The Origin of Race

“Racial” Differences
by Ken Ham

But some people think there must be different races of people because there appear to be major differences between various groups, such as skin color and eye shape.

The truth, though, is that these so-called “racial characteristics” are only minor variations among people groups. If one were to take any two people anywhere in the world, scientists have found that the basic genetic differences between these two people would typically be around 0.2 percent—even if they came from the same people group.19 But these so-called “racial” characteristics that people think are major differences (skin color, eye shape, etc.) “account for only 0.012 percent of human biological variation.”

Dr. Harold Page Freeman, chief executive, president, and director of surgery at North General Hospital in Manhattan, reiterates, “If you ask what percentage of your genes is reflected in your external appearance, the basis by which we talk about race, the answer seems to be in the range of 0.01 percent.”

In other words, the so-called “racial” differences are absolutely trivial— overall, there is more variation within any group than there is between one group and another. If a white person is looking for a tissue match for an organ transplant, for instance, the best match may come from a black person, and vice versa. ABC News claims, “What the facts show is that there are differences among us, but they stem from culture, not race.”



The only reason many people think these differences are major is because they’ve been brought up in a culture that has taught them to see the differences this way. Dr. Douglas C. Wallace, professor of molecular genetics at Emory University School of Medicine in Atlanta, stated, “The criteria that people use for race are based entirely on external features that we are programmed to recognize.”

If the Bible teaches and science confirms that all are of the same human race and all are related as descendants of Adam, then why are there such seemingly great differences between us (for example, in skin colour)? The answer, again, comes with a biblically informed understanding of science.

What Constitutes a “Race”?

In the 1800s, before Darwinian evolution was popularized, most people, when talking about “races,” would be referring to such groups as the “English race,” “Irish race,” and so on. However, this all changed in 1859 when Charles Darwin published his book On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life.

Darwinian evolution was (and still is¹) inherently a racist philosophy, teaching that different groups or “races” of people evolved at different times and rates, so some groups are more like their apelike ancestors than others. Leading evolutionist Stephen Jay Gould claimed, “Biological arguments for racism may have been common before 1859, but they increased by orders of magnitude following the acceptance of evolutionary theory.”²

The Australian Aborigines, for instance, were considered the missing links between the apelike ancestor and the rest of mankind.³ This resulted in terrible prejudices and injustices towards the Australian Aborigines.⁴

Ernst Haeckel, famous for popularizing the now-discredited idea that “ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny,” ⁵ stated:

At the lowest stage of human mental development are the Australians, some tribes of the Polynesians, and the Bushmen, Hottentots, and some of the Negro tribes. Nothing, however, is perhaps more remarkable in this respect, than that some of the wildest tribes in southern Asia and eastern Africa have no trace whatever of the first foundations of all human civilization, of family life, and marriage. They live together in herds, like apes.⁶

Racist attitudes fueled by evolutionary thinking were largely responsible for an African pygmy being displayed, along with an orangutan, in a cage in the Bronx zoo.⁷ Indeed, Congo pygmies were once thought to be “small apelike, elfish creatures” that “exhibit many ape-like features in their bodies.”⁸

As a result of Darwinian evolution, many people started thinking in terms of the different people groups around the world representing different “races,” but within the context of evolutionary philosophy. This has resulted in many people today, consciously or unconsciously, having ingrained prejudices against certain other groups of people.⁹

However, all human beings in the world today are classified as Homo sapiens sapiens. Scientists today admit that, biologically, there really is only one race of humans. For instance, a scientist at the Advancement of Science Convention in Atlanta stated, “Race is a social construct derived mainly from perceptions conditioned by events of recorded history, and it has no basic biological reality.” This person went on to say, “Curiously enough, the idea comes very close to being of American manufacture.”¹⁰

Reporting on research conducted on the concept of race, ABC News stated, “More and more scientists find that the differences that set us apart are cultural, not racial. Some even say that the word race should be abandoned because it’s meaningless.” The article went on to say that “we accept the idea of race because it’s a convenient way of putting people into broad categories, frequently to suppress them—the most hideous example was provided by Hitler’s Germany. And racial prejudice remains common throughout the world.”¹¹

In an article in the Journal of Counseling and Development,¹² researchers argued that the term “race” is basically so meaningless that it should be discarded.

