I know this is a deep topic, and im very interested in what CFers think. I dont know what to think about it myself. Im a Bible thumper, who loves Jesus and thinks God created all things. So how did the different races happen? Id like to think Adam and Eve were white like me. My sisters bolth say that makes me racist! Then there is Evolution. Im very uneasy about it, and my brother says that makes me look uneducated. I hope to see alot of opinions from you gentlemen.
Different races?
- Thread starter P-NutLane
- Start date
DixieDestroyer
Hall of Famer
I think the races began dividing around Noah's sons, or after the tower of Babel or shortly after Abraham/Issac's time. I'm not certain.
waterbed
Mentor
I have read first people were from africa and had light skin with a lot of dark bodyhair.they also say different races come from thousand years different climate and every thousands of years mutations in the genes with maked different races.colder climate like you see with animals mostly bigger heads more muscle powerfiber and natural bodyfat.The white race like we have today I think is 40 000 years old beginning in the Paleolithic time.
ToughJ.Riggins
Hall of Famer
I subscribe to the Mitochondrial Eve and Y Chromosomal Adam and out of Africa theory. This theory is so strong now it's almost considered a fact. We have all shared a common relative with everyone on the planet within 80,000 years (Y chromosomal Adam ~ 70,000-75,000 years ago/ Mitochondrial Eve 150,000 years ago or so). I agree Waterbed the first Caucasians reached Europe about 40,000 years ago. The out of Africa group is closely related to Kenyan and Ethiopian Africans. Euros haven't shared a common relative with Africans since we left around 70,000 years ago.
There is also a new theory gaining ground that three Euro groups were divided by the Ice Shelves in Europe from about 40,000 years ago until the end of the last Ice Age circa 12,000 years ago. There were the Celts in northern Central/ Western Europe (I am of Celtic origin except 1/8th Italian which is Latin) the Latins were in Southern Central to South Eastern Europe and the Slavs were in Eastern Europe (some Euro-Asian dwellers), and a bit further to the north. This is the theory to where the three main types of Euro languages derived.
I believe I heard; basically everyone in Europe would have shared a common relative within the last 40,000 years. However, there are cases of some Eastern Euros having shared common relatives (according to genetic studies) with certain Native American tribes circa 30,000 years ago before the Indigenous moved East and migrated to the American continent.
I certainly believe in the bible and man being created by God separate from the animals, but still think humans started about 200,000 years ago. I believe certain animal and plant life started hundreds of millions of years ago (a day of creation to God is a long time).
I don't believe in full out evaluation of species to drastically change structure. Humans never shared a common relative with insects a billion years ago. That is complete and utter BS and still a weak theory. There is intelligent design here whether you believe it's from the God of Abraham or Extra Terrestrial creation this is gaining ground with many scientists.
Sure the races have evolved genetically to be a little different, but the biggest difference ever found in two humans DNA is basically no more than 0.1%; this is a fact! I love all people and pray for better racial relations often as one of my prayers (I also pray for an end to jealousy against whites for advancing the fastest since the Renaissance for various factors; only one being Scientific aptitude).
I pray that races can unite politically in each ones homeland someday based on common ground rather than our differences.
There is also a new theory gaining ground that three Euro groups were divided by the Ice Shelves in Europe from about 40,000 years ago until the end of the last Ice Age circa 12,000 years ago. There were the Celts in northern Central/ Western Europe (I am of Celtic origin except 1/8th Italian which is Latin) the Latins were in Southern Central to South Eastern Europe and the Slavs were in Eastern Europe (some Euro-Asian dwellers), and a bit further to the north. This is the theory to where the three main types of Euro languages derived.
I believe I heard; basically everyone in Europe would have shared a common relative within the last 40,000 years. However, there are cases of some Eastern Euros having shared common relatives (according to genetic studies) with certain Native American tribes circa 30,000 years ago before the Indigenous moved East and migrated to the American continent.
I certainly believe in the bible and man being created by God separate from the animals, but still think humans started about 200,000 years ago. I believe certain animal and plant life started hundreds of millions of years ago (a day of creation to God is a long time).
I don't believe in full out evaluation of species to drastically change structure. Humans never shared a common relative with insects a billion years ago. That is complete and utter BS and still a weak theory. There is intelligent design here whether you believe it's from the God of Abraham or Extra Terrestrial creation this is gaining ground with many scientists.
