Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

different characteristics

Expand Messages
  • estessteven@peoplepc.com
    Hi all, I have a question about the different people groups. I understand that at the tower of Babel when the languages were confounded that different groups
    Message 1 of 9 , Feb 1, 2005
    • 0 Attachment
      Hi all, I have a question about the different people groups. I understand that at the tower of Babel when the languages were confounded that different groups of people (according to their language) separated from the main group and thus the "gene pool" was split up causing the various characteristics. From what I understand melanin is what causes the different skin colors, more of it and you are darker, less of it and you are lighter etc. What I don't understand completely is what would this have to do with (for example), black people usually (the majority???), having broader noses, fuller lips, "kinky" hair etc? Also I heard somewhere and do not know if it is true or not that blacks have thicker skin than whites. My question is: What would cause all of these characteristics to a certain people group? Again, I now melanin is what causes the different "colors" but what of the other "characteristics". Is this just a mystery? Any help or suggestions would be appreciated, Thanks, Steven Estes

      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • David Rempel
      We humans play with genetics all the time. It s not legal on humans, but you could probably ask a dog breeder how he gets a bigger breed, a smaller breed, a
      Message 2 of 9 , Feb 1, 2005
      • 0 Attachment
        We humans play with genetics all the time. It's not legal on humans, but you could probably ask a dog breeder how he gets a bigger breed, a smaller breed, a stronger breed, a heavier breed, a faster breed etc. It's all working within a defined gene pool or Lord only knows what each combination would get, but there are reasons for each "difference".

        estessteven@... wrote:Hi all, I have a question about the different people groups. I understand that at the tower of Babel when the languages were confounded that different groups of people (according to their language) separated from the main group and thus the "gene pool" was split up causing the various characteristics. From what I understand melanin is what causes the different skin colors, more of it and you are darker, less of it and you are lighter etc. What I don't understand completely is what would this have to do with (for example), black people usually (the majority???), having broader noses, fuller lips, "kinky" hair etc? Also I heard somewhere and do not know if it is true or not that blacks have thicker skin than whites. My question is: What would cause all of these characteristics to a certain people group? Again, I now melanin is what causes the different "colors" but what of the other "characteristics". Is this just a mystery? Any help or suggestions would
        be appreciated, Thanks, Steven Estes

        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]



        ============================================
        CreationTalk email listserv
        Northwest Creation Network
        http://nwcreation.net/
        ============================================


        Yahoo! Groups SponsorADVERTISEMENT
        Children InternationalWould you give Hope to a Child in need? �Click Here to meet a Girl
        And Give Her Hope�Click Here to meet a Boy
        And Change His Life Learn More

        ---------------------------------
        Yahoo! Groups Links

        To visit your group on the web, go to:
        http://groups.yahoo.com/group/CreationTalk/

        To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
        CreationTalk-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

        Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.




        ---------------------------------
        Do you Yahoo!?
        Yahoo! Search presents - Jib Jab's 'Second Term'

        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      • maryannstuart@juno.com
        You ask great questions, Steven. Different characteristics are inherited (except for the ones since the Fall that are caused by mutations) from all the variety
        Message 3 of 9 , Feb 1, 2005
        • 0 Attachment
          You ask great questions, Steven.
          Different characteristics are inherited (except for the ones since the
          Fall that are caused by mutations) from all the variety that God built
          into each created kind. Mendel discovered some of the basic laws of
          heredity, and others since then have also contributed, including the
          Hardy-Weinberg Principle. If Darwin, who married his cousin in order to
          keep "blue" blood (literally, blood, he believed--and he believed that
          the blood of his family was superior to that of others that he could
          choose from) in the family, had known Mendelian genetics, the theory of
          evolution would have read differently--might not even have gotten a
          foothold. Modern evolutionists keep trying to ignore the Hardy-Weinberg
          Principle, which says that traits (characteristics) will maintain a
          stable ratio over time (not counting extinction or major catastrophic
          events).

