppose you and your spouse come from North America. You move to the tropics. At first, your offspring and their offspring would be light skinned. After, say, 100 generations, children would be born dark skinned.
For example, the Jew today is light skinned, but the Jew 2000 years ago was dark skinned.

 

[KnaveMUrdok]

I will gladly discuss your take on genesis and why you are against the literal interpretation, but I don’t think this thread is the place. May I suggest you start your own thread on why you think it’s nonsense to hold a literal interpretation of the bible (specifically genesis)? I’ll be sure to check it first thing in the morning.

Sounds good, is there a specific section Ishoudl start this thread in? I've only been here two days and have not quite caught on to all the subtlties in the rules.

 

[faithopelove]

There is a discussions & debate section. Scroll down to the bottom of the Christian Forums page

 

[JonF]

Sounds good, is there a specific section Ishoudl start this thread in? I've only been here two days and have not quite caught on to all the subtlties in the rules.

you can always start it in nondenom. While nondenom is in the Christian only section, since it is non denomination almost any Christ based belief system is acceptable to discuss.

 

[Super Gnat]

Allow me to restate the original question with use of taboo word: How is it that we are all descendants from one man and one woman and there are different phenotypes that are divided geographically?

Because of the effects of isolation. For an extreme case, let's imagine a village that's way up in the mountains. It was founded by 100 people, and there is no trade with the outside world.

If none of those founders carried a particular gene, then none of the people descended from them will carry that gene either, unless a very rare mutation event happens. Like, let's say all the founders had blue eyes, and nobody carried the gene for any other color. Well, then all the villagers will have blue eyes, and maybe when somebody from the outside world finally comes in contact with them, they'll refer to the villagers as "blue-eyed people". The thing is, this only goes gene by gene. So the blue-eyed villagers may have hair that comes in many different colors. The next isolated village might have people with different eye colors, but only red hair. So if you're talking about race, which characteristic determines race? Is it eye color? Hair color? Skin color? Eye shape? Hair texture? Mouth shape? Ear shape? It's not consistent at all. And what's more, no conclusions can be drawn simply from a person's skin color or eye shape. If you get into ethnicity then you can start seeing inferences, partially because of shared culture, and partially because people of the same ethnicity share some common ancestry. But "race" in the African-Caucasian-Asian sense is meaningless biologically. What is more, historically there have been very few completely isolated groups, and there are probably none existing today. People will tend to have children with the people around them, but wherever there is contact between two groups, pregancies will result. Humans haven't been isolated in different areas long enough to truly develop into different races, and genetic diversity is spread pretty evenly.


At any rate, if you must classify people by genetic divisions, the most sensible way to do it would be by blood type. You have far more in common with any individual sharing your blood type than you do with an individual within your race who does not.

 

[JonF]

If none of those founders carried a particular gene, then none of the people descended from them will carry that gene either, unless a very rare mutation event happens. Like, let's say all the founders had blue eyes, and nobody carried the gene for any other color. Well, then all the villagers will have blue eyes, and maybe when somebody from the outside world finally comes in contact with them, they'll refer to the villagers as "blue-eyed people". The thing is, this only goes gene by gene. So the blue-eyed villagers may have hair that comes in many different colors. The next isolated village might have people with different eye colors, but only red hair. So if you're talking about race, which characteristic determines race? Is it eye color? Hair color? Skin color? Eye shape? Hair texture? Mouth shape? Ear shape? It's not consistent at all. And what's more, no conclusions can be drawn simply from a person's skin color or eye shape. If you get into ethnicity then you can start seeing inferences, partially because of shared culture, and partially because people of the same ethnicity share some common ancestry. But "race" in the African-Caucasian-Asian sense is meaningless biologically. What is more, historically there have been very few completely isolated groups, and there are probably none existing today. People will tend to have children with the people around them, but wherever there is contact between two groups, pregancies will result. Humans haven't been isolated in different areas long enough to truly develop into different races, and genetic diversity is spread pretty evenly.

I agree with everything said here. But for people to answer the question by denying that there are genetic differences between different geographic groups of people was a ridiculous way to answer it.

 

[JContinuum]

It is my own personal belief that when God confounded the people at the Tower of Babel (Genesis 11: 1-9), he also changed the genetic structure and made the people appear different as well as change the language.

Of course I can't prove this, and it could be just so much babel.

