Rasta TimesCHAT ROOMArticles/ArchiveRaceAndHistory RootsWomen Trinicenter
Africa Speaks.com Africa Speaks HomepageAfrica Speaks.comAfrica Speaks.comAfrica Speaks.com
InteractiveLeslie VibesAyanna RootsRas TyehimbaTriniView.comGeneral Forums
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
April 05, 2020, 03:34:00 PM

Login with username, password and session length
Search:     Advanced search
25876 Posts in 9951 Topics by 982 Members Latest Member: - Ferguson Most online today: 97 (July 03, 2005, 06:25:30 PM)
+  Africa Speaks Reasoning Forum
| |-+  Human Beginnings (Moderator: Tyehimba)
| | |-+  Are the races just mutations of black Africans?
« previous next »
Pages: [1] Print
Author Topic: Are the races just mutations of black Africans?  (Read 11586 times)
Posts: 59


« on: January 24, 2004, 02:02:45 PM »

Greetings bredrin and sistren. It is a fact that is undisputable that every human beings deepest root is in Africa. It is also a fact that Africans spread from Africa and were the first inhabitants of every single continent on this earth. Now I am a white man, but I have no prejudice and I realize that Black Man and Black woman were the first. That is indisputable. My deepest and first mother and father were black. But where did the other races come from? I have read that white men developed when then moved to colder regions with less sunlight and lost pigmentation by staying in caves all the time because of the harsh weather. Is this how the Asian, the Indian, and the Middle Eastern man developed? Or was it intermixing with the races? Now white people are a product of the environment. They have strait hair to keep them warm and smaller nostrils to make sure that the air they breathe does not freeze their lungs. But would this be advocating evolution? I myself am not an advocate of evolution, I am a creationist. I do not believe mankind came from monkeys. Plus evolution is going from one species to a more evolved one. But the Human beings are all one species just different colors. Could there perhaps been a mutation? Have u ever heard of the albino gorrilla? Just reason with the I. Blessings.
Junior Member
Posts: 220

I am nothing with out my soul

« Reply #1 on: January 25, 2004, 12:04:08 PM »

Answers to your question can be a very complex yet hard to understand somewhat but these pieces of information seems to make it all clear some what,Hope this answer your question it is a bit long.

Most people, when they speak of a “race,” refer to the racial characteristic of skin coloration. For the purpose of the present discussion, I will limit my discussion, for the most part, to the origin of such a characteristic (being careful to do so only in an accommodative sense). In humans, production of the skin coloring agent melanin is controlled by two pairs of genes. We can designate them Aa and Bb, the capital letters representing dominant genes and the small letters recessive genes. A and B, being dominant, produce melanin very well; being recessive, a and b produce melanin to a lesser degree.

Gary Parker, in his book, Creation: The Facts of Life (1980, pp. 77-81), has observed that if Adam and Eve were both AABB, they could have produced only children with the darkest coloration possible, and they themselves likewise would have been dark. That, barring genetic mutations (to be discussed later), would have produced a world composed only of dark-skinned people. But, as has been noted already, the Negroid race composes less than 10% of the world’s population, so by a process of elimination, this choice can be ruled out.

If Adam and Eve both had been aabb, they could have had only children that were aabb, that being the lightest coloration possible. Then, the world would contain no other groupings. But it does. So, this option also is ruled out by a process of elimination.

The real question is this: Is there a mechanism by which the racial characteristics which we see today could have originated with one human couple—in the short, few thousand year or so history of the Earth?

The answer is a resounding yes! If Adam and Eve had been “heterozygous” (AaBb; two dominant, two recessive genes), they would have been middle-brown in color. And, from them—in one generation—racial differences could have occurred quite easily. Figure 1 expresses the genetic possibilities that could result if Adam and Eve had been heterozygous. Note that in a single generation, one could expect (theoretically) these colorations to be produced: 1 darkest; 4 dark; 6 medium; 4 light; and 1 lightest.

A person born AABB carries genes for the darkest coloration possible, and since all genes are dominant, has no genes for lightness. If that person married another person who likewise carried all dominant genes, and moved to an area where no intermarriage with people of different colors occurred, the offspring resulting from this marriage then would carry the same dominant genes. These offspring will have “lost” the ability to be “white.” Conversely, if a person who is aabb, and thus the lightest possible, marries another person who likewise carries all recessive genes, and moves into an area where no intermarriage with people of other colors occurs, henceforth this union will produce only offspring of the lightest possible coloration. The offspring so produced will have “lost” the ability to be “black.” They no longer have the genes necessary to produce enough melanin for the black color.

Thus, starting with any two parents who were heterozygous (i.e., middle-brown in color), extreme racial colors (black and white, to name only two examples) could be produced in such a way that races would have permanently different colors. Of course, it also is possible to produce a middle-brown race that will have a fixed middle-brown color. If the original middle-brown parents produce offspring of either AAbb or aaBB, and these offspring marry only others their own color, avoiding intermarriage with those not of their own genetic makeup, their descendants will be a fixed middle-brown color.

Is it likely that people of various colorations intermarried? The preponderance of so many colorations in the world is evidence aplenty that they did. Interestingly, even the evolutionists agree on this point. Rensberger says:

Race mixing has not only been a fact of human history but is, in this day of unprecedented global mobility, taking place at a more rapid rate than ever. It is not farfetched to envision the day when, generations hence, the entire “complexion” of major population centers will be different. Meanwhile, we can see such changes taking place before our eyes, for they are a part of everyday reality (1981, p. 54, emp. added).
Dr. Francisco Ayala of the University of California has observed that if the process started out with a couple that had only a 6.7% heterozygosity (which is the average in modern humans), the different combinations possible would be 1x102,017 before the couple would have one child identical to another (1978, p 63)!

