And please spare me the Ham, shem and Jahphet story in the bible. Anyone who believes that story is definitely delusional.

I am speaking on the basis of evolutionary evidence, climate and possibly what religion has got to say about it.

I for one have studied this and overwhelming evidence does point to climate and adaptation to ones enviroment and empirical evidience to why we have dark skin and our hair texture is as it is. How then do you have this stupid Nigerian preacher continually preach the story of Noah and his threee sons. I heard a preach somep sundays ago preaching this rubbish and how we are cursed and now that curse is about to be broken in the new milenia.

Any intelligent person would deduce that it is virtually impossible for three men to spun the multitude of races that exist in the world today and the timing of the bible cannot support this 5000 years is not enough time to create these variances.

Please your two cents on this I am hoping to disprove this bogus interpretation from the bible and enlighten some so called christians.

Methinks it has to do with climate and consequently genetics. Period.

oh yeah I just wanted to add if any one is a member of the church of jesus christ of latter day saints, you better leave tha church fast. The monkeys believe black people are some sort of curseGod gave Cain which he passed on to his decsendants.

I mean if this people can perpetuite this rubbish. What else is false of christianity in the hands of Europeans that they ahve pssed on to Africa.

i believ the ham,shem and japhet account and its not cause im black but because there are facts to back it up,moreover even though im not an archeologist i know enough to read about the black mummified child found and also the documentary i v seen about symbolism, i still have a lot to learn on the subject,victors always push their own account of history at the expence of others and untill i see conclusive prove that jesus is a blonde,blue eyed slim white dude

Please lucabrasi can you enumerate the facts you have concerning this story and tell me where in the bibile it traces the ancestors of these three people to who you know as black, white and yellow people or so the myth goes.

What nonsense I can't believe any one in this day and age still buys that story when common sense will tell you that your anthropology and body size correlates with the way your genes/mutation adapts to your enviroment.

What black mummified child?

You don't even need proof that Jesus is blonde blue eyed, cause that is very very! very! very! highly unlilkely judging from the period he lived.

pls take a chill pill,its my personal opinion why r you ranting and raving ?i think ill just leave your thread because i can see where this is heading to, i dont do insults and i really dont have the energy, my last word before zooming out of your thread ill give you one of my sources from a book my pastor wrote www.whatswrongwithbeingblack.com

How can Ham Shem and Japeth not create the numerous races that are in the world today when Noah managed to fit every living creature that exists onto his Ark. Even if only half the species that exist were taken on the ark they wouldn't be able to fit. Of course the diversity of races and species we see today could be the result of evolution from the inhabitants of the Ark, but most 'christians' don't believe in evolution so that road is closed to them.

Lucabrasi.
Where in my thread did I insult you. "nonsense" is not an insult. Its an opinion. I didn't come here to insult anyone.

I've skimmed through Oshimolowo's book, even seen his sermons on this issue. He is in error in several of his teachings but of course will not confront such errors cause he is a man of God.

My mission is to expose those who use scriptures to decieve people which is why I am harsh when I hear statements like yours. Explain what you mean and I will have a civil conversation with you. The first sign of intimidation and you run off.

Can someone brave enough Please explain how you can trace one of the sons of noah to the people who inhabit the African continent? Thats all I ask?

its an opinion but as you can see from the number of my posts,i v been posting on this site for a while and i know how the whole thing starts with we nigerians,we dont like people making an opinion contrary to ours and it starts with nonsense and then goes on to what rubbish are you saying and then full fledged insults, i can give as good as i can get but i just dont think the religious section is the proper place thats why i chose to chill out.

first,i dont understand if you r a christian or muslim or an atheist and what your views are on the topic,i know you said smthn about the overwhelming evidence of climate and the environment having more to do with it,do i take it you r on the side of evolution then?

like the man pastor aio said,christians dont believe in evolution and i personally dont believe in darwin or anything connected to him ,so if thats your stance or point of reference as far as this topic is concerned then we dont even have anything to discuss because it ll be like convincing a ku klux klan member than black or mexicans are better than white people so pls explain what you think of the topic and how you arrived at it and we ll start from there, what errors are in pastor ashimolowo's book and what part precisely

Black people did not become black. Black (African) man is the original man. Every other race of people came from the black race. That is why we are the kings and queens of the earth.

