Joromi12:
oga, a chinese vs chnese would not give birth to a black. so why would adam and eve give birth to other races

Because they were not Chinese or any other race?

Simple genetics will teach you that each successive generation has a combination of genes derived from their parents which manifests itself phenotypically in different ways. So, tall parents may have short children because those children inherited genes that contain information to that effect because the parents inherited them from their own parents. The reverse is also true.

If Adam and Eve were the first humans, then they possessed all the genetic information that resulted in the different appearances that we see in their children even if they themselves looked completely different from those children. Adam was red in color, for example. It is possible that Eve was the same.

Every child inherits half of their parent's combined genetic pool scrambled in a way unique to that child. So, each of Adam's and Eve's direct children inherited half of their parents' gene pool. Each half was scrambled in a unique way so that although the full gene pool may be preserved in the next generation, there are no two similar halves. The grandchildren then are likely to inherit genes that make them phenotypically different in some way from their grandparents, and on and on.

In other words, Adam and Eve can be the source of Asian, African, European and Indian features even without having any of them.

Ihedinobi3:

Good to see you again, bro.

I learned something very recently that explained a phenomenon that I've wondered about for a while. It may be that there are genetic differences of note between large groups of human beings. For example, there is a difference between Europeans and West and Central Africans that makes the former vulnerable to certain strains of malaria and the latter nearly completely invulnerable to the same sickness. It is in the presence of a protein in the red blood cells of Europeans which is absent in West and Central Africans.

Then, there are the different colors and shapes and sizes, at least. I think that these are significant, but not so much that one can talk of effectively different types of human beings physiologically speaking.

Also, Adam was a red human being, by color. Does anyone today know any "race" of that color?

Genetics in biology already teaches us that the entire genetic information of offspring comes from their parents and that we don't all inherit the entire pool. You get half from one parent and half from the other, so that at least 50% of your parents' combined genetic information is lost to you and your offspring. That seems to me to make it obvious that each generation possesses less genetic information, in one manner of speaking, than the last. Adam could produce every single race but I doubt that any race could produce Adam.

DoctorAlien, here's a quote:

'The Duffy antigen is not especially important to red blood cells. Nonetheless, researchers have written hundreds of papers about it. The reason is that Plasmodium vivax also uses the Duffy antigen as a receptor. Like a burglar with a copy of the front-door key, it inserts itself into the Duffy antigen, fooling the blood cell into thinking it is one of the intended compounds and thereby gaining entrance.

Duffy's role was discovered in the early 1970s by Louis H. Miller and his collaborators at the National Institutes of Health's Laboratory of Parasitic Disease. To nail down the proof, Miller and his collaborators asked seventeen men, all volunteers, to put their arms into boxes full of mosquitoes. The insects were chockablock with Plasmodium vivax. Each man was bitten dozens of times--enough to catch malaria many times over. Twelve of the men came down with the disease. (The researchers quickly treated them.) The other five had not a trace of the parasite in their blood. Their red blood cells lacked the Duffy antigen--they were "Duffy negative," in the jargon--and the parasite couldn't find its way inside.

The volunteers were Caucasian and African American. Every Caucasian came down with malaria. Every man who didn't get malaria was a Duffy negative African American. This was no coincidence. About 97% of the people in West and Central Africa are Duffy negative, and hence immune to vivax malaria.'
- Charles C. Mann (1493, Alfred A. Knopf, 2011, pp. 99-100)

Ihedinobi3:

Because they were not Chinese or any other race?

Simple genetics will teach you that each successive generation has a combination of genes derived from their parents which manifests itself phenotypically in different ways. So, tall parents may have short children because those children inherited genes that contain information to that effect because the parents inherited them from their own parents. The reverse is also true.

If Adam and Eve were the first humans, then they possessed all the genetic information that resulted in the different appearances that we see in their children even if they themselves looked completely different from those children. Adam was red in color, for example. It is possible that Eve was the same.

Every child inherits half of their parent's combined genetic pool scrambled in a way unique to that child. So, each of Adam's and Eve's direct children inherited half of their parents' gene pool. Each half was scrambled in a unique way so that although the full gene pool may be preserved in the next generation, there are no two similar halves. The grandchildren then are likely to inherit genes that make them phenotypically different in some way from their grandparents, and on and on.

In other words, Adam and Eve can be the source of Asian, African, European and Indian features even without having any of them.

when you say Adam was red, are you talking about the color of his skin or the fact that he was allegedly made from sand?

