Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
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.Morning_Star said: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
JonF said:I will gladly discuss your take on genesis and why you are against the literal interpretation, but I dont think this thread is the place. May I suggest you start your own thread on why you think its nonsense to hold a literal interpretation of the bible (specifically genesis)? Ill be sure to check it first thing in the morning.
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.KnaveMUrdok said: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.
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.JonF said: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?
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.Super Gnat said: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.
JonahII said: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.
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.JonF said: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.
What of the Inuit, then?JContinuum said: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 said:What of the Inuit, then?
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.Super Gnat said: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.
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.JonF said:I dont 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 dont assert that races are unique to humans. If you are so dead set against a words connotation that you cant 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.
Where on earth did you get all this nonsense from?!Mac123 said: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."
That is Historically incorrect. Caucasions existed in Europe at the same time the Jews were in Israel.Mac123 said: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.
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.SteelDisciple said: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.
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?KnaveMUrdok said: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.
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.Br. Max said:random mutations? Are there people out there growing arms out of their foreheads??
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?