Happy Atheist Forum

I just heard a interesting question on reddit and I'd like to explore it (and pose it to my YEC friend if I can refine it a bit).  If Adam and Eve were white where did black and brown people come from?  Now i'm going to stop the first 10 comments and say I don't think Adam and Eve are real and thus these imaginary people could be white, black, brown, yellow, purple ever.  Just substitute whatever 3 races you would like in any of the spots for the argument.

Now on reddit they mentioned the Curse of Ham and the decedents of Ham are now black.  That one claim is that their skin was turned black blah blah blah the decedents of Ham were the Canaanites who were all killed later in the bible.  

All the rest i've read seem to depict some relationship between sin and skin tone.

Anyone hear any answers to this or have some insight/theories on the subject?

As the population grew, some people migrated to Africa where the good hunting was. The sun being so strong in Africa meant the people there started to evolve a natural protective pigment in their skin called melanin.......oh, wait...

Quote from: "karadan"As the population grew, some people migrated to Africa where the good hunting was. The sun being so strong in Africa meant the people there started to evolve a natural protective pigment in their skin called melanin.......oh, wait...

is the oh wait because humans started in africa?

QuoteAnyone hear any answers to this or have some insight/theories on the subject?

a lot of people think the isrealites where black. i personally dont have an opinion.
but if we originated in africa, im going to make an ignorant uneducated guess that the first humans were black. although the world was a completely different place back then, so who knows. anything can happen.

Light-skinned  people are the result of mutations causing melanin deficiency in the skin.  According to a 2005 DNA discovery (part of the Human Genome Project, as I recall) white European people all descended from a single mutant.  Asian people experienced a separate mutation that accounts for their melanin deficiency.

There may have been earlier white skin mutations but in Africa, light-skinned people probably didn't do so well in the intense  sunlight.  White mutants could more easily survive in the north where people had to cover up anyway just to stay warm.

QuoteSkin color is due primarily to the presence of a pigment called melanin.  Both light and dark complexioned people have this pigment.  However, two forms are produced--pheomelanin, which is red to yellow in color, and eumelanin, which is dark brown to black.  People with light complexioned skin mostly produce pheomelanin, while those with dark colored skin mostly produce eumelanin.  In addition, individuals differ in the number and size of melanin particles.  The latter two variables are more important in determining skin color than the percentages of the different kinds of melanin.  In lighter skin, color is also affected by red cells in blood flowing close to the skin.  To a lesser extent, the color is affected by the presence of fat under the skin and carotene, a reddish-orange pigment in the skin.

Link (http://anthro.palomar.edu/adapt/adapt_4.htm)

While all this information is interesting lets bring this back to what I was asking about.  If Adam and Eve existed (as a Young Earth Creationists believes) and they were both a certain color then why do we have several different colored races?  Obviously evolution is the cause of this.  I didn't really want this thread to be about evolution or i'd have posted it in the science section (not trying to be a dick here i'm just trying to explain what i'm asking for).  I wanted this thread to be more of a argument/counter argument thread so I could sift though the bullshit that will be thrown at me.  I want to use this argument to sneak evolution in past my friends typical religious defenses (dismissal and faith).

So has anyone heard a religious reason given for why there are different races?

Quote from: "LoneMateria"...why do we have several different colored races?

I think this would be easy for a Creationist to answer.  Most of them are willing to accept the concept of "micro evolution."  The changes in skin color since the time of Adam and Eve would fit under that umbrella.  I imagine that you will find the answer is "modern day people are all of the same 'kind.'"  As for religious reasons for variations in human skin color, I don't think that the bible actually says, but no doubt there has been some clever exegesis on the subject.  Here (http://www.christiananswers.net/q-aig/race-definition.html) is one version of the Christian take on this subject.  And another (http://www.bible-truth.org/race.htm).

QuoteVirtually all evolutionists would now say that the various people groups did not have separate origins. That is, different people groups did not each evolve from a different group of animals. So they would agree with the biblical creationist that all people groups have come from the same original population. Of course, they believe that such groups as the Aborigines and the Chinese have had many tens of thousands of years of separation. Most believe that there are such vast differences between the groups that there had to be many years for these differences to develop.

