The Origin of Race

[Q]

If one were to assume that evolution were true, what skin color were the original homo sapiens? My somewhat educated guess would be black or pretty dark since evolution says the origin of humans is in Africa and black skin was better equipped for that environment.
-This question just crossed my mind and figured the board might have some good input...(I couldn't find the question already posted)

[Jose]

Welcome, Arthur-Robin!

It is true that race does not equal skin colour. Moreover the 3 sons of Ham may not correspond to the 3 races but to the 3 body/character types?

Indeed, race does not equal skin color, or vice versa. I wonder, though, what you mean when you refer to "the 3 races" (and, as well, "the 3 body/character types"). Can you enlighten me?

[Arthur-Robin]

Thank-you.
The 3 races refers to the well-known "old" classifications of Europoid/Caucasoid/White, Mongoloid/Asiatic/Yellow and Negroid/Black/African.
The 3 body types are Ectomorph/asthenic/linear, Endomorph/pyknic (short, portly) and Mesomorph (athletic, balanced/perfection) which roughly match the 3 character types cerebrotonic/schizothyme/introvert, cyclothyme/viscerotonic/extrovert and somatotonic. These may perhaps match the 3 types in hypnotism Apollonian(, Odyssean) and Dionysian, and the 3 types in Hindu preta-rupa, kama-rupa and naga-rupa. It was my theory that the 3 castes may match the 3 types? and it was my observation that Noah's cursing of (?"Ham via") Canaan to be a slave, with Japheth dwelling in tents of Shem is the origin of the tripartite caste institution/tradition of the Aryans (code of Manu; Vedic flood survivor Manu (father of Sama/Scherma, Chama & [Pra-Jyapeti]) = Noah.)
(By saying race does not = skin colour I just meant that races are different in inner and outer not just skin colour, and that types are an alternative way of classifying to races.)

[Jose]

(By saying race does not = skin colour I just meant that races are different in inner and outer not just skin colour, and that types are an alternative way of classifying to races.)

Indeed. Quite true. An actual "race" must be genetically distant from other "races," and not rely merely on variation in the quantity of a single chemical compound. The big question is: what are the genetically-distinct groups?

The 3 races refers to the well-known "old" classifications of Europoid/Caucasoid/White, Mongoloid/Asiatic/Yellow and Negroid/Black/African.

Thank you. Now that you remind me, I have an inkling of a hint of a memory from high school that there was once this classification system. It's based on color; in retrospect, it seems awfully quaint and maybe even silly.

The 3 body types are Ectomorph/asthenic/linear, Endomorph/pyknic (short, portly) and Mesomorph (athletic, balanced/perfection) which roughly match the 3 character types cerebrotonic/schizothyme/introvert, cyclothyme/viscerotonic/extrovert and somatotonic.

Hmmm...the three "morphs" are, I think, a reflection of metabolic rate. To some extent, it's under selection pressure: ectomorphy is more common in equatorial Africa where it's hot, and heat-loss is advantageous. Endomorphy is more common in the Arctic, where heat-retention is important. The "morphy" is a change in surface:volume ratio, which affects heat diffusion from the body to the environment. BUT, to the extent that I am aware (i.e. minimal), personality characteristics (introvert vs extrovert) are un-connected to body shape. It would make sense: any tribe, whether equatorial or arctic, will do better if it has a distribution of cognitive types, from introverts to extroverts, from timid to risk-taking.

These may perhaps match the 3 types in hypnotism Apollonian(, Odyssean) and Dionysian, and the 3 types in Hindu preta-rupa, kama-rupa and naga-rupa. It was my theory that the 3 castes may match the 3 types? and it was my observation that Noah's cursing of (?"Ham via") Canaan to be a slave, with Japheth dwelling in tents of Shem is the origin of the tripartite caste institution/tradition of the Aryans (code of Manu; Vedic flood survivor Manu (father of Sama/Scherma, Chama & [Pra-Jyapeti]) = Noah.)

Well...Hindu and biblical allusions are lost on me. Having learned nothing of them until I was an adult, and very little even then, I can't say much about them. Instead, I find that I consider all religions' stories to be equal--equally valid and equally mythical.

