(Futurity.org) In a 2005 study published in the genetics journal G3, Professor Keith Cheng at Penn State University reported that one amino acid difference in the gene SLC24A5 is a key contributor to the skin color difference between Europeans and West Africans:
“The mutation in SLC24A5 changes just one building block in the protein, and contributes about a third of the visually striking differences in skin tone between peoples of African and European ancestry,” says Cheng, professor of pathology.
Lighter skin color may have provided an advantage for the better creation of vitamin D in the lesser sunlight characteristic of northern latitudes.
In this current part of the project, Victor Canfield, assistant professor of pharmacology, together with Cheng, studied DNA sequence differences across the globe. They studied segments of genetic code that have a mutation and are located closely on the same chromosome and are often inherited together. This specific mutation in SLC24A5, called A111T, is found in virtually everyone of European ancestry.
A111T is also found in populations in the Middle East and Indian subcontinent, but not in high numbers in Africans. Researchers found that all individuals from the Middle East, North Africa, East Africa, and South India who carry the A111T mutation share a common “fingerprint”—traces of the ancestral genetic code—in the corresponding chromosomal region, indicating that all existing instances of this mutation originate from the same person.
The pattern of proportions of people with this lighter skin color mutation indicates that the A111T mutation occurred somewhere between the Middle East and the Indian subcontinent.
“This means that Middle Easterners and South Indians, which includes most inhabitants of India, Pakistan, and Bangladesh, share significant ancestry,” Cheng says.
This mutated segment of DNA was itself created from a combination of two other mutated segments commonly found in Eastern Asians—traditionally defined as Chinese, Japanese, and Korean.
“The coincidence of this interesting form of evidence of shared ancestry of East Asians with Europeans, within this tiny chromosomal region, is exciting,” Cheng says. “The combining of segments occurred after the ancestors of East Asians and Europeans split geographically more than 50,000 years ago; the A111T mutation occurred afterward.”
…The differences in skin color affect skin cancer rates. Europeans have 10 to 20 times more instances of melanoma than Africans. However, despite also having lighter skin, East Asians have the same melanoma rates as Africans. The reason for this difference can only be explained after the gene mutations for both groups are found. This understanding could lead to better treatments for melanoma.
Political correctness now dominates science — and geneticists are working furiously to find common genes in all peoples to falsely show their common origin.
But all they will end up doing is proving that the Bible is correct — and that “all men” are not, in fact, related by the same blood, on the same “family tree.”
For years, “scientists” claimed white skin was an “evolutionary” adaptation to living in the north — which allowed people living there to absorb sunlight better to create Vitamin D — which is preposterous — and this study proves that it is wrong.
In fact, so-called “evolutionists” have already been forced to abandon their “out of Africa” single-origin hypothesis and admit that different peoples “evolved” separately — but even that will eventually fall to the facts.
This study on the white skin “mutation” generally coincides with the biblical account of Adam — the first man was called Adam because his name — “Aw dam” — in Hebrew (Strong’s #120) means “to show blood in the face” — to blush — meaning he clearly had pink or “ruddy” skin.
The Garden of Eden is generally agreed to have been situated somewhere in the Middle East — like Mesopotamia — just as this study confirms where this white skin gene originated — also coinciding with the timeline of the Bible.
Other genetics studies have proven that many of the early inhabitants of the Levant had fair skin and blue eyes.
We know that white Adamic people quickly spread out from there — in all directions, taking their “white gene” with them all the way to India — which they conquered — then to the Far East where graves with tall white people with blond and red hair have been found that are thousands of years old.
The racial caste system in India was created when the white conquerors started to inter-mix with the natives — creating different shades of peoples, depending on the amount of white admixture — with the whitest at the top of those societies — we see the same phenomenon in Brazil and most other countries of Latin America.
And wherever white people have traveled, they have left this white skin gene among the native populations — which is why it is found all around the globe — but least in sub-saharan Africa where mixing least occurred.
The white skin color of Adam’s descendants is confirmed in the following Bible verses:
“My beloved is white and ruddy, the chiefest among ten thousand.”