"Virtually all evolutionists would now say that the various people groups did not have separate origins. That is, different people groups did not each evolve from a different group of animals. So they would agree with the biblical creationist that all people groups have come from the same original population."

sneaky fuckers.

"they agree with biblical creationist that all people groups come from the same original population."
maybe its just me but it seems really low to dig for credibility this way. in what way would an evolutionist and creationist agree on an original population? unless adam and eve evolved from other lesser forms of "gods creations."

Quote from: "Recusant"

Quote from: "LoneMateria"...why do we have several different colored races?

I think this would be easy for a Creationist to answer.  Most of them are willing to accept the concept of "micro evolution."  The changes in skin color since the time of Adam and Eve would fit under that umbrella.  I imagine that you will find the answer is "modern day people are all of the same 'kind.'"  As for religious reasons for variations in human skin color, I don't think that the bible actually says, but no doubt there has been some clever exegesis on the subject.  Here (http://www.christiananswers.net/q-aig/race-definition.html) is one version of the Christian take on this subject.  And another (http://www.bible-truth.org/race.htm).

This one doesn't accept micro evolution.  He tried pulling the each kind thing with me over noah's flood once upon a time.  I'm going to check out those sites anyway.  At the very least it will give me a head start on where he might eventually go.

Quote from: "G-Roll"

Quote from: "karadan"As the population grew, some people migrated to Africa where the good hunting was. The sun being so strong in Africa meant the people there started to evolve a natural protective pigment in their skin called melanin.......oh, wait...

is the oh wait because humans started in africa?

that...and because it would require the creationist to accept evolution which is the root problem of their not being able to explain skin tone without pointing to racist bible passages.

You are of course right, there is no sensible answer to your question, without going down the the evolution route. He may try a variation of "God created black people at time X, after Adam and Eve", This will not be much of a stretch for him. After all, the bible just mentions the wives of Cain and Abel, without bothering to mention their births, so inserting something about black people being made separately should not be too much trouble for them.


Also, not believing in "micro"evolution? Have they seen dogs?

Quote from: "SSY"You are of course right, there is no sensible answer to your question, without going down the the evolution route. He may try a variation of "God created black people at time X, after Adam and Eve", This will not be much of a stretch for him. After all, the bible just mentions the wives of Cain and Abel, without bothering to mention their births, so inserting something about black people being made separately should not be too much trouble for them.


Also, not believing in "micro"evolution? Have they seen dogs?

I've explained dogs, i've explained germs and so on it just goes in one ear and out the other.  This is one of the few christians who has actually read the bible cover to cover.  It is scary how he rationalizes things sometimes.  I hope he just doesn't make something up (and i've caught him doing that crap to me before).

I don't remember the source for this or anything, but I remember an explanation of "where dod Cain's wives come from" that had to do with other people having been created (or maybe it was that they had evolved previously), who simply weren't mentioned in the Bible....it's author found it not important enough to the central narrative of the story, I guess. After all, no one claims it was a complete history, do they? Plenty of characters and people come up later without any explanation for their origins, right?

So anyway, the idea is that other people had come into existence somehow or another around the same time and some of them could have been of different skin color, etc.

Your friend probably doesn't know about that, um, idea, though and probably guesses that because no one else in the Bible is mentioned yet, there was no one for Cain to have children with, other than his mother and/or sisters  :crazy:

^This is the kind of crap I was tought as a child, btw.

Quote from: "G-Roll"

QuoteVirtually all evolutionists would now say that the various people groups did not have separate origins. That is, different people groups did not each evolve from a different group of animals. So they would agree with the biblical creationist that all people groups have come from the same original population. Of course, they believe that such groups as the Aborigines and the Chinese have had many tens of thousands of years of separation. Most believe that there are such vast differences between the groups that there had to be many years for these differences to develop.

