Topic: When and how were all of the races created?

[Bizzlebin]

Even though you are evidently a complete sceptic and will not even remotely entertain a belief in evolution (or so the rhetorical nature of your question would suggest) I will offer this answer.

MANY species have become extinct since life first appeared on earth.  This is because, at some point, they cease to be able to compete successfully in their ecological niches, or they are driven to extinction by an ecological (and/or geological) catastrophe. 

Really, the basic premise of evolution simply cannot be in doubt.  The specific ways in which it happened cannot always be exactly determined, but literal creationists just show themselves to have their heads in the sand or worse: they display massive ignorance when they deny any form of evolution outright.  If you want to appear to be an anti-intellectual zealot who is incapable of independent thought, then I would encourage you to walk on this path.  I also hasten to add that, ironically, many philosophers and members of the scientific community show themselves to be incapable of opening to different lines of thought or to the "supra-rational" (as opposed to what they would call the "irrational") when they deny categorically that God has brought about changes in the cosmos that amounts to "creation".  I believe in creation and evolution.  I find it difficult, however, to justify certain things concerning the Fall and how ecology and evolution work.  It's an interesting puzzle, but it may remain a mystery to us....

What caused the human/chimp ancestor to become extint? It probably wasn't a disease, as we know that chimps and humans can share them, combined with the fact that we were theoretically closer in genetics then. I already addressed the environment option at some small level.

As for the unwarranted ad hominem attack, I do not reject all forms of evolution. I simply reject anything that, as you hinted at, twists the theology of the Fall. Here, however, I am simply wondering what the justification is. Having studied theistic evolution at some level, the "big picture" seems solid, but I want to know now if the small details add up.

[Pravoslavbob]

If chimps or humans are different, it seems to be that they changed to adapt to a new environment, right? That means that they would be living in two different environments, and hence little/no competition. Makes no sense.

It makes perfect sense to those who realize that ecosystems are a lot more complex than a car or a toaster.  When you fix something on a car, you can rejoice that you've found the problem:  " ah ha!  It's the fuel injection system!"  Ecosystems are infinitely more complex than this.  We are only beginning to understand how terrestrial ecosystems work, and we know next to nothing yet about how marine ecosystems function.......Seal hunters in Newfoundland are often heard to say that seals are the problem when it comes to no codfish being available in the ocean.  "The seals are eating all the fish."   This is the "oh, I get it!  It's the carburetor" mentality at work.  The real answer is one that we really don't know and can't yet fathom, if you will excuse the pun.

[Bizzlebin]

It makes perfect sense to those who realize that ecosystems are a lot more complex than a car or a toaster.  When you fix something on a car, you can rejoice that you've found the problem:  " ah ha!  It's the fuel injection system!"  Ecosystems are infinitely more complex than this.  We are only beginning to understand how terrestrial ecosystems work, and we know next to nothing yet about how marine ecosystems function.

It doesn't matter how the ecosystems work, though. It's completely irrelevant here. All that matters for the "competition" discussion is whether or not chimps/humans changed from their ancestor because of a change in the ecosystem. If so, they could exist in different areas and competition doesn't play a huge role, if not, then what caused them to "evolve?"

[Pravoslavbob]

As for the unwarranted ad hominem attack, I do not reject all forms of evolution. I simply reject anything that, as you hinted at, twists the theology of the Fall. Here, however, I am simply wondering what the justification is. Having studied theistic evolution at some level, the "big picture" seems solid, but I want to know now if the small details add up.

Sorry, my bad.  It looked like that to me. 

James

[Pravoslavbob]

It doesn't matter how the ecosystems work, though. It's completely irrelevant here. All that matters for the "competition" discussion is whether or not chimps/humans changed from their ancestor because of a change in the ecosystem. If so, they could exist in different areas and competition doesn't play a huge role, if not, then what caused them to "evolve?"