Sure the races have evolved genetically to be a little different, but the biggest difference ever found in two humans DNA is basically no more than 0.1%; this is a fact! I love all people and pray for better racial relations often as one of my prayers (I also pray for an end to jealousy against whites for advancing the fastest since the Renaissance for various factors; only one being Scientific aptitude).
I pray that races can unite politically in each ones homeland someday based on common ground rather than our differences.
ToughJ.Riggins
Hall of Famer
BTW: I should mention there is another theory that there was more than one wave of migration out of Africa. Many scientists say according to the tracking of Mitochondrial and Y chromosome DNA mutations that Euros are closely related genetically with the Persian racial groups and many saying the people of India as well.
Other than Africans the furthest removed group from Euros genetic relation wise would be Aborigines and south Pacific Islanders;
I am going on memory here for this last part as I haven't read up on the out of Africa stuff for almost a year.
Other than Africans the furthest removed group from Euros genetic relation wise would be Aborigines and south Pacific Islanders;
I am going on memory here for this last part as I haven't read up on the out of Africa stuff for almost a year.
devans
Mentor
I believe in Science and evolution.
Fightingtowin
Guru
- Joined
- Nov 30, 2008
- Messages
- 462
I believe God guided evolution. Whether it occurred in time we understand or He hit the fast forward button
I don't know, but I believe God can do whatever he wants.
I don't know why He decided to have different races/ethnicities. Maybe it was to test us to see how we would respond.
I don't know why He decided to have different races/ethnicities. Maybe it was to test us to see how we would respond.
Solomon Kane
Mentor
- Joined
- Jul 3, 2006
- Messages
- 783
If you are speaking of the human race, then we are all descended from the same couple, Adam and Eve.
If you're taking race to mean the white, yellow, brown, black races. Those distinctionsarise fromNoah's three sons and their wives, and their children, etc. , etc. , along with the scattering of the peoples due to the incident of the tower of babel.
If you're taking race to mean the white, yellow, brown, black races. Those distinctionsarise fromNoah's three sons and their wives, and their children, etc. , etc. , along with the scattering of the peoples due to the incident of the tower of babel.
An interesting poll, I think.
I vote for Noah & his sons Shem, Japheth, Ham. But also, Noah's wife and his son's wives. Noah's wife: blue-eyed, all the others brown-eyed.
The genetic data is interesting and very relevant, but the time scales put on these genetic mutations are almost meaningless. It is not possible to say that "X changes take place per Y generations". Environmental pressures can effect not only mutation rates, but the acceptance/survivability of these mutations. Even so, my guess is that genetics is only a partial explanation of racial differences. There is some research (see Susan Crockford and her "Rhythms of Life" thyroid idea) that indicates that the EXPRESSION of the genetics also becomes "fixed" because of some large environmental pressure while the fetus is developing in the womb, and that the female offspring will then produce a similar hormonal environment when her own children are developing within her womb (or if a bird, in the egg). For instance, certain pigeons are closely related to dodo birds. Given the same environmental pressures, the pigeon could again morph phenotypically into a dodo bird (in other words, the morphing is not the effect of a chance mutation, but already built-in to the genetics). Her offspring would also remain dodo birds, until some large environmental pressure is again encountered. In other words, the phenotypic expression is very plastic, although the genetics themselves are chemically very conservative. A more immediate example is cloned cattle embryos put into different surrogate mothers. These twins will not be as identical as classical genetics might expect, nor will their offspring.
Now, to tie this environmental pressure idea to Noah...
According to data from many cultures (including the Bible stories), the Earth has undergone massive environmental pressures during the history of man. The greatest of these would, of course, have been the Flood. The Biblical life spans decrease rapidly after the Flood time, and it is likely that even before the Tower of Babel there were environmental pressures causing changing maturation rates which would have made the pronunciation of certain sounds in the original language more difficult for certain peoples to pronounce.
Ham /son Canaan laughed at Noah's nakedness. For this there is a curse that he will be the servant of the others. My guess is that this curse would involve some kind of exile from the main group, perhaps somewhat voluntarily in shame or to avoid servitude. As such, this Hamite/Canaan subgroup would have been exposed to the harshest environmental pressures, with those tending to the southern regions maturing at a faster, but comparatively "incomplete" rate. (For an analogical example, compare a wolf and a dog. The dog matures more quickly, but it cannot match the cunning or organ capacity of the wolf.)
