I don't believe skin colors are what Mrs. White refers to per se. I think that is a side issue.

If Adam were white and Eve were black (or vice versa), then all skin colors would be represented in the original Creation. However, I do not believe that is the way the colors came about.

If both Adam and Eve were white, we'd have a hard time getting black out of the genetics. If they were both black, we'd have a hard time getting white. If they were both red, it would be hard to come out with either white or black...except through some form of mutation.

I believe the "mutation" was not a chance of evolution. It was a divine command. God put a mark on Cain. That "mark" was a visible one. We know that much. It was meant to cause anyone finding him to have reason for pause before thinking to exact vengeance upon him. If his color were entirely different from others, that would definitely have accomplished this.

I've been in villages where no foreigner had ever entered. The people stared. It is natural to stare when you see something very strange or different for the first time.

The "amalgamation" of which Mrs. White speaks seems to have had at least two aspects.

1. Intermarriage of God's people with the worldlings, as is spoken of in Genesis 6
2. Some form of bestiality which occurred after the flood

As many of the worldlings were of the "race of Cain," they would have resembled his appearance--whichever color that was. We seem to get a clue, though, following the Flood, when Noah curses Ham's son Cainan. "A servant of servants shall he be." He was to become the servant of both Japheth and Shem. The fact that his name is nearly the same as that of Cain implies a resemblance. Throughout history, the black people have suffered under the curse of slavery. It is a sad legacy. Biblical curses are nothing to scoff at! (Ask the Jews, who called a curse upon themselves at the crucifixion.)



The above statement speaks of "certain races of men." That logically excludes other, unspecified, races of men. This means that the effects of amalgamation are not universal among men.

Personally, I have long felt that she is not speaking about black people. She is speaking about "certain races," which may be a subset of either white or black peoples. The kind of folk that come to my mind as possibilities are more in line with, say, pygmies, dwarfs, druids, bush people, or any "race" of mankind where a greater deviation from the standard form might be seen.

And yes, we are all human. But everyone knows that not all humans are identical, and the word "race" is frequently used to help us identify the various ethnic groups among us. (Ellen White is not saying, nor am I, that any human group is not a part of the "human" species.)

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

Error. Very easy. Disable the genes.

Green, do you know what "segregation" means regarding F2+ generations?

You don't get something from nothing (contrary to what evolutionists would tell you), but it's fairly easy to get nothing from something. Adam and Eve were everything and everything after them are a reduced subset.

Kland,

It appears that you are referring to albinism.

Two points:

1) Albinism is an individual fluke of gene expression. I do not believe that it has ever become a widespread phenomenon in a species in which over half of the population is similarly affected.
2) Albinism, the lack of color/pigment, tends to look much, much different than what we humans typically think of as "white." In fact, those of us who are "white" are not albinos (usually), but pigmented. That pigmentation does not come from a "lack" of color.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

I believe albinism is more than just color genes.

I had in mind mechanisms such as in white flowers. I wouldn't call them albinos.

I like how you organized your points. Nicely done. However, as I'm sure you suspect, I do not believe the different races of mankind represent different species. Yellow, black, brown, red, and white it doesn't matter - we are all the same species. Color variations within the human species was, most likely, a genetic variant that existed from the beginning. That is, A&E were created that way with the ability to produce the subtle differences that exist today. The same thing, no doubt, is true of the subtle differences reflected within the same and different races. For example, the differences in eye shape and color, nose size and shapes, hair color and type, ear size and shapes, etc. All of these variations, differences existed within the DNA code of A&E and manifested themselves, perhaps randomly, as the human family grew. As such, they do not reflect sin or a curse. The pygmies you mentioned are probably the result of incest and/or interbreeding and not the result of scientists tampering with human and animal DNA.

Plant genetics is quite different from human genetics. Things like trisomy-13 would not even be an issue in plants. You can double the chromosomes in a plant (e.g. by an improper meiosis of the gametes), with both sets of the chromosomes being exactly identical--only now, instead of having, say, 22 chromosomes, having 44--and now have a new plant species with its own set of characteristics and required living conditions, in spite of not having any new or different genes.

It is called polyploidy, and if it doesn't cause a miscarriage should it occur in a human (the most common outcome), the baby will live only a few days after birth. In plants, on the other hand, it leads to a new plant species.

Suffice it to say, plants and animals frequently cannot be directly compared in terms of genetics.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

Mike,

I know you don't believe in multiple species of humans. I don't either. Nor did Mrs. White. But Mrs. White refers to "amalgamation" as having produced "confused species" in animals (which obviously cannot happen by intrabreeding within the same species, but would only have happened by interbreeding between different species), and she says "amalgamation" also resulted in different "races" of men.

What, then, was "amalgamation?"

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

Obviously the amalgamation between races occurred naturally (as opposed to being forced to occur unnaturally in a lab).

And where did those races come from, in order to have "amalgamation" if the races themselves were the result of amalgamation?

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

Green, I wasn't talking of polyploidy nor species. I was talking of a simple and classic genetics.