As Parker observed, it is likely that Adam and Eve were heterozygous. Otherwise, their descendants would have lacked variation. However, one might suggest that Adam and Eve began with all dominant (or all recessive) sets of genes, but that changes occurred after the Creation as the result of mutations. Indeed, many of the genetic differences, and many of the genetic disorders, no doubt have arisen since the first couple was removed from that original, pristine environment. Thus, the possibility that some heterozygosity is a product of mutations cannot be ruled out.

You can check out the link and finish read the whole article

Also there was An Albino Gorrilla named Snowflake who died of skin cancer in a Barcelona Zoo last November, The only Albino Gorrila I ever heard of, you can read the article

I refuse to accept the view that mankind is so tragically bound to the starless midnight of racism and war that the bright daybreak of peace and brotherhood can never become reality.
Posts: 8

AfricaSpeaks.co m

« Reply #2 on: February 01, 2004, 03:35:06 PM »

That is an overly simplistic way of looking at a very complex process, not accounting for imporant environmental variables.
But then again, a literal interpretation of the Genesis story is unrealistically simplistic in itself.
It is extremely presumptuous to think that the complex system of which we are only a small part of could be put into human terms. Are we so bound to our egos that we are unwilling to consider the concept of creation as something beyond human comprehension?
One shouldn't use science to justify something so blatantly parabolic.
Junior Member
Posts: 227

« Reply #3 on: February 01, 2004, 04:04:37 PM »

I, on the other hand, thank you for the article P_P.  I'm going to read it more thoroughly as well as the rest of it from the site later when I have time this week between classes.  It's interesting to me that someone has ATTEMPTED to delve into the process rather than just simply throw one's hands up and say that the creation is too removed and intricate for our minds to understand - raggamuffin.  Jehovah's put all this complex creation down here to fascinate us, and using our reasoning powers to contemplate the ways of his creation is a glory to him.  

"For you have made me rejoice, O Jehovah, because of your activity; Because of the works of your hands I cry out joyfully.  How great your works are, O Jehovah!  Very deep your thoughts are.  No unreasoning man himself can no them, and no one stupid can understand this." -Psalm 92:4-6

Therefore, become imitators of JAH, as beloved children - Ephesians 5:1
Full Member
Posts: 417


« Reply #4 on: March 05, 2004, 09:47:59 AM »

Why would you believe in mutations, but not in evolution?
Evolution is nothing more but the cumulative result of many mutations over a very long span of time, interacting with a changing environment.
The idea that evolution means changing to a 'more advanced' species is a common misunderstanding. It has nothing to do with becoming a 'better' or 'more adavanced' species, just one that is better adapted to its environment.
The development of different so-called 'races' is a sort of micro-evolution. Black Africans moved to a certain climate, let's say. Those who had traits that were not conducive to surviving in that environment started dying before they got a chance to reproduce and pass on their genes. Those who had mutations that might have caused them to die in their original environment, now found themselves living longer and reproducing more than those with the old traits, until their genes entirely supplanted the others. Hence, a different 'race'. The difference in genetic composition was so minute (skin pigment, hair texture, etc) that it couldn't even begin to be called a new species. In fact the whole concept of 'race' has no objective scientific basis, because leaving aside the very few specific traits that changed, there is more overall genetic difference between members of the same 'race' than there is overall genetic difference between 'races'.
The albino gorilla is neither here nor there. Albinism is completely distinct from 'race'. A Black albino (like Yellow Man) does not look like a European, and a European albino is easily distinguishable from 'normal' Europeans.
As to being a creationist, that is your prerogative. All the evidence points to evolution though.
I don't know why so many people take such an offense at the idea of being genetically connected to other animals. In many ways animals are more admirable than most humans (Selassie once remarked on this). Humans are a part of nature, there is nothing special about humans other than our big brains and especially (cos elephants, dolphins, and even parrots are very intelligent as well) our opposing thumbs which allow us to create technology, whether a flint tool or a nuclear bomb. "JAH gave [wo]man dominion over the earth" is just another way of saying that the way I look at it. We have tremendous power, compared to other animals, that's the only thing that makes us different. It's up to us whether we use that power to create or destroy.
Posts: 91

physical distance cannot be a barrier to love.

« Reply #5 on: March 05, 2004, 12:08:07 PM »

Check the movie: The Real Eve done by Discovery Channel... quite an interesting display of what may have occured for humanity to bring forth many differen't "races". YO why do we call the difference of nationality or color "RACE"? To use the same word meaning competition ...cha word sound in english is somethin else...

Spirituality is not theology or ideology. It is a simple way of life, pure and original as was given by the most high. Spirituality is a network linking us to the most high, the universe and eachother
Senior Member
Posts: 634

Ayanna's Roots

« Reply #6 on: March 05, 2004, 01:31:51 PM »

I am a creationist. I do not believe mankind came from monkeys

Just a breif correction: proponents of evolution  do not state  that man came from monkeys either.  That part of the theory of human evolution states that monkeys and man have a common ancestor not that one was descended from the other.
There are good articles here that explain this:


An important elment of this split in the species that is is said to have resulted in the split between our first upright walking ancestors and  what we know now as monkeys is the movement from quadrapedalism to bipedalism which is spoken of in this article:


Senior Member
Posts: 605

« Reply #7 on: March 05, 2004, 04:58:55 PM »

YO why do we call the difference of nationality or color "RACE"? To use the same word meaning competition ...cha word sound in english is somethin else...

Good point!

Forward to a united Africa!
Pages: [1] Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines
Copyright © 2001-2005 AfricaSpeaks.com and RastafariSpeaks.com
Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!