• Biblical Families is not a dating website. It is a forum to discuss issues relating to marriage and the Bible, and to offer guidance and support, not to find a wife. Click here for more information.

Skin color, must we be dependent upon a form of evolution for the explanation?

You might want to consider why Eskimos have brown skin and Norwegians have pale skin. The latitude has nothing to do with it.

The best answer to your astute comment came from Cris Lee on Quora:

Inuit are not northern Europeans. Neither are they Americans and Indians like south Americans. They seemed to come from a later wave of migration that was from Asia.

They don’t have the mutation for very pale skin like northern Europeans and they didn’t need to.

Unlike the northern Europeans that developed a grain and cooked livestock based diet , the Inuit had a diet very high in seafood, and sea animals that are very high in Vitamin D, including their particularity of eating raw meat, which also provided them with Vitamin C, which is present in raw meat but not cooked meat. ( And also vitamin A, associated with vegetables like carrots but present in raw meat sources.)

That is why, even though they have no citrus or greens or vegetables to eat, they do not contract scurvy.

Of course the westerners that visited them turned down their offerings of raw meat in disgust and cooked it. And as they had no fresh greens or citrus to offer, the westerners in their care still became sickly and died and suffered from scurvy.

RECAP: (If some northern humans had a mutation to have paler skin, to better absorb Vitamin D synthesis in the skin,through sunlight, Inuit people had high amounts in their diet and so did not need that mutation.As they had in diet, they ingested vitamin D, from eating high fat, raw meat sources to have supplies of vitamin D. Other northerner humans that started to have a grain or cooked beef diet, needed to have less melanin in the skin to support Vitamin synthases in the skin. It is a biologic and evolutionary explanation of it. )So they needed less melanin in the skin to support Vitamin D synthesis from sunlight. To produce it from their skin.

Many animals do from cats to dogs. People evolved in northern climes to produce vitamin D from their skin, as an adaptation to their environment.

Very northern humans adapted to have a lack of melanin in the skin to have native vitamin D production as an adaption.

(Edit: Many animals do from cats and dogs. To explain further, many cats lay out in the sun that then, from exposure to sunlight they produce the substance in their skin, they then ingest by licking. So it is animal cruelty, to have cats and not have them have exposure to high UV rays so that they produce it in the skin.) For Vitamin D production.

Every animal is different in how they evolved to eat, or adapt or biosynthesis these compounds they need. It is not a “ONE and one deal.” Every organism is different in their needs, to respect that.

Recasp; that the Inuit or Eskimo species of humans had direct dietary sources, of vitamin A and vit d and vit c from consuming raw meat and raw fish.

(So there was NO evolutionary pressure, to have less levels of melanin in the skin to absorb sunlight for VIt D production. Or rather it is a more complicated thing to explain production of VIt D in the skin, as there was no pressures there as they had adequate levels from their diet. of raw fish and raw meat of sea mammals, even though they had no agriculture or fresh fruits or vegetables. Their diet of raw fish and raw meat provided them.)

European explorers had deficits because they cooked raw meat, where fresh raw meat did provide vit c, a and d ingested in raw forms.

Raw muscle meat DOES contain VIT C, Most Europeans do not eat raw meat.The European explorers cooked the meat offered and did not eat it raw, and so suffered from scurvy. The native Inuit and populations did not suffer from as they ate those sources raw.

Inuits do eat raw meat and so consume VIt C in muscles, they eat it and seal meat and whale meat as part of their diet they have for many years, Unlike people beliefs, that vit A and vitamin C are contain purely from vegetable sources, actually, RAW meat contains VIt C and vitamin A, that populations can consume that from raw meat sources and not need vegetable sources, that do not grow where they live. Other countries should not restrict it, as it is part of their native diet. that have subsisted upon for millennia.

Just like evolutionary adaptations, those from asiatic populations that came through the bering straight eons ago populated the northern parts of the Americas that became the Indians and Inuit, and those that traveled more southward, from an original Asiatic background became the civilizations and peoples in Mexico and south america. (Mayans, Aztecs, Incas, many more, not recorded)

Evolutionary, they all came from the Asia continent and peoples, way back in time.

Not much in common now, but a way back link of transmission of peoples.

YES, weird to think of it, but the colonization of the Americas of original humans come from the Asiatic and Asian continent. Not Europe, or the middle east, or directly from Africa.

Now a days, does K pop, or Japanese technology, or the Chinese, or Mexicans doing lifted cars and Brazilian crimes have much a like? Any commonality? Not much at all!!

Forgetting, it all came from the Bering strait, these people doing ther own, being a “migrant” along the western shores of the Americas to survive and populate those regions. Way back in an ice age of the planet and doing it!

Know your history and be proud of it!

Go way, wayer back to it!

You got it! Turn it around!!!!!

