Where Did The Different Races And Ethnicities Come From?

[VideoGameJunkie]

I still believe in the Bible stories, but I am curious if we are descendants of Noah and the flood, where did Asians comes from, blacks, Hispanics, etc. How did we develop so many different races and nationalities? This has been used as a reason why some people don't believe in the Bible. I even had a friend ask me this same question and I didn't have the answer.

 

The same goes for Neanderthals who once lived on the earth. Did they live before Adam and Eve?

Edited August 23, 2014 by VideoGameJunkie

[thesometimesaint]

I still believe in the Bible stories, but I am curious if we are descendants of Noah and the flood, where did Asians comes from, blacks, Hispanics, etc. How did we develop so many different races and nationalities? This has been used as a reason why some people don't believe in the Bible. I even had a friend ask me this same question and I didn't have the answer.

 

The same goes for Neanderthals who once lived on the earth. Did they live before Adam and Eve?

 

God for some reason likes lots of different colors in plants, animals, and people.

[BookofMormonLuvr]

Cross-Pollination 

[MormonFreeThinker]

I still believe in the Bible stories, but I am curious if we are descendants of Noah and the flood, where did Asians comes from, blacks, Hispanics, etc. How did we develop so many different races and nationalities? 

 

Here is the answer 

 

https://genographic.nationalgeographic.com/human-journey/

Edited August 23, 2014 by MormonFreeThinker

[JeremyOrbe-Smith]

 

(Seriously, tho, please take a look at MormonFreeThinker's link, and follow that up with some Wiki articles on evolution, the human genome, prehistoric migrations, the false category of 'race', etc. It's more than a little disturbing that [among others] Hispanics like me are not seen as part of the 'we' in the OP.)

[rpn]

There was a time in the not too distant past when we didn't distinguish all of the separations we now do.  There is only one species: everyone is homo sapiens.   Since 1885-90, there were Mongloid, Negroid and Caucasiod distinctions.  But there is little biology to create either those or other racial distinctions.   So now scientists tend to think that while there are different genomes in different areas and populations, the concept of race is a social construct, not a scientific one.  A concept that originally grew out of the different appearances of people. 

 

Ethnicity is completely a social construction, including the location from which one comes.   For instance, if a person's father was born in Uganda of chinese parents, and their mother was born of someone who was born in Mexican of Norwegian heritage, it is likely that one could not determine ethnicity at all by looking, or by location of birth. 

[MormonFreeThinker]

(Seriously, tho, please take a look at MormonFreeThinker's link, and follow that up with some Wiki articles on evolution, the human genome, prehistoric migrations, the false category of 'race', etc. It's more than a little disturbing that [among others] Hispanics like me are not seen as part of the 'we' in the OP.)

 

Wiki articles vs National geographic and DNA evidence.

 

The website is not about Evolution, it is about the Human Journey

https://genographic.nationalgeographic.com/human-journey/

[katherine the great]

All of our genes can be traced back to Africa.  As very ancient humans migrated out of Africa, they gradually adapted to the environments of their new homes.  Those who could not adapt died out while those who had the genetics to survive passed on the genes for those adaptive traits to their children.  These adaptations manifest themselves in somewhat superficial (as rpn stated) traits such as lighter skin (which helps prevent vitamin D deficiency in sunlight deprived climates), shorter stature (which is advantageous is colder climates), extremely dark skin (advantageous in tropical climates) and a myriad of other traits that might also give them advantage in sexual selection.  After many thousands of years of separation, if the descendants of these groups came back together, they would look markedly different to each other--both physically and culturally because cultural norms were also developing of this time.  This didn't always (or usually) prevent marriages between different tribes of people so then the genes would be mixed again.  Over time we have come to occupy most of the habitable land on every continent except for Antarctica.  A side note to this is that there are often, for instance a population of tall people in a cold climate or a population of dark skinned people in a cold climate.  Once a population has adapted to its environment, through human culture they are often able to survive through cultural means and not a physical adaptation.  Inuits would be normally be expected to have very light skin in their environment, but when their ancestors moved into the frigid environment, they had a plentiful marine food source that made up for the vitamin D deficiency that would have otherwise led to their demise so there was no necessity for them to move on or die out.  So they were able to preserve their skin tone, however they are of a very short and stocky body type that is ideal for that environment.  That is a very bare bones explanation for the great variety in human appearance.

[Stone holm]

Oh, I thought this thread was going to be something interesting like did we all have the same Heavenly Mother.

[MormonFreeThinker]

Oh, I thought this thread was going to be something interesting like did we all have the same Heavenly Mother.

 

All we know is that we all have a Heavenly Mother, speculation is not interesting in my opinion. 

The scriptures and science don't tell us.

[Calm]

I still believe in the Bible stories, but I am curious if we are descendants of Noah and the flood, where did Asians comes from, blacks, Hispanics, etc. How did we develop so many different races and nationalities? This has been used as a reason why some people don't believe in the Bible. I even had a friend ask me this same question and I didn't have the answer.

The same goes for Neanderthals who once lived on the earth. Did they live before Adam and Eve?