Song of Solomon 5:10
“Her Nazarites were purer than snow, they were whiter than milk, they were more ruddy in body than rubies, their polishing was of sapphire…“
Lamentations 4:7
“And when the Philistine looked about, and saw David, he disdained him: for he was but a youth, and ruddy, and of a fair countenance.”
1 Samuel 17:42
The Jomom people who inhabited Japan before the Yellows had Caucasian features, but they were there about 15,000 years ago. But Adamic Man is only 6,000 years old, according to theology.
Which makes me think that either carbon dating is a hoax or there was some race with Caucasian features pre-Adamic.
They’re both wrong. The 6,000 year Adam theory comes from King James hard-liners. Josephus used a different chronology.
Carbon-14 has a half-life of 5,730 years, so carbon dating estimates beyond 10,000 years are not trustworthy.
I do not doubt that there were races who were similar to Caucasians before Adam. Cro-Magnon would be an example. Since the Jomon don’t have a similar genotype as modern Europeans, they might be a remnant of one of those kind of races (just like there are about 4 black races on the planet that are unrelated to each other).
I was discussing the subject of Adam and Eve being White and the Nations all being of the same people with an evangelical missionary young lady who was White, that had recently been to africa to help the blacks “know Jesus”, as she put it.
She said that she thought that Adam and Eve were “probably a Mediterranean brown colour” and that “not even White people are White; we are ruddy.” In answer to my question of where did the other “races” come from, she said that they all came from Adam and Eve.
This she explained by saying that “a brown man like Adam and a brown woman like Eve can have White children… or yellow, or black, etc.” I pointed out that that sounded very unscientific, and that I had never heard that before, but she held firm and declared that it does happen, and it certainly did happen coz all humans came from Adam and Eve and “they must have done, otherwise where did they come from?”
On other topics she was knowledgeable and well informed, and well read Bible wise; but she insisted that ALL CREATURES, nations, peoples, etc, must be saved, and that a Christians duty was to save everyone the world over. She got annoyed when I asked her to save my cat (my cat is a creature lol)
I gave her chapter and verse, and science and logic, that Adam and Eve and Jesus were/are White, but she insisted that “nobody is White.”
Has anyone come across this line of thinking before? That a brown and a brown can produce any colour person?
It left me concerned for the future of Truth in Jesus and who He came for, if this sort of thing is being taught in “Christian Churches”.
“they must have done, otherwise where did they come from?”
Her logic is circular. She’s already assumed that every biped is from Adam and Eve, so she’s trying to rationalize how it’s possible. Try and explain to her that she needs to prove it, not assume it.
Perhaps ask, “But WHY must everyone have come from Adam and Eve?” Depending on the answer, challenge the fundamental assumptions.
Most of the time people will say it’s intelligence, walking on two legs, being able to reproduce together, etc. The points can be countered by using the giants in Canaan as an example. Og king of Bashan was a giant who was smart enough to rule the Amorites. Canaanites and Philistines interbred with the giants (1 Chronicles 20). Genesis 1 states that everything was created kind after kind, but nothing in there gives a rule that it’s not possible to breed with another kind.
“she insisted that ALL CREATURES, nations, peoples, etc, must be saved, and that a Christians duty was to save everyone the world over”
She’s assuming that every biped is a nation and people. Once again, her logic is circular. Try to explain to her what a “nation” is according to the Bible and how it’s different to a “country” today. This might help: https://christiansfortruth.com/who-are-the-nations-in-scripture-and-who-they-are-not-and-why-it-matters/
Also she needs them to be people, because she just returned from a trip proselytizing to them. You’re treading on her self-righteousness. Something to consider…
Has anyone come across this line of thinking before? That a brown and a brown can produce any colour person?
Uhhh……. yea. Pretty much all of Christendom believes this.
I have been asking my former christian friends this very question. They look at me like I have 3 heads. When I tell them I am serious, they have to “think” for a few minutes and they pretty much all say the same thing as this lady you just spoke to.
