Forums118
Topics9,224
Posts196,102
Members1,325
|
Most Online5,850 Feb 29th, 2020
|
|
S |
M |
T |
W |
T |
F |
S |
|
|
1
|
2
|
3
|
4
|
5
|
6
|
7
|
8
|
9
|
10
|
11
|
12
|
13
|
14
|
15
|
16
|
17
|
18
|
19
|
20
|
21
|
22
|
23
|
24
|
25
|
26
|
27
|
28
|
29
|
30
|
31
|
|
|
|
Here is a link to show exactly where the Space Station is over earth right now: Click Here
|
|
5 registered members (dedication, Karen Y, 3 invisible),
2,231
guests, and 8
spiders. |
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
Re: Ellen White & Amalgamation of Man and Beast
[Re: Rosangela]
#135469
07/30/11 08:50 PM
07/30/11 08:50 PM
|
Banned Member
Dedicated Member
|
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 1,098
Laval, Quebec
|
|
NJK: Why would light skin people (and most likely equally, if not much more fully clothed than those in our day) today be able to “better tolerate” the sunlight??
R: You yourself pointed out that our lifestyle is now much more sun-sheltered than it was then. In regards to what actually addresses the issue, I am seeing that my view and yours are being confused here. You are claiming they migrated to a place where their already altered skin color would be better for them. I am saying their skin color was altered after this migration move, according to their common language and to avoid conflicts with other people. On the other side issue, I am saying that people back then were probably more fully clothed (wearing full robes - both men and women) than (liberal) people today. So the sun then would not affect them more than it would today. And given their better overall health, they probably could better tolerate it than today. So with both of these factors taken into consideration, if people should be running to a climate that their skin color tolerates, it should e.g, be light skin people running away from sunny climates (e.g., light skin Floridians, Souther Californians, Arizonians, etc indeed the whole U.S. Southern region coast to coast). I lived in Florida, in your above example city Miami for 7 years and I now as a fact that it is indeed constantly above the U.S. average Sunny, with really only rain breaking up this abundant sun dose. And really, what do you mean exactly by “tolerant”. As far as I know damaging and painful surface sunburns can almost equally occur to person of any shade of skin color. Only the damage by skin penetrating UV rays is what is varyingly blocked by skin color. NJK: Also my view is that all people were tanned to start with and those after the flood who went to live in climates with less sun became gradually then “genetically permanently” lighter over their 400+ year life while the opposite occurred for people living in tropical and “uncovered” places, particularly with those who wore very little clothes.
R: What do you mean is that acquired characteristics can be passed on genetically? If I get your question accurately, I am saying that the genetic control of skin color itself/alone may be the only thing that can be externally affected in order to adequately protect again this UV variation. And that recoding can indeed be passed on their (immediate) offspring. However a lot of constant exposure time by a single person is the key requirement for that genetic recoding.
“Truly I say to you, to the extent that you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it to Me.” Matt 25:45 NJK Project
|
|
|
Re: Ellen White & Amalgamation of Man and Beast
[Re: NJK Project]
#135472
07/30/11 11:12 PM
07/30/11 11:12 PM
|
5500+ Member
|
Joined: Nov 2004
Posts: 6,154
Brazil
|
|
So with both of these factors taken into consideration, if people should be running to a climate that their skin color tolerates, it should e.g, be light skin people running away from sunny climates People today don't need to run from sunny climates. They have sunscreens. They have cars to take them to places, and most of them work indoors. Most men don't have to till the ground. Most men don't have to care for sheep or cattle herds. Women don't have to wash clothes in the river. And so on. Obviously there are much less exposure to the sun rays. Even so, in Brazil (which began to be colonized in 1500) we see that people with lighter skins (mostly from German descent) are located in the colder climate regions (the shouthern part of the country and mountain regions). Regions at or near the Equator (the northern part of the country) are populated by people with a darker skin (European + American Indian or European + African descent). This is clearly perceptible. And really, what do you mean exactly by “tolerant”. As far as I know damaging and painful surface sunburns can almost equally occur to person of any shade of skin color. Only the damage by skin penetrating UV rays is what is varyingly blocked by skin color. Almost equally? Skin Type I Burns easily and rarely tans. These people most likely have bright white skin, blue or green eyes and freckles, which usually reveals an English, Irish or Scottish heritage. People with Type 1 skin should not tan indoors or outdoors. Their skin is unable to produce significant amounts of melanin to protect them from sunburns that can lead to skin damage. Skin Type II Can tan, but still susceptible to sunburn. Common traits include brown or blue eyes, red or blond hair and freckles. Heritage usually is English, Scottish or Scandanavian. Type II tanners should be cautious and take any precautions to avoid sunburn. Skin Type III Tans easily, but still susceptible to moderate sunburns. The most common skin type in America. These people often have brown eyes, dark hair and Central European heritage. Skin Type IV Tans easily and almost never burns. These people often have dark eyes, dark hair and Mediterranean, Oriental or Hispanic heritage. Skin Type V Rarely burns and tans easily. These people have dark hair and eyes and are of Indian, American Indian, Hispanic or African descent. Skin Type VI Can tan despite their black skin. Never sunburns. They usually have dark hair and are Africans, African-American or Aborigines.