So, I look for information in the world itself. If we want to know how humans are related, in order to ascertain "races," we should look at genetic relationships. Members of "race A" should be genetically related; members of "race B" should be genetically related; between A and B the relationships should be less close than within A or within B. When these kinds of relationships are determined from DNA sequence, we get something like this:

The white dots represent individuals living in Africa; the filled dots represent people living elsewhere. The vertical lines (from one dot down, and then back up to another dot) are proportional to the numbers of DNA base sequence differences between individuals.

We see one clear group on the right side. This is mostly filled dots, with some white dots. It is one group of Africans plus everyone else on other continents. On the left half of the diagram, there are (maybe) a couple of other groups. The left-most 16 white dots would be one of them, and "the others" would be a third group.

This tells us that, first of all, all humans are pretty closely related genetically. Second, if we can divide us up into genetic groups--i.e. races--we would have to divide us into 3 races in Africa, with one of those races also including everyone else. Skin color, body shape, etc would seem to have nothing to do with "race."

How would we get such a set of relationships? Well...imagine the Garden of Eden being in Nairobi (or would it be Mt. Ararat? Maybe so, since the Garden of Eden is in Lucas, Kansas) From this starting point, one group of people goes south to the Cape; another group goes west; another group stays put...but after they've built up a larger population, some of 'em go north and east and, eventually, populate the rest of the world.

[USIncognito]

From a biblical point of view Adam was the "red earth man". The red Adam was either brown/dark or pink.

Sorry for the snip, but it correlated to something I was going to point out. The generally second oldest genetically pure (meaning longest in genetic isolation) ethnicity is the Aborigenies of Australia and Tasmania. They tend to be dark skinned, but generally would be classified as "Caucasian" within the three classic, but virtually unjustifiable "races" of humanity.

The oldest/purest is the Khoi San "Bushmen" of sub-Saharan Africa tend to be ruddier than the Bantu and Nilo-Saharan "blacks" most European societies tend to associate with what constitutes an African.

My only ceveat to the Khoi San being the most direct descendants of Adam is that if we really want to find a "red earth" colored people, then we need to look at the native people's of North America who, obviously to any good literalist, aren't even mentioned in Genesis. The Inuit and Aleut tend to be shorter and stocker than other ethnicities, but just because they share that trait with Neanderthal doesn't mean we need to read unwarrented conslusions about ancestry into that fact.

[Jose]

The Inuit and Aleut tend to be shorter and stocker than other ethnicities, but just because they share that trait with Neanderthal doesn't mean we need to read unwarrented conslusions about ancestry into that fact.

Indeed we should not read unwarranted conclusions about ancestry into that fact. Rather, both live (or lived) in cold climates, which select for lower surface:volume ratio to maximize heat retention. Similar species with similar selection might be expected to produce similar body types.

[jcrawford]

I would argue, McCulloch, that this is relevant to Science and Religion because of the religious codification of racial presumptions. The bible explains why god turned some people dark, and even goes so far as to suggest that they be enslaved. The book of mormon says something similar, but the story is different. That is, races have origin-explanations in religious texts. The scientific explanation is different.

As noted by micatala and teegstar, our ancestral African population would have been in the selective environment of high-UV-light. This selects for adequate melanin to shade the skin and prevent UV-induced mutation to skin cancer, and prevent UV-induced breakdown of folic acid.

There probably were lighter-skinned variants, but they would have been selected against in equatorial Africa. Upon migration to Europe, where there's less UV, selection went the other way, and light-skinned variants became common.

This evolutionary explanation of the origin of race though, racially assumes a priori that the first race of African people originated from an extinct species of sub-human chimplike apes who by "natural selection" just happened to mutate into an entirely new species of African men and women whose fossil remains have yet to be found.

But color is not the basis of race. Genetically, most humans are very close. The greatest genetic diversity is in Africa (as we might expect), looking like there might be several African races of humans, one of which migrated out and colonized the world.

This is just another current theory of racial conquest and extinction being advanced and promoted by modern Darwinsts these days, albeit a reversal of former European concepts of colonization and civilizing the world.

We can probably forgive our forebears for thinking skin color mattered, because they didn't understand genetics or why skin color matters in life. Now that we know, we (ie humans in general) should get off this stupid racism kick and try to do things that are helpful in the world.

