Adam & Eve White – Color came from evolution ?
Â
In Genesis 1:26 God said “Let us make man in our image, according to Our likeness†no mention of color. When I was growing up in India in the social studies class we were taught that there were three basic races of humans – The Caucasoid, the Negroids and the Mongoloids. The teacher typically could not answer any more probing questions regarding the matter. The rest of us were essentially derivatives of these basic races. While reading the Bible I often wondered if the sons of Noah were the three basic races.
Â
My looks are basically a collage of all these three distinct races in various proportions. When I look at pictures of my parents and grand parents I see even more clarity of the presence of these races. In my opinion my grandmother with high cheek bones had more Mongolian feature and my grandfather had more Caucasian features. During the past several years there has been several shows depicting the peeking of our interests to know our genealogy. There is also a web site Ansestory.com that gives Americans an opportunity to research their ancestory. But as immigration to America from Asia intensifies these web sites will become even more complex to navigate. In the latest census my children will inherit ancestory from India, Europe and America. The chain will only get deeper, wider and more complex.
Â
It was recently announced that a company has sequenced the DNA of American actress Glenn Close, the first publicly named female to have her DNA sequenced to full coverage. I am sure several fatal attractions of strange kinds will soon follow. Ms. Close’s DNA was sequenced to an average depth greater than 30 fold, providing information on SNP (a SNP array is a type of molecular breakdown which is used to detect variations within a population) variation and allowing for the analysis of other structural characteristics of the genome such as insertions, deletions and rearrangements. Specifically, over 95% of the known genome was reported, including over 12 million genotype calls on previously documented SNPs. In addition, 379,000 SNPs previously not reported in any public database were found. As DNA technology gets cheaper more of us will be eager to know our geneology mapping which again will unravel a wealth of information helping us move forward to personalised healthcare.
Â
I feel that Generation Y or The Millennial Generation is more racially and culturally tolerant than previous generations. The PBS series “The Story Of India†helped me understand more about my own geneology. Here is a link for anyone that is interested.
Â
http://www.pbs.org/thestoryofindia/
Â
I am curious – how many of you are exploring your own geneology? Will racism as we know it slowly disappear ? At least that is my hope.
recommend
Facebook
Twitter
bookmark 
print
Comments: 74
I do genealogy. My dad infected me with the bug, not long before he died.
I am the 'classic' Euro-White Western-American story: a sequence of moves from the eastern Colonies, to the Smokies & Appalachian districts, a jump to Texas as the rails got laid down, homesteading up into the Southwest, and finally dispersed along the West Coast from there.
Several 'brown grannies'. It is normally the grannies that were brown ... not usually the grandpas, according to the family lore (tho men sometimes were too, but could pass it off as 'working in the sun', or just by being a scary-enough dude, nobody would say anything).
As a rule, in the Classic White Westerner story, Granny was brown because she was a quarter or an eighth or maybe - wow! - even a half Cherokee. Part Native American ... Cherokee being the most popular story.
Of course, once these folks had gotten themselves to the Dallas-Ft Worth area, or Uvaldi County, Texas (both, in my case) the brown could just as easily be something Mexican, as anything else. But it was thoroughly normal for a person of mixed-ethnic background of any sort, to 'pass themselves off' as Part Indian (did I mention, preferably Cherokee?).
In reality, Native American tribes were undergoing terrible attrition, from very early dates in American history. The tribes were shrinking dramatically - some disappeared - well before the Western Settlement era ... which itself further traumatized them ... so the likelihood is that most of the 'brown pioneer grannies', supposedly part-Indian ... were actually part-something-else.
This will of course eventually be resolved with genetics. But even already, many 'typical' folks understand well-enough, and anyone who does much genealogy gets it in their face - that though most of today's Westerners look straight-Euro, they may well have a dash of multi-colored 'spices' in them, too.
"Will racism as we know it slowly disappear?" Yes, it certainly will, because the racism we know changed from a previous form of racism that is no longer quite the same as it was earlier ... and in turn our racism will change into another form that will no longer have exactly the same emotional & social currency as the form(s) of racism that we experience.
Some populations do homogenize. It is said that Mexico had a sizeable African population, but that it is now greatly reduced. The assumption is, that the former slaves of Mexico have strongly assimilated into the general (Mestizo-mixed) population.
But I don't think that is a process that can be counted on to take place, in a lot of other places. Distinctive ethnic/racial differentiation will probably continue to be noticeable, and the source of various 'issues'.
Genealogy is very interesting, and genetics will one day blow the whole game wide open.
Ted
Thank you very much for taking the time to give us a glimse of your history. I have known many friends with Native American mix in their ancestory. You seem to prefer the Cherokee Indians? Was it because they were hunters and more athletic....just curious.
