The distinct races of mankind are far different than just the color and amount of melanin in their skin. The races have vast and easily discernible differences in other areas -- including facial characteristics and overall bone structure, average intelligence, and other mental, physical, and behavioral characteristics.

For instance, asians are shorter than other races, blacks are the best sprinters, and whites are the strongest (eg, winning most weightlifting competitions). The race of a person can be identified from genetic testing and even from the shape of their skull.

Most people believe that all humans descend from a common ancestral origin. But is this correct?

Here are the 3 main competing arguments/theories on the origin of the human races, with criticisms and evidences for each position. Please add any more for discussion. I am convinced that #3 is the correct position.

Possibilities:

1. Mankind and the different races are all the result of chance via the theory of evolution. But when you consider the fact that the theory of evolution is preposterous on its face (ie, all life emerging from inorganic compounds by pure chance), you have to dismiss this entire possibility. All life, and the entire universe, must have a Creator.

2. Mankind created by God, and all races of mankind descend from Adam. This is probably the view shared by the majority of people. But it is not supported by basic biological/scientific knowledge and evidence. If Adam and Eve were created around 6,000 years ago, how could the different races descend from just these two people (or Noah and his wife)? Wouldn't Noah's three sons all have been of the same appearance and race?

I guess the argument in support of this view would be that Noah's three sons separated, and then over the course of the ~4,000 years since that time, the different races have "evolved" and the differences between the races are the result of genetic isolation and different levels of sunlight, etc. But is that really possible? Could it be replicated? For instance, if you took some white people with blue eyes and blonde and light brown hair and isolated them in a location near the equator today with high levels of sunlight, could you come back in 2,000 years and they would have dark black skin and all of them would have brown eyes and black hair? I don't think so. I think that is biologically impossible. I think that even 10,000 years later they would still have white skin and blue eyes and blonde and light brown hair.

Or, did God supernaturally change the appearance of some descendants of Adam/Noah in order to make them appear different than the others? If so, this does not appear to be recorded in the Bible.

3. Mankind created by God, but the different races are separate creations. Adam was the father of only one of the races of mankind, not all. Given the biological unlikelihood or impossibility of all races descending from a common ancestry (as discussed in possibility #2 above), what is the only other option?

The Biblical scriptures lend support to this. There are 2 separate of accounts of creation of men -- one in chapter 1 of Genesis, and another in chapter 2. In Genesis 1:26-28 it describes God creating people on the 6th day of creation, saying "male and female he created THEM". Note the plural "them" is used. Then, in chapter 2 of Genesis, it describes God creating one man, Adam, and putting him a location called "Eden". At first Adam is alone and tending the garden by himself. Then Eve is created later. Although there may not be 100% conclusive evidence from the text of these two chapters, I think it can be interpreted as describing the creation of MULTIPLE (plural) numbers of pairs of male and female people.

Addressing one counter-argument/issue...

Some people point to the fact that the different races of mankind can pro-create, and claim that this is evidence for a common ancestral origin. I don't think this argument is valid.

This phenomenon exists among other types of animals, and also does not support common ancestral origin.

For example, look at dogs. All dog breeds can interbreed and produce offspring together. But does that fact mean that they all come from the same ancestral origin?



For instance, hypothetically, could the first two dogs that were created have looked like wolves, and then over thousands of years, somehow you have boxers, golden retrievers, poodles, chihuahuas, and all other breeds descending from the original male and female "wolf dog" pair? That is biologically impossible.

Consider if that hypothetical could be replicated. Could you take one male and one female wolf today, then have them isolated and produce offspring, and come back in 3,000 or 4,000 years, and would they have boxers, golden retrievers, poodles, chihuahuas as their "great great grandchildren"?

Here's the truth about the origin of dog breeds. In the beginning, God created a set number of different "kinds", "breeds", or "races" of dogs. Let's say, hypothetically, that it was 15 different kinds created in the beginning. Then, over thousands of years, that original 15 different kinds have interbred, producing all sorts of hybrid breeds...resulting in the hundreds of different breeds we have today.

Similar to the origin of dog breeds discussed above, I think the following is a likely explanation for the origin of the different human races:

In the beginning, God created a set number of distinct human "kinds" or "races". This is purely hypothetical on my part, but let's say it was 3 different types created in the beginning -- white, black, and asian.

Then, over thousands of years, due to some interbreeding between these 3 original races, it resulted in the creation of various new hybrid races.

For example, when the original "pure" asian race mixed with some of the black race, it resulted in the darker asian races, such as the Vietnamese and Filipinos. Also, I have read that there is evidence that the Japanese may have had some significant white ancestors that sailed to the island of Japan several hundred or over one thousand years ago. This could explain the lighter skin and different appearance of the Japanese from the Chinese and other asian races.

One obvious example are the various "hispanic" races. Due to the close proximity in time to their appearance, we know, of course, that these people are the result, largely, of Europeans mixing with various "native American Indian" tribes.

So what race comes from Adam and Eve?

The Bible contains many clues, when it discusses the Israelites and other descendants of Adam.


King David was "ruddy" (rosy red) in appearance:

1 Samuel 17:42 - "And when the Philistine looked about, and saw David, he disdained him: for he was but a youth, and ruddy, and of a fair countenance."

From Strong's Hebrew lexicon at link, when it says "ruddy", it is translated from Strong's Hebrew word H132 ("ad-mo-ne"), which means "reddish (of the hair or the complexion)".



Song of Solomon describes Solomon (?) as "white and ruddy":

Song of Solomon 5:10 - "My beloved is white and ruddy, the chiefest among ten thousand."



The Israelites have the ability to turn PALE -- ie, turn white with blood receding and not showing in the skin:

Isaiah 29:22 - "Therefore thus saith the Lord, who redeemed Abraham, concerning the house of Jacob, Jacob shall not now be ashamed, neither shall his face now wax pale."

I read a theory today from some scholars that said when God took a rib bone from Adam to make Eve it was actually the bone from his dick. That's why we don't have dick bones like some mammals do. I'm not trying to make a joke, they were very serious about this.

Here is a very interesting piece of information.

The name "Adam", in Hebrew, is from a root word that literally means "to show blood (in the face)" or "to flush or turn rosy" and "be made red or ruddy."

In Hebrew, the noun for the name "Adam" is Strong's Hebrew word H120. See here:

https://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/Lexicon/Lexicon.cfm?strongs=H120&t=KJV

In the entry at the above link, the "Root Word (Etymology)" of the name "Adam" is listed as Strong's Hebrew word H119:

https://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/Lexicon/lexicon.cfm?strongs=H119&t=KJV

This word is a verb, with almost an identical pronunciation as the name "Adam", and which is defined in the Hebrew lexicon as:

Quote:

---

Strong's Definitions

adam, aw-dam'; to show blood (in the face), i.e. flush or turn rosy:be (dyed, made) red (ruddy).

---

So, what kind/race of people are able to turn red or rosy by blushing or showing blood in the face?