TVSA:

when you say Adam was red, are you talking about the color of his skin or the fact that he was allegedly made from sand?

I'm not sure I see how the latter could be understood from what I said. You may be referring to the idea that the Hebrew elements that comprise the name Adam are translatable as earth. That is fair enough, but Adam as a word means red. That was the color of the first man. As I said in that post.

Ihedinobi3:

I'm not sure I see how the latter could be understood from what I said. You may be referring to the idea that the Hebrew elements that comprise the name Adam are translatable as earth. That is fair enough, but Adam as a word means red. That was the color of the first man. As I said in that post.

why do you think Adam was red in color?

Ihedinobi3:

Adam means red.

Adam.means red according to who? You?

TVSA:
why do you think Adam was red in color?

Because that was what he was called?

Ihedinobi3:

Because they were not Chinese or any other race?

Simple genetics will teach you that each successive generation has a combination of genes derived from their parents which manifests itself phenotypically in different ways. So, tall parents may have short children because those children inherited genes that contain information to that effect because the parents inherited them from their own parents. The reverse is also true.

If Adam and Eve were the first humans, then they possessed all the genetic information that resulted in the different appearances that we see in their children even if they themselves looked completely different from those children. Adam was red in color, for example. It is possible that Eve was the same.

Every child inherits half of their parent's combined genetic pool scrambled in a way unique to that child. So, each of Adam's and Eve's direct children inherited half of their parents' gene pool. Each half was scrambled in a unique way so that although the full gene pool may be preserved in the next generation, there are no two similar halves. The grandchildren then are likely to inherit genes that make them phenotypically different in some way from their grandparents, and on and on.

In other words, Adam and Eve can be the source of Asian, African, European and Indian features even without having any of them.

Must you always tell lies? If you don't known things just say you don't know instead of making lies up. Adam and Eve are Hebrew mythical figures that allegedly lived about 6000 years ago. People were already living in Africa and other parts of the world before the Hebrews wrote down their Adam and Eve mythology. . .

Ihedinobi3:

Because that was what he was called?

Who called Adam red ? You and your lies?

"Hebrew noun ha adamah meaning "the ground" or "earth". Its Quranic and Biblical usage has ensured that it is also a common name in all countries which draw on these traditions.
Adam (given name) - Wikipedia

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adam_(given_name)

Ihedinobi3:

Because they were not Chinese or any other race?

Simple genetics will teach you that each successive generation has a combination of genes derived from their parents which manifests itself phenotypically in different ways. So, tall parents may have short children because those children inherited genes that contain information to that effect because the parents inherited them from their own parents. The reverse is also true.

If Adam and Eve were the first humans, then they possessed all the genetic information that resulted in the different appearances that we see in their children even if they themselves looked completely different from those children. Adam was red in color, for example. It is possible that Eve was the same.

Every child inherits half of their parent's combined genetic pool scrambled in a way unique to that child. So, each of Adam's and Eve's direct children inherited half of their parents' gene pool. Each half was scrambled in a unique way so that although the full gene pool may be preserved in the next generation, there are no two similar halves. The grandchildren then are likely to inherit genes that make them phenotypically different in some way from their grandparents, and on and on.

In other words, Adam and Eve can be the source of Asian, African, European and Indian features even without having any of them.

This is what's called Holmesian fallacy. There are two basic fallacies. One is that you've truly eliminated other choices as being impossible and secondly that you've enumerated all of the possibilities. But you've really not. You've eliminated the possibility of humans originating from multiple ancestors (which is more logical) because you base your premise on the bible. Your argument is filled with many deductions that are not substantial. What of the possibility of many first men and women?

TVSA:
This is what's called Holmesian fallacy. There are two basic fallacies. One is that you've truly eliminated other choices as being impossible and secondly that you've enumerated all of the possibilities. But you've really not. You've eliminated the possibility of humans originating from multiple ancestors (which is more logical) because you base your premise on the bible. Your argument is filled with many deductions that are not substantial. What of the possibility of many first men and women?

Your post is puzzling. I was answering a question specifically asking how all races came about given that Adam and Eve were the first humans. Of course, I answered assuming that Adam and Eve were the only source of all humankind.

Obviously, that assumption is not unreasonable at all. It makes perfect sense and does not really leave any questions unanswered. Therefore, any interest in other alternatives is necessarily as a preference for some other narrative, not as a result of any problems with this one.

As I always say, everyone has every right to believe whatever they want and the responsibility for the consequences due to their choice of beliefs. For me, I believe the Bible. So, even if I wasn't answering questions like this one that require me to assume that the biblical position is true, I would still be preferring the biblical position.

