Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Rhea · 10-07-2002, 09:05 AM

I just was presented with this piece at another bb. It has many obvious logical, scientific and even biblical inaccuracies. Just wonder if it's so common as to already have refutations enumerated? Or, anyone else want to join me in dissecting it?

Quote:

The Origin of the Human Races
First published in
Creation Ex Nihilo 3(3):5-10, August 1980
The Editor

Dear Sir, Why are there different races? Is it because of the tower of Babel when the different languages originated? Or is it as I am told in school text books that man adapted to his environment by changing his skin colour?

Yours sincerely, Dale Higgins Mendooran, N.S.W.
Dear Dale, Hope the following information helps you and all our readers. Thanks for the suggestion.
Editor

THE ORIGIN OF THE HUMAN RACES
A human race is defined as a group of people with certain common inherited features that distinguish them from other groups of people. All men of whatever race are currently classified by the anthropologist or biologist as belonging to the one species, Homo sapiens. This is another way of saying that the differences between human races are not great, even though they may appear so, i.e. black vs white skin. All races of mankind in the world can interbreed because they have so much in common.

Most anthropologists recognize 3 or 4 basic races of man in existence today. These races can be further subdivided into as many as 30 sub groups.

(The Australoid or Australian Aborigine, is sometimes regarded as a sub group of the Caucasoid as they have many features in common with this group despite their dark skin. The American Indian is usually classed with the Mongoloid division).

The most significant difference between these races is: -
(a) language
(b) hair and facial features

(c) skin colour. This distinguishing feature is primarily due to difference in amount of the pigment, melanin, in the skin. This melanin protects the body by absorbing ultraviolet (UV) radiation from the sunlight which falls on the skin. UV radiation can damage the skin and produce skin cancer if it is not filtered out in this way. The shades of colour in human skin can be represented by the Von Luschan Scale and ranges from almost pure white to pure black.

Differences such as hair, skin and facial features are almost certainly inherited, but the way in which their inheritance is controlled is little understood, and definitely not simple. In skin colour, for instance, 2 to 4 pairs of genes are involved. (Genes are the units in each cell of the body that carry inherited information) It is known that some of these genes produce lightness and some darkness. The brown skinned person has genes for both dark and light. The darker person has more genes for darkness and the lighter person has more genes for lightness.

Concerning the Origin of the Races the Bible Records That:
(1) All men are descendants of the first created man Adam, and
(2) the line of all human ancestry passes through Noah. Only Noah, his sons, and their wives survived the flood which destroyed all other men living at that time (Genesis 7:21), and radically altered the world environs.

All races therefore have developed from this one family since the end of the flood in Noah's day. The Australian Aborigine, the Chinese, and the European have come into existence only in recent times. The culture (technology and religions, etc.) of each racial group in the world started at a common point - Noah - with full knowledge of God and a sophisticated ocean liner technology. The current states of culture of the races, which varies from space age to stone age, from animal worship and spirit worship to Christianity, is not a result of innocent, ignorant people searching for improvement. It is a direct consequence of whether the ancestors of any race worshipped the living God or deliberately rejected Him.

How Did This All Happen?
There are several significant factors which can be considered in attempting to account for the origin of the physical difference between races. The first of these is the origin of different languages; the second is the splitting into groups which this produced; and the third is the environment into which each of these groups moved.

After the flood, the Bible records that God commanded Noah and his family to multiply and cover the earth (Genesis 9: 1, 18, 19). in Genesis 11:1 the Bible records the fact that man had decided to disobey God's command to cover the earth. They had, instead, decided to establish a 'massive urban complex' as a focal point. The Tower of Babel was built to ensure that worship and society were united around this common goal of staying together.