It is interesting to me that Columbus started his journey to India and ended up in America and named the inhabitants - Indians. Instead of spices he ended up getting Buffalo meat.
I am a very curious person and like exploring people's background if they are willing to share with me.
Thanks for your thoughts
In generations & times past, the perception of & 'reputation' of different Native American tribes varied quite a bit among the Euro colonists, the early Americans, and across the Western Frontier during the Settlement Era.
Some Natives were viewed as having more prestige, of having or not having various desirable or undesirable attributes. Yes, for a Native group to be viewed as self-sufficient hunters, athletic, handsome/beautiful, or as stand-up warriors, was good, and to seem cowardly & cowed, dirty, weak, broken, homely, etc, was not. The objective merit in such valuations has to be rather specious. It was not a 'class hierarchy' as seen in some other parts of the world, like India ... but it is reminiscent of it.
It is something of a 'standing joke', genealogically, that those settlers who included a part-Indian into their family-tree, tend to ascribe the mixed individual to one or another of the tribes that were more 'glamorous' to be associated with.
Plus, some as yet unknown but potentially large fraction of supposed Native Indian-mixes, would actually have been mixes with decidedly less-desirable ethnic/racial populations. This was often 'hidden' by ascribing them to ... "Oh, grandma was part, uh, Cherokee ... or somethin'" ... selecting, of course from the short list of higher-status tribes.
I make a ha-ha of it, but one wants to be cautious & prudent about this matter. If Aunt Pettipoo says that our Granny was Cherokee, and the photo of granny looks distinctly Puerto Rican, I don't make an issue of it.
I.e. my Grandfather (in fact) pronounced the sugar-crop, "sorghum", as "sog-rum" ... and so do all my uncles and some of their sisters. One only interjects once, "You mean sorghum?" ... because the reaction is not comfortable.
The Native Tribe to whom a brown ancester might be ascribed, can be 'loaded' like the pronunciation of sorghum.
====
In Columbus' time, trade with India economically important ... and prestigious & glamorous. It was a relatively 'easy sell', to promote a voyage associated with India. Not too unlike Eric The Red calling the ice-cap covered island he recruited settlers for, "Greenland". Heck, even "ICEland" doesn't have an ICECAP!
So sure, calling the natives "Indians", and naming the "West Indies", was Public Relations gambit. He was 'spinning' the reality, so it would 'sell' better.
The nice thing about this spin-doctoring, is that it shows that during the formative period of American discovery & development, that to be associated with India was desirable ... cool, up-town, chic, & all that.
The last of the Mohicans and Dances with the wolves are among my all time favorite movies. I am fascinated by the native American culture.
Yes, you are right India was named the 'Golden Peacock' during those times and was a land of cool things. The link I have provided regarding the PBS series is well worth seeing. I own a copy of it and have seen it several times. Even though I do not tend to agree with some of the conclusions, for the most part it is very enlightening.
I liked the 'sorghum' quotes....I think the Puerto Ricans are very beautiful people and I see a lot of Indian genomes in them.
I must confess that the spin doctoring of Columbus's trip to America is a new revelation to me..... India has always been chic & cool and also toxic at times ;) to the Western soul.
I need to agree, after using the Puerto Ricans as a 'diss-example', that they are beautiful ... they pack some powerful intellect, and they're a serious concern on the sports-field!
They were also once in a position kinda like the Irish. "No Dogs or Irish Allowed!". "HELP WANTED! No Irish need apply." In the Western US during settlement, Puerto Ricans seem to have been viewed as 'exotic', and the reaction to them fairly-simple xenophobia. Things have come a long way ... for both groups.
I understand by this verse we are all the same race. We do, however, express different traits because of the genes we have and which ones are expressed. My guess is that Adam and Eve had medium brown skin. They possessed all of the human genome. The human genome was then filtered down to the genes held by those who were saved on Noah's ark.
Though I have some interest in my ancestory I am not actively searching my geneology. I am less interested about the history of my flesh and blood and more interested in the future of my soul.
I do think that "racism" as we label it will continue to exists because of the teaching of molecules-to-man evoluton. This religion encourages "racism" because it promotes that different races are the result of different "levels" of evolution. I have personally been accused by people on gather as being a "lesser evolved" human because of my belief in biblical creationism.
I am intrigued that you think Adam and Eve were most likely medium brown skin - a latte perhaps!
Since I have travelled the world quite a bit..the Noah folklore and the floods are part of many major cultures from around the world.
Being an engineer myself I think the pure evolutionalists theory are full of Bull$$ pardon my French.
Yes, I have heard there are many versions of the account of Noah and the ark coming from coming from many different cultures around the world.
