Human Race Variation

[OpenedUp]

After the flood there was only a small handful of people left ont he Earth right?

So it is safe to assume that Noah and his family were the one's responsible for repopulating the Earth? They would be everyones greatest ancestors.

But if that were true then everyone would be sharing a small pool of genetics, right? Now, it is true that, as humans, we don't have vast variations between each other, but if evolution does not exist, what explains the variations that we DO have?

Why are traits of people in Europe different from those in Africa, which are different from those is eastern Asia? It's not just skin or eye color either. The skulls, especially, vary pretty noticably and body structure is also different.

So if humans did not evolve to their particular surroundings, thus explaining the differences, then what accounts for them?

Did Noah's family have white, black, and brown skinned members?

If not, then how is it that human's skin, eye, hair, and body structure change?

[Confused]

Wouldn't this be more appropriate in the science subforum? Would you object to my moving it?

[Zzyzx]

.

After the flood there was only a small handful of people left ont he Earth right?

So it is safe to assume that Noah and his family were the one's responsible for repopulating the Earth? They would be everyones greatest ancestors.

But if that were true then everyone would be sharing a small pool of genetics, right? Now, it is true that, as humans, we don't have vast variations between each other, but if evolution does not exist, what explains the variations that we DO have?

Why are traits of people in Europe different from those in Africa, which are different from those is eastern Asia? It's not just skin or eye color either. The skulls, especially, vary pretty noticably and body structure is also different.

So if humans did not evolve to their particular surroundings, thus explaining the differences, then what accounts for them?

Did Noah's family have white, black, and brown skinned members?

If not, then how is it that human's skin, eye, hair, and body structure change?

The “Literal Bible Theory” requires that during the few thousand years since the proverbial flood (a time never specified accurately), evolution of humans proceeded VERY rapidly to produce the variations we can observe – then evolution must slow to the rate we can presently observe.

No mechanism for “Fast Then Slow Evolution” has been identified by literalists. In fact, many literalists DENY evolution – EXCEPT when they need an “explanation” for incredible claims such as repopulating the Earth by four couples (less than one couple per continent) in a few thousand years with very rudimentary transportation AND to “explain” great genetic diversity that we know exists.

The same “Fast Then Slow Evolution” is called forth by those who attempt to defend literal interpretation of the bible to “explain” diversity in animals and plants “after the flood”. Those who attempt these sorts of “explanations” have typically NOT studied the subject at all but evidently assume that reading religious literature is adequate to understand complex matters of nature.

[micatala]

After the flood there was only a small handful of people left ont he Earth right?

So it is safe to assume that Noah and his family were the one's responsible for repopulating the Earth? They would be everyones greatest ancestors.

But if that were true then everyone would be sharing a small pool of genetics, right? Now, it is true that, as humans, we don't have vast variations between each other, but if evolution does not exist, what explains the variations that we DO have?

Why are traits of people in Europe different from those in Africa, which are different from those is eastern Asia? It's not just skin or eye color either. The skulls, especially, vary pretty noticably and body structure is also different.

So if humans did not evolve to their particular surroundings, thus explaining the differences, then what accounts for them?

Did Noah's family have white, black, and brown skinned members?

If not, then how is it that human's skin, eye, hair, and body structure change?

Out of all the standard creationist claims, the claim of a global flood within the last 6000 years is the most easy to falsify in my view. It runs up against so many well-established pieces of evidence, and has so little evidence that can even be manipulated in its favor that it amazes me that it still has as much traction as it does.

It is also not even good theology. For example, Hugh Ross, an evangelical astronomer and no friend of evolution, does a reasonable job of debunking the global flood theory here.

Ross does accept a catastrophic flood of regional extent as possible, but not a global flood, and not a young earth.



Also, I think I will go ahead and move this thread, as it really should be in the other forum.

[McCulloch]

If the OT genealogies are to be believed, then the flood could not have occurred earlier that 3000 BC. Humans would have had at most 3000 years to evolve our racial variations that would have been apparent at the time of Christ. And 2000 years to evolve further racial variations since then. Assuming a reasonably constant rate of change, one would expect that during the time of Christ there would have been only 60% of the racial variations as there are now. And 80% at the time of William the Conquerer.

[Cathar1950]

If the OT genealogies are to be believed, then the flood could not have occurred earlier that 3000 BC. Humans would have had at most 3000 years to evolve our racial variations that would have been apparent at the time of Christ. And 2000 years to evolve further racial variations since then. Assuming a reasonably constant rate of change, one would expect that during the time of Christ there would have been only 60% of the racial variations as there are now. And 80% at the time of William the Conquerer.

Are you saying we should have more variation?
I remember reading that it takes about 10,000 years of seperation to develope our superficial racial variations.
Of course I think the fact that there seems to have been thriving cities during the flood that don't seem to have been interrupted by water in all kinds of places on earth at the time, but maybe God just flooded their back yard and told them it was the whole world.

[OpenedUp]

After the flood there was only a small handful of people left ont he Earth right?

So it is safe to assume that Noah and his family were the one's responsible for repopulating the Earth? They would be everyones greatest ancestors.

But if that were true then everyone would be sharing a small pool of genetics, right? Now, it is true that, as humans, we don't have vast variations between each other, but if evolution does not exist, what explains the variations that we DO have?

Why are traits of people in Europe different from those in Africa, which are different from those is eastern Asia? It's not just skin or eye color either. The skulls, especially, vary pretty noticably and body structure is also different.

So if humans did not evolve to their particular surroundings, thus explaining the differences, then what accounts for them?

Did Noah's family have white, black, and brown skinned members?

If not, then how is it that human's skin, eye, hair, and body structure change?

Out of all the standard creationist claims, the claim of a global flood within the last 6000 years is the most easy to falsify in my view. It runs up against so many well-established pieces of evidence, and has so little evidence that can even be manipulated in its favor that it amazes me that it still has as much traction as it does.

It is also not even good theology. For example, Hugh Ross, an evangelical astronomer and no friend of evolution, does a reasonable job of debunking the global flood theory here.

Ross does accept a catastrophic flood of regional extent as possible, but not a global flood, and not a young earth.



Also, I think I will go ahead and move this thread, as it really should be in the other forum.

I jsut can't undertand how people cant ake this stuff literaly.

Are they believe that the evidence jsut isn't true? Or do they just tend to not focus on it?

I need a literalist in here!