In Genesis 11:8 is recorded God's judgment on this disobedience by His imposition of different languages on man. Previously, they had all spoken the one language. The purpose of this is spelled out in Genesis "so that man could not understand one another and therefore no longer be able to work together against God". (Gen. 11:5 7) They would be forced to spread out over the surface of the earth as God had commanded them. The efficiency of this judgment can be seen when you attempt to get groups of people of different nationalities to work together. How God imposed different languages is not stated, but since he had created Adam with inbuilt speech, it would be no major problem to reset the physical and nervous controls to produce another differing form of inbuilt speech. This new language would also have its own repertoire of words and the capacity to coin new words consistent with their language.

With this enforced separation, it is not too difficult to imagine how other minor physical differences such as skin variations already in existence, could begin to show.

Coloured Skin

In any group of 'white' people today the ability to tan or produce brownness varies. Some just can't do it and pay the price - sunburn. Others produce Hollywood brown without too much trouble. We are even familiar with the person whose skin is just 'naturally' dark. In a group of 'black' people, such minor variations also exist, producing shades of blackness.

The Bible refers to genetic variations, such as the height of man, before the flood. It is therefore very probable that both before and after the flood variations in skin colouration also existed -even in Noah's family.

Up to the time of Babel, since there was only one language, all of mankind formed only one culture or 'marriage group'. Any variations would tend to be minimised since 'darkish' could marry a 'lightish', and the average colour of the population would stay the same. However, the coming of new languages changed all that. The large group was split into many smaller groups. It is unlikely that each group would have contained a representative of all shades of skin colour. So if a census had been taken of average skin colour of each group, some would have averaged towards the darker end, and some to the lighter end. The same sort of difference would no doubt have occurred for any body characteristic - straight hair, wavy hair, eye shape, etc.

The world environment had been dramatically changed by the flood. As the groups dispersed, then, they were going to areas which offered them new and different climates and diets. Studies on the relationship between skin colour and health in a given environment, suggest the following origin of racial colours. After Babel, those who went to colder climates who had darker skin, would probably suffer Vitamin D deficiencies, such as rickets. The skin produces Vitamin D from sunlight. The person with darker skin is worse off in a cold region since there is less sunlight, and since he is more sunlight resistant, he can produce less Vitamin D. The colder environment, both through sunlight and the available diet, would tend to favour those with fairer skins. Dark skinned people would be therefore less healthy and tend to have fewer children. Gradually the number of black people in any group that went to a cold region would dwindle. From that point on the remaining population was a 'white' race.

Likewise, those who went to brighter, hotter regions, and had darker skins would survive more easily (i.e. get less skin cancer, etc.) and hence be selected for. In this case, the whiter persons would dwindle from the population and a 'black' race would result. It is interesting to note that if a pure white European is married to a pure black Negro, the offspring are an intermediate brown called mulatto. If two mulattos are married, the offspring can be any of 9 colours, from pure white to pure black.

The simplest conclusion that it may be possible to draw from this observation is that Noah and his family possessed genes for both dark and light. Dark enough to protect them, and light enough to ensure sufficient Vitamin D. In the world before the flood it is unlikely that there would have been extremes of heat or cold, so that a balanced skin colour was the most suitable. After Babel the extremes of environment sorted these colour factors into groups which contained different numbers of light and dark genes. The final ratio of dark to light genes in any one group would be the most useful balance for that environment. This process of gaining a light or dark skin is not an adaptation in the evolutionary sense of the organism developing something new to cope with a new environment. All basic factors in skin colour were present in the first created man. Adam was designed to 'cope'.

Almond Eye

The Caucasian eye has only one layer of fat. The eye of the Chinaman, however, has a double fold of fat giving it an almond appearance. This doubly insulated eye has probably been very useful in cold snowy winters, and in protecting the eye from snow reflected UV light. Both the Caucasian eye and the Chinese eye have fat. The Chinese eye simply has more of it.