"Virtually all evolutionists would now say that the various people groups did not have separate origins. That is, different people groups did not each evolve from a different group of animals. So they would agree with the biblical creationist that all people groups have come from the same original population."

sneaky fuckers.

"they agree with biblical creationist that all people groups come from the same original population."
maybe its just me but it seems really low to dig for credibility this way. in what way would an evolutionist and creationist agree on an original population? unless adam and eve evolved from other lesser forms of "gods creations."

Actually, this is true.  Scientists have actually found a few tribes in central/southern Africa whose genetic origins they have determined to be the oldest (based on minute variations in Y chromosomes over thousands of years).  So the earliest humans did form one population in one small area, which then spread out geographically and covered the earth.  Here's a cool article: http://www.nytimes.com/2002/01/08/science/genes-help-identify-oldest-human-population.html?pagewanted=1

BUT, to answer the original question, the variation in skin tone amongst humans has nothing to do with evolution, only slight genetic mutation (evolution would only occur if one mutation was more favorable, and resulted in the elimination of earlier varieties).  We are the same species with subtle genetic variance, which exists throughout all of nature (red roses v. white roses, etc.).  All human "races" (there is actually debate about the definition of the term "race" itself), form a continuum across the globe, with very minor variations from location to location.  This should be easily acceptable to most creationists.  Unless they don't believe in genes at all, in which case there is no hope for them...  But here's an interesting article on race and geography: http://www.nytimes.com/2002/01/08/science/genes-help-identify-oldest-human-population.html?pagewanted=1

First, hello and welcome, bfat.  I haven't been around here that much lately, so have not had the opportunity to say hello previously.

Quote from: "bfat"...the variation in skin tone amongst humans has nothing to do with evolution, only slight genetic mutation (evolution would only occur if one mutation was more favorable, and resulted in the elimination of earlier varieties).

I may be misunderstanding you (and if so, please forgive my presumption), but I would say that evolution is undoubtedly the reason there is variation in skin tone.  There are well defined and understood advantages for both light and dark skin. Yes, "slight genetic mutation" is the mechanism for the variation that we see, but that's a mechanism which is part of the evolutionary process.  One of the main driving factors for light skin is the production of vitamin D.  For dark skin it's protection from ultraviolet radiation. Thus, in areas of the globe where there is a higher level of ultraviolet, dark skin has a survival advantage, and the people in those regions evolved darker skin tones. In regions of less radiation, lighter skin tones were an advantage, and people there evolved to have lighter skin.  If you care to explore this issue in a bit more depth, you can read this page (http://anthro.palomar.edu/adapt/adapt_4.htm) from Dr. Dennis O'Neil's excellent website.  I've found his tutorials quite useful on a number of occasions, and he covers several topics, not just adaptation.

  Once again forgive me if I mis-read your post, but "...variation in skin tone amongst humans has nothing to do with evolution..." seems fairly unequivocal (and incorrect).

Quote from: "Recusant"First, hello and welcome, bfat.  I haven't been around here that much lately, so have not had the opportunity to say hello previously.

Quote from: "bfat"...the variation in skin tone amongst humans has nothing to do with evolution, only slight genetic mutation (evolution would only occur if one mutation was more favorable, and resulted in the elimination of earlier varieties).

I may be misunderstanding you (and if so, please forgive my presumption), but I would say that evolution is undoubtedly the reason there is variation in skin tone.  There are well defined and understood advantages for both light and dark skin. Yes, "slight genetic mutation" is the mechanism for the variation that we see, but that's a mechanism which is part of the evolutionary process.  One of the main driving factors for light skin is the production of vitamin D.  For dark skin it's protection from ultraviolet radiation. Thus, in areas of the globe where there is a higher level of ultraviolet, dark skin has a survival advantage, and the people in those regions evolved darker skin tones. In regions of less radiation, lighter skin tones were an advantage, and people there evolved to have lighter skin.  If you care to explore this issue in a bit more depth, you can read this page (http://anthro.palomar.edu/adapt/adapt_4.htm) from Dr. Dennis O'Neil's excellent website.  I've found his tutorials quite useful on a number of occasions, and he covers several topics, not just adaptation.