http://www.maya-tan.com/skintypes.html Obviously the tolerance is much higher for some skins than for others. If I get your question accurately, I am saying that the genetic control of skin color itself/alone may be the only thing that can be externally affected in order to adequately protect again this UV variation. And that recoding can indeed be passed on their (immediate) offspring. However a lot of constant exposure time by a single person is the key requirement for that genetic recoding. Where is the scientific basis for this claim? There are indeed some who claim that some acquired characteristics can be transmitted to offspring. However, if this happens at all, it happens within the average modern lifespan; it doesn't require hundreds of years.
|
|
|
Re: Ellen White & Amalgamation of Man and Beast
[Re: NJK Project]
#135473
07/31/11 12:34 AM
07/31/11 12:34 AM
|
SDA Active Member 2021
5500+ Member
|
Joined: Apr 2008
Posts: 7,003
The Orient
|
|
How many generations would it take for "whites" to evolve into "blacks," given a hot, sunny environment? According to my hypothesis: one from a 430+ year, 12-16 hours per day, tropical, unhindered suntanning. This is absolutely silly. I don't know how a dead person can pass on his genes. For that matter, I don't see how a 430-year old, still-alive person can then give his genes to his 400-year old son. Blessings, Green Cochoa.
We can receive of heaven's light only as we are willing to be emptied of self. We can discern the character of God, and accept Christ by faith, only as we consent to the bringing into captivity of every thought to the obedience of Christ. And to all who do this, the Holy Spirit is given without measure. In Christ "dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily. And ye are complete in Him." [Colossians 2:9, 10.] {GW 57.1} -- Ellen White.
|
|
|
Re: Ellen White & Amalgamation of Man and Beast
[Re: Rosangela]
#135475
07/31/11 02:12 AM
07/31/11 02:12 AM
|
Banned Member
Dedicated Member
|
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 1,098
Laval, Quebec
|
|
People today don't need to run from sunny climates. They have sunscreens. They have cars to take them to places, and most of them work indoors. Most men don't have to till the ground. Most men don't have to care for sheep or cattle herds. Women don't have to wash clothes in the river. And so on. Sure we have different “remedies” and a sheltered lifestyle, but I e.g., still see that people today are, for recently accepted cultural reasons, probably less sun shieldingly dress than many others in the past and that would greatly affect how much constant/consistent sun exposure they get. And all of this non-slave, “household” work would have been done in the past by mostly fully robe-clothed people, only rolling up the bottom of their robe when necessary and probably, in moral groups, when amongst the same gender. Also, people rarely wear sunscreen except when they plan to lie in the sun for a while. Obviously there are much less exposure to the sun rays. Even so, in Brazil (which began to be colonized in 1500) we see that people with lighter skins (mostly from German descent) are located in the colder climate regions (the shouthern part of the country and mountain regions). Regions at or near the Equator (the northern part of the country) are populated by people with a darker skin (European + Indian or European + African descent). This is clearly perceptible. This is where I would like to know what exactly you understand by “toleration”. Is it, as the data below involves, to avoid sunburns? In that case it that would make sense for them to be migrating elsewhere. However is this only a, relatively, recent (i.e., sometime around and/or into the A.D. era) development. Again the longevity (=health) factor of those living 400+ years needs to be taken into full consideration and this toleration may have become gradually less and less over time, indeed as men’s longevity lessened (=healthiness decreased) So if my ‘tanning genetic alteration’ hypothesis is valid, “toleration” would not have been the, at least initiating reason for migration destination selections, indeed those skin color changes would have come after those migrations. NJK: And really, what do you mean exactly by “tolerant”. As far as I know damaging and painful surface sunburns can almost equally occur to person of any shade of skin color. Only the damage by skin penetrating UV rays is what is varyingly blocked by skin color. R: Almost equally? Skin Type I Burns easily and rarely tans. These people most likely have bright white skin, blue or green eyes and freckles, which usually reveals an English, Irish or Scottish heritage. People with Type 1 skin should not tan indoors or outdoors. Their skin is unable to produce significant amounts of melanin to protect them from sunburns that can lead to skin damage. Skin Type II Can tan, but still