Forgiving the 20th century forbearers and practioners of racial theories of evolution may be admirable in itself, but continuing to uphold and espouse the same basic racial premises upon which Darwin formulated his theory of human descent from some Ape-like African progenitor of man, hardly gets us "off this stupid racism kick," or does anything scientifically constructive to help or better the world.

[jcrawford]

This tells us that, first of all, all humans are pretty closely related genetically. Second, if we can divide us up into genetic groups--i.e. races--we would have to divide us into 3 races in Africa, with one of those races also including everyone else.

Which African race of people is inclusive of "everyone else," and why are the other two African races excluded from the evolutionary process of sexual selectivity?

Skin color, body shape, etc would seem to have nothing to do with "race."

Why do evolutionary artists always depict early African men and women racially then, especially when the fossil evidence is so scanty and gives no indication of what the artist's racial rendition looks like?

http://www.jay-matternes.com/Ho30.html

http://www.soulcare.org/Creation/Sciam-Racism.html

http://www.scienceagainstevolution.org/v4i6f.htm

How would we get such a set of relationships? Well...imagine the Garden of Eden being in Nairobi (or would it be Mt. Ararat? Maybe so, since the Garden of Eden is in Lucas, Kansas) From this starting point, one group of people goes south to the Cape; another group goes west; another group stays put...but after they've built up a larger population, some of 'em go north and east and, eventually, populate the rest of the world.

This is the Out of Africa racial theory where one group, species or race of Africans outpopulates, overruns and drives all other extent human species and races into extinction. Nice theory. Very scientific.

[Cathar1950]

This thread has been slow lately.
The early people coming out of Africa do look a little black while neanderthal does look white. But given the thousands of years in the cold north you might think they were lighter. Now the new comers where humans from africa and eventually over took the the previous species. So what is wrong with black and why does it seem racist that the first modern humans were black. It takes thousands of years of separation, climate and a narrow genepool to become a lighter population.
It would look silly having white people coming out of Africa. I think the people in Africa look pretty good and like the rest of the human race have addapted pretty well and have contibuted a diverse genepool. It sounds like you are making up some racist problem as a wedge between a narrow view of some sacrid scripture and science. It looks like anti-science to me using racism.

[jcrawford]

This thread has been slow lately.
The early people coming out of Africa do look a little black while neanderthal does look white.

What early people coming out of Africa? Homo habilis? Homo erectus or ergaster?

There is no evidence of "early" African people migrating from Africa. It is just a racial theory.

But given the thousands of years in the cold north you might think they were lighter.

There is no way to determine the skin color of Neanderthal fossils found throughout the Mid-East.

Now the new comers where humans from africa and eventually over took the the previous species.

That is just a racial theory since there is no evidence of any early migration out of Africa.

So what is wrong with black and why does it seem racist that the first modern humans were black.

There is nothing wrong with being dark-skinned other than being identified and classified as the first and only human race to have directly originated from a sub-human species of small chimp-like African apes by modern evolutionary theorists.

It takes thousands of years of separation, climate and a narrow genepool to become a lighter population.

That is just racial theory since dark-skinned Dravidian Caucasians in India may have been living there for many thousands of years.

It would look silly having white people coming out of Africa.

Yes, especially when light-skinned Causasians and Asians never originated from Africa.

I think the people in Africa look pretty good and like the rest of the human race have addapted pretty well and have contibuted a diverse genepool.

Yes, modern African people do "look pretty good," but when modern evolutionists of European and Neanderthal ancestry associate, identify and depict the original African people as direct descendents of a species of non-human apes, African people don't look so good.

It sounds like you are making up some racist problem as a wedge between a narrow view of some sacrid scripture and science. It looks like anti-science to me using racism.

Our perspectives are obviously different if not diametrically opposed, since associating, identifying, classifying and depicting the original African people as a species of sub-human apes seems like a modern form and variation of racial science to me.

[jcrawford]

Since evolutionists neither will nor can explain and account for the variety, evolution or origin of human races or racial types, they make a great leap of religious faith when they pretend to construct a theory premised on their presuppostional hypothesis that the whole human race originated, evolved and descended from some extinct species of sub-human and non-human African apes.

The above is not a hypothesis, but simply an observable fact.