Basically they believe in Evolution but use other scientific words like – micro evolution or Environmental Adaptation or something like that.
I don’t think Christendom actually teaches this behind the pulpit, but for some reason ALL of Christendom believes it. I used to believe this! And I have tried to figure out where I learned this. I couldn’t tell you where. It is just something almost every “christian” believes — they just don’t know why they believe it.
SUPERNATURAL DECEPTION.
Yeah, Christians are under enormous pressure from the media to “scientifically” explain everything they believe. They fear being called ignorant or fools if they can’t. At the same time, everything needs to be framed within the lie that all “hominids” are the “all nations and peoples” of the Bible.
That’s where Answers In Genesis comes in and explains everything with “micro-evolution”. Christians find they either have to accept full-blown evolution or Answers In Genesis’s brand of micro-evolution… Either way, don’t dare say that non-whites aren’t from Adam.
It’s kind of like Democrats vs Republicans… You’re allowed to be at each other’s throats, so long as you agree not to be “racist”. Or you’re only allowed to say “black lives matter” or “all lives matter”… Either way, you have to acknowledge that black lives matter. It’s all about forcing people into a false dichotomy where they basically grovel and beg to have the “right” to say that all lives matter, be a Republican supporter or believe in micro-evolution of “races”. Get them to beg for evil. The truth isn’t even an option or allowed anymore.
So they come up with this idea that Adam and Eve contained within them all the “races” and the “races” “micro-evolved” from there… Even though there’s nothing in the Bible or real life to suggest that. All because they refuse to accept the simple idea that only one of the “races” are from Adam.
People are deceived because things can degenerate and because recessive genes exist. That looks superficially like evolution until you look a bit deeper. They haven’t put together that entropy is not evolution and neither are presentation of recessive genes.
IF Adam and Eve were multi-racial, that is, if they had the genetics of all four major races or people groups in them, then, yes, you could selectively breed all different races out of them, as we breed dogs.
The reason we know that Adam and Eve were NOT multi-racial is that White Icelanders for the last 2,000 years have NEVER produced a non-White child of those other racial groups. If every White person had all other racial genetics in their DNA, their children would be far more diverse looking than the consistently white they are. Just out of sheer genetic probabilities, two white Icelanders would eventually have a black, asian, or Indian looking child. We know this because genetics always revert back to the mean — and if Adam and Eve were multi-racial, that would be the “mean” that we all naturally would regress toward. But we don’t.
Thanks everyone for your replys. Thanks for your good advice and sound logic. God bless 🙂
“Has anyone come across this line of thinking before? That a brown and a brown can produce any colour person?
Uhhh……. yea. Pretty much all of Christendom believes this.”
Sorry Westwins, I know you have come across this thinking before! LOL 🙂
It’s just fascinating to me that people can acctually tell me with a strait face: a pure White man Adam and woman Eve can produce all the colours of the rainbow offspring.
And when questioned, they say things like God works in mysterious ways, or the classic catholic approach: do not question the church! etc, which is just a cop out really, I think.
“…And when questioned, they say things like God works in mysterious ways….which is just a cop out…..”
Yes, you are right! They also say God performed a miracle at the Tower of Babel turning a homogenous people — 4 shades of color. Poof! Not that God couldn’t do such a thing, but what would be the point? Ridiculous.
Confusing their “Tongue” makes sense. Changing their DNA? illogical.
And you are right ……….. it simply is a cop out. It get’s them off the hook to actual “thinking, praying and mediating.”
It is a spiritual conundrum —- when they are confronted with the Truth and given literature to study — they will still deny the opportunity.
Why?
It’s like when the blue collar Jew comes across information about the holocaust being a hoax. Why would they want to believe it? Makes no sense, until you realize that they gain tremendously by believing the lie.
You tell a White “christian” that they could very well be an actual Israelite and they shrink and cower and then get mad — yelling and defending their beloved “jew”. Why? Unlike the holofraud, they gain hardly anything being a “goy”.