Ihedinobi3:

DoctorAlien, here's a quote:

'The Duffy antigen is not especially important to red blood cells. Nonetheless, researchers have written hundreds of papers about it. The reason is that Plasmodium vivax also uses the Duffy antigen as a receptor. Like a burglar with a copy of the front-door key, it inserts itself into the Duffy antigen, fooling the blood cell into thinking it is one of the intended compounds and thereby gaining entrance.

Duffy's role was discovered in the early 1970s by Louis H. Miller and his collaborators at the National Institutes of Health's Laboratory of Parasitic Disease. To nail down the proof, Miller and his collaborators asked seventeen men, all volunteers, to put their arms into boxes full of mosquitoes. The insects were chockablock with Plasmodium vivax. Each man was bitten dozens of times--enough to catch malaria many times over. Twelve of the men came down with the disease. (The researchers quickly treated them.) The other five had not a trace of the parasite in their blood. Their red blood cells lacked the Duffy antigen--they were "Duffy negative," in the jargon--and the parasite couldn't find its way inside.

The volunteers were Caucasian and African American. Every Caucasian came down with malaria. Every man who didn't get malaria was a Duffy negative African American. This was no coincidence. About 97% of the people in West and Central Africa are Duffy negative, and hence immune to vivax malaria.'
- Charles C. Mann (1493, Alfred A. Knopf, 2011, pp. 99-100)

Well this is nice. Dealing with the differences in genetic makeup between individuals. Indeed immediately we get down to genetics we realize that all human beings are the same. Probably helps the core point I'm trying to make, that indeed we should only marvel at the ability of the Creator to provide for variation. However we should not be surprised at variation.

dalaman:


Who called Adam red ? You and your lies?

"Hebrew noun ha adamah meaning "the ground" or "earth". Its Quranic and Biblical usage has ensured that it is also a common name in all countries which draw on these traditions.
Adam (given name) - Wikipedia

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adam_(given_name)

It's a Hebrew word with a meaning. "Adhamah" is a different but related word. Here's one source:

Moreover, the latter's Hebrew equivalent is the `odem (אודם), whose similarity to the name "Adam" is not coincidental (אדם, `adham).(25) For the name "Adam" means "ruddy" and refers to the earth-tone color of the first man whose body was taken directly from the earth.
- Professor Robert Luginbill (https://ichthys.com/Tribulation-Part2B.htm)

DoctorAlien:


Well this is nice. Dealing with the differences in genetic makeup between individuals. Indeed immediately we get down to genetics we realize that all human beings are the same. Probably helps the core point I'm trying to make, that indeed we should only marvel at the ability of the Creator to provide for variation. However we should not be surprised at variation.

You were right. There are differences between people groups - which does not surprise me, given that at a point in history God divided the nations, restricting genetic remixing to a very low level - but that does not mean that there are different "types" or "kinds" of human beings. We're still one very large species. The only differentiation of consequence is spiritual in nature between believers and unbelievers.

dalaman:


Must you always tell lies? If you don't known things just say you don't know instead of making lies up. Adam and Eve are Hebrew mythical figures that allegedly lived about 6000 years ago. People were already living in Africa and other parts of the world before the Hebrews wrote down their Adam and Eve mythology. . .

What are you talking about, dalaman? Is it the science fiction built around ancient fossils found in Africa?

As for when Genesis was written, it's obvious. Moses had just led Israel out of Egypt where Africans in Egypt had oppressed them for hundreds of years, so people clearly existed already. But Adam and Eve were not therefore a myth. You might want them to be but wanting something does not the thing make.

Ihedinobi3:

What are you talking about, dalaman? Is it the science fiction built around ancient fossils found in Africa?

Nope not science fiction but history. Adam and Even isn't the first story that talks about a man and woman as the first people. The Sumerians wrote the story before the Jews plagiarized it. Adam and Eve date to about 6000 years old, humanbeings have been living on earth for much more than that. . .Adam and Eve is Hebrew mythology.

As for when Genesis was written, it's obvious. Moses had just led Israel out of Egypt where Africans in Egypt had oppressed them for hundreds of years, so people clearly existed already. But Adam and Eve were not therefore a myth. You might want them to be but wanting something does not the thing make.

The Exodus is non historical. It has no historical backing and only appears inside the biblical fables. The Jews were never enslaved in Egypt during the time the bible said they were enslaved there.