After the 'new languages' arrived, man would tend to live and marry only with those who reinforced his language grouping and adhered to the culture he accepted. Each of these groups would have represented a 'gene pool' (certain number of inheritable characteristics) which now was isolated from all other gene pools. Within each of these groups, marriage only between those in the group would tend to enhance those physical traits the individuals regarded as 'desired', eg. size or skin colour or intellect, and bring out any common oddities in the gene pool that previously would have been masked by continual intermarriage. It is easy to imagine how persons possessing genes for 'pygmy' size could be persecuted into leaving their ancestral society and seeking refuge from their society in a previously unoccupied and secluded habitat.

Further evidence for this common cultural and physical ancestry is supplied by a study of the stories which each group has in common, such as the large number of flood legends.

Despite what appears to be marked racial differences, the races of the world would disappear if total intermarriage was practiced today. Even though the genes for almond eyes, black or white skin, still existed, they could appear in different combinations. White skin could appear with almond eye, and pygmy size with blue eyes.

SUMMARY

The dispersion of people which would have followed the imposition of new languages at Babel, would have produced situations of cultural and environmental difference. These new conditions would have created a stress or pressure which would have acted on characteristics already present. With time, certain features, both physical and cultural, became associated with a particular group, and a separate race was formed. The races, in most cases, represent recombinations of pre-existent 'created' genes, with minor degenerate mutation. The origin of human races does not conform to the popular concept of Evolution, i.e. from simple to complex. There has been no 'evolution' of genes which did not previously exist, only the recombination and degeneration of created genetic information. No race of the world today comes from a background of zero technology or of innocent, ignorance of God. All cultures which do not have a correct knowledge of God have got that way by deliberate rejection. They are not primitives in need of education and technical aid so that they can understand the Gospel, but spiritual degenerates in need of the Gospel so they can appreciate education and relevance of technology.

Ted Hoffman · 10-07-2002, 09:44 AM

I think it would be fun to take it apart if the person who wrote the article were the one who'd respond to our posts. Otherwise, we will end up patting our own backs for a job well done. We woule be the players and the refree at the same time: not much fun.

[ October 07, 2002: Message edited by: Intensity ]

Rhea · 10-07-2002, 10:01 AM

My purpose in wanting to dissect it is to present real and useful information to someone who believes the above is an excellent argument for the existence of the human races.

I'm actually NOT looking for a pat on the back style, but rather a "does that make sense? How about this alternative. Does that make more sense?" style. I don't want to grind anyone down, just wanted to participate in a debate where we all learn something.

So, while we may not have an "adversary" here, I do have something to learn, and someone who I think might be interested in learning, too.

I have a bunch of responses that I'm going to start to put together, but so often on these things they have been around for decades and someone with better knowledge than I has already applied that knowledge.

Undercurrent · 10-07-2002, 10:14 AM

Quote:

The culture (technology and religions, etc.) of each racial group in the world started at a common point - Noah - with full knowledge of God and a sophisticated ocean liner technology.

I'm not sure why this makes me laugh, but it does.

It is my understanding, though, that the concept of "races" is an illusion. That is, for any classification of populations into "black people", "white people", &c., there will always be an arbitrary boundary where somebody's said "person x with light skin is white, while person y with just slightly darker skin is black."

Before the advent of world travel, skin colour, for example graded evenly from Scaninavia to central Africa, with no abrubt transition at any point than could be used to define race in any non-arbitrary way.

m.

MBR · 10-07-2002, 12:15 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Undercurrent:
It is my understanding, though, that the concept of "races" is an illusion. That is, for any classification of populations into "black people", "white people", &c., there will always be an arbitrary boundary where somebody's said "person x with light skin is white, while person y with just slightly darker skin is black."

Before the advent of world travel, skin colour, for example graded evenly from Scaninavia to central Africa, with no abrubt transition at any point than could be used to define race in any non-arbitrary way.

m.

I think it has become taboo to even suggest any substantial differences among the races that we recognize. I do know that the races picked were done so arbitrarily by a well known scientist. I can't cite him but I believe it was the same scientist that invented the nomenclature for animal species, families, and so on. Can anyone else help me with this?