Tell a White “christian” the Bible was written to only them and is unique to them and they are unique to the Creator of the Universe — and then watch them squirm.
It is Supernatural Deception.
Yep, I was very well aware of her self righteousness of taking the Gospel to the world. I tried to explain to her that a Nation is different to today’s countrys, and she agreed that a Nation in the Bible “is like a tribe”. But according to her “all peoples and tounges” of Revelation is about all creatures under the sun.
Yes, she said that all “races” must be people coz we can breed together. I reminded her of kind after kind in Genesis, and told her that a donkey and horse can breed together… a mule is born… but she just said “we’re all children of God”. Sigh.
She reckons that everyone of all colours must be saved so they don’t burn for all eternity in Hell… I told her that that’s not Biblical, and gave evidence for only White people being thrown in to the flames and that there is nothing about what will happen to any other coloured bi-ped, but she wasn’t having a bar of it.
I told her that Jesus is White and the Bible is only for and about White people and gave her scriptural evidence for this, but, alas, she brought up the Ethiopian reading Isaiah. No amount of historical and scriptural proof would sway her at all. It was like trying to talk to a wall of “Jesus loves everyone”.
So there you go. It was hard going conversing with her. Clever woman, but stuck in her ways. Let he who hath ears to hear, let him hear, I said to her, but she then asked if I needed saving! I hope I planted a seed of Truth in her brain, but I won’t hold my breath.
I’m so confused 🤔😕 why wouldn’t others be saved? are you saying that the only ones who can be saved are whites? that all others will be damned? because that’s not the teachings of Christ that I know. he said EVERYONE is loved by him & be the father in heaven, and that ALL who call upon his name can be saved…. Nowhere does it say that one race is better then the other or “special” we are ALL EQUAL to him and he loves all of us all the same.
Emmi,
“are you saying that the only ones who can be saved are whites? that all others will be damned?”
In a word – yes, but only those whites, who are pure Adamic, with no non Adamic blood, who have embraced Yahushua and YHWH’s covenant. You think as you do because of the anti Biblical concept of Christian Universalism. Look at the geography of the bible? It consists of the middle east, North and East Africa and Europe. That’s it, nowhere else. More so, Mathew 15:24 specifically states that Yahushua comes only for the lost sheep of the House of Israel. The bible specifically states it’s about ‘the generations of Adam’ and NO ONE else. When we realise that Adam and Eve were white, then all their progeny were also white.
“because that’s not the teachings of Christ that I know. he said EVERYONE is loved by him & be the father in heaven, and that ALL who call upon his name can be saved….”
Because you do not know the teachings of Yahushua. Yahushua’s love is for Israel and the Adamic bloodline. Look at your bible and its geography? It states nothing of the Negro, the Asian, the Amerindian, the Indian subcontinent people, the Polynesian or the Australasian aborigine. Why? Because they have nothing to do with the bible and YHWH’s creation.
“Nowhere does it say that one race is better then the other or “special” we are ALL EQUAL to him and he loves all of us all the same.”
Nowhere in the bible does it mention race, Emmi and when you realise that ‘all EQUAL’ refers to Adamics, do you understand the message of Yahushua and the teachings within the bible.
The lie of Christian Universalism is that we are all YHWH’s creation and all equal, is the very lie that was created to destroy YHWH’s creation – Adamics. The only reason blacks, Asians, Indians, Amerindians, Polynesians and Aborigines know anything about the bible is because of the whites/Adamic peoples. And before you say “What about Ethiopia? What about the Ethiopian bible?” Ethiopia was founded by Ham. It is a Hamitic civilization, known as Cush. This is why the Ethiopians are such a different people aesthetically, to sub Saharan blacks as they are a mix of Adamite, black, Arab and Indian peoples. They are ‘mamzers’.
—– Emmi —-
“…… I’m so confused ……”
Are you a first timer here?
How did you find CFT, out of curiosity.
If you are interested, I would encourage you to start reading articles here about “Universalism”.
https://christiansfortruth.com/?s=universalism
Start with this Article — https://christiansfortruth.com/how-the-phrase-all-men-has-been-misused-to-promote-false-universalism-in-the-bible/
Hope you come back.
