Alright Doc, you're sounding a little too scientific and eager to debate the topic, so I gotta answer these for you.
Originally posted by DocMoreau
But Eve was cloned from Adam's rib. Which one had the Blue Eyes? Or was it Noah who had the Blue Eyes?
And if we are all from Adam and Eve (Or Noah), are you saying that the latent Blue Eye genetics lay dormant in all peoples, including those who have
You got it all wrong here, man. Check it out, Noah had three sons, one which was eldest, Japheth, is likely the one with the blue eyes, *if* we are
looking for the first Biblical character with blue eyes. Note that there is nothing in the Bible which says he has blue eyes, only that his
descendants are settled in modern day Europe and Eurasia and even Central Asia. The middle son, Shem, is the common ancestor of those with a tanned,
"middle eastern" appearance, whether they be from Lebanon or Pakistan. Ham, the darkest skinned brother, no pun intended, is the single ancestor of
the African peoples south of Sahara, and also possibly the Australian Aborigines, although there is very little proof for this. PERSONALLY, I don't
think Africans all came from Ham, that part of the story is a bit odd.
This ethnic group, the Aborigines, likely could've been so isolated from the rest of the Earth from an early migration to Australia out of Africa
that when the "Deluge" which was most recent took place, these humans were unaffected. Aborigine could be what all humans looked like when humans
were first humans, coming up out of Africa.
Or are you speaking only to White Europeans? Because there are Billions of Africans and Asians that don't get Blue Eyes. Maybe your Ethnocentric
view point prevented you from thinking your statement through.
If Japheth had the mutation in this gene, only Europeans and those with some slight trace of European descent, along with some Central Asians, would
have blue eyes at all. Same goes for green too, and alot of Iranians have green eyes. Iranians share ancestry with modern Russians and Eastern
Europeans as well.
And the last point you made, about 'Genetics proving convergence of Genes', really doesn't prove anything. The statement is circular. Maybe what
you meant to say is: "that the study of Genetics proves that humans today shared many common ancestors, as seen when you compare their mitochondrial
dna. One could metaphorically compare this to the 'Bible Story of Adam & Eve' as well as the original successful mating of Cro-Magnon &
Putting two sentences in the same paragraph, doesn't mean that the facts equate, and the same conclusion reached.
They must be teaching 'The Art of Strawman Debating' at theology schools these days.
Today's humans do share tons of common ancestors. But tracing the clock back in time, you'll reach the first true human man and woman. These are the
two people that everyone on Earth is distantly related to. If there are disasters which wipe out the population with the exception of a small group of
survivors, which has had numerous times in history, scientifically proven, then despite us all being relatives of Adam and Eve, we're also relatives
of the person or few people who lived through the previous calamities. Like.. the man named Noah and his 3 sons with their 3 wives, and eventually,
all the sons of all 3 sons, which supposedly went on to populate alot of the area on the center surface of the world. This even explains being Black,
and looking Asian, or being of South American origin for that matter.
If we all looked the same at the very beginning, and now we all look incredibly different depending on the part of the Planet we are from, something
had to cause this. Isolationism of groups of humans from other groups is one cause we can agree on, because this is explained when Europeans first
arrived to the New World, making the South Americans ill and die. They weren't used to the European germs. But yet, all of these differences between
us are genetic mutations if they refer to color and type of hair and skin and all this. Which means, somewhere in history, the human race isolated
itself from itself in a number of ways, creating splinter groups in wildly varying levels of climate, with absolutely no contact with the other
splinter groups, possibly now thousands and thousands of miles away across a sea or two. Some of these groups of nomads undoubtedly died out and have
no genetic markers still representing them in any human today. We can only imagine what some of those groups looked like. But some groups obviously
did make it, but not very many, because we only have but so many major different sub-types of the human race, for classification purposes only so I
If read with an unbiased eye, all of this points directly to a calamity taking place which massively reduced the human population of Earth, leaving
only a few distinct looking survivors, possibly in different places, maybe all from one group, who knows. That depends on how long ago this actually
happened, which would tell us the amount of migration time which has occurred since. Then interbreeding and the local climates begin to factor into
appearance or sub-type. But the proof if self-evident, in my opinion, that if we didn't all descend from Noah, we all descended from someone similar,
somewhere that survived the global calamity which was most recent. Many like to see the story of Noah as a symbolic representation of this, not so
much a word for word literal truth.
[edit on 2/1/2008 by runetang]