susceptible to sunburn. Common traits include brown or blue eyes, red or blond hair and freckles. Heritage usually is English, Scottish or Scandanavian. Type II tanners should be cautious and take any precautions to avoid sunburn. Skin Type III Tans easily, but still susceptible to moderate sunburns. The most common skin type in America. These people often have brown eyes, dark hair and Central European heritage. Skin Type IV Tans easily and almost never burns. These people often have dark eyes, dark hair and Mediterranean, Oriental or Hispanic heritage. Skin Type V Rarely burns and tans easily. These people have dark hair and eyes and are of Indian, American Indian, Hispanic or African descent. Skin Type VI Can tan despite their black skin. Never sunburns. They usually have dark hair and are Africans, African-American or Aborigines.
http://www.maya-tan.com/skintypes.html Obviously the tolerance is much higher for some skins than for others. Those statistics probably do support your claim in regards to skin color toleration capabilities. I was just informally going by experiential observations were I, particularly in my first sun exposed outing in the Spring time (e.g., a walk or just mowing the lawn) after the long and shielded winter season here in Quebec, Canada, personally can quickly get a sudden blackened blotch on uncovered skin areas (forearms, even forehead, above my sunglasses line). I also based it on the often and common, particularly lately, (based on apparently some new scientific observations), emphatically said caution that ‘even dark skinned people need to wear sun screen/block when prolongedly out in the sun.’ NJK: If I get your question accurately, I am saying that the genetic control of skin color itself/alone may be the only thing that can be externally affected in order to adequately protect again this UV variation. And that recoding can indeed be passed on their (immediate) offspring. However a lot of constant exposure time by a single person is the key requirement for that genetic recoding.
R: Where is the scientific basis for this claim? There are indeed some who claim that some acquired characteristics can be transmitted to offspring. However, if this happens at all, it happens within the average modern lifespan; it doesn't require hundreds of years. The study/research of the science of skin genes, especially as they relate to tanning would be in order here, but I don’t presently have various the needed resources for this undertaking. Its time for gene alteration could take a longer while. The whole study of how lifestyle and other internally “ingested/processed” external affect one’s DNA coding would also be in order here. APL’s seemingly Biblically/Scientifically valid comments above in regards to the hereditary passing on of sin tendencies seems to me to be along this line. Nonetheless sun UV exposure clearly know to begin a biological bodily reaction and DNA affectation, so to me that is a most significant difference to any other such affectations, if they are scientifically true.
“Truly I say to you, to the extent that you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it to Me.” Matt 25:45 NJK Project
|
|
|
Re: Ellen White & Amalgamation of Man and Beast
[Re: Green Cochoa]
#135476
07/31/11 02:15 AM
07/31/11 02:15 AM
|
Banned Member
Dedicated Member
|
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 1,098
Laval, Quebec
|
|
How many generations would it take for "whites" to evolve into "blacks," given a hot, sunny environment? According to my hypothesis: one from a 430+ year, 12-16 hours per day, tropical, unhindered suntanning. This is absolutely silly. I don't know how a dead person can pass on his genes. For that matter, I don't see how a 430-year old, still-alive person can then give his genes to his 400-year old son. Blessings, Green Cochoa. Of course, I never said anything at all about either ‘passing on gene (a) after one is dead nor (b) non-sexually’; but of course you typically need to go on to make such “straw man” and red herring circular arguments. The offspring passing on would of course have to be at some point before they died. So e.g, they, as men could, especially with non-God fearing people who slept around and/or had many wives, could have a son or daughter e.g, 5 years before their final 438th year birthday. As the line of the more than less (God-fearing) Semitic Hebrews through Abraham remained in one ca. original Middle East Region, the did not have striking skin-color variations amongst them. I don’t know what the genetic change age/time would be, but it quite plausible could be around 100 which is plenty of time to continue to have ‘many more sons and daughters past a first’ (cf. Gen 11:10ff) and since a while, just a little after Moses’ generation (120 years), people have ceased to live into their hundreds, indeed settling around 70-80 as noted by David (Psa 90:10).