More recently, those working on mapping the human genome announced “that they had put together a draft of the entire sequence of the human genome, and the researchers had unanimously declared, there is only one race—the human race.”¹³

Personally, because of the influences of Darwinian evolution and the resulting prejudices, I believe everyone (and especially Christians) should abandon the term “race(s).” We could refer instead to the different “people groups” around the world.

Inheritance

DNA (deoxyribonucleic acid) is the molecule of heredity that is passed from parents to child. In humans, the child inherits 23 chromosomes from each parent (the father donates 23 through his sperm, while the mother donates 23 through her egg). At the moment of conception, these chromosomes unite to form a unique combination of DNA and control much of what makes the child an individual. Each chromosome pair contains hundreds of genes, which regulate the physical development of the child. Note that no new genetic information is generated at conception, but a new combination of already-existing genetic information is formed.

To illustrate the basic genetic principles involved in determining skin shade, we’ll use a simplified explanation,²⁶ with just two genes controlling the production of melanin. Let’s say that the A and B versions of the genes code for a lot of melanin, while the a and b versions code for a small amount of melanin.

If the father’s sperm carried the AB version and the mother’s ovum carried the AB, the child would be AABB, with a lot of melanin, and thus very dark skin. Should both parents carry the ab version, the child would be aabb, with very little melanin, and thus very light skin. If the father carries AB (very dark skin) and the mother carries ab (very light skin), the child will be AaBb, with a middle brown shade of skin. In fact, the majority of the world’s population has a middle brown skin shade.

A simple exercise with a Punnet Square shows that if each parent has a middle brown shade of skin (AaBb), the combinations that they could produce result in a wide variety of skin shades in just one generation. Based on the skin colors seen today, we can infer that Adam and Eve most likely would have had a middle brown skin color. Their children, and children’s children, could have ranged from very light to very dark.

No one really has red, or yellow, or black skin. We all have the same basic color, just different shades of it. We all share the same pigments—our bodies just have different combinations of them.²⁷

Melanin also determines eye color. If the iris of the eye has a larger amount of melanin, it will be brown. If the iris has a little melanin, the eye will be blue. (The blue color in blue eyes results from the way light scatters off of the thin layer of brown-colored melanin.)

Hair color is also influenced by the production of melanin. Brown to black hair results from a greater production of melanin, while lighter hair results from less melanin. Those with red hair have a mutation in one gene that causes a greater proportion of the reddish form of melanin (pheomelanin) to be produced.²⁸

DNA also controls the basic shape of our eyes. Individuals whose DNA codes for an extra layer of adipose tissue around the eyes have almond-shaped eyes (this is common among Asian people groups). All people groups have adipose tissue around the eyes, some simply have more or less.

Reference: AnswersInGenesis.org


What about the similarities between monkey and human DNA?
by David A. Dewitt

For many years, evolutionary scientists—and science museums and zoos—have hailed the chimpanzee as “our closest living relative” and have pointed to the similarity in DNA sequences between the two as evidence. In most previous studies, they have announced 98-99% identical DNA.¹ However, these were for gene coding regions (such as the sequence of the cytochrome c protein), which constituted only a very tiny fraction of the roughly 3 billion DNA base pairs that comprise our genetic blueprint. Although the full human genome sequence has been available since 2001, the whole chimpanzee genome has not. Thus, all of the previous work has been based on only a portion of the total DNA.

Last week, in a special issue of Nature devoted to chimpanzees, researchers report the initial sequence of the chimpanzee genome.² No doubt, this is a stunning achievement for science: deciphering the entire genetic make up of the chimpanzee in just a few years. Researchers called it “the most dramatic confirmation yet” of Darwin’s theory that man shared a common ancestor with the apes. One headline read: “Charles Darwin was right and chimp gene map proves it.”³

So what is this great and overwhelming “proof” of chimp-human common ancestry? Researchers claim that there is little genetic difference between us (only 4%). This is a very strange kind of proof because it is actually double the percentage difference that has been claimed for years!⁴ The reality is, no matter what the percentage difference, whether 2%, 4%, or 10%, they still would have claimed that Darwin was right.