It sure does matter how ecosystems work.  It's absolutely central.  I've tried to explain it, and I'm sorry if you don't get it. 
Also , competition certainly does play a role, just perhaps not competition between chimps, the common ancestor, and humans,, since each species fills a different niche:  eg: one lives in trees, another on the savanah and caves, another elsewhere .  Secondly, you are assuming that evolution is somehow causal in nature.  Genetic mutations are happening randomly (although we know that God is in control)  all the time.  Most of the time, they result in things that just don't work, and the abberant individuals die.  If a mutation does work well for an individual as it goes about its life,, however, that  means that the organism with this "successful" mutation can survive to reproduce.  The mutation is then passed on down the genetic line, and evolutionary changes result over a LONG period of time.

[Pravoslavbob]

What caused the human/chimp ancestor to become extint? It probably wasn't a disease, as we know that chimps and humans can share them, combined with the fact that we were theoretically closer in genetics then. I already addressed the environment option at some small level.

It could be disease or any number of environmental changes.  The ancestor, the chimp, and the human would/may all have occupied different ecological niches, so your disease hypothesis does not follow at all.  (They probably lived nowhere near each other.)

[Bizzlebin]

It sure does matter how ecosystems work.  It's absolutely central.  I've tried to explain it, and I'm sorry if you don't get it. 
Also , competition certainly does play a role, just perhaps not competition between chimps, the common ancestor, and humans,, since each species fills a different niche:  eg: one lives in trees, another on the savanah and caves, another elsewhere .  Secondly, you are assuming that evolution is somehow causal in nature.  Genetic mutations are happening randomly (although we know that God is in control)  all the time.  Most of the time, they result in things that just don't work, and the abberant individuals die.  If a mutation does work well for an individual as it goes about its life,, however, that  means that the organism with this "successful" mutation can survive to reproduce.  The mutation is then passed on down the genetic line, and evolutionary changes result over a LONG period of time.

I understand what you say about the complexity of ecosystems, but I still fail to see how it applies here. It doesn't matter what ecosystem the ancestor lived in, the humans/chimps would have evolved to fit a different role.

I also see how competition could affect things, but again, with the humans/chimps being different, mere movement would solve the problem. Since they are evolving differently, the same area would not support them both equally well, paving the way for one to move to another place.

Finally, the fact that it takes such a long time for a change only further reinforces how the mutated creatures must seperate to survive. If they stay in the same gene pool, there is a good chance that the mutation maybe lost, especially if it is a recessive trait.

[Bizzlebin]

It could be disease or any number of environmental changes.  The ancestor, the chimp, and the human would/may all have occupied different ecological niches, so your disease hypothesis does not follow at all.  (They probably lived nowhere near each other.)

That is what I was hinting at: they would not be in the same areas. This further reincforces the fact that competition of any kind likely had very little influence. Also, as I just posted, they'd have to split up to survive. That leads to an important question: what makes the mutated one(s) leave?

[Pravoslavbob]

That is what I was hinting at: they would not be in the same areas. This further reincforces the fact that competition of any kind likely had very little influence. Also, as I just posted, they'd have to split up to survive. That leads to an important question: what makes the mutated one(s) leave?

You'll have to forgive me if I don't continue to answer all of your posts.  I simply don't have the time, and I'm not trying to be rude.  All I can say is that the mutations happen over such a long period of time (ie millons of years) that the changes are very gradual.  It's not like:"oh gee, I've developed the ability to walk upright.  Guess I'd better move off to some caves."

[Pravoslavbob]

If they stay in the same gene pool, there is a good chance that the mutation maybe lost, especially if it is a recessive trait.

From what we can understand, this is exactly what happens to most mutations.  Evolution takes millions of years.

[jlerms]

Sorry to jump in to the conversation so late, but I had a question about something GiC wrote.

Considering the meanings of the words, Adam essentially meaning 'human' and Eve essentially meaning the 'living one' it seems quite plausable to state that they were possibly even regarded as allegorical stories when they were written, intending to give a general overview of the creation of mankind rather than trying to trace an indivudual life.

 I am by no means a sola scriptura advocate, however I am wondering why in the book of Genesis a specific family tree is listed which has the "individuals" Adam and Eve as the first parents?  What do the holy Fathers say about this?  I assume these names were not made up.  Do they teach at Holy Cross seminary that Adam and Eve is an allegorical story?