Also, though these were selected arbitrarily, there has since been a scientific study that has withstood a lot of scrutiny that I'm sure you are all familiar with... The Bell Curve.

Quote:

1. Members of all racial-ethnic groups can be found at every IQ level. The bell curves of different groups overlap considerably, but groups often differ in where their members tend to cluster along the IQ line. The bell curves for some groups (Jews and East Asians) are centered somewhat higher than for whites in general. Other groups (blacks and Hispanics) are centered somewhat lower than non-Hispanic whites.

2. The bell curve for whites is centered roughly around IQ 100; the bell curve for American blacks roughly around 85; and those for different subgroups of Hispanics roughly midway between those for whites and blacks. The evidence is less definitive for exactly where above IQ 100 the bell curves for Jews and Asians are centered.

The evidence they report implies that there are substantial cognitive differences among racial lines. Of course this is not a very popular sentiment among an egalitarian society.

Baidarka · 10-07-2002, 01:59 PM

What I find funny is that pseudo scientists who are Young Earth Creationists have to believe in a super accelerated evolutionary process to explain racial differences. If the earth is 6,000 years old and we have clear written historical records of racial diversity (just for arguments sake) of just 3,000 years. That would leave just 3,000 years for racial diversity to develop. If Creationists believe that so much change can take place in just 3,000 years than I would say that Creationists are really supper evolutionists!

Rhea · 10-07-2002, 04:48 PM

lol, that's always appalled me, logically, too!

echidna · 10-07-2002, 05:10 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by MBR:
The evidence they report implies that there are substantial cognitive differences among racial lines. Of course this is not a very popular sentiment among an egalitarian society.

It�s also not very popular in a society which values correct scientific approach, unlike quoters of the Bell Curve.

The Bell Curve reflects pseudoscience at its worst & utterly ignores the possibility of other causes. It does nothing to prove a causal relationship between race and intelligence.

1. The term intelligence is far too broad to be dealt with in overly simplistic intelligence tests. Check back on some previous threads to see how contentious the issue is. In short, IQ tests are anything but.

2. Correlation does not prove causality.

P1. Statistically red is the most frequent colour of cars involved in accidents.
C1. Therefore redness makes cars crash.

No no no, of course not. It�s the most basic of statistical principles easily the most frequent statistical mistake made, and one which the Bell Curve goofs as well.

Did the Bell Curve compensate for culture ? Did the Bell Curve compensate for socio-economic background ? Did the Bell Curve explore causal possibilities other than race ? No. So red makes cars crash and black people are less intelligent than white people. Fine if that�s what you want to believe, but just be aware there�s no science behind it.

Note that exactly the same �scientific� reasoning was used by Hitler to support black inferiority on physical grounds as well. Hence his embarrassment in 1936 after the Olympic 100 yard dash. Not entirely surprising that his same error continues to be made today.

For a more detailed analysis on the Bell Curve, check :

<a href="http://www.skeptic.com/03.3.fm-sternberg-interview.html" target="_blank">http://www.skeptic.com/03.3.fm-sternberg-interview.html</a>

DarkDruid · 10-07-2002, 05:42 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by echidna:
Note that exactly the same “scientific” reasoning was used by Hitler to support black inferiority on physical grounds as well. Hence his embarrassment in 1936 after the Olympic 100 yard dash. Not entirely surprising that his same error continues to be made today.

What was that law called, the Davis law or something? I can't remember.

And it wasn't acctually that huge of an embarassment, since Germany usually does (and did) well in the Olympics overall, holding the overall medal count with an 89-56 margin over the United States. Hitler never threw down his hat in anger and howled in agony like us Americans like to think he did.

[edited for a typo]

[ October 07, 2002: Message edited by: DarkDruid ]

Rhea · 10-07-2002, 06:55 PM

Okay, here's what I wrote. COmments appreciated!