“Truly I say to you, to the extent that you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it to Me.” Matt 25:45 NJK Project
|
|
|
Re: Ellen White & Amalgamation of Man and Beast
[Re: Rosangela]
#135501
08/01/11 04:31 PM
08/01/11 04:31 PM
|
SDA Active Member 2024
5500+ Member
|
Joined: Oct 2008
Posts: 6,499
Midland
|
|
Not much? Could you give some quantitative comparisons? This is from 2009, but it will do for purposes of comparison: Well that sure surprised me. For some reason I thought the poles would have high UV. Huh? Why would it be "natural" for lighter skinned people to seek colder climates? Because, of course, the lighter your skin the less tolerance you'll have for sun exposure. Along the same line of reasoning, would that mean that blind cave fish sought out dark areas because they were blind?
|
|
|
Re: Ellen White & Amalgamation of Man and Beast
[Re: kland]
#135503
08/01/11 05:34 PM
08/01/11 05:34 PM
|
5500+ Member
|
Joined: Nov 2004
Posts: 6,154
Brazil
|
|
Well that sure surprised me. For some reason I thought the poles would have high UV. The explanation: The three images above illustrate how a change in angle between the sun and the Earth’s surface affect the intensity of sunlight (and UV-B) on the surface. When the sun is directly overhead, forming a 90° angle with the surface, sunlight is spread over the minimum area. Also, the light only has to pass through the atmosphere directly above the surface. An increased angle between the sun and the surface—due to latitude, time of day, and season—spreads the same amount of energy over a wider area, and the sunlight passes through more atmosphere, diffusing the light. Therefore, UV-B radiation is stronger at the equator than the poles, stronger at noon than evening, and stronger in summer than winter. (Illustration by Robert Simmon) http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/UVB/uvb_radiation3.phpAlong the same line of reasoning, would that mean that blind cave fish sought out dark areas because they were blind? That was funny. No, this is an entirely different case. It's a case of loss of information (microevolution), and natural selection has perpetuated the dominance of this characteristic in its offspring. But blind Cavefish can produce sighted offspring.
|
|
|
Re: Ellen White & Amalgamation of Man and Beast
[Re: Rosangela]
#135524
08/02/11 05:20 PM
08/02/11 05:20 PM
|
SDA Active Member 2024
5500+ Member
|
Joined: Oct 2008
Posts: 6,499
Midland
|
|
Yes, but there is also the issue of blockage which I thought was less at the poles.
Why is it a different case with the fish? I believe NJK and I were trying to say that white people have lost information. Why do you think it is a different case?
By the way, dominance of loss, seems rather conflicting to me. Maybe I'm trying to relate it to dominate genes.
|
|
|
Re: Ellen White & Amalgamation of Man and Beast
[Re: kland]
#135529
08/02/11 07:59 PM
08/02/11 07:59 PM
|
5500+ Member
|
Joined: Nov 2004
Posts: 6,154
Brazil
|
|
Why is it a different case with the fish? I believe NJK and I were trying to say that white people have lost information. Why do you think it is a different case? Do you think that white skin is a loss of information? What was the original color? Black, yellow or red? And if white is a loss of information, how did the other two colors (except white and the initial color) originate?
|
|
|
Re: Ellen White & Amalgamation of Man and Beast
[Re: Rosangela]
#135544
08/04/11 01:17 PM
08/04/11 01:17 PM
|
SDA Active Member 2024
5500+ Member
|
Joined: Oct 2008
Posts: 6,499
Midland
|
|
Why is it a different case with the fish? I believe NJK and I were trying to say that white people have lost information. Why do you think it is a different case? Do you think that white skin is a loss of information? Yes, that's what we've been saying. What was the original color? Black, yellow or red?
A mix of colors. All colors. And if white is a loss of information, how did the other two colors (except white and the initial color) originate? Huh? They were not lost. That seemed like an odd question.
|
|
|
|
Here is the link to this week's Sabbath School Lesson Study and Discussion Material: Click Here
|
|
|