Adam and Even are no different from the Yoruba myth of Oduduwa or Chinese mythology of Panku or the Sumerian myth of the Enki and his wife.

No matter how you want the Hebrew fables to be true it will never be. It is empty mythology. I saw you trying to bend science dishonestly to agree with the empty ancient Hebrew fable.

Ihedinobi3:

It's a Hebrew word with a meaning. "Adhamah" is a different but related word. Here's one source:

Moreover, the latter's Hebrew equivalent is the `odem (אודם), whose similarity to the name "Adam" is not coincidental (אדם, `adham).(25) For the name "Adam" means "ruddy" and refers to the earth-tone color of the first man whose body was taken directly from the earth.
- Professor Robert Luginbill (https://ichthys.com/Tribulation-Part2B.htm)

Where does it say that Adam is red? The color of the ground isn't red, it varies from brown, to red, to.black depending on the location of where the sand was tipped. No where is red mentioned anywhere here.

It says

"According to Genesis in the Old Testament Adam was created from the earth by God (there is a word play on Hebrew אֲדָמָה ('adamah) meaning "earth"".

I didn't see red anywhere.

dalaman:


Nope not science fiction but history. Adam and Even isn't the first story that talks about a man and woman as the first people. The Sumerians wrote the story before the Jews plagiarized it. Adam and Eve date to about 6000 years old, humanbeings have been living on earth for much more than that. . .Adam and Eve is Hebrew mythology.



The Exodus is non historical. It has no historical backing and only appears inside the biblical fables. The Jews were never enslaved in Egypt during the time the bible said they were enslaved there.

Adam and Even are no different from the Yoruba myth of Oduduwa or Chinese mythology of Panku or the Sumerian myth of the Enki and his wife.

No matter how you want the Hebrew fables to be true it will never be. It is empty mythology. I saw you trying to bend science dishonestly to agree with the empty ancient Hebrew fable.

You have spoken with me a few times now. I would expect you to know that I would never take your word for the claims you make against the Bible. I don't consider you enough of an authority to accept whatever you say just because you say it.

dalaman:


Where does it say that Adam is red? The color of the ground isn't red, it varies from brown, to red, to.black depending on the location of where the sand was tipped. No where is red mentioned anywhere here.

It says

"According to Genesis in the Old Testament Adam was created from the earth by God (there is a word play on Hebrew אֲדָמָה ('adamah) meaning "earth"".

I didn't see red anywhere.

"Ruddy" is a synonym for "red".

Ihedinobi3:

You have spoken with me a few times now. I would expect you to know that I would never take your word for the claims you make against the Bible. I don't consider you enough of an authority to accept whatever you say just because you say it.

But you accept the fables written inside the bible without any evidence abi?

dalaman:


But you accept the fables written inside the bible without any evidence abi?

What evidence is lacking here? Is it the universe itself, your moral conscience, or death that is lacking? Do you know of any human being that has escaped dying?

dalaman:


But you accept the fables written inside the bible without any evidence abi?

What other ancient religious books aside the Bible accurately wrote about the shape of the earth and its position.?

OpenYourEyes1:


What other ancient religious books aside the Bible accurately wrote about the shape of the earth and its position.?

Bible prophets wrote that the earth is round and float in space thousands of years before modern astronomers discovered this truth.

Whereas Hindu believed the earth sits on top of elephants/tortoise.

OpenYourEyes1:


What other ancient religious books aside the Bible accurately wrote about the shape of the earth and its position.?

People knew that the earth was a sphere long before the bible was written. Go and get some education.

Ihedinobi3:

What evidence is lacking here? Is it the universe itself, your moral conscience, or death that is lacking? Do you know of any human being that has escaped dying?

Every body knows these facts, long before the bible was written people knew about all these facts because they are self evident. You believe when the bible tells you about talking snakes, people living for over 900 years, dead people resurrecting back to life, the Israelites being enslaved in Egypt, Sun standing still, the whole world being populated by Noah's family after the mythical flood that destroyed the earth about 4600 year ago, you believe all these fables without any evidence at all . .

dalaman:


People knew that the earth was a sphere long before the bible was written. Go and get some education.

Name the people

OpenYourEyes1:


Bible prophets wrote that the earth is round and float in space thousands of years before modern astronomers discovered this truth.

Whereas Hindu believed the earth sits on top of elephants/tortoise.

The same bible writers believe that the sun moves round the earth. . .

"The sun rises and the sun sets, and hurries back to where it rises". Ecclesiastes 1:5

dalaman:


The same bible writers believe that the sun moves round the earth. . .