===========================
LOG- I'm sorry I did not intend to accuse you of not reading, I was explaining to Audrey why my waiting to bother to address what you posted didn't mean I was dismissing it, I was just waiting to find out whether there was still anyone in the room before I kept talking, so to speak.

Quote:

Been gone all afternoon...not avoiding your post...just can't debate it.
I have an open mind...one that I have made it just fine with all my life.

I am just never coming off my stand in my belief that God made it all and without Him, nothing was made that was made. how's that for deep??

From this I assume you are interested in reading the rebuttal and open to the possibility that the mechanisms for the origins of races as stated by this unknown author are incorrectly analyzed? That you are unwavering that Goddidit, but perhaps this author has no clue how, and that a different explanation could be more correct? If that assumption is accurate, I'll weigh in with my opinion on this article. Just an opinion, maybe you'll agree, maybe not. And others more knowledgeable than I will surely correct any errors that I make.

So, for those interested in seeing my comments on this author's accuracy...

Quote:

THE ORIGIN OF THE HUMAN RACES
A human race is defined as a group of people with certain common inherited features that distinguish them from other groups of people. The most significant difference between these races is: -
(a) language
(b) hair and facial features
(c) skin colour.

So here we loosely define race as visible differences between people based on some arbitrary line drawn at a certain level of skin tone, eye shape and hair appearance. Language is included for some reason, I didn't think that was a measure of race, since it is learned, but it's important for the biblical link, so I guess that's why it's here. Maybe someone more knowledgeable than I can comment further there.

Quote:

Concerning the Origin of the Races the Bible Records That:
(1) All men are descendants of the first created man Adam, and
(2) the line of all human ancestry passes through Noah. Only Noah, his sons, and their wives survived the flood which destroyed all other men living at that time (Genesis 7:21), and radically altered the world environs.

Radically altered the world environs? How? And what passage in the bible describes this? I'm asking, I don't know this section, just never heard of the flood changing the climate afterwards.

Quote:

All races therefore have developed from this one family since the end of the flood in Noah's day. The Australian Aborigine, the Chinese, and the European have come into existence only in recent times. The culture (technology and religions, etc..) of each racial group in the world started at a common point - Noah -

This is the statement that first jumps out at me. Yes, The bible says Noah was pretty recent. And all of the features "evolved" pretty fast, then. Faster than any other thing has ever evolved on the planet. And this from the people who say evolution can't happen because there wasn't enough time. Well, if you take this rate of evolution, it's pretty easy to argue plenty of time for even abiogenesis!

[quote]with full knowledge of God and a sophisticated ocean liner technology.

Quote:

Chuckle. "Ocean liner". "Technology". This thing had no motor, no sails and no rudder. It was a raft with a roof. Sorry. Off topic. (why was that in there?)

Quote:

The current states of culture of the races, which varies from space age to stone age, from animal worship and spirit worship to Christianity, is not a result of innocent, ignorant people searching for improvement. It is a direct consequence of whether the ancestors of any race worshipped the living God or deliberately rejected Him.

Here he seems to be claiming that lack of technology is a result of lack of Abrahamism (Judaism? Christianity? How should I write that?). Yet it is perfectly clear, demonstrated and repeatable that anyone from any of those "ages" can learn any other just by talking to and being educated by another human. So this "direct consequence" is quickly and easily reversed. Which makes it not terribly biblical, not like being Asian, for instance.

Quote:

How Did This All Happen?
There are several significant factors which can be considered in attempting to account for the origin of the physical difference between races. The first of these is the origin of different languages; the second is the splitting into groups which this produced; and the third is the environment into which each of these groups moved.

After the flood, the Bible records that God commanded Noah and his family to multiply and cover the earth (Genesis 9: 1, 18, 19). in Genesis 11:1 the Bible records the fact that man had decided to disobey God's command to cover the earth. They had, instead, decided to establish a 'massive urban complex' as a focal point. The Tower of Babel was built to ensure that worship and society were united around this common goal of staying together.