Sometimes I wonder if it is at humanity's peril that we ignore this curse that Canaan will "serve the others". If Canaan's descendants have undergone a change in maturation, then it is for Canaan's own good and welfare that he is a servant to others. Perhaps when Canaan is set in the position of not a servant, but a leader, then destruction and chaos become commonplace. South Africa, Rhodesia, and other examples come to mind. Perhaps Ham himself became connected with this curse and shame and exile, because many peoples usually associated as Hamites have been associated with regions that are either very hot or very cold or very distant -- regions of exile.
Rudyard Kipling's "White man's burden" maybe is more than just a happenstance of history, but perhaps also has a basis in race and this ancient curse and the environmental pressures encountered by those living on the outskirts. Japhethites, Hamites, Semites --- we are all brethren, and so I believe that it is not ethical to just leave certain peoples to decay into chaos when we have the means to help. In other words, like it or not, it may be the case that the white race has the obligation to allow Canaan's descendants to be servants (and maybe also the Hamites generally). I think this means that the white nations cannot just close themselves off in a happy isolation, but must either (1) allow some immigration, or (2) be proactive and become colonizing powers.
I still think that 97% of the success of European civilization is attributable to the civilizing effect of the Benedictine monks in the West, which took more than a thousand years. Other Caucasians have also had the good fortune to be Christianized at a fairly early date. With time, I think that East Asians, Africans, and Native Americans will also do very well. However, there does seem to be a white genius for organization that goes back a very long time in history, with Rome being the prime case, but there are others. Maybe whites are fairly closely-related to an extent sufficient to make close cooperation and productive labor possible? Or maybe it is because the great family of Indo-European languages are somewhat closely linked with the Caucasian races? Perhaps it sounds wacky, but my own guess is that a genuine scholarly effort on the legend of Atlantis and its influence as a civilization-builder might shed some light on these various puzzle pieces.
Edited by: Observer
I vote for Noah & his sons Shem, Japheth, Ham. But also, Noah's wife and his son's wives. Noah's wife: blue-eyed, all the others brown-eyed.
The genetic data is interesting and very relevant, but the time scales put on these genetic mutations are almost meaningless. It is not possible to say that "X changes take place per Y generations". Environmental pressures can effect not only mutation rates, but the acceptance/survivability of these mutations. Even so, my guess is that genetics is only a partial explanation of racial differences. There is some research (see Susan Crockford and her "Rhythms of Life" thyroid idea) that indicates that the EXPRESSION of the genetics also becomes "fixed" because of some large environmental pressure while the fetus is developing in the womb, and that the female offspring will then produce a similar hormonal environment when her own children are developing within her womb (or if a bird, in the egg). For instance, certain pigeons are closely related to dodo birds. Given the same environmental pressures, the pigeon could again morph phenotypically into a dodo bird (in other words, the morphing is not the effect of a chance mutation, but already built-in to the genetics). Her offspring would also remain dodo birds, until some large environmental pressure is again encountered. In other words, the phenotypic expression is very plastic, although the genetics themselves are chemically very conservative. A more immediate example is cloned cattle embryos put into different surrogate mothers. These twins will not be as identical as classical genetics might expect, nor will their offspring.
Now, to tie this environmental pressure idea to Noah...
According to data from many cultures (including the Bible stories), the Earth has undergone massive environmental pressures during the history of man. The greatest of these would, of course, have been the Flood. The Biblical life spans decrease rapidly after the Flood time, and it is likely that even before the Tower of Babel there were environmental pressures causing changing maturation rates which would have made the pronunciation of certain sounds in the original language more difficult for certain peoples to pronounce.
Ham /son Canaan laughed at Noah's nakedness. For this there is a curse that he will be the servant of the others. My guess is that this curse would involve some kind of exile from the main group, perhaps somewhat voluntarily in shame or to avoid servitude. As such, this Hamite/Canaan subgroup would have been exposed to the harshest environmental pressures, with those tending to the southern regions maturing at a faster, but comparatively "incomplete" rate. (For an analogical example, compare a wolf and a dog. The dog matures more quickly, but it cannot match the cunning or organ capacity of the wolf.)