Further, the use of percentages obscures the magnitude of the differences. For example, 1.23% of the differences are single base pair substitutions. This doesn’t sound like much until you realize that it represents ~35 million mutations! But that is only the beginning, because there are ~40–45 million bases present in humans and missing from chimps, as well as about the same number present in chimps that is absent from man. These extra DNA nucleotides are called “insertions” or “deletions” because they are thought to have been added in or lost from the sequence. (Substitutions and insertions are compared in Figure 1.) This puts the total number of DNA differences at about 125 million. However, since the insertions can be more than one nucleotide long, there are about 40 million separate mutation events that would separate the two species.

Figure 1.
A G T C G T A C C | | | | | | | | A G T C A T A C C		A G T C G T A C C | | | | | | | | A G T C - T A C C
Substitution		Insertion/deletion
Comparison between a base substitution and an insertion/deletion. Two DNA sequences can be compared. If there is a difference in the nucleotides (an A instead of a G) this is a substitution. In contrast, if there is a nucleotide base which is missing it is considered an insertion/deletion. It is assumed that a nucleotide has been inserted into one of the sequences or one has been deleted from the other. It is often too difficult to determine whether the difference is a result of an insertion or a deletion and thus it is called an “indel.” Indels can be of virtually any length.

To put this number into perspective, a typical page of text might have 4,000 letters and spaces. It would take 10,000 such full pages of text to equal 40 million letters! So the differences between humans and chimpanzees include ~35 million DNA bases that are different, ~45 million in the human that are absent from the chimp and ~45 million in the chimp that are absent from the human.

Creationists believe that God made Adam directly from the dust of the earth just as the Bible says. Therefore, man and the apes have never had an ancestor in common. However, assuming they did for the sake of analyzing the argument, then 40 million separate mutation events would have had to take place and become fixed in the population in only ~300,000 generations—a problem referred to as “Haldane’s dilemma.” This problem is exacerbated because the authors acknowledge that most evolutionary change is due to neutral or random genetic drift. That refers to change in which natural selection is not operating. Without a selective advantage, it is difficult to explain how this huge number of mutations could become fixed in the population. Instead, many of these may actually be intrinsic sequence differences from the beginning of creation.

Some scientists are surprised at the anatomical, physical and behavioral differences between man and chimpanzee when they see so much apparent genetic similarity. With a philosophy that excludes a Creator God, they are forced to accept similarity as evidence of common ancestry. However, similarity can also be the result of a common Designer.

It is the differences that make the difference. The most important difference is that man is created in the image of God.

Reference: AnswersInGenesis.org

Origin of People Groups

Those with darker skin tend to live in warmer climates, while those with lighter skin tend to live in colder climates. Why are certain characteristics more prominent in some areas of the world?

We know that Adam and Eve were the first two people. Their descendants filled the earth. However, the world’s population was reduced to eight during the Flood of Noah. From these eight individuals have come all the tribes and nations. It is likely that the skin shade of Noah and his family was middle brown. This would enable his sons and their wives to produce a variety of skin shades in just one generation. Because there was a common language and everybody lived in the same general vicinity, barriers that may have prevented their descendants from freely intermarrying weren’t as great as they are today. Thus, distinct differences in features and skin color in the population weren’t as prevalent as they are today.

In Genesis 11 we read of the rebellion at the Tower of Babel. God judged this rebellion by giving each family group a different language. This made it impossible for the groups to understand each other, and so they split apart, each extended family going its own way, and finding a different place to live. The result was that the people were scattered over the earth.²⁹

Because of the new language and geographic barriers, the groups no longer freely mixed with other groups, and the result was a splitting of the gene pool. Different cultures formed, with certain features becoming predominant within each group. The characteristics of each became more and more prominent as new generations of children were born. If we were to travel back in time to Babel, and mix up the people into completely different family groups, then people groups with completely different characteristics might result. For instance, we might find a fair-skinned group with tight, curly dark hair that has blue, almond-shaped eyes. Or a group with very dark skin, blue eyes, and straight brown hair.³⁰