You could be right! I choose to believe that the human body is a remarkable piece of engineering in which it adapts over time to climate, envioroment, surrounding, sea level, etc and thats how the races came into being IMHO

People who get more sunshine year round (longer summers) have darker skin. The more sunshine over the years and through generations (maybe 7 generations or more) the body reprograms itself because of the design God put into the gentic code. If the design is great, then how much greater is the designer? Praise his name! As you move north of the equator the skin becomes lighter and the eye color is not as dark. I do not believe in evolution but I believe in a remarkable God! No wonder the cheribiums cried holy, holy, holy!

 

[Super Gnat]

I agree with everything said here. But for people to answer the question by denying that there are genetic differences between different geographic groups of people was a ridiculous way to answer it.

I'd argue that geographic groups don't correlate all that well to race, though. I mean, the Khoisan people and the Aborigines of Australia phenotypically would be classified as the same race. But looking at their genetics (and since they're both isolated groups, it's one of the few cases you can do it for), they're as unrelated as two human groups can be. Plus, like I said, it's inconsistent; Indians and Pacific Islanders are dark-skinned but not black, Native Americans have epicanthal folds but aren't "oriental", and how on earth would one classify Latinos? Plus, even with the geographic groupings, there's so much migration and trade and general contact with each other that it's still hard to say anything concrete in many cases.

 

[Super Gnat]

You could be right! I choose to believe that the human body is a remarkable piece of engineering in which it adapts over time to climate, envioroment, surrounding, sea level, etc and thats how the races came into being IMHO

People who get more sunshine year round (longer summers) have darker skin. The more sunshine over the years and through generations (maybe 7 generations or more) the body reprograms itself because of the design God put into the gentic code. If the design is great, then how much greater is the designer? Praise his name! As you move north of the equator the skin becomes lighter and the eye color is not as dark. I do not believe in evolution but I believe in a remarkable God! No wonder the cheribiums cried holy, holy, holy!

What of the Inuit, then?

 

[JContinuum]

What of the Inuit, then?

Dark Skin but exception to the rule. They live withen the Artic Circle where they get 6 months staight where the sun never sets. That is months and months of sunshine

 

[Super Gnat]

Most Inuit don't live above the Arctic circle. And what about Norweigans and Icelanders?

The reason why the Inuit are darkskinned is because the people who first populated America came from a rather limited pool. None of those people had the genes for white skin or very dark skin, and so their descendants didn't have white or very dark skin either. This is always the case, except when rare beneficial mutations in the genetic code occur.

Check out this cool map of skin colors of people (I assume indigenous) around the world. White skin is a trait pretty much confined to northern Europe, therefore it's likely that the mutation for white skin occured there, and that there was not enough contact between white northern Europeans and Inuit to pass the trait on to them.

 

[JonF]

I'd argue that geographic groups don't correlate all that well to race, though. I mean, the Khoisan people and the Aborigines of Australia phenotypically would be classified as the same race. But looking at their genetics (and since they're both isolated groups, it's one of the few cases you can do it for), they're as unrelated as two human groups can be. Plus, like I said, it's inconsistent; Indians and Pacific Islanders are dark-skinned but not black, Native Americans have epicanthal folds but aren't "oriental", and how on earth would one classify Latinos? Plus, even with the geographic groupings, other that it's still hard to say anything concrete in many cases.

Races are geographic groups by definition. Also, race only makes reference to phenotypes, not all genotypes. Trade and massive migration only really became an issue in the last couple hundred years. Yet, I agree that today race is almost a meaningless (yet still existent) concept. The question was more about genetics than anything, and like I said originally, random mutation and genetic drift explain the OP's quesiton pretty well. I just think it was rude an ignorant how people respond in such a belittling manner because he used the word “race” instead of looking up a bunch of scientific jargon to spell out what he meant exactly. The people who responded undestood what he was asking and they chose to completely ignore the principle of chartable interpretation.

 

[follower2]

Thank you all for posting and answering my questions. You guys cleared up alot of it for me.

 

[dignitized]

I don’t know how much more clear I can be about this, but I will give it one last try. Race is not a myth. The term race may have a tainted past, the concept may have been generated with a bigoted agenda but neither of these things have ANYTHING to do with whether or not race exist, or the OP. The scientific definition of race, in short is phenotypes partitioned by geographical regions. Phenotypes exist in humans. Several of these phenotypes are divided geographically, skin color, hair color, eye appearance, etc etc. Many of the definitions I posted don’t assert that races are unique to humans. If you are so dead set against a word’s connotation that you can’t focus on the denotation let us drop the word all together.

Allow me to restate the original question with use of taboo word: How is it that we are all descendants from one man and one woman and there are different phenotypes that are divided geographically?

please adress the question, not how you feel about a word.