"The sun rises and the sun sets, and hurries back to where it rises". Ecclesiastes 1:5

So what is the better words for "sun rise and sun set" then?

Are you aware our modern text books still use sun rise and sun set despite knowing the sun doesn't move around the earth?

OpenYourEyes1:


So what is the better words for "sun rise and sun set" then?

Are you aware our modern text books still use sun rise and sun set despite knowing the sun doesn't move around the earth?

Didn't you see where it says hurries back to where it rises?

OpenYourEyes1:


Name the people

"Anaximander was the first recorded person to suggest the Earth is a sphere. Erastothenes basically worked out the circumference. It was proven 1800 years later by Magellan's voyage".

dalaman:


Every body knows these facts, long before the bible was written people knew about all these facts because they are self evident. You believe when the bible tells you about talking snakes, people living for over 900 years, dead people resurrecting back to life, the Israelites being enslaved in Egypt, Sun standing still, the whole world being populated by Noah's family after the mythical flood that destroyed the earth about 4600 year ago, you believe all these fables without any evidence at all . .

Of course, everybody does. That is the point. The existence of God is never really in question, nor is the veracity of the Bible which is His Own Testimony.

Why would it be difficult to believe that a God Who can create such a wondrous Universe could also give animals the faculty of speech? Or that such a God can sustain physical life in some of His Own Creatures for that long? Or that He can raise the dead? Or that He can stop the natural motion of the Universe at will? Or that He can populate the entire world in 4000 years from a family of 8? Why would any of that be hard for God?

What would be the alternative explanation for such things? When scientists spend ages teaching apes to talk and solve simple problems, and in fact succeed to some extent, why do you find that more believable considering the glaring limitations of the human nature than for a God? In fact, why is it a surprise that an animal had faculty of speech when human beings who, according to certain evolutionary ideas, are mere animals themselves not only possess the faculty of speech but also speak a staggering number of highly complex languages? Isn't the latter more incredulous than a talking snake? How do you explain it without telling fairy tales yourself?

I'm not about to get into another round of absurdities with you, dalaman. As I said, there is no choice when I have to choose between believing the Bible and believing you. You don't even begin to deserve audience, much less the benefit of the doubt.

Ihedinobi3:

Of course, everybody does. That is the point. The existence of God is never really in question, nor is the veracity of the Bible which is His Own Testimony.

God is only an idea, perception, conception and belief. Gods don't exist in reality. The writers of the bible and the concept of God they imagined are your God in reality. . .You can't point to any God but you can always point to the fables they wrote down.

Why would it be difficult to believe that a God Who can create such a wondrous Universe could also give animals the faculty of speech? Or that such a God can sustain physical life in some of His Own Creatures for that long? Or that He can raise the dead? Or that He can stop the natural motion of the Universe at will? Or that He can populate the entire world in 4000 years from a family of 8? Why would any of that be hard for God?

What would be the alternative explanation for such things? When scientists spend ages teaching apes to talk and solve simple problems, and in fact succeed to some extent, why do you find that more believable considering the glaring limitations of the human nature than for a God? In fact, why is it a surprise that an animal had faculty of speech when human beings who, according to certain evolutionary ideas, are mere animals themselves not only possess the faculty of speech but also speak a staggering number of highly complex languages? Isn't the latter more incredulous than a talking snake? How do you explain it without telling fairy tales yourself?

I'm not about to get into another round of absurdities with you, dalaman. As I said, there is no choice when I have to choose between believing the Bible and believing you. You don't even begin to deserve audience, much less the benefit of the doubt.

Because it's fictional, there is reality and there is fiction. All those things written inside the bible are fictional. They aren't real, they are no different from Superman stories because in the book of superman we have superman flying like a bird once he puts on his super man clothes, he stops airplanes, carries or uproot very tall building etc. These things only happen in the world of fiction and not in reality. I've a leads told you that it's is demonstrably false. Jesus in the bible promised you the ability to do greater things than he did, he went about raising people that died for days and bringing them back to life, he walked on water and calmed storms, he turned water into wine, healed amutes etc and promised you the ability to do greater than all what he allegely did if ONLY you believe in him. You seriously believe in him yet you can't do any of the things written about him because the promise is fictional and a lie. That it was written doesn't make it true, it only means it's fictional and a lie. Your inability to do anything that Jesus was said to have done despite him promising you says that it is a lie. You only believe in fiction, you are no different from kids that believe superman is real. . .