The race issue

I brought your post to the attention of the admin team purely, wholly, solely because of your spammy link. That was the only reason. Spam is frowned upon here.As for the rest of your message, I can't really comment without going as far off-topic as you are. The lifespan of turtles has nothing to do with the origin of human ethnicity. The Old Testament has nothing to do with ethnicity either, unless one insists upon pursuing ancient Bible-related myths; the same is true of 950 year old men.Also, perhaps Adminnemooseus didn't make it entirely clear, but messages from admins on this site should not be taken as invitations to debate. Just a bit of friendly advice.

---

Mutate and Survive

Just to add to what Granny said ...This is a science forum.To post here, you need to provide evidence.And by evidence, I mean:(1) Cites from the scientific literature.
(2) Ideas from scientific discourse.Et cetera.Any and all gods (and their literature) are not evidence and shouldn't be used to support your arguments in this forum.

quote:

---

How do you account for the skull differences and cranial makeup within the races? For example, a Negro and Caucasian skull -

​

Yahoo

​

How could the skull on the right turn into the skull on the left within only 3,000 years?

---

Just one thing. These skulls in the picture are not from a white and a black person.At least judgin by this image with the same file name, from another source: But anyway. Dog breeds changed quite more dramatically in less time. Extremely masculinized and feminilized skulls can reach comparably similar difference in "no time". Just for comparison.There are also some recent cranial changes that are not result of genetic evolution per se, but from "evolution" on the foods we eat. Cooked food is easier to chew, this results in smaller jaws and muscles. It was also replicated with experiments with animals.Other alimentary differences, affecting nourishment, can also affect the skull without any genetic change. This does not mean that all the changes within skull shapes on the human species are due to that; besides the most obvious guesses, like differences between europeans, africans and asians, there are differences within each continent that are also really rooted in genetic variations.

This sounds like the Lamarckian, or even worse, Lysenkoian rather than the Darwinian ToE. Please feel free to elaborate.{ABE} the links are dead from here, and that is very rare from my setup if they are viable.Edited by anglagard, : No reason given.

---

Read not to contradict and confute, not to believe and take for granted, not to find talk and discourse, but to weigh and consider - Francis BaconThe more we understand particular things, the more we understand God - Spinoza

It's not lamarckian neither lysenkoian. I should have explained it better. The bone development is somewhat like muscle development, it's sensitive to strains. Tennis players, for instance, have asymmetrical bone widths and densities on their arms. It's more significant before complete maturation, after that, it's more subtle, but still exists (hence physicians recommending exercise to prevent or even reduce osteoporosis).

quote:

---

Effects of food processing on masticatory strain and craniofacial growth in a retrognathic face

​

Auteur(s) / Author(s)
LIEBERMAN Daniel E. (1) ; KROVITZ Gail E. (2) ; YATES Franklin W. (1) ; DEVLIN Maureen (1) ; CLAIRE Marisa St. (3) ;

​

Résumé / Abstract
Changes in the technology of food preparation over the last few thousand years (especially cooking, softening, and grinding) are hypothesized to have contributed to smaller facial size in humans because of less growth in response to strains generated by chewing softer, more processed food. While there is considerable comparative evidence to support this idea, most experimental tests of this hypothesis have been on non-human primates or other very prognathic mammals (rodents, swine) raised on hard versus very soft (nearly liquid) diets. Here, we examine facial growth and in vivo strains generated in response to raw/dried foods versus cooked foods in a retrognathic mammal, the rock hyrax (Procavia capensis). The results indicate that the hyrax cranium resembles the non-human primate cranium in having a steep gradient of strains from the occlusal to orbital regions, but differs from most non-anthropoids in being primarily twisted; the hyrax mandible is bent both vertically and laterally. In general, higher strains, as much as two-fold at some sites, are generated by masticating raw versus cooked food. Hyraxes raised on cooked food had significantly less growth (approximately 10%) in the ventral (inferior) and posterior portions of the face, where strains are highest, resembling many of the differences evident between humans raised on highly processed versus less processed diets. The results support the hypothesis that food processing techniques have led to decreased facial growth in the mandibular and maxillary arches in recent human populations.