  Once again forgive me if I mis-read your post, but "...variation in skin tone amongst humans has nothing to do with evolution..." seems fairly unequivocal (and incorrect).

Thanks for your post, I guess I could have been a little more clear on what I meant.  I was referring to the main area of evolution with which creationists have a problem, which is speciation.  Since the genetic mutations resulting in different skin tones have not resulted in new species, just different colors of skin, this is just species variation, which I don't think most creationists have a problem with (right?).  While the amount of ultraviolet light in a given location may make it favorable for certain skin tones, this falls under natural selection (which is a component of evolution), but not actual species evolution.  The continuum of genetics related to skin tone over geographical regions is overlapping, so "races" are not actually distinct sets of genetic differences, but gradual and overlapping changes on an individual basis (my explanation isn't great--the second article explains this much better).  Technically all mutations that don't disappear within a few generations are genetic "evolutions" of a sort, but the Evolution (big "E") that I was referring to had more to do with speciation (large scale/macro evolution).  So as long as light and dark skinned people can still mate and produce viable offspring, it's just variation, not speciation.

I hope this makes sense.  I know the term "evolution" gets used in a lot of different contexts and with different meanings.  The simplest definition of the term is just "descent with modification," which is plainly obvious from even just one generation to the next.  But genetic variation hasn't really been contested, as far as I know, by creationists (unless you use the term micro-evolution, because it's that "e" word that's the problem).  Mostly when people talk about evolution, they mean speciation and large-scale evolution.  Gregor Mendel was doing his work at around the same time as Darwin, and I don't think people really flipped their lids over his theories.  I guess making wrinkly pea pods wasn't as rage-provoking as saying that humans "came from monkeys"  (Don't you shudder when you hear people say this?  For some reason saying men and monkeys had a common ancestor somehow means to them that we came from monkeys...  yet believing that all of mankind came from one single couple--can you imagine the amount of incest that had to happen for that to be true???--makes perfect sense.)

Anyway, I hope this is more clear.

Quote from: "G-Roll"

Quote from: "karadan"As the population grew, some people migrated to Africa where the good hunting was. The sun being so strong in Africa meant the people there started to evolve a natural protective pigment in their skin called melanin.......oh, wait...

is the oh wait because humans started in africa?

QuoteAnyone hear any answers to this or have some insight/theories on the subject?

a lot of people think the isrealites where black. i personally dont have an opinion.
but if we originated in africa, im going to make an ignorant uneducated guess that the first humans were black. although the world was a completely different place back then, so who knows. anything can happen.

No the 'oh wait' bit because they evolved..

Quote from: "LoneMateria"I just heard a interesting question on reddit and I'd like to explore it (and pose it to my YEC friend if I can refine it a bit).  If Adam and Eve were white where did black and brown people come from?

According to the Creation Museum in Kentucky, mutations.

Quote from: "LoneMateria"Now i'm going to stop the first 10 comments and say I don't think Adam and Eve are real and thus these imaginary people could be white, black, brown, yellow, purple ever.  Just substitute whatever 3 races you would like in any of the spots for the argument.

Now on reddit they mentioned the Curse of Ham and the decedents of Ham are now black.  That one claim is that their skin was turned black blah blah blah the decedents of Ham were the Canaanites who were all killed later in the bible.  

The Mormons say it's a curse from their god.  Same with the injuns.  They're red because they abandoned the Mormon god.

Quote from: "bfat"Gregor Mendel was doing his work at around the same time as Darwin, and I don't think people really flipped their lids over his theories.  I guess making wrinkly pea pods wasn't as rage-provoking as saying that humans "came from monkeys"

Sorry, not trying to derail or anything...just a drive by random info post from your friendly neighborhood Squid.

Mendel published his work in an obscure little journal and it wasn't until the early 20th century that his work was "rediscovered" and reached a wide audience.