No race is not a myth - the notion that there are different races of MAN is a myth. There may be physical characteristics that are indicative of a specific limited gene pool, but those differences are too small to constitute different races of man. There are wto types of people who hold fast to the race myth: those who benefit from the myth and those who fear those who appear different.

 

[dignitized]

ALL of the men in my family have blue eyes, brown hair and red beards - I guess my family is it's own race. I'll have to remember to check OTHER the next time I fill out a form.

 

[dignitized]

random mutations? Are there people out there growing arms out of their foreheads??

 

[Atlantians]

All people did not come from Adam and Eve, or Noah, God created the races the way they are and pronounced them "Good" on the 6th day, and then God "Formed" THE man Adam on the 8th day, a Farmer, since there was not yet a man to till the soil. (the other races were hunters and fishers)

Black people did not come from Noaha's son Ham. They were created on the 6th day as were the other races. (God pronounced them all "Good.")

There were 8 "Adamic souls" (people) on the Ark plus 2 of each other race. (God told Noah to put 2 of every flesh on the Ark, didn't He?) That means 2 of every race.

Cain is not listed in Adams geneology, Why? Because Cain was not Adams son. (tho he was Eves son)

The progeny of Cain are called "Kenites" in the Bible. The word Kenite means "sons of Cain." (Strongs)

Cains gegeology is listed seperately, apart from Adams, for good reason.

Cain got his wife from the 6th day creation who dwelt in the land of Nod, just as the bible says.

The Kenites were one of the races God ordered Israel to wipe out, but they didnt obey and God said, "Now I will have war with Amilech from generation to generation because you (Israel) have not obeyed my command."

Where on earth did you get all this nonsense from?!

The term "Jew" did not exist untill the 2 tribes of the "House of Judah" returned from captivity in Babylon to Judea under Ezra and Neimiah where they had intermarried with the Babylonians and afterwards called "Jews." (many usurpers are in that group)

The Northern 10 tribes of the "House of Israel" were in captivity in Assyeria 130 years earlier and they NEVER returned to Palestine but escaped little by little thru the Caucusas Mountains and became known as Caucasians and populated the Christian nations of the world.

That is Historically incorrect. Caucasions existed in Europe at the same time the Jews were in Israel.
The Romans and the Greeks I reffer to.

Where are you getting your information from? The Nazi Bureau of Information?
That is what you are teaching you know. Evereything you just said is White Supremacist doctrine.

Any Christian who uses their brain (you know..that thing so many of us seem to ignore and just use blind faith instead)

would know that In Genesis God tells Adam and Eve were not the only people in the world. There were people OUTSIDE the Garden of Eden...when they were banished there were already people in existence and living their lives.
Also..we know for fact that different enviroments effect genetics differently in people. This accounts for the various colorations and genetic coding in different "races". The Tower of Babel was the point where language was split.

It is easier to explain Cain's wife with the idea that Adam and Eve had more kids then was mentioned in the Bible, rather then to invent an entire doctrine about God creating other humans besides Adam.

where did other races come from? god created them in the same fashion as he created the rest of us. It's not like "poof" they appeared, it took millenia of evolution for all of us to get to where we are, and if you're gonna start screaming at me aobut how evoluton is against God, then maybe it's best you not reply at all.
If God did in fact create everything, then it's plausible he created the evolutionary process so humans could grown and learn and better themselves.

This again brings me back to my point that jsut because it's not in the bible doesn't mean it's against God.

I can already tell, by my second post that i'm gonna be preaching a lot.

You neglect the fact that there are in fact zero transitional species. This shows that evolution did not occur. Without transitional species, you can't really call it 'evolution' can you?

Furthermore the Cambrian explosion shows strong evidence for sudden mass springing of species into existence.
You have a few amoeba for a few hundred million years, then suddenly a few Multi-celled critters, then a Jelly Fish here or there, then *BANG* a massive amount of creatures suddenly appear in the fossile record.

That isn't evolution. That is creation as described in the Bible, though on a time-scale not measured in litteral days.

 

[dignitized]

On the 6th day God created man - male and female and told them to populate the EARTH. Then he rested. THEN We find God creating Adam in EDEN - populating the garden with animals and THEN creating Eve. They mannage to sin and end up kicked out of the garden to earth.

 

[Super Gnat]

random mutations? Are there people out there growing arms out of their foreheads??

Everybody's born with mutations, though most of them don't do anything good or bad. You can even develop them later in life; cancers result from mutations.