Lucabrasi
I am not an atheist, I simply belief in proof and logic. When someone says evolution automatically peoples minds turn to monkeys walking upright and Darwin as I did once upon a time, dismissing it immediately as rubbish. The evolution of man is a theory based on theevidence of "evolution/Adaptation/Survival of the fittest" so lets leave out the monkey to human story.

Adaptation/"Physical Evolution" is a fact not a theory. You see it everyday around you. Example the sickle cell gene is prevelant in tropical peoples West African,middle eastern and asians and not Europeans. WHY?
Exposure to the malaria parasite for a long period of time will cause cells to mutate change its shape to adapt to the parasite's attack(FACT)
Over an extensive period of time that mutation is passed on to progeny and the adaptation is specific to a group of people for survival purposes(fact) even though there are side effects to this adaptation as we all know.

As for the issue of the story of Ham, Shem and Japhet, I will try to stay on the "facts" as much as possible.
According to Pastor Oshimolowo's book, he states the decscendants of Ham as he sees it in the bible, breaking them down to Miziriam, Cannan even down to Nimrod and Cush. He clearly states that Cush is likened to Ethiopia. Phut are libyans and mizirian are Egyptians. All carrying so called Negro tendencies therefore all were so called Negro people or lets say Black people. Therefore there were a consistent numer of "blacks" or people with black skin all over the mesopotamian area. The egyptians were therefore black/negroid, the cannanites were black/negroid and the Cush were also black/negroid. The curse is in reference to cannanites who according to the above are black and have nothing to do with Cush,Nimrod or Miziriam. Therefore no curse on the rest of other negro/Black people voiding the phrase "I am not cursed. I am Cush"

Now if ye are truly Cush then Biologically for Cush to be black/negroid, It means Ham their father or his wife must have been black/negroid. Common now, Biologically Noah can have three sons that are physically black/negroid, white/causcasian and yellow/middle easter. That does not make sense. Adaptation had to paly a role in their physical appearance. Can Pastor Oshimolowo explain if it is mere coincidence that people with darker skin inhabit hotter climates and lighter people cooler climates. How about the people of Papau new guinea who are from the same stock of original descendants of Ham and are negroid, How did they get to that part of the world seeing that Cush inhabits Africa and why did they choose that tropical area to live in cause they were black and noticed if they migrated to Russia would not be able to stand it there?

Also be aware that those who coin the phrase Cushites or Hamatic people whom Pastor Oshimolowo is taking refernce from don't even believe that Cushites are true African but some middle eastern tribe who migrated south and mixed with the negroids that existed in that area and thus that is how their skin tone became darker. Therefore if you take this euorcentric studyy literally negros are not descendants of Ham but are "people" who mixed with Cushites to deliver bastard black babies we call ethiopians and somalilans today. Which is why when you ask an Ethiopian if he is black he will hesistate for a minute and compare his features with his fellow middle eastern brothers first. How then can Cush be black in the first instance if the above is true.