"...if there really was a global Flood, you would expect to find billions of dead things buried in rock layers laid down by water all over the earth … which is exactly what you do find!" - Ken Ham
I watched a portion of the genealogy special and saw Emmitt Smith's journey. A poignant moment as he discovered how his ancestors were listed as property in the slave owner's will, and how the "coloreds" were buried in the woods with no trace of a marker. One historian showed Mr. Smith how they documented the horses and their blood lines traced from Europe, nothing about the slaves. He also found out he had white ancestors, a very interesting and sad journey for him.
I was watching the series that William Gates (the bear in the White House fame ) did for PBS now the other channels are hopping on the band wagon. I smell a reality show somewhere.....starring Kelly K.
Actually though, I agree with Lee and think that all the possibilities were in Adam and Eve. Also, when God scattered the people due to the building and intentions of the towel of Babel, I think He did it instantly. Spread them to the far reaches of every land. By the time they worked their way down to other tribes they had already taken on the characteristics of the the genes each person had.
But of course it's all guess work :) It's fun to think about.
I too believe in the tower of Babel story and I also think that it was instantaneous and when people returned to work on the tower they could not communicate with each other and the 'Tower of Babel' project failed. I think the spreading may have happened over time ...... I believe that climate, food and behavior affected their genes and the skin color.
After the water all came down from the sky and up out of the earth the sun was more damaging and readings changed.
Was that old wishful thinking by Christians? I don't know.
I'm reading The Case For a Creator by Lee Stobel right now. He's a journalist investigating evolution. He said his path to atheism was paved by science, and, ironically, so was his path back to a Creator.
Maybe I'll learn something current & be filled with answers just waiting for someone to ask Ha ha.
I'll post an article and let everyone know if that happens.
In the first chapter of Romans God makes strong statements that really grabbed my attention a little over a year ago.
Rom 1:18-21
18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, (We're going to see that God Himself GAVE truth to every man. Most men press that truth down and cover it up deliberately)
19 because that which is known about God is evident within them; FOR God made it evident to them>. (I'm glad God did that. Made Himself 'obvious' to all. Even natives in the old Africa standing outside at night looking at the stars and sky are moved by the Holy Spirit to bow to the creator. & if they do ... I believe they are born again. NOW we see why it was important that JESUS 'created all things and nothing was made that was made without Him.'
They may not know His name, but through the Spirit & 'God making it evident to them' they can still believe. & though they do not know His human name they were, nevertheless, saved through Him alone)
20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse.
21 For even though they knew God, they did not honor Him as God or give thanks, but they became futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened. NASU
Look at all He accomplish through nature. It's unbelievable. I believe Gen 1:1 was the big bang. When God opened His mouth and spewed out the energy and matter of the universe. That was some bang. I believe that was millions of years ago.
I think God had another creation on the earth with the beautiful, glorious Lucifer in charge. The earth was destroyed and was under water for millions of years. We still find samples of their animals in the lower rock levels.
Gen 1:2 began the restorative creation for man (I think)
I believe He straightened out the earth and created our current system and man in 7 days do to the wording of Genesis.
You said you don't use blind faith. I don't either, but I think (according to scripture above) God has allowed an accurate record in nature. We don't always understand it.
Also, do you believe in fallen angels and that their DNA may be in humans?
Looks like you are a wealth of knowledge.
Can you remember if it mentions them or was it too long ago that you read it?
I am determined to come up with something so that my grandchildren, going out into a pretty anti Bible society, will feel comfortable that they have some answers. I'll keep up with you on it.
I got your ping but wanted to come back here so the thread wasn't hanging in the air.
I'll keep you up on anything I learn.
You know, God may have used this earth for many creations. This universe is so beautiful. And we know it is very unlikely that God would have just sat aroud for billions of years waiting to create angels and humans.
There are a couple of places where mention is made that might 'possibly' refer to an earlier creation on the earth. But only because you are looking for some mention of it. The age of the earth, the fact that Romans so strongly holds nature out as revealing truth, make us wonder. Look for 'possibilities.' So everything in this area has to hang loose, but the I find, the more it answers some of the problems between what nature says and what the Bible says. One verse was "Lucifer, the angel that covered"
It is agreed that 'covered' means ruled over. It doesn't say what he ruled over. Some think it was an earlier creation on this earth. Another 'possibility only' is brought up. No one know who 'demons' are. God doesn't tell us. They are not fallen angels. God doesn't create being to be evil but to be holy. Are they the souls of those that Lucifer 'covered' that did not live for God?
Mainly, these questions tell us to realize there is SO MUCH we don't know. Possibilities are huge. Reality is probably much more amazing then anything we could make up. But I would like to read about all the levels of fossils again with all this in mind.