I mean no offense,   Juliana

[GiC]

I am by no means a sola scriptura advocate, however I am wondering why in the book of Genesis a specific family tree is listed which has the "individuals" Adam and Eve as the first parents?ÂÂ  What do the holy Fathers say about this?ÂÂ  I assume these names were not made up.ÂÂ  Do they teach at Holy Cross seminary that Adam and Eve is an allegorical story?

Were they made up? Maybe or maybe not, there are any numbers of possibilities, Christianity is far from the only religion to have genealogies of questionable significance of either humans or gods. As far as what they teach at holy cross, there's no uniform dogma on these issues, your answer would probably depend on what professor you're asking.

I mean no offense,  ÃƒÆ’‚ Juliana

None taken,  but if you want to offend me, feel free...I've surely offended a few on here, and more than one person has tried to offend me...LOL

[QuoVadis]

Greetings!

Please suffer a few most-likely uninformed questions from this catechuman.ÂÂ  I have been trying to figure this out just using the Bible and I thought I would ask these questions here before I visit my priest on Sunday.

A) If Adam was the first man then when and how were all of the different races created in the Bible?
 

You know, I'm just reading through the Bible myself, and also have "The Law of God" by Archpriest Seraphim Slobodskoy opened beside me, and by chance was only reading through the account of Noah this morning.  Talking about the different races, it says in "The Law of God" in Chapter 10 and 11: "All that Noah foretold his sons was fullfilled precisely.  The offspring of Shem are called Semites, to whom there belong firstly the Hebrew people, with whom faith in the true God was preserved.  The offspring of Japheth are called Japhethites, to whom there belong the people that populated Europe and Asia, who accepted faith in the true God from the Hebrews.  The offspring of Ham are called Hamites.  The Canaanite tribes which originally inhabited Palestine, and were later subjugated by the offspring of Shem and Japheth, belong to them ... (and after the Tower of Babylon) ... the offspring of Japheth went to the west and settled in Europe.  The offspring of Shem remained in Asia.  The offspring of Ham went to Africa, but part of them also remained in Asia ... scattering across the earth, people began to forget their ancestry and began to make up seperate, independent peoples and nations with their own customs and language. ... the Lord saw that people learned more evil from one another than good, and for this reason He brought about the confusion of the languages and divided people into seperate nations and gave each nation a seperate goal and purpose in life."

Just thought all that reading was interesting.

[yBeayf]

Talking about the different races, it says in "The Law of God" in Chapter 10 and 11:

But... but... where do the Australoid, Pygmy, and Khoisan peoples fit in? They're about as distinct from Bantu-type Africans and from each other as it's possible to get.

i.e. if someone's saying that Maasai, !Kung, and Twa are all the same race, they're smoking crack.

[Meekle]

But... but... where do the Australoid, Pygmy, and Khoisan peoples fit in? They're about as distinct from Bantu-type Africans and from each other as it's possible to get.

i.e. if someone's saying that Maasai, !Kung, and Twa are all the same race, they're smoking crack.

You mean they aren't all human?

If we call ethnic groups "races," do we then call the human race an ethnic group? 

[GiC]

You mean they aren't all human?

If we call ethnic groups "races," do we then call the human race an ethnic group?ÂÂ  

Becau the 'human race' is classified as a species, 'races' are subgroups of our species.

[yBeayf]

You mean they aren't all human?

Of course they're all human. It's just that if the concept of race does in fact have any meaning, then they're their own races just as much as Caucasians (including North Africans, Middle-Easterners, and people from the Indian subcontinent (excluding the Negritos, who are related to the Aborigines)), Bantu-type blacks, and Asians.

[Matthew777]

So where is the common ancestor today?

It is one of the thousands and thousands of extinct species.

[Jetavan]

There was a common ancestor 6 million years ago.

What is our common ancestor, then?

An ape species that no longer exists.

[Ortho_cat]

Modern human races starting to form less than 200 kya after populations began to migrate out of Africa.

Isolation of populations in different environments results in varying adaptions among those populations.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recent_African_origin_of_modern_humans