If you sort reference to the above story please let me know.

first off,i must rei terate again that im not archeologists and im not really well versed in researches but i do watch a lot of documentaries and read a lot of books,in as much as i believe your surmission about the malaria parasite and sickell cell,dont forget we r talking about thousands of years whichever way we look at it or whichever account we want to stick with,so the mutation might very well have started after everybody dispersed,u ll agree with me that up till this moment there are some perculiarities common to particular areas or continents that you wont find in others hope i made sense there if nt what im sayn in summary is that the mutation you r on about could have been passed between the time humanity dispersed till the present time,so nobody is none the wiser.

forget about the cush not cursed phrase,also does it say anywhere in the book that the wife was black/negroid?common now dont lets get carried away we dont know for sure and seeing as the book or any research dwells on that,it means no one knows for sure but u cant say that the wife was definitely negroid,for instance i read somewhere that noah was albino but i like proven facts so i dismissed it,of course pastor ashimolowo doesnt need to prove that because we naturally migrate according to what suits us for want of a better word,as for cush inhabiting africa what the book said was that the cushites were inhabiting a vast area and rulers of the world and to be rulers of the world in tht sense you know you wil inhabit every corner, let me give u an example the romans ruled the world but how come they are only in italy now,what the man said was that we later moved to that part of africa not that we were always in that part, they were powerless at that point and the conquerous pushed them towards where they thought was desolate and arid land in these times,it happens for instance i read about a black man in the times of slavery who was conned of his land my a white man who asked him to let him see his land deeds,he wasnt too worried because it was only land and the white man was law,guess what they discovered oil on the land and it was the mans's grand son who was writing the article the moral is that they never knew the present africa was goin to be this fertile,

i totally agree with you that these people dont believe,but u ll agree with me that its a result of divide and rule that has been prevalent since the whites started ruling and enslaving the blacks,even a lighter coloured black person discriminates against a dark coloured person,i wish u ll read the complete book and you ll see a letter written to a plantation owner in the 188smthn about this divide and rule way of dividing black people,so im not suprised that they disagree,even the egyptians dont agree that blacks have ever been pharaohs yet the hydroglyphics writings and the recreations of some of the mummies show otherwise(nt sure which of them )saw it in discovery channel,i read the book like 2006 so i v forgotten a lot of it but ill implore you to invest the 20 pounds as its not money wasted,also let me clarify that the book is not pastor ashimolowo's own accounts its also backed by eminent researchers who have done theirs independently and each chapter has references from established books from reputable book publishers,if my commentsare not well packaged its cause i v forgotten a bit from the book

If you believe in evoultion then the first men were black to start with.
Climatic changes makes us adapt to the environment.Black skin for instance has less chance of skin cancer from sunlight.

By me stating that either Ham or his wife was black is me infering on the fact that for Cush to even spawn the negro race in anyway he or his wife had to carry the negro traits or genes i.e broad nose, black skin,, robust build, wooly hair for at least his kids to carry the same traits. So i didn't get the fact from any book , just simple logic.
When Pastor Oshimilowo preaches about how Cush ruled or had dominion in different parts of the world, all he is trying to do is give you a sense of pride about being black which you in the first place should be proud of cause thats who you are regardless, can't help that. The Pastor needs to be clear with his congregation that the story is false, false false and the people he is quoting in his book are merely trying to appease black folk. i am not saying agree with me but judge the facts for yourself. Its whetherr you see the correlation of climate and color or you believe some myth spun the race of a whole entire peoples who are so diverse, infact are more genetically diverse that other peoples of the world.

As for Banni comments I believe in the parts of the evolutionary theory that I can prove with fact. It is very likely that black skin mutation began before white mutation because of evidence supported by facts through DNA and gene distribution. People who dominate what is known as African have the most genetic variances that people in other parts of the world(Fact that has been proven). Deduction would be that therefore they came first because the theory of expansion can only happen where the most variances occur in a gene pool thus the "out of africa" migration theory. And when you say the first men were black please note they probably didn't look anything like you or me today.

well seeing as you specifically said that both ham and his wife had to be black made me reply that eitheryou or me or anyone cant stand up and say what colour his wife was because we ernt there and have no evidence to prove that,as for simple logic there are many things that defy simple logic as you put it,how about the american lady that gave birth to a white and black twin like 2/3 years ago?couple of hundred years down the line,would it be fair to now assume that simple logic dictates that seeing as the mum and dad r white the kid had to be white for instance?