Some of these (skin color, eye shape, and so on) became general characteristics of each particular people group through various selection pressures (environmental, sexual, etc.) and/or mutation.³¹ For example, because of the protective factor of melanin, those with darker skin would have been more likely to survive in areas where sunlight is more intense (warmer, tropical areas near the equator), as they are less likely to suffer from diseases such as skin cancer. Those with lighter skin lack the melanin needed to protect them from the harmful UV rays, and so may have been more likely to die before they were able to reproduce. UVA radiation also destroys the B vitamin folate, which is necessary for DNA synthesis in cell division. Low levels of folate in pregnant women can lead to defects in the developing baby. Again, because of this, lighter-skinned individuals may be selected against in areas of intense sunlight.

On the flip side, melanin works as a natural sunblock, limiting the sunlight’s ability to stimulate the liver to produce vitamin D, which helps the body absorb calcium and build strong bones. Since those with darker skin need more sunlight to produce vitamin D, they may not have been as able to survive as well in areas of less sunlight (northern, colder regions) as their lighter-skinned family members, who don’t need as much sunlight to produce adequate amounts of vitamin D. Those lacking vitamin D are more likely to develop diseases such as rickets (which is associated with a calcium deficiency), which can cause slowed growth and bone fractures. It is known that when those with darker skin lived in England during the Industrial Revolution, they were quick to develop rickets because of the general lack of sunlight.³²

Of course, these are generalities. Exceptions occur, such as in the case of the darker-skinned Inuit tribes living in cold northern regions. However, their diet consists of fish, the oil of which is a ready source of vitamin D, which could account for their survival in this area.

Real science in the present fits with the biblical view that all people are rather closely related—there is only one race biologically. Therefore, to return to our original question, there is, in essence, no such thing as interracial marriage. So we are left with this—is there anything in the Bible that speaks clearly against men and women from different people groups marrying?

The Dispersion at Babel

Note that the context of Genesis 11 makes it clear that the reason for God’s scattering the people over the earth was that they had united in rebellion against Him. Some Christians point to this event in an attempt to provide a basis for their arguments against so-called interracial marriage. They believe that this passage implies that God is declaring that people from different people groups can’t marry so that the nations are kept apart. However, there is no such indication in this passage that what is called “interracial marriage” is condemned. Besides, there has been so much mixing of people groups over the years, that it would be impossible for every human being today to trace their lineage back to know for certain which group(s) they are descended from.

We need to understand that the sovereign creator God is in charge of the nations of this world. Paul makes this very clear in Acts 17:26. Some people erroneously claim this verse to mean that people from different nations shouldn’t marry. However, this passage has nothing to do with marriage. As John Gill makes clear in his classic commentary, the context is that God is in charge of all things—where, how, and for how long any person, tribe, or nation will live, prosper, and perish.³³

In all of this, God is working to redeem for Himself a people who are one in Christ. The Bible makes clear in Galatians 3:28, Colossians 3:11, and Romans 10:12–13 that in regard to salvation, there is no distinction between male or female or Jew or Greek. In Christ, any separation between people is broken down. As Christians, we are one in Christ and thus have a common purpose—to live for Him who made us. This oneness in Christ is vitally important to understanding marriage.

Reference: AnswersInGenesis.org


The geographical direction of different families in accordance with Genesis 10
by Cooper P. Abrams III

In the dispersion families were grouped together and for the most part migrated in one general direction. To illustrate, the following is a selected list of names from the genealogies of each of Noah's sons with the general geographical location associated with each, from the historical record.

The Descendants of Japheth: The Indo-European of western Asia and of Europe. (Gen. 10:2-4)

Gomer: Probably the Cimmerians which are mentioned by Homer as the people of the far north (Odys. xl. 14). They are believed to be identical with the Cimmerians of Roman times and the Cymry of Wales.12

Magog: Josephus and Greek writers generally relate them as the Scythians of Southern Europe. Also associated with the Tartars of Russia.13

Madai: Medes who lived in area of Caspian Sea.14

Javan: Comes from the term Ionian which means Greeks.