I haven’t picked up sufficiently from the above replies to understand where black people actually came from. Would someone help me out please?
Leviticus 18:23 tells us, “Neither shalt thou lie with any beast to defile thyself therewith: neither shall any woman stand before a beast to lie down thereto: it is confusion.”
Clearly, the “beast” here is a reference to someone with whom a woman is capable of having sexual relations with. And we know that the creation of “beasts” is accounted for in Genesis.
From the Genesis 1 bene elohim who created men who along with Jehovah, and made their own version of men to image them. Reading things in the original language matters. Grammar matters. Note, Jehovah never commanded all the bene elohim to make all the imagers image Him, only to be people. That’s a very important but overlooked point.
Adamites are the people created by Jehovah, and are the only group to image Him. This explains everything we see in a nut shell perfectly.
Westwins, I can’t reply down below… you wrote:
“I wonder how and when this one started?”
I don’t really know. I presume it must’ve come from the ideas that the blacks, supposeidly coming from Ham, coz of the curse, which people take as a curse on Ham himself, changed to Ham actually being black in the first place… thus Japheth must be yellow, and Shem white coz the jews of today are semites from Shem… that is what I think must’ve occured. I’ve heard a few people say that theory over the years, but I’ve never come across it in print.
It was a common idea in the 1800s that Ham was the father of blacks, and so slavery of blacks was justified coz of “Ham’s curse.” Other than that I’m none the wiser.
Interesting. I have a friend who lives in the South and is a student of “Southern History”. He verifies that which you say —- “justification for slavery”.
Kind of Ironic — those judeos who would believe in such a theory — blacks are the result of a “curse” on Ham…..
What does that say about blacks whom they love??? They are a product of a curse!
I guess it is no wonder why they bend over back-wards to adopt black children and promote all of this “blm” jargon nonsense.
I can say for myself, when I was a judeo-christian, I never questioned anything because simply — I believed in “another jesus” – 2 Corinthians 11:3-4.
I did not have the desire then to “pick up my own cross” and die to myself.
Praise the Lord He answered my prayer, opened my eyes, had mercy on me and Saved me!!!
Thanks for the chat CIK. 🙂
CFT, I’m not sure where to put this note to you but I listened to the linked MP3 of the podcast from Dr. Matthew Raphael Johnson and while the podcast (from April 2009) was very informative about the Mongol invasion and conquest of Russia, it did not mention any of the points about the race of the Mongols that it was listed as supporting in this article. Could it be that a different podcast than the one intended was embedded?
This embedded MP3 podcast left me confused as it sure seemed to imply that the mainstream myth of the race of the Mongols was true, which was at odds with the article.
Some examples:
Mongols were not Slavic (54:20)
The Mongolian invasion “certainly has a lot to do with the ethnic and racial background of the Russian people as a whole” (03:23).
At 05:49, he asserts that the Mongols were a “vaguely-asiatic” people, and he later also makes mention that the Mongolian invasion force was comprised of 500,000 of the best fighters collected from China, Indochina, and India
While Dr. Johnson also states that there was very little mixing between the Russian and the Mongol, despite claiming that Russians viewed Mongol women as being very attractive, he also mentions that “between 1229 and 1240 most of Southern Russia had been destroyed and depopulated” (11:58). Who repopulated it, and with what stock?
I’ll admit that I’m a bit lost by this as, taken at face value, it would seem to confirm much of the mainstream myth about the Mongols.
On the podcast itself, I wonder also if the one posted was not the one intended as the 2018 article lists the podcast as being “recent”, yet the podcast itself is from 2009. As an interesting coincidence, it contains a news blurb about Swine Flu and the only difference in the news script between it and Covid-19 is the name of the “disease”.
ReformingBoomer, we recall that after we published this article based on Raphael Johnson’s podcast, he removed the original podcast. From what you’ve said about the podcast now posted, it sounds like a different one from what he originally posted. Raphael Johnson is an anti-racist, and so we suspect that he perhaps saw our article and didn’t like how we picked up on the racial implications of what he said, so he changed it. We regret not downloading and embedding his original podcast.