Here is what my NKJV Bible says:
Genesis 10
32These are the clans of the sons of Noah, according to their genealogies, in their nations,(O) and from these the nations spread abroad on the earth after the flood.
So according to the Bible the flood was worldwide, I thought I had this right.
Passage Genesis 6:13:
13And God said to Noah,(A) "I have determined to make an end of all flesh,[a] for the earth is filled with violence through them. Behold, I will destroy them with the earth.
Looks like the Dinasaurs walked before that - I wonder if they existed before Adam and Eve and why there is no mention in the Bible.
For MOST people Understanding our past provides more clarity for the future........and I like history.
Enosh had Kenon Gen 5:12 And Kenan lived 70 years and became the father of Mahalelel.13 then Kenan lived 840 yrs after he became the father of Mahalelel, and he had other sons and daughters
14So all the days of Kenan were 910 yrs, and he died.
15 And Mahalalel livd 65 years and became the father of Jared. 16 Then Mahalalel lived 830 years after he became the father of Jared, and he had other sons and daughters 17So all the daysof Mahalalel were 895 yrs and he died.
on and on ... exactly the same untill the last.
28 And Lamech lived one hundred 182 yrs, and became the father of a son. 29 Now he called his name Noah, saying "This one shall give us rest from our work and from the toil of our hands arising from the ground which the Lord has cursed. 30 Then Lamech lived 595 yrs after he became the father of Noah and he had other sons and daughters. 31 So all the days of Lamech were 777 yrs and he died.
32 And Noah was 500 yrs old and Noah became the father of Shem, Ham, and Japheth. Last entry.
I have never heard anyone believe that Noah's sons were triplets. I suppose they could be. Genesis 9:24 tells us Ham is the younger son:
And Noah awoke from his wine, and knew what his younger son had done unto him.
I suppose even if being triplets they would make an age distinction by their birth order.
When you're reading the Bible, you'll see you come down from a long line ... all being laid out the same way till you get to him.
It would have drawn a lot of attention to himself. (Especially if they were all 3 different colors :) Which I doubt.
But, God was getting ready to do a special thing and if he chose to give triplets, Neither the babies or their Mamma were in any danger of dying. :):)
Maybe not ... it just looks like it to me.
+Gen 3:16 To the woman He said, I will greatly multiply your pain in childbirth, in pain you shall bring forth children
Oops. Pain ... not numbers :)
Jacob changed his name to Israel and it should be obvious which people are inferred to have descended from him.
Some people believe that Ham's descendants are the ones who developed dark skin and frizzy hair.
Now, just how many generations would it take for that to happen anyway?
You're right; all the races were in the 3 boys.
It would appear that Noah decided not to pass on the technology of his time to his descendants. Either that, or this whole thing is one quite elaborate hoax.
There's so many little things we miss that are important ... I guess not that important in the whole scheme of things, but fun we missed out on by not seeing the whole picture :)
So, examples of factors that could affect how strongly selection drove pigmentation, would be, 1.) whether early populations lived beneath the protective forest canopy, and 2.), whether they were still covered with hair/fur.
Incidentally, we continue to see additional & better reports from geneticists, that Neanderthal may have had both red hair, and fair skin. Neanderthal were not the first population to live in northern & cold places, so these traits may have pre-dated them.
Beware of looking at the face or hands, and extrapolating that to the body. Even humans show specific body-part variations - some highly pronounced. Primates have had sometimes-spectacular pigmentation patterns on certain body-parts, for an extremely long time.
Ok ... I Googled 'chimpanzee skin color'. There are sources saying it is "fair", and others saying becomes dark at maturity. Judging from the variation in face & hand color I've seen in chimps, it may be an individual variable.
Whites develop melanoma 1 of every 50.
Blacks develop melanoma 1 of every 1000
Whites are very aware and go to doctor earlier.
Blacks aren't as aware & probably the brown coloring of the melanoma isn't as obvious as on a white person.
" Lifetime risk of developing melanoma in whites is currently estimated at 1 in 50, compared to 1 in 1000 in African-Americans. Although darker-pigmented populations are consistently reported to have lower risk for melanoma [3], possibly related to protection from ultraviolet radiation (UVR) provided by melanin [4], these groups are consistently shown to have a worse outcome than Caucasians. Between 1996 and 2004, the 5-year survival rates for melanoma reported from the National Cancer Institute's Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results (SEER) Program ranged from a high of 93.5 percent among white women to a low of 71.2 percent among black men [2].
I'm glad God made us all different colors. I had 6 children. I told them I thought it would be fun for them all marry different races. We'd be a minnie UN ... only I'd like us and I don't like the UN :)
Blessings and best wishes - S,
It is probably too cold for black people to make it in Russia....so you have a more homogeneous culture