The Descendants of Ham: The Egyptians, Ethiopians, Libyans and Canaanites. Gen. 10:6-20.

Cush: Peoples of central and Southern Arabia.15 &nbshp; The Ethiopians are shown as being inhabitants of both sides of the Red Sea. Also, they had a skin of a different appearance. (Jer. 13:23) Pictures on monuments show that they were a mixed race, some Negro, some Semite and some Caucasian.16 This is a very important fact and will be referred to later.

Mizraim: Refers to areas of upper and lower Nile River of Egypt thus a reference to Egyptians.

Phut: Generally associated with the Egyptians and more specifically Libya.17

Canaan: The area settled by Canaan and his sons was west of the River Jordan. His first born

Sidon (Zidon) name stood for the whole Phoenician coast.18

The Descendants Shem: The peoples of the Middle East and Southern Asia. Gen. 10:21-32.

Eber: Abraham was the sixth generation of Eber who settled in Mesopotamia in the area of Ur of the Chaldees (Gen. 11).

Elam: Geographically the region beyond the Tigris River, east of Babylonia. The Elamites became a strong nation and were recognized as sovereign by the Babylonian states.19

Asshur: The Assyrians of the head waters of the Tigris and Euphrates Rivers.

Lud: The Lydians of Asia Minor.

Aram: Aramaeans of Syria and Mesopotamia.

From these observations it seems that Shem's progeny settled in the Middle East, Ham's people went south into Africa and Japheth's descendants migrated north into Western Asia and Europe.

It is important to recognize that from the Bible and from history, specific statements cannot be made that Shem fathered all Orientals, Ham all black people or Japheth all white people. Note that the Ethiopians are represented as being all three colors. This is a good example which shows that Ham produced peoples of varying colors. This point will become more evident when one sees the importance of genetics and how it works.


The Role of Genetics in Race

How genetics work.

At this point, three things should be evident. First, race is a term which attempts to define physical characteristics of peoples, and seeks to group them together.

Second, the physical characteristics appear to be closely associated with geographic locations. People who have the same combination of physical characteristics generally come from the same area on earth.

Third, as in the case of Ham being the progenitor of white, black and yellow peoples; the same physical characteristics can appear within any group of people.

The explanation of these seemly confusing conclusions is found in the study of genetics or the physical characteristic generator in man, the "gene."

Webster defines gene as:

In ‘genetics, any of the elements by which hereditary characters are transmitted and determined, regarded as a particular state of organization of the chromatin in the chromosome; factor: theoretically each mature reproductive cell carries a gene for every inheritable characteristic, and thus an individual resulting from the union of two such cells receives a set of genes from each of its parents.”

It can be seen from this definition that it is the gene which determines the physical characteristics of men. Each parent contributes his or her genes to their offspring and the child is a product of both.

The father of genetics, Gregor Mendel made this observation:
"A gene may be recessive and, in the presence of a dominant gene, it becomes latent, not causing the formation of its trait. In a later generation it may occur, not accompanied by its dominant partner and so produce its characteristic trait.” 20"

When the male sperm fertilizes the female egg, the genes of each are mixed. Some genes are dominant over other genes and these produce the physical characteristics of the offspring. An example would be a mother having brown eyes and a father with blue eyes. They could produce either brown-eyed or blue-eyed children. If the child produced would have brown eyes, it can be seen that the genes which produce brown eyes won out over the blue eye producing genes and are the dominant ones. The blue eye producing genes are called "latent" and although they did not produce blue eyes in this mating, they are present in the child, and they could reappear in later generations.

When we look around us today and see all of the different physical characteristics in people and relate this to Adam, who was the first man, we can see that in Adam the potential combination of genes was enormous. Francesco Ayala states that:

On the basis of only 6.7% heterososity the average human couple could have 10 children before they would have to have one child identical to another! That number is far greater than the number of atoms in the known universe!”21

Considering this fact, it is easier to understand how Adam produced all the different varieties we see in people today. Also very important is the evidence that after a number of generations, there appears to be strong evidence that certain genes become dominant and the variability of characteristics is limited.22 This does not mean that other genes are not present. However it does mean some genes, once they reach a point, become dominant and continue to be dominant in future generations. This only occurs with in breeding or selective breeding.