​

http://www.fas.harvard.edu/~skeleton/pdfs/2004b.pdf

---

And a parallel comment on the lamarckian inheritance thing. Despite stronger concepts of "lamarckian" inheritance being obviously wrong, there are indeed some effects of the progenitor's conditions and "acquired traits" on the offspring. It won't be always like parent "develops X, offspring develops X", neither always adaptive, but it happens. Other big difference from classical notion of inheritance of acquired traits is that it tends (as far as I know) to be reasonably short-lived. It does not affect the genes, so, theoretically, with a different growing environment for the offspring, the next generation would likely be "reset" back ti its "genetic default". But it may have "cyclical" effects too, like the change on the offspring development increasing the probability of the same circumstance happening with the offspring.It won't, however, have an effect such as lengthening the giraffe's neck; it's much less dramatic. Stretching the possibilities to the most, it would be something like bonobos differences from chimps evolving largely due to positive feedback loops on social environment and behavioral changes that happened without genetic contribution, but maybe by an accident, such as most despotic adult males dying for some reason, resulting in a group formed mostly by comparatively docile females and their developing offspring (something similar is reported to have happened with a baboon tribe). But as far as I know, no one actually theorizes that it was the case; it was just an exaggerated example.A real example would be that children born from malnourished parents have a tendency to obesity, more or less as if the developing baby's body on the womb were inferring that these are tough times out there, and he/she needs to be avaricious with the resources.More on the scope of the previous post, children of highly stressed parents will have smaller cranial circumference and some brain changes reflecting the stress or depression (as some stress-related hormones trespass the placenta). The later has no adaptive value at all, as far as I can think of. The previous can be somewhat adaptive, but it's not "like father like son" type of lamarckian inheritance, but instead, "overly thin parents, possibly obese children". Edited by extremophile, : grammarEdited by extremophile, : grammar and etc

OK, I see now that your arguments are reasonable and backed by empirical evidence, provided they are not taken to the extreme.You do indeed bring up some interesting points.

---

Read not to contradict and confute, not to believe and take for granted, not to find talk and discourse, but to weigh and consider - Francis BaconThe more we understand particular things, the more we understand God - Spinoza

There's been some discussion about the population size in a post-flood situation.Even assuming that Noah's sons all had wives (not mentioned in the Bible), and even children, the total post-flood population could not have been muc more than 20. Taking a further assumption that they bought (again unmentioned) servants, this number can be doubled or perhaps trebled: certainly no more than 100.This is below the viability limit for isolated human populations. This is best described in Jared Diamond's book "Collapse". I'm doing this from memory, a my copy of the book is packed away as a result of some work being done on the flat.He describes the case of Pitcairn Island: uninhabited when the Bounty mutineers arrived, but with traces of Polynesian occupation. It was first colonised several centuries earlier from a much larger island comples to the East, along with a much smaller island to the West. They traded with each other for Pitcairn volvanic stone (for tools), but when the society on the larger islands collapsed, the trade ceased, and boats stopped coming (IIRC the Pitcairn Island had few if any boats). The island's population was c200, but within a very few years they had all gone. This was no resource-related: the island could easily support a population of that size. There is a minimum size at which an isolated population is viable in the 200-500 ange, and probabally near the upper limit.There's another example: post-Ice Age Tasmania. Durin the Ice Age Tasmania was linked to the land, and as the ice melted, Tasmania and a few other high points became islands, isolating Aborigine populations (who had no boats) on them (this is known from archaeological work). Again, on the smaller islands the populations died out and, a further point, the Tasmanian Aborigenes lost much of the mainland technologies: this is a feature of isolated populations a (larger) size of population is required to maintain civilisation: the more complex this civilisation, the higher the number.The conclusion is obvious. If the flood hade reduced population levels down to my size estimate, let alone the actual level stated in the Bible, this remnant population would have suffered a technological/civilisation collapse follwed by extinction.Therefore it did not happen.

---

For Whigs admit no force but argument.

human migration began long before the ancient hebrews were even a nation. According to the bible, it began when with the Tower of Babel... archeologist unearthed several temple towers at the ancient site of babylon and one inscription read "The building of this temple offended the gods. In a night they threw down what had been built. They scattered them abroad, and made strange their speech. The progress they impeded.” They dated this particular tower at 3,000 BCE.So lets say they are correct, then migration began at this point and they traveled far and wide.Why would the hebrew writers need to mention where these travellers settled? The bible writers wrote mostly from their own perspective and they were not writing for the creator's benefit, They wrote for the benefit of the people. They wrote in a way that the people would understand. Its as simple as that.Ps. The tower of Babel story does not flat out deny linguistic evolution at all. Languages are always evolving, even today we see it. Edited by Peg, : fixed quote boxEdited by Peg, : removed 50's

For the Biblical creation fundamentalist the only explanation is that Goddidit.The gene intelligent designer/creator of the DNA, like the computer programmer, supposedly programmed new data into the DNA of the world population concentrated in the region of Babel.The only argument we have is the corroborating evidence of what is verifiable supportive to the Biblical record relative to other topics.This message is not intended as debate but simply as comment. Perhaps the time will come when archeology will unearth supportive evidence to this event. Perhaps not.

---

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.