that is the point i have been tryna stress and which the pastor stressed at great lenghts as well,you have not read the book so you cant make up your mind based on a paragraph,in fact he had talked about the book a full year before he published it and he also mentioned that he had read all the accounts and evidenced and stories concerning this like years ago,but he wanted his refrences to be on point so he actually spent more time gathering his refrences,researches and what-not ,he said he wasnt trying to just sell a book pushing black people but a book based on facts, you keep saying it is false but the man has researches,proper references to back it up so will you expect me to believe your version over that of known archeologists and researchers of note who are not even black to start with?

you started the topic ,so you have the burden of evidence to prove what yourself either rightly or wrongly, the only evidence which you have mentioned without any source if i might add is the evolutionary evidence,mutation and what not,i didnt mention pastor ashimolowo's book as just one of these books written by a black pastor as a fell good factor but s literary piece based on real evidence,proper research and surmission because he has his reputation to protect and im sure you agree with me that refrences are really easy to check up on and they never lie do they

There has more than one occurence of someone who gave birth to a white and black baby and that can be explained logical using Historical, physical and anatomical information.Though the odds are high like one a million. it can be explained LOGICALLy .These types of births occur mostly where there is artificial insermintation where sperm and eggs are manipulated and either parent most carry a recessive gene introduced by an european somewhere down the line. It is highly ullikely for a yoruba girl who has lived in her village since birth and whose parents never left that part of the world and never introduced to any outsiders to have a white baby. It is not impossible but does not defy logic. Please see below link

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=412385&in_page_id=1770&ct=5

It is almost a certainty that for Cush to have spawn the black race. Genetical Ham who translates as "warm"(I really don't know how that denotes that his is black, which is the symbolism these knuckleheads use in determining his color) exhibited these genes in physical manifestation, passing it down on and on. I will not go into this indept but just know you are actually verifying the fact that it could be possible for Cush or his progeny not to have been black since you postulate that logic has nothing to do with interpretation seeing that Historical logic is used in Oshimolowo book though he or I wasnot present at time to verify anything.

Now I do not need to read through Oshimolowo's book to argue what so called fact he is presenting in his book as there are a million and one references out there who echo what he is saying, unless he introduced a new concept of the origins of black people. I mean just enter sons of Ham in wikipedia and you get a break down of references in his book.

What I am trying to get you to understand is that basing his truths on historical logic only are flawe if genetical logical eveidence supercedes his logic, whic it does of course. First I don't see what the reason is for the color of anybody to be black if not for adaptive purpose. A question you should ask your Pastor or yourself. Why didn't we come out green or blue for that matter. What is the reason for black? is what you have to ask yourself.

Adaptation is logical using all the evidence around you to explain an occurence as I mention earlier concerning mutation which again explains the story of the the lady who had twins of two different races and can be used to explain manymore since it is fact and not speculation. DNA distribution amongst Africans and variations of African people using the timeline of the Bible and historical evidence in trying to explain Human populationsfalls short of the evidence. Cush's timeline(Kingdom of Kush) till now (1973BC to 2006AD) is less that six thousand years. Too little time to create the variation of Africans and in terms of diversity in Langauge, phenotype(appearance) and genotype(DNA).

As far as refernces are concerned I am much of quoting specifics but google Y chromosone DNA in African populations for your evidence on genotype and African language groups and physical variations for your reference. The info is out there if you wish to search for it. Keep an open mind.



It been close to 1000 of recorded slavery in

The story of black people coming from Noah's ark is flawed because there are more than 3 races existing on earth today. It is difficult to talk about this without proper genetic study. Pastor Matt just used the bible as his basis and decided we came from Ham or canaan or fuckever.