So doing things efficiently in a manner which is touted as advanced in the previous paragraph is here written as disobedient to god. Which I one of the reasons I said this guy wasn't even accurate biblically. Which is it? Is technology a reward or a crime?

Quote:

In Genesis 11:8 is recorded God's judgment on this disobedience by His imposition of different languages on man. Previously, they had all spoken the one language. The purpose of this is spelled out in Genesis "so that man could not understand one another and therefore no longer be able to work together against God". (Gen. 11:5 7) They would be forced to spread out over the surface of the earth as God had commanded them. The efficiency of this judgment can be seen when you attempt to get groups of people of different nationalities to work together.

Nowadays, people do a great job of working together despite different nationalities. Does this still apply? Are people wronging God by accepting immigrants, learning languages, using phones and dictionaries? Okay, granted I can't really tell from his consequences paragraph whether the good worshippers are today's stone age cultures and the defiant criminals are the space age ones. Maybe I assumed it backwards and this author (writing in English) is actually condemning America for being a space age culture?

Quote:

How God imposed different languages is not stated, but since he had created Adam with inbuilt speech, it would be no major problem to reset the physical and nervous controls to produce another differing form of inbuilt speech. This new language would also have its own repertoire of words and the capacity to coin new words consistent with their language.

Oh it would, would it? And this is either scientific OR biblical, in what way? And bible quotes to support the mechanisms of language? (I won't go into a God who can and will "reset the physical and nervous controls" of people with "no major problem " to change their very language so they would be forced to live a rural lifestyle but won't make a little adjustment to prevent Schizophrenia). This statement is the premise for much of his analysis but it has no basis in the bible OR in science. So what use is such a statement? Who is he trying to snow with it?

Quote:

With this enforced separation, it is not too difficult to imagine how other minor physical differences such as skin variations already in existence, could begin to show.

Begin to show how fast? I admit to getting a huge charge out of someone who doesn't believe in evolution saying that evolution is "not too difficult to imagine", y'know? He's relying on the mechanism of evolution to prove his point, yet he's not using the accepted rate of change. Since evolution is not biblical, on what evidence does he decide this? More smoke and mirrors?

Quote:

The Bible refers to genetic variations, such as the height of man, before the flood. It is therefore very probable that both before and after the flood variations in skin colouration also existed -even in Noah's family.

How is this "probable" Is there a verse to quote? Differences of height indicate the presence of differences in skin color? How? Why? But more to the point, he is claiming that ALL the variations existed within Noah's family. Does anyone who has observed humans breeding and bearing offspring think that a dark black skin will be produced from anything lighter than a coffee color at BEST, even giving recessives? So at least two of those on the ark were Very Dark skinned. I mean really, you have to say that all of Noah's kids ranged from bright white to dark black and so did their wives, or you could never produce either extreme. So that means Noah and his wife somehow produced the entire range. Anyone EVER seen that in a human reproducing with a single monogamous marriage?

Quote:

Up to the time of Babel, since there was only one language, all of mankind formed only one culture or 'marriage group'. Any variations would tend to be minimised since 'darkish' could marry a 'lightish', and the average colour of the population would stay the same.

Except for Noah's family, somehow. I realize this author is saying that somehow the unexpressed whiteness or blackness genes ("which are very hard to explain, they're very complex") all resided there, unexpressed. But has anyone ever witnessed this degree of remission? With the millions of births this planet has every day, shouldn't we have dozens of cases of the hidden genes producing white babies in black families and vice versa? Alas, we only ever see kids appearing who are very close in color to their parents. Some variation, but no "hidden genes" just waiting to express themselves as a different race.