          Back to Babel. There are other rules of genetics, such as the Founder
          Effect and others which apply to a small group of individuals that go off
          by themselves and have no larger pool to replenish the original ratio of
          traits.
          In such situations, the only traits that will exist are those that came
          with the group or those that mutate into the group. All others are lost
          to that group. Back in the time of Babel, there was not yet a heavy
          genetic load or burden of added mutations (harmful). God knew that there
          was still sufficient variety within each of the 70 groups that He
          separated out at that time to meet their future needs. (If you have very
          little in-built or created variety and many mutations within a small
          breeding group, you end up with something like the Florida panther which
          becomes extinct, if left with no recourse to other breeding stock to
          build up the variety and to dilute the mutational load.)
          Dr. Gary Parker's book, "Creation: Facts of Life" and some other creation
          books explain the actual processes better than I can--in relatively
          simple terms.
          The point is that if God sent a group to Africa, for example, and the
          only genes in that group for hair color and style were for black and
          kinky hair, then that's all you could get. If someone from that group
          traveled to another location and married someone with blonde, straight
          hair, then they start another part of the gene pool that has once again
          mixed the possibilites (called "alleles") for hair color and hair style.
          Their offspring and all of their future generations now have more
          possibilities, both in the extremes (black vs. blonde hair) and, in some
          cases, blending of the traits, such as a more medium color. (Some traits
          blend; some do not.)
          All the traits work in a similar way, in general. However, some are more
          complex. Skin color, for example, is controlled by more than one gene,
          up to eight genes, I believe, so that provides for many "shades" if all
          the alleles are available, as they were in Adam and Eve.
          Shape of nose or lips or whatever may be controlled by one or several
          combinations of inherited genes. Again, whatever genes went with the
          original group after Babel (or in any other separation event) is all the
          group has to work with until they marry someone from another group and
          bring in more variety.
          Actually, some traits are partially affected by things other than genes,
          but always working in combination with the genes. A hypothetical example
          would be that genes for a medium-sized nose might come out looking like
          they were from broad-nosed genes if they had to fit over a skull that was
          enlarged by its genes at the nasal area. The developmental processes in
          the womb will work with both the genes and the structure that they are
          given--up to a point.
          MaryAnn Stuart
          Biologist/Paleontologist
          Proverbs 2:3-5
        • estessteven@peoplepc.com
          Hi Maryann, I thought inherited characteristics were proven false? For example, if I have big muscles, this will not be inherited by my children. Or am I way
          Message 4 of 9 , Feb 2, 2005
          • 0 Attachment
            Hi Maryann, I thought inherited characteristics were proven false? For example, if I have big muscles, this will not be inherited by my children. Or am I way off base here? Thanks, Steven Estes

            [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
          • maryannstuart@juno.com
            Steven, INHERITED characteristics (traits) are passed on to future offspring. If you inherit big muscles, your offspring can also inherit them. ACQUIRED
            Message 5 of 9 , Feb 2, 2005
            • 0 Attachment
              Steven,
              INHERITED characteristics (traits) are passed on to future offspring. If
              you inherit big muscles, your offspring can also inherit them.
              ACQUIRED characteristics (traits) are not passed on to your offspring.
              If you acquire big muscles through your hard work, your offspring will
              not inherit them, but will have to do their own hard labor to acquire
              them.

              You were thinking of acquired traits.
              Lamarck and Darwin erroneously thought that offspring could inherit
              acquired traits.
              Very shortly after their time, Mendel's work was discovered, and then
              others took up the study of genetics. Genes and chromosomes were
              discovered, along with their mechanisms. DNA and genomes were
              discovered. Now we understand that God designed a whole bunch of
              characteristics (traits) and installed them into the original individuals
              at the time of creation. No new traits have come into being since then
              (except for mutated ones, like sickle-cell anemia, for example, along
              with about 5000 other harmful ones in huimans).
              MaryAnn Stuart
              Proverbs 2:3-5
            • estessteven@peoplepc.com
              Thanks alot Maryann for the clarification, I was confused between the two. Steven Estes [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
              Message 6 of 9 , Feb 2, 2005
              • 0 Attachment
                Thanks alot Maryann for the clarification, I was confused between the two. Steven Estes

                [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
              • estessteven@peoplepc.com
                Hello all, I have a question that hopefully you can help me with. In Gen.3:1 it says; Now the serpent was more crafty than any of the wild animals the LORD
                Message 7 of 9 , Feb 3, 2005
                • 0 Attachment
                  Hello all, I have a question that hopefully you can help me with. In Gen.3:1 it says; "Now the serpent was more crafty than any of the wild animals the LORD God had made".

                  Now, this seems to imply that the original kinds of animals were "crafty" or a least the serpent was.