As you can see, the link in the original article is broken, so Johnson removed the original podcast from archive.org. But all the points we listed in that article are basically direct quotes from Johnson. Sad that he removed it and changed it — shows he’s kind of a coward, worried about his image.
Non-Admic people like Africans and Asians shouldn’t be “offended” that God did not include them in His covenant. After all, by God’s choice, even white people have been excluded or included — He chose Abel over Cain, and He chose Jacob over Esau. He chose the pure over the corrupt. It’s up to Him.
Amen
Yahwah didn’t choose Abel over Cain. Cain is from Satan. No choosing as he was not of Adam.
Yahwah knew Esau was going to intermarry with non-Adamites before he was even born. Esau took himself and his offspring out of the picture.
The first Law repeated as the 7th is no race mixing. No eating from the tree of good and evil.
Eve was seduced and ate from that tree. Satan/the Serpent and 1/3 of the angels were already thrown out of Heaven long before Eden.
Yahwah God did not create the other races….that was satan and his angels mixing with creatures. Blacks look a lot like apes. The evolutionists claim mankind evolved from the apes and these races were already in the earth.
The Adamites were not involved in this being directly created by Yahwah.
—– Ann B —–
Your comment is a Statement — almost a “Lecture”.
We have had many discussions over this Topic here at CFT for years now. So, your opinion is certainly not unique.
Here is a 3 part Article discussing this controversial topic —
https://christiansfortruth.com/what-really-happened-between-eve-and-the-serpent-in-the-garden-of-eden/
Please make your Argument by Refuting the argument “against” your position.
Most everyone here is very familiar with your opinion/belief — i.e., Serpent Seedline Doctrine.
Also ….. please read the Comments as there are many good comments for both positions.
In regards to Angels having sex with Adamkind — https://christiansfortruth.com/genesis-6-what-really-happened-between-the-sons-of-god-and-the-daughters-of-man/
Again — 97 comments on that particular article.
Please make your argument by also arguing the case “against” your opinion.
—- Ann B —-
Not too long ago, someone going by “Elle” pretty much made your same argument.
A comment thread can be found here — https://christiansfortruth.com/what-really-happened-between-eve-and-the-serpent-in-the-garden-of-eden-part-2/#comment-269939
Also — a Great Book refuting your position — https://christiansfortruth.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/What-About-The-Seedline-Doctrine.pdf
The ONE issue Serpent Seedliners can’t seem to explain is — Whatever Eve did — Adam did too. So, how do you interpret that one?
The common explanation is that this means that Adam then had sex with Eve — knowing full well that Eve just had sex with some beast.
But that is not what the passage says. Adam partook and ate of the fruit ALSO.
Ann is right. And I am neither Ann or Elle.
If you REALLY want to start listing other articles, I could bury you with a list of articles supporting the Seedline doctrine.
With whom Eve sinned is not known, but it is obviously a sexual sin, unless you subscribe to the Magic Fruit theory.
But you are likely mistaken about Adam’s sin. If a wife sins and her husband accepts her, he takes her sin upon him.
I’ve read Weisman’s book before. It is not persuasive.
There is no serious question but Cain is NOT the son of Adam. He is not listed anywhere in Adam’s lineage.
The weight of evidence in support of the Dual Seedline is overwhelming and, by the way, helps a lot of what happens in the Bible make a LOT more sense.
—– Keith —-
“…. magical fruit theory…..” — Straw Man and kind of rude. None of us here believe it was literal fruit.
“… I could bury you with a list of articles supporting the Seedline doctrine….”
I can sense you have an attitude of “tension” versus an attitude of “peace” and or a willingness to engage in friendliness.
“…I’ve read Weisman’s book before. It is not persuasive….”
Well……just saying that it is not persuasive is not very persuasive.