Quote:

However, the coming of new languages changed all that. The large group was split into many smaller groups. It is unlikely that each group would have contained a representative of all shades of skin colour. So if a census had been taken of average skin colour of each group, some would have averaged towards the darker end, and some to the lighter end. The same sort of difference would no doubt have occurred for any body characteristic - straight hair, wavy hair, eye shape, etc.

Except that he stated above the "average would stay the same" So again, he's just referencing the hidden, unexpressed different-race genes that we all carry, not outward appearances.

Quote:

The world environment had been dramatically changed by the flood.

Again, Oh? Does the bible say this? Science sure doesn't. If the bible doesn't say it, then where does it come from? If someone can fill me in on this I'd appreciate learning a little. What's sad is that he doesn't even have to make this statement. The people are going where they weren't before, right? So the climate could be the same as it ever was, and they just moved to a different one. So why the cracker-jack statement?

Quote:

In this case, the whiter persons would dwindle from the population and a 'black' race would result. It is interesting to note that if a pure white European is married to a pure black Negro, the offspring are an intermediate brown called mulatto. If two mulattos are married, the offspring can be any of 9 colours, from pure white to pure black.

I am unaware of this phenomenon. My ignorance of mulatto populations may be the problem. Has anyone ever seen a "mulatto" couple giving birth to a Scotland-White baby? An African-Black baby? Again, looking to learn here. With the population that we have today on this planet, and the (God-defying) mixed marriages that we allow, it should be pretty common, no?

Quote:

The simplest conclusion that it may be possible to draw from this observation is that Noah and his family possessed genes for both dark and light. Dark enough to protect them, and light enough to ensure sufficient Vitamin D.

Wait, first it's "complex" and now it's "both"? And the compromise he presents is a medium skin, not a presence of both extremes, and it not meaningful without a locale anyway. Aboriginals in Australia are "Dark enough to protect them, and light enough to ensure sufficient Vitamin D" for that climate and Swedes are "Dark enough to protect them, and light enough to ensure sufficient Vitamin D" for theirs. So this is a non-statement and tells us nothing, yet implies that the situation is both perfect and all-encompassing. However, it still says nothing.

Quote:

In the world before the flood it is unlikely that there would have been extremes of heat or cold,

Why? This makes no sense in terms of the animals that were saved. If there were no extremes, why would there be Polar Bears or Iguanas? Or did they all come from Rapid Post-Flood Evolution too?

Quote:

so that a balanced skin colour was the most suitable.

Here he goes again. Were all the colors present or just a medium color?

Quote:

After Babel the extremes of environment sorted these colour factors into groups which contained different numbers of light and dark genes. The final ratio of dark to light genes in any one group would be the most useful balance for that environment.

Did the climate change after the flood or after Babel? And did the genes all disappear when they were not needed, or did they just go unexpressed again? Are they all still there? In which case what's this final ratio? He is dancing back and forth between all the genes being there and the unneeded one disappearing on a whim.

Quote:

This process of gaining a light or dark skin is not an adaptation in the evolutionary sense of the organism developing something new to cope with a new environment. All basic factors in skin colour were present in the first created man. Adam was designed to 'cope'.

Earlier, he went into detail about how evolution doesn't "develop" because it's a matter of selecting _out_. Now he's saying that evolution develops things, but this clearly didn't, so it's not evolution. Well, evolution doesn't develop anything.

And on with the eyes. He's just repeating how everybody has the ability to have any trait, then telling us that it happened easily, but we know it's never happened "since", so what turned off the expression of all of these hidden genes? Why did we stop this UltraFast evolution? Why don't Caucasians living in China develop extra fat in their eyes? There are some who have been there hundreds of years! We should start to see a change, no?

Quote:

Further evidence for this common cultural and physical ancestry is supplied by a study of the stories which each group has in common, such as the large number of flood legends.

It is no great leap that everyone has flood legends. Humanity has developed near sources of water which we need to live. And sources of water periodically flood. And over long periods, catastrophic floods are predicted. All over the place. We could ask the Bangladeshi whether they have any stories about catastrophic floods. Would we really be surprised if they said yes?