                  Also, in Gen.314 cursing the serpent God said; "Cursed are you above all the livestock and all the wild animals! You will CRAWL ON YOUR BELLY and you will eat dust all the days of your life. Now does this not imply that before the curse that the serpent perhaps could walk? Would this refers to snakes today? They crawl on the ground, but they don't eat dirt. Obviously this was a real animal, and unless it went extinct it would still be around today, perhaps the snake?

                  Also, if we take the text literally, the serpent actually carried on a conversation! Could serpents originally talk or was this simply Satan "possessing" the serpent?

                  Also Satan is called the serpent elsewhere in Scripture. Is Satan ACTUALLY a serpent? Is this passage just speaking of Satan appearing as a serpent? If so why did God say that the serpent was the craftiest of any of the wild animals that He had made? Any suggestions? Thanks, Steven Estes

                  [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                • Teno Groppi
                  ... Crafty is not the most accurate term, subtil is the better term for the reasons below, from an excerpt of my message Creation and the KJV : 15) MOST
                  Message 8 of 9 , Feb 4, 2005
                  • 0 Attachment
                    >Hello all, I have a question that hopefully you can help me with. In
                    >Gen.3:1 it says; "Now the serpent was more crafty than any of the wild
                    >animals the LORD God had made".

                    Crafty is not the most accurate term, subtil is the better term
                    for the reasons below, from an excerpt of my message "Creation and the KJV":

                    15) MOST SUBTIL CREATURE

                    Merriam-Webster: 1 a : DELICATE, ELUSIVE <a subtle fragrance> b : difficult
                    to understand or perceive : OBSCURE <subtle differences in sound>

                    Subtil includes crafty, cunning, and shrewd, but what sets this
                    word apart from the others is that something subtil is obscure, difficult
                    to detect. It's a very minor thing that is hard to notice unless one looks
                    close. Something or someone can be crafty, cunning, or shrewd, but can be
                    easily observed to be so. If one is subtil, you will have a hard time
                    noticing the difference. That's why sometimes apparently minor changes can
                    have huge effects.

                    (KJV) Gen 3:1 Now the serpent was more SUBTIL than any beast of the field
                    which the LORD God had made. And he said unto the woman, YEA [???], hath
                    God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden?

                    Notice the serpent was the MOST SUBTIL beast God made. His first
                    word was "Yea", almost as if he was agreeing, but then his first act was to
                    QUESTION God's word and try to get Eve to have DOUBT in what God said.

                    Knowing the serpent is subtil, if we exercise spiritual
                    discernment circumspectly, we should EXPECT his changes to be very minor,
                    but that they would cast doubt on God's word. If he jumped in and make many
                    huge changes, people would be alarmed. So he makes minor, subtil changes.
                    But subtil changes add up in over 400 English versions in the past 100 years.

                    Satan could never have gotten "Christians" to believe Jesus Christ
                    is a created creature instead of the Creator Himself, but by changing a few
                    verses here and there in different versions, bit-by-bit he eventually
                    accomplishes that. The argument is usually that no major doctrine is
                    missing altogether, and that's probably true. That's also EXACTLY the way
                    we should expect the serpent to operate.

                    (NIV) Now the serpent was more CRAFTY than any of the wild animals the LORD
                    God had made. He said to the woman, "Did God really say, 'You must not eat
                    from any tree in the garden'?"

                    (NASB) Now the serpent was more CRAFTY than any beast of the field which
                    the LORD God had made. And he said to the woman, "Indeed, has God said,
                    'You shall not eat from any tree of the garden'?"

                    (NLT) Now the serpent was the SHREWDEST of all the creatures the LORD God
                    had made. "Really?" he asked the woman. "Did God really say you must not
                    eat any of the fruit in the garden?"

                    (ESV) Now the serpent was more CRAFTY than any other beast of the field
                    that the LORD God had made. He said to the woman, "Did God actually say,
                    'You shall not eat of any tree in the garden'?"

                    (CEV) The snake was SNEAKIER than any of the other wild animals that the
                    LORD God had made. One day it came to the woman and asked, "Did God tell
                    you not to eat fruit from any tree in the garden?"

                    (NKJV) Now the serpent was more CUNNING than any beast of the field which
                    the LORD God had made. And he said to the woman, "Has God indeed said, "You
                    shall not eat of every tree of the garden'?"