OW11

Exactly what I am tryin to get across to Lucabrasi ,that literal/historical evidence is hard to stand on when there is something else which can lead you more towards the accurate assessment. It can definitely help in trying to mapp out human populations but it is open to misinformation, misinterpretations and bias which we have seen countless times. Genetics however is difficult to dispute. Using Mitchondrial DNA or Y chormosone DNA, one can determine who his closet relatives are in terms of world populations.

Again Cush being the forefather of black people is flawed because Ham _Cush_ Nimrod and so on had to all be physically as black has we are today with all our features otherwise something else took place to cause our variety today(i.e interaction with our enviroment, diet, climate, mate selection patterns etc to come up with distinct features)

@morpheus

c'est fini

Without proper genetic study, it is difficult to say everyone has a Jewish origin or caucasian origin or even Negroid origin.

I am NOT a descendant of HAM!!!!!!!

I was going to answer but after I saw this (below) I am going to be mute

And please spare me the Ham, shem and Jahphet story in the bible. Anyone who believes that story is definitely delusional.

So can anyone share any light or discussion on the possible origins of the black skin using provable information. I need an indepth analysis on this subject matter specifically zoning in on african populations and the diversity that exists within it?

I think you need to turn this question on its head and ask the following;

How did non-black people get their non-black skin?

It is very likely that the very first human, who inhabited African had dark skins, like present-day African. As humans migrated out of Africa to settle other parts of the world, their skin colour ( and other bodily features) adapted to the various local conditions. Hence, the diverse skin colours we see worldwide.

Scientific studies show that African have the most skin-pigmentation than other "peoples" as these latter would have lost their pigmentation as the move into cooler climes. The descendants of the first migration flow out of Africa are the native Autralian, who incidentally settle in the same latitudes as most of Africa. Hence, they retained the darker skin tone. Recent arrivals into these tropical latitudes like the Native South America don't have the same pigmentation as African because their forebears crossed the land bridge linking North East Asia and North America. At this point they had already lost the dark skin tone. They later migrated further south into what is now the south American continent.


You would do well to read the book "The Journey of Man" by Spencer Wells Or watch his videos on Youtube;

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OV6A8oGtPc4&feature=related
http://www.amazon.com/Journey-Man-Genetic-Odyssey/dp/0812971469/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1211202750&sr=8-1

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lxgS9RKwKbU

@huxley yes i have a supporter,couldnt even answer again as everyone was on my ass
@poster
kinda lame xcuse but im having my exams now so i cant dig up the book yet,i have a dvd series as well and will watch it and bring out the literary references as for the pastor's book,its not just based on the bible but backed up by literary sources as well,u know as well as i do that it wont stand up to any scruitny if a christian pastor used a christian bible as his only reference

lucabrasi:

@huxley yes i have a supporter,couldnt even answer again as everyone was on my ass
@poster
kind of lame xcuse but im having my exams now so i can't dig up the book yet,i have a dvd series as well and will watch it and bring out the literary references as for the pastor's book,its not just based on the bible but backed up by literary sources as well,u know as well as i do that it wont stand up to any scruitny if a christian pastor used a christian bible as his only reference

Huxley is actually leaning towards the evolutionary aspect of man specific to pigmentation and not any biblical reference so he aint't really helping you out but strengthening my points.

how did black people become black? . . hmmn. . . . .

shoe polish . . . . . kiwi

I think the earliest forefather dropped into a pit full of tar
or rather i think the kiwi story is accurate

dont know why y'all bother about stuffs like this, im sure this is what MJ thought so hard about that he became gollum!

we were abandoned in the heavenly ovens i guess, so we came out burnt!

over grilled that is why it came into black result

@morpheus
im typing this out in a great hurry because im at work and i really should b doin smthng more constructive.
i tried to read through your highly emotive outbursts on this thread and i find your statements consistently full of half truths.
for instance i remember  ( i remember not to what purpose) you trying to logically present to us how the red blood cell of a sickler got to be in the shape of a sickle. your argument was reasonable (tho i questioned some of your logic) but inherently flawed for one simple reason. It was FALSE! simply because something is logical does not make it true. that s what u refer to as erroneus thinking.