If one goes by the idea of a young earth and a global flood (which I personally don't) the most reasonable explanation is the genes for light and dark skin were present in Adam and Eve and thus their children and children's children had varied skin tones and as they spread out, those who lived in hotter, brighter climes were more successful with darker skin and those who went higher north or deeper south in less bright climates would tend to have lighter skin due to less melanin development needed.

Same thing happened with Noah, probably mid brown skin tone for most members, but there might have been a white or dark black or both in the group, the important thing would be the genes for light and dark were both present so that through combination all skin tones were possible and as they moved around and became isolated from each other etc. certain skin tones became dominant for certain areas. Same principle for facial features. All gene variations were supposedly present in Adam and Eve together and thus all groups descend from them even though superficial appearance is different.

I don't believe this is what happened in that I see Adam and Eve as our first covenantal parents, but not our earliest human ancestors and I believe in a local flood...at least till better evidence comes along. However if it is a young earth and first Adam and Eve and the Noah's family were the first families so to speak, I suspect this is the most reasonable speculation at this point.

It also means that God favours no skin colour and that most of the original families would be midrange in tone.

If one is a young earther, Neanderthals are most likely slightly deformed humans given they can interbreed, the deformities resulting I think the speculation is from them not adapting well to new environments thus developing vitamin and other deficiencies which interfere with growth.

Race is a social concept, not a scientific one. Nationalities would have developed in theory by families gathering together for protection and production of food and with enough intermarrying with each other and isolation from outsiders, the dominant genes would create a similar superficial appearance.

The Bible itself makes it clear the important distinction is between the believers or covenant people and those who did not have El/Yahweh (Eloheim and Jehovah to us....mostly) as their God(s).

Edited August 24, 2014 by calmoriah

[Calm]

]

(Seriously, tho, please take a look at MormonFreeThinker's link, and follow that up with some Wiki articles on evolution, the human genome, prehistoric migrations, the false category of 'race', etc. It's more than a little disturbing that [among others] Hispanics like me are not seen as part of the 'we' in the OP.)

I think by "we" he means the whole human race so he is thinking Noah's family is all one color and yet humanity now is varied in colour. Now he may be thinking Noah was white so how did his descendants end up with so many skin tones, but it really doesn't read to me as him saying (and I've never heard the Bible to be interpreted that way) nonwhites are not descendants of Noah and came from somewhere else.

If I am right, he is forgetting that skin colour is created not by just one gene of a specfic color, but a combination of genes that may be light or dark. I can't remember specifics, but assuming simplest effects with two adults, each having one light, one dark (one low melanin producing, one heavy melanin or skin pigment producing) one has 4 combinations, With one possibility being very dark, another very light and the other 2 midrange. So if Noah's family was either highly varied or generally midrange, the idea is that all variations of skin tone in descendants is just a matter of what genes were combined the most for a group.

Edited August 24, 2014 by calmoriah

[Tsuzuki]

The same goes for Neanderthals who once lived on the earth. Did they live before Adam and Eve?

If you put Adam and Eve at six thousand years ago, then absolutely, and so did modern humans. If the Adam and Eve story is going to be plausible, it has to have been around 200 or 300 thousand years ago, which is when our most recent common ancestors lived.

[JLHPROF]

I still believe in the Bible stories, but I am curious if we are descendants of Noah and the flood, where did Asians comes from, blacks, Hispanics, etc. How did we develop so many different races and nationalities? This has been used as a reason why some people don't believe in the Bible. I even had a friend ask me this same question and I didn't have the answer.

 

The same goes for Neanderthals who once lived on the earth. Did they live before Adam and Eve?

 

I love that nobody is willing to give the old gospel answers, but instead turns to modern day science.  The old gospel answers may not be scientifically valid but they should at least be mentioned on this thread.

 

 

"Priesthood Ban" issues aside, Genesis 10 shows the lines of descent which continued along the three branches developing into the

1. Semitic/Abrahamic descendants - Caucasian) through Shem.

2. Gentile/Mongoloid descendants - through Japheth and his wife.

3. Negroid - through Ham and his wife.

 

and the old tradition is that the ethnicities are:

1. Descendants of these three that have changed/intermarried throughout the centuries

2. or European ethnicities are mostly descended from the different 10 lost tribes as they travelled Northward and left (Dan=Denmark for instance)

3. or finally, direct intervention by God - 2nd Nephi 5:21

 

Whether we accept any of these gospel traditions or lean towards modern science or have some blending of the two is up to us.  But someone had to at least mention the old church beliefs in answer to your question.

[bcuzbcuz]

I love that nobody is willing to give the old gospel answers, but instead turns to modern day science.  The old gospel answers may not be scientifically valid but they should at least be mentioned on this thread.

 

 

"Priesthood Ban" issues aside, Genesis 10 shows the lines of descent which continued along the three branches developing into the

1. Semitic/Abrahamic descendants - Caucasian) through Shem.

2. Gentile/Mongoloid descendants - through Japheth and his wife.

3. Negroid - through Ham and his wife.

 

and the old tradition is that the ethnicities are:

1. Descendants of these three that have changed/intermarried throughout the centuries

2. or European ethnicities are mostly descended from the different 10 lost tribes as they travelled Northward and left (Dan=Denmark for instance)

3. or finally, direct intervention by God - 2nd Nephi 5:21

 

Whether we accept any of these gospel traditions or lean towards modern science or have some blending of the two is up to us.  But someone had to at least mention the old church beliefs in answer to your question.

