I thought this was the 1st human?

(11-08-2016 11:42 AM)miko33 Wrote:  

(11-08-2016 11:39 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  Unless I'm missing something, isn't it entirely possible that if mankind began in/near Africa/the equator (which I understand is a common conclusion) that 'light skin' is a more recent evolutionary adaptation?

Especially since according to the article, similar portions of both Republicans and Democrats are saying the same thing.

I would say that most definitely the original humans were dark skinned. The loss of pigment was an adaptation for the northern climates after humans migrated out of Africa in one of a few waves of migration.

And there are some recent studies suggesting the blonde hair genes may have come from the Neanderthals instead of being a more recent mutation as was previously believed.

(11-08-2016 11:04 AM)bullet Wrote:  Actually the differences become more and more meaningless because we know how mixed all of us are. And Africans have more genetic diversity than all the rest combined. Europeans and Chinese are closer to being one race than considering all Africans one race.

Obviously there are more mixed-race people than ever before, but there is not nearly enough interbreeding to erase the genetic strata among people. A lot of the recent research that has led prominent scientists to back away from the "race doesn't exist" thing is within the last 5-10 years, not even a single generation. The human genome project was only completed 13 years ago and many things have been learned just since then.

(11-08-2016 11:07 AM)miko33 Wrote:  The founding fathers weren't living in a vacuum. They were still a product of their times. While many if not most of our founding fathers were deists, they still lived in a world dominated by Christianity. They did not transcend what they learned from the cultures of Europe, i.e. that semitic people, Africans and Asians were inferior to Europeans. In particular, the Jews were considered a subclass because Christian Europe thought that the Jews were solely responsible for the death of Jesus. Romans were given a free pass. That's why even today Jews are big in the banking world - because Christian Europe in the middle ages wanted no part of banking. They thought banking led to usury, which was prohibited by the bible. So the views the SBC had about slavery circa the early 1800s were views that they inherited from the old world.

Regarding genetic differences between the races, agree. You'd have to be ignorant to not understand that there are genetic differences between the races. That does not mean that one race is less evolved than the other. Darwin's finches are a good example of "races" within the finch species that he observed with a variety of different traits dependent upon their environment.

So what you are saying is, you break ranks with other atheists and secularists (or whatever you call yourself) and say that Christianity had a big influence on the founding of the country? Because otherwise it seems like cherry-picking that anything good they established was the influence of humanism and anything bad influence from Christianity. I can't see the founding fathers saying "it's okay to enslave the black people because the Bible says ______". I don't think you could argue they checked the Bible carefully before drafting the constitution.

Regarding your second point, I will say there is a certain standard established in science in establishing connection between genetics and mental aptitude (they use identical twins and adopted siblings) and that has not been met in establishing genetic basis for different measure aptitudes between different groups.

All I'm saying is that if I'm looking at this from a godless/materialist perspective it's hard to convince me when there are other meaningful differences between races (like in alcohol metabolism, serum testosterone in males, bone density, blood clotting mechanism, skin pigment levels, hair types, mouth bacteria, skeletal features, muscle fiber types, etc.) that no characteristic of the brain was differentiated, especially with certain environments requiring more resourcefulness and smarts.

(11-08-2016 12:59 PM)EigenEagle Wrote:  

(11-08-2016 11:07 AM)miko33 Wrote:  The founding fathers weren't living in a vacuum. They were still a product of their times. While many if not most of our founding fathers were deists, they still lived in a world dominated by Christianity. They did not transcend what they learned from the cultures of Europe, i.e. that semitic people, Africans and Asians were inferior to Europeans. In particular, the Jews were considered a subclass because Christian Europe thought that the Jews were solely responsible for the death of Jesus. Romans were given a free pass. That's why even today Jews are big in the banking world - because Christian Europe in the middle ages wanted no part of banking. They thought banking led to usury, which was prohibited by the bible. So the views the SBC had about slavery circa the early 1800s were views that they inherited from the old world.

Regarding genetic differences between the races, agree. You'd have to be ignorant to not understand that there are genetic differences between the races. That does not mean that one race is less evolved than the other. Darwin's finches are a good example of "races" within the finch species that he observed with a variety of different traits dependent upon their environment.

So what you are saying is, you break ranks with other atheists and secularists (or whatever you call yourself) and say that Christianity had a big influence on the founding of the country? Because otherwise it seems like cherry-picking that anything good they established was the influence of humanism and anything bad influence from Christianity. I can't see the founding fathers saying "it's okay to enslave the black people because the Bible says ______". I don't think you could argue they checked the Bible carefully before drafting the constitution.

Regarding your second point, I will say there is a certain standard established in science in establishing connection between genetics and mental aptitude (they use identical twins and adopted siblings) and that has not been met in establishing genetic basis for different measure aptitudes between different groups.

All I'm saying is that if I'm looking at this from a godless/materialist perspective it's hard to convince me when there are other meaningful differences between races (like in alcohol metabolism, serum testosterone in males, bone density, blood clotting mechanism, skin pigment levels, hair types, mouth bacteria, skeletal features, muscle fiber types, etc.) that no characteristic of the brain was differentiated, especially with certain environments requiring more resourcefulness and smarts.

The age of enlightenment plus the philosophy of the classical greeks played a primary role in the founding of our country strictly from the standpoint of our constitution. Deism was held as a belief by a number of our founding fathers; however, they still grew up in a culture steeped in Christianity. I don't think any secular person would disagree with that. Also, the constitution is a secular document out of necessity if the intent was to promote the right to worship as you wish.

Sure, average intelligence between the races may be different based on recent studies. What is your point regarding that?

There has been a lot of mixing in the last two to three thousand years. The Roman Empire, Mongol Empire, Arab Empires, all spread people all over the globe. There is a Russian saying, you scratch a Russian and find a Tartar. And even more recent. The British Empire for instance. And most African Americans are 25-30% European.

With all the peoples that have invaded Spain I can't even imagine how many types of blood I have. As for the indian part I would say there would only be one. I'll be like the whites who clam to have indian blood as that of Cherokee. Why? I have no idea. Seeing how spread out Apaches were in the Southwest it's probably an outlying tribe of that. A tribe close to Durango as that's where my grandparents started out…I guess.

(11-08-2016 11:40 AM)miko33 Wrote:  

(11-08-2016 11:18 AM)shere khan Wrote:  Anybody here educated enough to catch the "ascent of man" play on words?

Charles Darwin wrote

"The Descent of Man, and Selection in Relation to Sex"
-1871

Nah, no one? Didn't think so.


Also dabbling in armchair genetics about race is going to leave many of you unhappy. I don't advise tugging this thread without sources.

You didn't expect Darwin to get it all correct in the first pass did you? Humans are very good at exploiting ideas for their own personal advantage.

He changed it to descent. It said ascent in early manuscripts but he thought he would anger theologians.

Reading is good.