Now as to how the black man became balck
1. the black man did not become black,  it was the white man that became white. white skin is an anomaly,  a mutation close to albinism. its simply skin without melanin. the earliest men were probably closer to negroid than anything else
2. someone said (i remember not who) that since there are more than 3 races in the world , we all couldnt have come from shem ham and japhet; (and u agreed) a statement i would expect from my three year old neice due to its naivety.
3. i am not claiming the whole world came from shem ham and j, neither am i disputing the fact but it should be interesting to note that scientists generally divide the worlds races into three very broad groups which are congruent with what the bible claims to be the descendants of shem , ham and j
4. Note that present day negroes fall into the very broad group scientists refer to as hamitic.
5. at worst the biblical account can be viewed as an early attemp atgrouping the races of the world. ( a fairly accurate one if u ask me)

Tracing the origins of all of the races of the earth is still an ongoing process which still baffles scientists,  so whatever we say on this thread is subject to a great deal of speculation


PS in case u are wondering the sickle shape of a sicklers rbc is simply due to mutation. nothing else. the link with malaria is simple. those who carried a recessive sicker gene also carried an slight immunity to malaria and so they thrived in parts of the world where malaria was endemic. they naturally died out in other parts of the world

simmy:

@morpheus
im typing this out in a great hurry because im at work and i really should b doin smthng more constructive.
i tried to read through your highly emotive outbursts on this thread and i find your statements consistently full of half truths.
for instance i remember ( i remember not to what purpose) you trying to logically present to us how the red blood cell of a sickler got to be in the shape of a sickle. your argument was reasonable (tho i questioned some of your logic) but inherently flawed for one simple reason. It was FALSE! simply because something is logical does not make it true. that s what u refer to as erroneus thinking.

Now as to how the black man became balck
1. the black man did not become black, it was the white man that became white. white skin is an anomaly, a mutation close to albinism. its simply skin without melanin. the earliest men were probably closer to negroid than anything else
2. someone said (i remember not who) that since there are more than 3 races in the world , we all couldnt have come from shem ham and japhet; (and u agreed) a statement i would expect from my three year old neice due to its naivety.
3. i am not claiming the whole world came from shem ham and j, neither am i disputing the fact but it should be interesting to note that scientists generally divide the worlds races into three very broad groups which are congruent with what the bible claims to be the descendants of shem , ham and j
4. Note that present day negroes fall into the very broad group scientists refer to as hamitic.
5. at worst the biblical account can be viewed as an early attemp atgrouping the races of the world. ( a fairly accurate one if u ask me)

Tracing the origins of all of the races of the earth is still an ongoing process which still baffles scientists, so whatever we say on this thread is subject to a great deal of speculation


PS in case u are wondering the sickle shape of a sicklers rbc is simply due to mutation. nothing else. the link with malaria is simple. those who carried a recessive sicker gene also carried an slight immunity to malaria and so they thrived in parts of the world where malaria was endemic. they naturally died out in other parts of the world

The purpose of my refering to the mutation that occurs in the blood cells of sickle cell carriers was to "prove" the occurance of mutations in biological organisms. This being the key element in my understanding of human races and how we came about our physical features as it is evident that these mutations played an essential role in our anthropological differences and not some story drawn out by a Jew who used his understanding of biblical references to infer on the races or peoples that populated the world within a span of 6 thousand years. You yourselve know the variations in humans cannot be accounted for in this time frame unless you are taking the bible account figuratively.


Its link to malaria is to show deductive reasoning in concluding that the occurance of genetic mutations are in direct correlation to enviromental factors ( ie viruses, sun light, lack of thereof and so on) that subsequently influence adaptability. The logic behind your phrase" and ", nothing else" would lead me to believe that there is evidence that you believe mutations are sporadic and spontaneous. The definition of mutations last time I read includes possible causes by introduction to viruses. Please see below link
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_mutations

You state that simply because something is logical does not make it true. Then again the statment cannot be rendered absolutely false either because you nor I have eliminated that possiblity.