Probably the "old gospel answers" you apparently are looking for, are simply, figments of an overactive imagination that have nothing to do with "old gospel". I particularily like the Shem and Japheth construct. Did you just make that up?

(the Ham/Egyptus belongs on another OP ).

[VideoGameJunkie]

Thanks cal and JLHPROF. That's information I didn't realize or consider. It helps me get a better understanding of the varying races.

[katherine the great]

Probably the "old gospel answers" you apparently are looking for, are simply, figments of an overactive imagination that have nothing to do with "old gospel". I particularily like the Shem and Japheth construct. Did you just make that up?

(the Ham/Egyptus belongs on another OP ).

No he didn't make it up. It stemmed from the Racial Theories in anthropology that were popular in the 18th century. Those passed to American Christians and unfortunately into the minds of generations of Americans since then.

[MormonFreeThinker]

If you put Adam and Eve at six thousand years ago, then absolutely, and so did modern humans. If the Adam and Eve story is going to be plausible, it has to have been around 200 or 300 thousand years ago, which is when our most recent common ancestors lived.

 

The most recent common ancestors that scientists know at the moment. I don't think it is necessary to go that far, if Adam and Eve are literally our first parents, 70,000 years ago should be plausible, especially if their children practiced polygamy. 

 

A study suggests that about 70,000 years ago  there may have been only 2,000 individuals alive, the evidence is published in the American Journal of Human Genetics. 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/2975862.stm

Edited August 24, 2014 by MormonFreeThinker

[katherine the great]

The most recent common ancestors that scientists know at the moment. I don't think it is necessary to go that far, if Adam and Eve are literally our first parents, 70,000 years ago should be plausible, especially if their children practiced polygamy. 

 

A study suggests that about 70,000 years ago  there may have been only 2,000 individuals alive, the evidence is published in the American Journal of Human Genetics. 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/2975862.stm

70,000 might as well be 200,000 years ago.  If we want to be literal about Genesis, Adam and Eve were farmers which puts them firmly within the past 12,000 years. But within six generations of Adam and Eve's exile, their descendants were metal workers so it more likely places them within the past 6.000 years.  Maybe 7 if we factor in long lifespans and call 200 years a generation.

[mbh26]

Recent estimates reveal that Neanderthal DNA makes up 1 percent to 4 percent of modern Eurasian genomes, perhaps endowing some people with the robust immune systems they enjoy today.

 

http://www.livescience.com/23730-neanderthals-modern-humans-interbreeding.html

Edited August 24, 2014 by mbh26

[MormonFreeThinker]

. But within six generations of Adam and Eve's exile, their descendants were metal workers 

 

"The range of meaning for the Hebrew words translated as “father” (’āb) and “son” (bēn) can include “ancestor” and “descendant,” respectively. Similarly, the Hebrew word translated as “begot” or “become the father of” can mean to father an individual, or to bring forth a lineage"

http://www.reasons.org/articles/who-was-adam-an-old-earth-creation-model-for-the-origin-of-humanity

 

Scientists can detect common ancestry because of the genetic mutations, so scientists may never find our true most recent common ancestors. 

 

"Adam and Eve were farmers which puts them firmly within the past 12,000 years"

We may find evidence for farming in a more ancient time period, Modern humans made special tools for fishing 90,000 years ago. 

http://humanorigins.si.edu/human-characteristics/change

 

But Maybe you are right, maybe about 12,000 years ago. 

Edited August 24, 2014 by MormonFreeThinker

[bcuzbcuz]

No he didn't make it up. It stemmed from the Racial Theories in anthropology that were popular in the 18th century. Those passed to American Christians and unfortunately into the minds of generations of Americans since then.

OK, so he didn't make it up. But somebody did. That is true fiction, without a single word from the scriptures. And definitely nothing that has any evidence in genetics to back it up.

[Tiki]

Joseph Smith taught that the Garden of Eden was in Missouri. Of course, it appears very few of the LDS members here believe that.

So maybe you can come up with a comprise such as the Sons of Adam married the daughters of Sasquatch which gave rise to the race of Neanderthals who then sailed to France: http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Neanderthal_sites

Edited August 24, 2014 by Tiki

[MormonFreeThinker]

Joseph Smith taught that the Garden of Eden was in Missouri. 

 

No

[Tiki]

No

Yes

"Do Mormons believe that the Garden of Eden is in Missouri?

We do not know exactly where the original site of the Garden of Eden is. While not an important or foundational doctrine, Joseph Smith established a settlement in Daviess County, Missouri, and taught that the Garden of Eden was somewhere in that area. Like knowing the precise number of animals on Noah’s ark, knowing the precise location of the Garden of Eden is far less important to one’s salvation than believing in the Atonement of Jesus Christ."

http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/mormonism-101#C18