In this SUPER BORING universe

In contrast and to compare, there are the native part asiatic and part European race that lives with the caribou.

They have epithatic folds to their eyelids, but white, light skin. Living in a northern clime, very much livestock and animal based food source as vegetable sources do not grow there, reliant upon the animal source of the caribou, but MUCH less ingestion of raw fish and animal sources than the Inuit or native Canadian first peoples.

They live on the northern edges of the European continent.

Those are, (driven into extinction, for many reasons, the ) Sami peoples.

As they ate less raw meats than the Inuit or the native peoples of Canada, they did develop the adaptation of lighter or less melanin production, resulting in the appearance of lighter or whiter skin.
 
I’m convinced that our genes respond much more rapidly to our environment than science wants us to believe.

Our genes don't respond to changes. Individuals with genes that provide advantages in the face of change prosper while individuals not equipped with those genetic advantages perish.

I think of it like a family in Phoenix, Arizona that just LOVES snowmobiles, skiing, and Snow Cats.

For the most part they are terribly ill-adapted to desert life and they suffer in the heat while everyone around them prospers.

Then one day things suddenly change and blizzards become the norm.

Now this family of winter-loving mutants becomes the most competitively adapted family out of millions of people.

Or you could look to the Bible for a great example.

Noah and his family knew God. That turned out to be a very handy adaptation, didn't it? And genes had nothing to do with this (unless we may someday identify a gene that inclines people to faith).
 
Shifts of population genetics can and often do happen very quickly.

This can be seen historically with the example of the light and dark colored moths in England. When conditions favored the dark ones (industrial era with lots of soot on walls from coal) the population shifted quickly to the dark color. Later on when conditions favored the lighter colored moths, the population quickly shifted back. That's not "evolution". The genes for both light and dark moths were present in the population the whole time. Only the frequency and expression of the genes changed.

We see the same thing with pesticide resistance in insects and weeds. The genes for resistance almost certainly exist in the population, and we apply selective pressure when we use the pesticide. The few insects that survive have that gene. A couple generations later, most of the insects now have that gene.

I realize you are talking about something else, like the individual genes actually changing. You might be right, but I do know for a fact that population genetics often do change quickly.
I’m talking about population wide, not necessarily individually.
 
Our genes don't respond to changes. Individuals with genes that provide advantages in the face of change prosper while individuals not equipped with those genetic advantages perish.

I think of it like a family in Phoenix, Arizona that just LOVES snowmobiles, skiing, and Snow Cats.

For the most part they are terribly ill-adapted to desert life and they suffer in the heat while everyone around them prospers.

Then one day things suddenly change and blizzards become the norm.

Now this family of winter-loving mutants becomes the most competitively adapted family out of millions of people.

Or you could look to the Bible for a great example.

Noah and his family knew God. That turned out to be a very handy adaptation, didn't it? And genes had nothing to do with this (unless we may someday identify a gene that inclines people to faith).
I’m always going to be open to the “It’s a miracle!” Defense. But I am okay with it being a miracle that God pre-planned tens of thousands of years in advance by weaving it into our very fibers. That makes it an even greater miracle.
 
I’m always going to be open to the “It’s a miracle!” Defense. But I am okay with it being a miracle that God pre-planned tens of thousands of years in advance by weaving it into our very fibers. That makes it an even greater miracle.

This is part of why I do not object to notions of the universe being billions of years old or even eternal as some cosmologists are suggesting.

Imagine all the things that God caused to pass so you would be here, right now, at this moment?

It is humbling to consider.
 
This is part of why I do not object to notions of the universe being billions of years old or even eternal as some cosmologists are suggesting.

Imagine all the things that God caused to pass so you would be here, right now, at this moment?

It is humbling to consider.
I personally am fairly certain that Adam and Eve did spend significant amounts of time in the Garden, maybe on the order of 100s of thousands of years, and that many of their children were constantly leaving before they ultimately did. I’m pretty sure Job took place in this pre-Fall period outside the Garden.

That’s all wild speculation though. I can’t prove any of it and I accept the Creation account as written.
 
Can be, but we can’t prove that they were or weren’t.
You have to assume that they were in order for any other scenario to work.
Occam's razor - the simplest explanation is usually the best. Given the information could be all present in Adam & Eve, and they were created by an intelligent God who would have known exactly what information needed to be present in them, the simplest explanation is that he put it there in the first place.

Also, given there is no actual observed evolutionary process that can add this information (mutations damage information, they don't add new information, the whole idea that evolution could cause an increase in information is itself a major unproven assumption), the idea that it was all present initially is by far the most plausible and simple explanation.

Remember, your question posed at the start was "must we be dependent upon a form of evolution for the explanation?" The answer is "No". Obviously, you can choose to believe in a form of evolution to achieve this if you really want to, but it is both completely unnecessary and less plausible.
 