Another thing you say is the black man did not become black. How then did they become? was he born as such. Did God make black people first. Were all early men all black before mutations caused them to become fairer skinned. I don't believe white or fairer skin is an anomaly but a mutation that was rapidly sustained as a survical mechanism for people who lived in regions that fostered this occurence and have evidence to back that up.

Your third point says that "it should be interesting to note that scientists generally divide the worlds races into three very broad groups which are congruent with what the bible claims to be the descendants of shem , ham and j"

Note that those scientist were obviously influenced by their ethnocentriic or should I say Eurocentric viewpoints(fact which can be proven again) and by the writings of scholars who eluded to the 3 sons story thus the groupings of present day negroes into hamitic people. Present day scientist do not use those categories any longer seeing that its origins are not well founded.( Notice the descendants of Japhet don't group themselve into japhetic tribes do they?)

I agree that "at worst the biblical account can be viewed as an early attempt at grouping the races of the world as far as accuracy, well that leaves much to be debated.


Most people do not care or find the subject matter tedious and complex but I don't. the more information I get the more the story of the 3 sons is debunked for me which is why I made reference to them earlier because this was my starting point.

if you have anything to add to help me further my understanding please feel free to reply

morpheus24:

The purpose of my refering to the mutation that occurs in the blood cells of sickle cell carriers was to "prove" the occurance of mutations in biological organisms. This being the key element in my understanding of human races and how we came about our physical features as it is evident that these mutations played an essential role in our anthropological differences and not some story drawn out by a Jew who used his understanding of biblical references to infer on the races or peoples that populated the world within a span of 6 thousand years. You yourselve know the variations in humans cannot be accounted for in this time frame unless you are taking the bible account figuratively.


Its link to malaria is to show deductive reasoning in concluding that the occurance of genetic mutations are in direct correlation to enviromental factors ( ie viruses, sun light, lack of thereof and so on) that subsequently influence adaptability. The logic behind your phrase" and ", nothing else" would lead me to believe that there is evidence that you believe mutations are sporadic and spontaneous. The definition of mutations last time I read includes possible causes by introduction to viruses. Please see below link
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_mutations

You state that simply because something is logical does not make it true. Then again the statment cannot be rendered absolutely false either because you nor I have eliminated that possiblity.


Another thing you say is the black man did not become black. How then did they become? was he born as such. Did God make black people first. Were all early men all black before mutations caused them to become fairer skinned. I don't believe white or fairer skin is an anomaly but a mutation that was rapidly sustained as a survical mechanism for people who lived in regions that fostered this occurence and have evidence to back that up.

Your third point says that "it should be interesting to note that scientists generally divide the worlds races into three very broad groups which are congruent with what the bible claims to be the descendants of shem , ham and j"

Note that those scientist were obviously influenced by their ethnocentriic or should I say Eurocentric viewpoints(fact which can be proven again) and by the writings of scholars who eluded to the 3 sons story thus the groupings of present day negroes into hamitic people. Present day scientist do not use those categories any longer seeing that its origins are not well founded.( Notice the descendants of Japhet don't group themselve into japhetic tribes do they?)

I agree that "at worst the biblical account can be viewed as an early attempt at grouping the races of the world as far as accuracy, well that leaves much to be debated.


Most people do not care or find the subject matter tedious and complex but I don't. the more information I get the more the story of the 3 sons is debunked for me which is why I made reference to them earlier because this was my starting point.

if you have anything to add to help me further my understanding please feel free to reply

did u see my post above? and the references to a book and some videos?

huxley:

did u see my post above? and the references to a book and some videos?

just watched the videos. Very informative. Appreciate that a whole lot.