Archaeology, genetics, and physical anthropology, as well as a host of other fields, have studied the race issue.It seems to have nothing to do with Babel.There are a lot of good books out there if you are interested. Stanley Garn's Human Races is a good place to start. You can pick that up used at very good rates. Molnar's Human Variation: Races, Types, and Ethnic Groups is also quite good. Get the most recent editions (3rd and 4th respectively, as I recall).

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

the babel account has archeological evidencethey unearthed a number of towers in the ancient site of babylon & George Smith, who was a staff member of the British Museum, wrote a book called 'Chaldean Account of Genesis'sure, they cannot unequivocally say that this was nimrods tower, but the fact remains that people were building these towers and one inscription clearly states that it made the gods angry and the people were forced to scatter

Hi Peg,

quote:

---

human migration began long before the ancient hebrews were even a nation.

---

Yup, a very long time...

quote:

---

According to the bible, it began when with the Tower of Babel...in the 50's, archeologist unearthed several temple towers at the ancient site of babylon and one inscription read "The building of this temple offended the gods. In a night they threw down what had been built. They scattered them abroad, and made strange their speech. The progress they impeded.” They dated this particular tower at 3,000 BCE.

---

Citation needed methinks. It's no use just making claims like that. Let's see a source.Of course, suggesting that human migration began in 3000 BCE is just wrong. Take a look at this; Lake Mungo remains - WikipediaThat places humans in Australia more than six times earlier than your claim. This is just one piece of evidence denying the Babel story, there are plenty more. Oh, and before you latch on to that "ongoing dispute" comment, most of the dispute is with folks who reckon Mungo Man to be sixty thousand years old. Six thousand? Not a chance. Indigenous Australian culture is a lot older than the Babel myth. I'm a little surprised you didn't realise that mate.

quote:

---

Why would the hebrew writers need to mention where these travellers settled?

---

But it does mention it, twice. Last time I checked, "all the earth" included Australia. Unfortunately, the settlers must have got "scattered" there over thirty thousand years too late to be the original Australians, which kinda scuppers the whole Babel/Race theory.

quote:

---

The bible writers wrote mostly from their own perspective and they were not writing for the creator's benefit, They wrote for the benefit of the people. They wrote in a way that the people would understand. Its as simple as that.

---

I agree. That doesn't mean though, that the story is true. The Babel myth is contradicted by numerous lines of evidence; linguistic, genetic, archaeological... It is as simplistic as its authors understanding of the world. The obvious explanation is that the authors either did not know what they were talking about or they never intended the tale to be taken literally. Or both.

quote:

---

Ps. The tower of Babel story does not flat out deny linguistic evolution at all. Languages are always evolving, even today we see it.

---

Yet, if we are to believe Genesis, the one universal language did not evolve at all until God magicked it apart at Babel. I fail to see how that is in agreement with the idea that languages have evolved continuously throughout human history, going back far longer than your claim of 3000 BCE. Modern linguistics and the Babel myth totally contradict each other. You are free to believe whatever you like, but attempting to believe both sides of this particular coin is only going to lead you further into contradiction.You are trying, once again, to force the Bible into agreement with modern knowledge of which the authors simply had no concept. Trying to explain a complex phenomenon like ethnicity with a simplistic fable is never going to work. It won't teach you anything about race or language and it certainly won't help you understand the Bible.Mutate and Survive

---

"The Bible is like a person, and if you torture it long enough, you can get it to say almost anything you'd like it to say." -- Rev. Dr. Francis H. Wade

i do know a bit about the Aboriginal population Magda and if they were really here for 40,000 years or more, what might you expect their population to amount to??? 100,000, 500,000, 1million, maybe more?what would you conclude if their population amounted to only 300,000?
this was the approximate aboriginal population when captain cook arrived in the 18th century.
And they were Asian migrants, as is agreed my many anthropologists.the source of the quote i posted comes from the book by George Smith, of the British Museum, in his book "Chaldean Account of Genesis" He had something to do with the excavations that found the many towers in the ancient city of Babylon, some of which they dated to 3,000 bce.About languages evolving... Yes, they do evolve today and that does not at all diminish the validity of the babel story. Old english has been replaced by modern english for instance...some words are no longer used, some new words have been added. In Asia we see many dialects of the same language.i dont see a problem with believing in the babel account and believing in the evolution of languages

quote:

---

the source of the quote i posted comes from the book by George Smith, of the British Museum, in his book "Chaldean Account of Genesis" He had something to do with the excavations that found the many towers in the ancient city of Babylon, some of which they dated to 3,000 bce.

---

You mean that your source attributes it to George Smith. However your source is not Smith directly and Smith would not write about anything discovered in the 1950s, since he wrote in 1876.

did i say it was discovered in the 50's???my apologiesthey were unearthed much earlier and documented by George Smith who was the same archeologist who first discovered and translated the Epic of Gilgamesh, the oldest-known written work of literature.