Sometimes I wonder if it is at humanity's peril that we ignore this curse that Canaan will "serve the others". If Canaan's descendants have undergone a change in maturation, then it is for Canaan's own good and welfare that he is a servant to others. Perhaps when Canaan is set in the position of not a servant, but a leader, then destruction and chaos become commonplace. South Africa, Rhodesia, and other examples come to mind. Perhaps Ham himself became connected with this curse and shame and exile, because many peoples usually associated as Hamites have been associated with regions that are either very hot or very cold or very distant -- regions of exile.
Rudyard Kipling's "White man's burden" maybe is more than just a happenstance of history, but perhaps also has a basis in race and this ancient curse and the environmental pressures encountered by those living on the outskirts. Japhethites, Hamites, Semites --- we are all brethren, and so I believe that it is not ethical to just leave certain peoples to decay into chaos when we have the means to help. In other words, like it or not, it may be the case that the white race has the obligation to allow Canaan's descendants to be servants (and maybe also the Hamites generally). I think this means that the white nations cannot just close themselves off in a happy isolation, but must either (1) allow some immigration, or (2) be proactive and become colonizing powers.
I still think that 97% of the success of European civilization is attributable to the civilizing effect of the Benedictine monks in the West, which took more than a thousand years. Other Caucasians have also had the good fortune to be Christianized at a fairly early date. With time, I think that East Asians, Africans, and Native Americans will also do very well. However, there does seem to be a white genius for organization that goes back a very long time in history, with Rome being the prime case, but there are others. Maybe whites are fairly closely-related to an extent sufficient to make close cooperation and productive labor possible? Or maybe it is because the great family of Indo-European languages are somewhat closely linked with the Caucasian races? Perhaps it sounds wacky, but my own guess is that a genuine scholarly effort on the legend of Atlantis and its influence as a civilization-builder might shed some light on these various puzzle pieces.
Edited by: Observer
Fightingtowin
Guru
- Joined
- Nov 30, 2008
- Messages
- 462
My understanding is that the "curse of Canaan" being attributed to the entire black race didn't start until the early 1700s in America to justify slavery. At the time, all the major religious scholars, including the Pope, said it had nothing to do with enslaving black people overall, yet the powers that be in America wanted to trick the public into believing it, which most did for a long time.
"Curse of Ham"Fightingtowin said:
As Wikipedia puts it: "early arguments to this effect were sporadic, they became increasingly common during the slave trade of the 18th and 19th Centuries". So, yes, it was American Protestantism that enshrined black slavery as a doctrine, although there were scattered voices who held this view from at least the 4th century.
However, setting aside slavery as an almost separate issue, there was the question of whether the Hamites should be rulers over other peoples. Some of the writers equated dark skin with a moral darkness. As you note, this did not necessarily imply that dark people should be enslaved, but there does seem to be a fairly common thought that the morally dark people should not be a ruling people. The Hamite Nimrod is the prototypical example of this type of ruler, too strong and ferocious to be a good ruler. As a generalization, the Hamites do not hand power over gently.
I'm not sure, but I wonder if this idea of "moral darkness" may have been some of the thinking of "taming" the "wild Indians" of the Americas, who are often considered Hamitic. I think East Asians are also often considered Hamitic, although I don't know that they have ever been considered a group that should be either tamed or enslaved.
Jimmy Chitwood
Hall of Famer
gentlemen, just as an aside...
Wikipedia is not a reliable source of information. especially when referencing matters that many deem politically sensitive.
just putting that out there.
Wikipedia is not a reliable source of information. especially when referencing matters that many deem politically sensitive.
just putting that out there.
The idea that everyone or even a specific group evolved from only the survivors of Noah and his family is silly. It doesn't stand up to scientific analysis or scrutiny, let alone common sense.
Which one of Noah's kids were oriental? and what explains the records of chinese history before the "flood". There may have been some large scale flood in the ancient biblical region but to ascribe it to the whole world and then use genetic science to explain it.....c'mon
Which one of Noah's kids were oriental? and what explains the records of chinese history before the "flood". There may have been some large scale flood in the ancient biblical region but to ascribe it to the whole world and then use genetic science to explain it.....c'mon
jaxvid said:
Please explain. I am no expert on Chinese history, but I had thought that Chinese history coincides well with timeline of the Flood, with the Xia Dynasty beginning about 2200 BC.
The Egyptian chronology would need to be re-worked, and it has (see "Chronology of Pharaohnic Egypt").