Last edited:
I personally am fairly certain that Adam and Eve did spend significant amounts of time in the Garden, maybe on the order of 100s of thousands of years, and that many of their children were constantly leaving before they ultimately did. I’m pretty sure Job took place in this pre-Fall period outside the Garden.

That’s all wild speculation though. I can’t prove any of it and I accept the Creation account as written.

The indications are that all human mitochondrial DNA leads back to one single woman is to me one more of those times where science is validating the Bible.

And how could a bunch of illiterate shepherds know such a thing absent God?
 
I personally am fairly certain that Adam and Eve did spend significant amounts of time in the Garden, maybe on the order of 100s of thousands of years, and that many of their children were constantly leaving before they ultimately did. I’m pretty sure Job took place in this pre-Fall period outside the Garden.

That’s all wild speculation though. I can’t prove any of it and I accept the Creation account as written.
😳 Wow!
That's a wild idea, and one that doesn't make a bit of sense! ☺️

If Adam and Eve dwelled sinlessly in the Garden for thousands of years, that would suggest there were millions of sinless people living on Earth when Adam finally fell.

The rest of these people didn't eat from the tree and would apparently remain sinless and immortal.

We should see whole nations of sinless unfallen men and women running around the world naked, yet none are mentioned in the Bible.

In Job 1:5 we see Job offering burnt offerings in case his children sinned. Why would he do that, or think that if mankind had not yet fallen?

God also says in Job 1:8 that there was no one on Earth like Job, "... blameless and upright man, fearing God and turning away from evil". If mankind had not yet fallen in Adam (and eating from one particular tree being the only prohibition), the whole world should be filled with men and women that were blameless.

In Job 1:17 we see Chaldeans or Babylonians raiding Job's flocks. This is a reference to a specific nationality of people who shouldn't exist yet. These Chaldeans are also acting sinfully.

In Job 1:20, Job tears his robe/clothing while Adam and Eve are still apparently running around naked, and even after sinning Adam and Eve still can't come up with anything better than fig leaves while people elsewhere like Job are wearing clothes.

There is a ton of death in the book of Job. Death should not yet exist where sin doesn't.

The text of Genesis doesn't mention any children being born before sin entered the world.

In addition, the birth of sinless children before sin entered the world would seem to undermine the entire doctrine of the fall.

I think it is a lot more likely that Adam and Eve fell pretty darn quickly. I'd suggest it was less than a month after Eve was formed.

If you put my wife and I together naked and alone, all day every day, in a perfect garden, a lot of sex would invariably happen. We would be going at it in spite of the fact that we are both fallen, both corrupted, and both aging (over 50 now).

Adam and Eve were perfect human beings, in perfect health, in perfect harmony, and in the flower of youth. They would have been going at it morning, noon, and night. Being in perfect health, this would have resulted in a baby being conceived within the first month.

I think it was less than a month, probably a week or so.
 
On that note - I have sheep of three different breeds. The sheep of the same breed tend to hang out together. The whole flock mingles to a large extent, but within it there are always clumps of one breed and clumps of another.

With my rams, I bought my first ram of a new breed, then some months later bought another of the same breed, from an entirely different breeder. So they'd never met each other before. The moment I put the new ram in, the two of them immediately started hanging out together like they'd grown up together, away from the rest of the rams. They just knew they were the same, and were instant friends.

Sheep are racist. :) Seriously though, this attraction between those who are similar is very natural. "Birds of a feather flock together".
Orcas are same. There are currently 4 subspecies. Members of each subspecies mate only with each other. Mating with other subspecies is only in captivity, never in wild.

Ummmmm, are rams OK? Why they prefer each other, instead of females? I would say they would divide herd.
 
Orcas are same. There are currently 4 subspecies. Members of each subspecies mate only with each other. Mating with other subspecies is only in captivity, never in wild.

Ummmmm, are rams OK? Why they prefer each other, instead of females? I would say they would divide herd.
For sheep breeding reasons you keep the rams and ewes in separate pens until breeding time. Otherwise you run into having babies at all sorts of inconvenient and unplanned times. You could over breed your ewes with them getting pregnant too soon after the last batch of lambs, before their body has time to recover/restock.

You also, if you are paying attention to genetics, want to know who the ewes are bred to.

So within the ram group and the ewe group you have hierarchies and your top dominant sheep. Its very interesting to watch this shift and have to reestablish itself when sheep have been apart for a period of time (breeding, sickness, after lambing, etc)
 
For sheep breeding reasons you keep the rams and ewes in separate pens until breeding time. Otherwise you run into having babies at all sorts of inconvenient and unplanned times. You could over breed your ewes with them getting pregnant too soon after the last batch of lambs, before their body has time to recover/restock.

This doesn't just happen with sheep.
 