                    Here, there, or in the air!
                    Teno Groppi
                    God & Country Center
                    http://www.baptistlink.com/godandcountry/index.html

                    [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                  • Jacki Powell
                    Steve, If you read Dr. Henry Morris book, The Genesis Record , he does in fact believe, because the Scripture indicates it, that the serpent (snake)
                    Message 9 of 9 , Feb 4, 2005
                    • 0 Attachment
                      Steve,

                      If you read Dr. Henry Morris book, "The Genesis Record", he does in fact
                      believe, because the Scripture indicates it, that the serpent (snake)
                      originally walked and was the most beautiful of all the animals. Also the
                      "smartest". Also, Dr. Morris says there is every indication that all the
                      animals perhaps could speak a primative language. If anyone is an animal
                      lover (I am) - I know from experience that my cat Izzi talks to me in all
                      her little "cat language". Its not that animals can't talk, its that we
                      can't understand them! But perhaps in the original creation, they could
                      talk even more. Dr. Morris says he believes this is a possibility because
                      God appointed Adam as "general manager of the creation" - including all
                      plants and animals. So it would have been nice for Adam to have been able
                      to communicate with the animals. As you know before the flood, animals were
                      NOT eaten. God only gave permission to eat "meat" after the flood. And of
                      course, before the fall, animals would not even have eaten "each other" as
                      there was no death.

                      You will also notice that even in the Milleninal kingdom, when the "curse"
                      is lifted, STILL the snake will crawl on its belly. That curse on the
                      serpent will never be lifted.

                      The Bible says that Satan is "an angel of light" (1 Corinthians 11:14). I
                      think he possessed the serpent and used him. And he is spoken of as a
                      serpent, not because he is one literally, but because he came in that form
                      to tempt Adam and Eve.

                      Another reason that I personally think the animals (and the serpent) could
                      talk is this simple reasoning - Eve didn't think it was weird when the
                      serpent came to her and started speaking! Satan NEVER tempts us in far out
                      ways. He takes something we are used to, and adds just a hint of error - to
                      get us to fall for it. He does not try to scare us off! Just like a
                      fisherman fishing. You try to make the bait very appealing to that fish -
                      not scare him away. After all, you want him to bite it! Satan wants us to
                      take the hook of his temptations, not scare us away! Eve was quite
                      comfortable talking with the serpent. Its just what he told her that was
                      bad, NOT that he could speak. This is also the line of reasoning Dr. Morris
                      takes. It seems quite logical to me.

                      I do suggest this book, "The Genesis Record" for anyone serious about
                      studying Creation Science. Its been one of the most helpful books to me in
                      my years of study. You can purchase it from ICR.

                      Shalom,
                      Jacki Powell


                      ----- Original Message -----
                      From: <estessteven@...>
                      To: <CreationTalk@yahoogroups.com>
                      Sent: Thursday, February 03, 2005 10:47 PM
                      Subject: Re: [CreationTalk] different characteristics


                      >
                      >
                      > Hello all, I have a question that hopefully you can help me with. In
                      Gen.3:1 it says; "Now the serpent was more crafty than any of the wild
                      animals the LORD God had made".
                      >
                      > Now, this seems to imply that the original kinds of animals were "crafty"
                      or a least the serpent was.
                      >
                      > Also, in Gen.314 cursing the serpent God said; "Cursed are you above all
                      the livestock and all the wild animals! You will CRAWL ON YOUR BELLY and you
                      will eat dust all the days of your life. Now does this not imply that before
                      the curse that the serpent perhaps could walk? Would this refers to snakes
                      today? They crawl on the ground, but they don't eat dirt. Obviously this was
                      a real animal, and unless it went extinct it would still be around today,
                      perhaps the snake?
                      >
                      > Also, if we take the text literally, the serpent actually carried on a
                      conversation! Could serpents originally talk or was this simply Satan
                      "possessing" the serpent?
                      >
                      > Also Satan is called the serpent elsewhere in Scripture. Is Satan ACTUALLY
                      a serpent? Is this passage just speaking of Satan appearing as a serpent? If
                      so why did God say that the serpent was the craftiest of any of the wild
                      animals that He had made? Any suggestions? Thanks, Steven Estes
                      >
                      > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      > ============================================
                      > CreationTalk email listserv
                      > Northwest Creation Network
                      > http://nwcreation.net/
                      > ============================================
                      > Yahoo! Groups Links
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      >
                    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.