Quote:

Despite what appears to be marked racial differences, the races of the world would disappear if total intermarriage was practiced today. Even though the genes for almond eyes, black or white skin, still existed, they could appear in different combinations. White skin could appear with almond eye, and pygmy size with blue eyes.

But contrary to what he's claiming, you would NOT get these traits back if you just separated the populations. Recessives would disappear and only come back by mutation. And certainly not in fewer than 4000 years at any rate. We KNOW that.

SUMMARY

Quote:

The dispersion of people which would have followed the imposition of new languages at Babel, would have produced situations of cultural and environmental difference. These new conditions would have created a stress or pressure which would have acted on characteristics already present.

He has not made a clear case for how would happen in 4000 years. He hasn't even touched on how this defies all evidence of human gene expression. This is a major, gaping, oozing wound in his thesis. How can it happen so fast? This defies all evidence of the mechanism that he is proposing as a cause.

Quote:

The origin of human races does not conform to the popular concept of Evolution, i.e. from simple to complex.

Evolution NEVER says that things MUST go from simple to complex. He is misusing his science.

Quote:

There has been no 'evolution' of genes which did not previously exist, only the recombination and degeneration of created genetic information.

He also falls down here when he claims that the genes for color, eyes and hair are very complex and hard to understand, but 12 people can carry all of them, unexpressed. This, too flies in the face of science. We know with Blood type, you'd need at least 4 people to carry them all. And that is a simple system by comparison. So here he's claiming that it's complex and he can't explain it, but he assures us that 12 people can carry all of the combinations. If he's sure, he should be able to outline how. It's only 12 people he has to divide...

Quote:

No race of the world today comes from a background of zero technology or of innocent, ignorance of God. All cultures which do not have a correct knowledge of God have got that way by deliberate rejection. They are not primitives in need of education and technical aid so that they can understand the Gospel, but spiritual degenerates in need of the Gospel so they can appreciate education and relevance of technology.

We really need the "huh?" icon here. But I guarantee you, I could make any spiritual degenerate appreciate education & technology without a gospel. And furthermore, the gospel rejects education & technology, so this circular non-statement is again NEITHER biblical nor scientific.

10-07-2002, 09:44 AM	#2
Ted Hoffman Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2001 Location: "" Posts: 3,863	I think it would be fun to take it apart if the person who wrote the article were the one who'd respond to our posts. Otherwise, we will end up patting our own backs for a job well done. We woule be the players and the refree at the same time: not much fun. [ October 07, 2002: Message edited by: Intensity ]</p>

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

10-07-2002, 10:01 AM	#3
Rhea Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: Recluse Posts: 9,040	My purpose in wanting to dissect it is to present real and useful information to someone who believes the above is an excellent argument for the existence of the human races. I'm actually NOT looking for a pat on the back style, but rather a "does that make sense? How about this alternative. Does that make more sense?" style. I don't want to grind anyone down, just wanted to participate in a debate where we all learn something. So, while we may not have an "adversary" here, I do have something to learn, and someone who I think might be interested in learning, too. I have a bunch of responses that I'm going to start to put together, but so often on these things they have been around for decades and someone with better knowledge than I has already applied that knowledge.

10-07-2002, 01:59 PM	#6
Baidarka Senior Member Join Date: May 2002 Location: NYC Posts: 590	What I find funny is that pseudo scientists who are Young Earth Creationists have to believe in a super accelerated evolutionary process to explain racial differences. If the earth is 6,000 years old and we have clear written historical records of racial diversity (just for arguments sake) of just 3,000 years. That would leave just 3,000 years for racial diversity to develop. If Creationists believe that so much change can take place in just 3,000 years than I would say that Creationists are really supper evolutionists!

10-07-2002, 04:48 PM	#7
Rhea Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: Recluse Posts: 9,040	lol, that's always appalled me, logically, too!

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.