Sure death existed from the beginning. Big fish ate little fish. Lions ate lambs. Etc.
There are a lot of absolutely adamant things said about death and the fall - what did it mean by Adam brought death into the world? Most creationists take it to the most extreme literal interpretation - nothing that breathes died, only things that don't breath (based on the Hebrew word "nephesh". So plants died, bacteria died, insects died, fish died - but lions didn't eat lambs. I'm comfortable with variations on that theme as the line is difficult to define - what we know for certain is that Adam brought human death into the world.
 
Sure death existed from the beginning. Big fish ate little fish. Lions ate lambs. Etc.
Romans 5:12 Therefore, just as through one man sin entered the world, and death through sin, and thus death spread to all men, because all sinned.

In his epistle to the Romans Paul links the doctrine of the imputation of sin through Adam and of righteousness through Christ. Sin brought the imputation of death and the curse upon all of creation. The substitutionary sacrifice of Christ brought the imputation of life and righteousness to all He saves. There cannot be suffering and death before Adam and Eve (that monogamous couple ;) ) disobeyed God and sinned.
 
If Adam and Eve dwelled sinlessly in the Garden for thousands of years, that would suggest there were millions of sinless people living on Earth when Adam finally fell.
Wow! This little bit of brain candy really grabbed your attention! You’re objections lack imagination though. Why couldn’t have these early children not left for having eaten of the tree? Their sin would expel them from the Garden but not infect the rest of the world.
The rest of these people didn't eat from the tree and would apparently remain sinless and immortal.
How can you know this? An argument from silence?
In Job 1:5 we see Job offering burnt offerings in case his children sinned. Why would he do that, or think that if mankind had not yet fallen?
Like I said, we don’t know that Job wasn’t in an fallen state. Cain and Abel were offering sacrifices at a very early point too. It was clearly an early form of religious observance.
God also says in Job 1:8 that there was no one on Earth like Job, "... blameless and upright man, fearing God and turning away from evil".
This is your best objection.

Remember though, that there were people for Cain to fear and women for him to marry. They came from somewhere.

And we know that some time passed while Adam was still in the garden because we’re told that God habitually walked with them in the evening. And after being told to be fruitful and multiply are you saying that no children were forthcoming? Or do you claim that they Fell so quick that no children had been born yet?

But where did these people Cain fear so much come from? Like I said though; this is just speculative brain candy. It would also help us explain dinosaurs though, lizards take a long time to grow that big!
 
Wow! This little bit of brain candy really grabbed your attention! You’re objections lack imagination though. Why couldn’t have these early children not left for having eaten of the tree? Their sin would expel them from the Garden but not infect the rest of the world.

How can you know this? An argument from silence?

Like I said, we don’t know that Job wasn’t in an fallen state. Cain and Abel were offering sacrifices at a very early point too. It was clearly an early form of religious observance.

This is your best objection.

Remember though, that there were people for Cain to fear and women for him to marry. They came from somewhere.

And we know that some time passed while Adam was still in the garden because we’re told that God habitually walked with them in the evening. And after being told to be fruitful and multiply are you saying that no children were forthcoming? Or do you claim that they Fell so quick that no children had been born yet?

But where did these people Cain fear so much come from? Like I said though; this is just speculative brain candy. It would also help us explain dinosaurs though, lizards take a long time to grow that big!
I know we all love arguing, but your getting silly here. There is no textual basis for your idea.

You can imagine whatever you want, but if it isn't in the text, or reasonably derived from the text, we shouldn't take it seriously. It's theoretically possible that Klingons and Vulcans came in a spaceship and visited Adam and Eve in the garden. The Bible doesn't say that they didn't. 😉

The fall of Adam and Eve happened in Genesis chapter 3. Cain and Abel were born and later offered sacrifices in Genesis chapter 4. Yes, it was an early form of worship, but it was all post fall, and that's the point.

Cain feared being killed, and also had at least one wife. Yes, that is true.

The people before the Flood lived for hundreds of years, and many generations of people were added during Cain's long lifetime.

Cain must have married a relative, probably his sister, but perhaps his niece or great niece. Since everyone came from Adam and Eve, they were all Cain's relatives. Cain probably feared his dad, his brothers, his nephews, etc.
 
Basically, I believe the answer is what @FolliwingHim said.

Here is a short video from Answers in Genesis that covers the same basic genetic idea. Adam and Eve were probably genetically heterozygous on skin pigmentation (and brownish), but possessed and passed on the genes to make not only brown people, but also white, and black people too.


My dad, his brother, and parents are/were all redheads. My dad married a brunette (apparently a homozygous brunette), and my brother, sister, and I all ended up with light brown hair (but also carry the gene for making more redheads). If the Lord should ever give me a redheaded second wife, we should expect roughly half the potential kids to be redheads.

Like my dad, I've always preferred brunettes but certainly also like blondes, and redheads. 😉
Redheads are the most fun!
 
Back
Top