An example was my FDS (Field Dog Stud Book) registered Irish Setter "Bryan's Red Sun" (we just called him "Sam"). He was the product of selected breeding over many generations. As a dog breeder, one basic rule I quickly learned was that to produce an Irish Setter, I had to breed a male and female Irish Setter. This is where the term "pure breed" comes from. In other words, in Sam's historical blood line for several hundred years only dogs of the same family were bred together. No other breed of dog was allowed to "cross breed" into his blood line. The key to producing a particular breed is in isolation from other breeds. The genes which produced the red-colored hair and general physical appearance of the Irish Setter have become dominate by selective breeding, and consistently produce the same characteristics over and over again in every generation.

Through the example of Sam, we see that isolation of a group of dogs from other groups of dogs produces what could be called "race." Note, however, that even within the "race" or "breed" called Irish Setter there is still much potential for variation.

Isolation of peoples and genetics.

In this paper we have seen that the decedents of Noah's three sons were generally dispersed over all the earth. Also, the physical characteristics of any of his sons were not exclusive to his progeny. Each could and did produce different colored offspring.

The most important factor in reaching an explanation for the origin of race is the understanding that as the migration from the Middle East proceeded, contact with other groups became less frequent, and finally each group became isolated from all others, and the groups became smaller. Because of this isolation men and women married within their own group. Thus in breeding took place within an isolated group and between kin.

An example of how isolation caused particular characteristics in a group of people would be the American Indian. The American Indian originated from oriental peoples who came across the Bering Strait which connected eastern Asia and Alaska. As they migrated south and east, they became isolated from the peoples of Asia. American Indians are considered to be Mongoloid people, but differ from Asian Mongoloids of China and Japan. One must assume that genetics caused the American Indian to be somewhat different from other Mongoloids of Asia. By moving into North America they became isolated from other Asian peoples. Their group was at first small and they married among their kin from within his group. The dominant genes of the group surfaced within a few generations and began to produce the general characteristics which are common to the American Indian today.

Some groups moved further south into Mexico and South America, and they, too, became isolated. This isolation caused somewhat differing physical appearances in each group. Thor Heyerdahl, the anthropologist, studied the people of North America and the Pacific islands for years. He has shown that the Polynesian people came from North America and migrated (in boats) to the Pacific Islands. The isolation of these people produced the Polynesian peoples.

Without isolation it is unlikely that "race" would have ever occurred. It is a vital part of understanding how genetics caused the different physical characteristics of isolated groups of people which we call races.


Conclusion

As Noah's decedents migrated from the Middle East after the Towel of Babel, their numbers grew smaller as they extended further out. As the groups grew smaller, close kin inter-married and the certain genes within the gene pool became dominate, while others became latent. Within a few generations these genes produced the skin color, hair color and texture, bone structure and other physical characteristics that made each group distinctive within its isolated geographical area. Generally, the people of northern Europe were white. South Africans were black. People of the Middle East and the Far East were yellow.

This paper has tried to show that the findings of modern science in genetics have offered a reasonable and logical model, which when combined with Scripture, explains how the races came to be. I have deliberately ignored the evolutionary model of the origin of races in this paper, as my primary purpose was to present a biblical and scientific model. There is no empirical evidence for the hypothesis of evolution and it has never been shown that evolution happened in any degree. Evolution in all aspects, including theistic evolution, is contrary to the Word of God and true science. All of the empirical evidence supports the Creation Model. The lie of evolution has been the source of ethnic genocide since its inception. This false humanistic ideas has been at the heart of the decline in morals of the once great United States. At best, evolution's explanation for the origin of race is silly and a child's fairy tale.

The model or explanation or the origin of race as presented in this paper can afford the Christian with a basic understanding of how race came to be. It is easily understood when all the evidence is considered. Racial differences can never honestly be said to be the result of curses placed on people by God, or the nonsensical theories of evolution. Race occurred because of the work of the physical laws of human genetics that Almighty God instituted and race has no spiritual significance.

Reference: Cooper P. Abrams III at bible-truth.org