It is your “opinion” after all. Unless you wanted to actually break down his arguments and then make a Scriptural case for why his argument is not persuasive; it is just your opinion.
CFT has “What about the Seedline Doctrine” on PDF — https://christiansfortruth.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/What-About-The-Seedline-Doctrine.pdf
I do not believe there are any articles breaking down Weisman’s arguments like we have done with his book — “..Is Universalism from God?”
CFT does not have articles that could “bury” you as you seem to have.
The only article is — https://christiansfortruth.com/what-really-happened-between-eve-and-the-serpent-in-the-garden-of-eden/
It is in 2 parts.
If you’d like to Comment on that particular article and present your argument “against” the points made — I would be curious what you would say.
I don’t have a ton of “skin in the game” on this doctrine. So, if you want to “fight” about it — I’m not interested.
I wasn’t there — so I can’t know for sure. I do find it an interesting discussion. Not one that I would divide over. Although HOW one handles this discussion I think reveals quite a lot about one’s Spirit.
It is up to you. If you believe this is a Salvation Issue — by all means — make your case, please. I’ve heard probably all the arguments FOR serpent seedline. I think the best strategy for someone like you would be to not tell us how Serpent seedline is right — but try and teach us why the arguments “against” are wrong. And in a “loving” way would be nice. How does getting this wrong impact one’s ability to connect with God — and or — how does getting this wrong change one’s Scriptural World View.
Being Patronized is not fun ….. just or the record. I’m sure you don’t appreciate it either.
Thanks.
Ps….. lots of comments in that seedline article. I suspect some of your arguments might already be listed. You could comment — “…. I agree with so and so with his argument, but let me also say …..”
as an example. I will be curious what you might have to say.
As long as we stand tall and brave in Christ it doesn’t matter what the devil says!
Lamarckism: characteristics acquired by use or disuse in response to the environment may be passed on to future generations through inheritance.
Lamarckism is a myth. Environment effects do not alter gametes, thus cannot be inherited.
Of course. What’s your point?
I think the brethren had to let this comment slip in to get a chuckle at how dumbfounded we readers are going to be, reflected in the resultant comments…and that is all I can think to say…lmwcao
For years, “scientists” claimed white skin was an “evolutionary” adaptation to living in the north — which allowed people living there to absorb sunlight better to create Vitamin D — which is preposterous — and this study proves that it is wrong.
Right! Yet it is assumed by most white people that we came from northern Europe after having “adapted” there. I’m not surprised, as the myths of “science” are reinforced continually and subconsciously through the media. Reading with Bible quickly proves otherwise…
Yip, if Whites were originally black, and we moseyed out of africa, and then lost our black pigmentation over time coz it wasn’t necessary or useful any more… why do we still have toenails, and why do men still have nipples? Surely those would be the first to disappear? What good are they?! Yet even blacks still have toenails and the blokes have nipples… evolution states that if it isn’t being used, it gets the old heave ho… and yet we still have them. What purpose do they serve whilst black pigmentation would go?
In a similar vein, did Adam and Eve have tummy-buttons? I suspect so, coz otherwise the gospels would surely mention that Jesus didn’t… but He did… coz He was born of Mary… but Adam was made in God’s image… therefore Adam must’ve had a tummy-button…? Whatcha reckon? I have many questions haha.
CIK,
It is ironic in that what you say/explain — the Out of Africa theory — not even your Sunday only judeo-christian would believe. However ….. they have NO problem believing God either miraculously turned a white man black at the Tower of Babel — or, Noah’s descendants, as they traveled to hotter climates, THEN turned black, yellow and red.
What I am trying to say — you reference the Out of Africa theory. No “christian” in their right mind believes this. But, they do believe that “man” turned 4 different colors as a result of “Climate”. Some believe God, with a snap of His finger turned a homogenous people into 4 different colors at the Tower of Babel. Both theories are ridiculous.
Just go listen to the likes of Ken Ham or Hank Hanegraff — listen to these bozoz explain “race” (we all here reject this idea).
