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)

[Goat]

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.

On the contrary, it is accounted for. I am sorry if you don't want to listen to explainations.

There is only one human race. The genetic information we have is that the human race went through a bottle neck about 70,000 years ago. The variations in skin color is due to the strength of the sun at the latitude in which the various human groups live. Then there is genetic drift, and some very minor natural selection going on.

However, the variation between members of any ethnic group is bigger than the genetic variation between the different ethnic groups. So, from a biological point of view, there is only one human 'race', just some minor varations due to some isolation of populations.

[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.

On the contrary, it is accounted for. I am sorry if you don't want to listen to explainations.

There is only one human race. The genetic information we have is that the human race went through a bottle neck about 70,000 years ago.

Evolutionists often say that race is a social invention and not a scientific concept or construct.

The variations in skin color is due to the strength of the sun at the latitude in which the various human groups live.

Then there is genetic drift, and some very minor natural selection going on.

Are you now saying that the outcome and determination of race is scientifically explainable in accordance with the TOE, or is just under the authoritarian purview and jurisdiction of environmental geneticists?

However, the variation between members of any ethnic group is bigger than the genetic variation between the different ethnic groups. So, from a biological point of view, there is only one human 'race', just some minor varations due to some isolation of populations.

In evolutionary terms of natural selection, adaptivity, and the survival of the fittest, are human races not subject to the same evolutionary "mechanisms and law" which Darwinists say that species are naturally subordinated to?

How is evolutionary theory not a racial theory when it contends that the survival of a species or race of human beings is dependent on its successful adaptation to new environments?

[Wyvern]

There is only one human race. The genetic information we have is that the human race went through a bottle neck about 70,000 years ago.

Evolutionists often say that race is a social invention and not a scientific concept or construct. [/quote]
Indeed this is true, the "racial" differences you are obsessed with in humans are no different than the differences you see in different breeds of dog. Eugenics is not evolutionary. I think the last time anyone spoke seriously about eugenics was when a certain person with a bad moustache and haircut was in power in Germany.

The variations in skin color is due to the strength of the sun at the latitude in which the various human groups live.

Then there is genetic drift, and some very minor natural selection going on.

Are you now saying that the outcome and determination of race is scientifically explainable in accordance with the TOE, or is just under the authoritarian purview and jurisdiction of environmental geneticists?

Why is it you have a hard time understanding the sun that reaches the ground in europe is weaker in strength than in africa? Additionally vitamin D is synthesized in the skin. So you put these two facts together and at more northern latitudes peoples skin HAS to be lighter in order to allow for increased vitamin production which is not a problem closer to equatorial latitudes which has a surfeit of sun and it is more a concern to protect the skin itself by increasing melanin production. This is all that your idea of race boils down to, melanin.

How is evolutionary theory not a racial theory when it contends that the survival of a species or race of human beings is dependent on its successful adaptation to new environments?

Probably has something to do with the idea that the ToE is applied to all animals and since just like dogs there is some variation but they are all one species.

You are so obsessed with all the trees that you can't see the forest.

[Goat]

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.

On the contrary, it is accounted for. I am sorry if you don't want to listen to explainations.

There is only one human race. The genetic information we have is that the human race went through a bottle neck about 70,000 years ago.

Evolutionists often say that race is a social invention and not a scientific concept or construct.

And do you understand , when it comes to humans, why this is so? "race" does have a biological meaning to (subspecies is getting to be equvilant). However, the human species does not meet these requirements. Do you know why?? Can you
discuss it, rather than seemingly dismiss it?

The variations in skin color is due to the strength of the sun at the latitude in which the various human groups live.

Then there is genetic drift, and some very minor natural selection going on.

Are you now saying that the outcome and determination of race is scientifically explainable in accordance with the TOE, or is just under the authoritarian purview and jurisdiction of environmental geneticists?

Do you understand what the TOE is? From your statement, I am getting a strong lack of understanding. You are 'just not getting it'. Just so we can level set, and we are not talking about different things, could you please give me a short description about what you think the scientific definitions of evolution is?

However, the variation between members of any ethnic group is bigger than the genetic variation between the different ethnic groups. So, from a biological point of view, there is only one human 'race', just some minor varations due to some isolation of populations.

In evolutionary terms of natural selection, adaptivity, and the survival of the fittest, are human races not subject to the same evolutionary "mechanisms and law" which Darwinists say that species are naturally subordinated to?

How is evolutionary theory not a racial theory when it contends that the survival of a species or race of human beings is dependent on its successful adaptation to new environments?

What is the relevence of your question? Please, try to give me a bit more information about what you are asking. It sounds like you are trying to make a point that some creationist web site has claimed, without any understanding of the TOE.

[jcrawford]

Do you understand what the TOE is? From your statement, I am getting a strong lack of understanding. You are 'just not getting it'. Just so we can level set, and we are not talking about different things, could you please give me a short description about what you think the scientific definitions of evolution is?

After you scientifically demonstrate how a species of sub-human African apes managed to "evolve" into a race or species of African people once upon a time, I will be happy to give you a short description about what I think the "scientific definitions of evolution is"

[Goat]

Do you understand what the TOE is? From your statement, I am getting a strong lack of understanding. You are 'just not getting it'. Just so we can level set, and we are not talking about different things, could you please give me a short description about what you think the scientific definitions of evolution is?

After you scientifically demonstrate how a species of sub-human African apes managed to "evolve" into a race or species of African people once upon a time, I will be happy to give you a short description about what I think the "scientific definitions of evolution is"

Can you demonstrate that the term 'sub-human' has any meaning what so ever? I keep on asking you about that strawman term, yet you keep on repeating it.

Define 'sub-human' in context of your understanding of evolution first. Oh, and by the way, humans ARE a species of ape.

[micatala]

As noted elsewhere, and not to dissuade anyone from participating in the forum in any manner they see fit, as long as the rules are followed, but there has been volumes written on this issue in the Bones of Contention thread. Members may want to consult that thread when making a decision on whether or how to engage this issue, especially with the particular members who participated in that thread.

[jcrawford]

As noted elsewhere, and not to dissuade anyone from participating in the forum in any manner they see fit, as long as the rules are followed, but there has been volumes written on this issue in the Bones of Contention thread. Members may want to consult that thread when making a decision on whether or how to engage this issue, especially with the particular members who participated in that thread.

This is excellent advice for those novices who think that they can prove any theories of human evolution out of sub-human African apes, and can refute the religious claim that all such theories are racialist, biased and prejudiced since they postulate that Asians and Caucasians are descended from African people who originally evolved out of an extinct species of sub-human African apes.

[jcrawford]

It sounds like you are trying to make a point that some creationist web site has claimed, without any understanding of the TOE.

Well, let's discuss the TOE then and how it accounts for human evolution in Africa out of sub-human African apes.

Name one mutation which would have to occur in non-human African apes in order for them to become more human.

[bernee51]

It sounds like you are trying to make a point that some creationist web site has claimed, without any understanding of the TOE.

Well, let's discuss the TOE then and how it accounts for human evolution in Africa out of sub-human African apes.

Name one mutation which would have to occur in non-human African apes in order for them to become more human.

I think the TOE would propose that we are not descended from African apes (as they are today) but rather we have an ancestor in common with these apes. This ancestor did not necessarily become apes and humans and disappear. Rather the genetic code of this ancestor was transcended by but included in the code that became humans and apes. The apes went down their path. We went down ours.

One of the by-products of the human path was the development of the ability to ask the question "Who am I?". Today's God has evolved from previous models as the proposed, and only, place to find the answer that question.

We are selling ourselves short.