So ……… they will agree with you. “Heck no, we don’t believe in Evolution” they will say. But yet they believe blacks, yellows and reds are in Adam and Eve’s family tree.
Mind Boggling. And I’m embarrassed and ashamed I went along with it.
Hank Hanegraff with in one breath completely destroy the Theory of Evolution — but then in his next breath, defend “micro-evolution” in his 4 races perversion.
Not — “Out of Africa” but “Out of Eve” came 4 races of mankind.
Demonic.
Yes, I know exactly what you mean! The other super-illogical “explanation” for “races” that annoys me greatly is the classic Shem was White, Japheth was Yellow, and Ham was Black, idea. Preposterous!
I must say though, I’ve a soft spot (in a humourous light) for Ken Ham’s Noah’s Ark muesum: great idea, looks good, nicely presented… until you see the DINOSAURS?! The dinosaurs in there do more to hurt the Bible than a lot of other things and ideas on offer in the world. No thinking person can take dinos on the Ark seriously.
CIK,
The “Shem, Japeth and Ham” theory is a new one for me. 20+ years as a judeo-christian, that one never came up.
I wonder how and when this one started?
Cheers!
The sand upon which the house of scientific genetics is built is called the theory of ‘evilution’, thus this PURE chromosome must be a “mutation”, and all genetic theories must be solely based upon that THEORY, as “mutation” is the generic term upon which ‘evilution’ is built.
Time and time again, the Biblical premise that Adam is white, and thus all the nations that came from Adam are white (based upon God’s immutable law of nature “kind after kind”), is actually PROVEN by “science” despite their best efforts to ‘prove’ that God doesn’t exist…
Amen.
[oh, and have I mentioned yet that its nice to see you back commenting, Mr Ottify?]
Thank you, kind sir 🙂 Praise Christ!
Yes, nowadays it’s politically correct to refer to white skin as a “mutation”, to make being white seem “abnormal” or even freakish. And compared to 95% of the rest of the world it is “abnormal”, but that doesn’t mean it’s a mutation. It’s certainly a recessive gene, and rare, but mutations are mistakes in the reproduction process of genes, and God didn’t make a mistake when He made Adam’s genes. He wanted His new creation to stand out from all others — and what better way than to make his skin white?
The earlier CFT article about trying to bring Christianity to non-Whites had me wondering just when the switch was made from the Bible being for all Whites to all humanoids.
Specifically, that Marco Polo and Christopher Columbus sought China in order to raise a Christian army in the East to fight the brown scourge that lay in between, as my thought was “Why’d Polo and Columbus think they could bring Christianity to the yellows?”
Now I see that y’all have conveniently linked to a case that the Mongols were White. Would that mean that Marco Polo’s pal Kublai Khan was White, and that Polo and Columbus never intended to proselytize the yellows?
If China was White, or at least run by Whites, in the 1200s and presumably into the 1400s, when did it become yellow? Didn’t Ronald Reagan pose with a bunch of allegedly ancient statues depicting yellow Chinese?
ReformingBoomer, the article we linked to showed evidence that perhaps Genghis Khan and his armies may have been white Scythians — not the Chinese. Sorry for the confusion. The Chinese were not white, nor were they ever white. There is evidence that white people lived among the Chinese thousands of years ago, but that’s it.
One might note also that the ‘original’ buddah has been described in some ancient lit as having skin ‘white like china’ and ‘eyes of blue fire’ or similar. There is even a book out called ‘buddah the Israelite’ or similar; I do not have, nor have I read this tome, so I cannot necessarily recommend it, just pointing out its existence. The person that wrote it also penned ‘Celt, Druid, Culdee’ , which is very worthwhile.
Buddah’s real name is Siddartha Gautama. When I ran a quick search, the first pic that came up was a painting that, to me, looked like a white man. Buddhism is steeped in Hebrewism, that seems pretty obvious. I too believe Siddartha to have at least been white, and quite possibly an Israelite. I also believe that white man brought the Chinese their written language – which is exactly why it hasn’t changed one iota in about 5000 years – the approximate length of time that whites no longer held sway in China…