ORIGINS of White, Black, Brown, Yellow, Types of HUMAN Races

[OPVerma]

This Thread is meant to trace the scientific reasons for differences in physical make up of humans and should not be taken in racist context.

Anthropologists believe, that humans have evolved from primates in Africa during 5- 6 million years ago and their physical makeup changed while migrating to different parts of the world.

Indian Scriptures give an account of their origin from different ' Prajapaties' or Progenitors.

2 billion years ago Brahma, prototype human, produced 10 Progenitors by biological fission on Pamir. 10 Progenitors in their Airy Bodies dispersed in different directions, and became the fore fathers of different human races. as folows

Angira : Red Indians.
Marich : Europeans, Middle East, Indians.
Vashisth : Chinese Japanese, Central Asians.
Pulah ; Short Pygmies
Pilastya : Tall Africans Julus.
Daksha ; Indian
... ... ...
During past 100 millions , there has been a lot of migrations and intermixing.The present Europeans are inter mixture of genetically modified humans 'Gurunds' + Devas sons of Kashyap / Marich, + Aryan Indians. ( Source : The Real History of the Ancient World' ISBN 9788190950268 )

Thus it is apparent that progenitors with different genes are responsible for the difference in physical makeup of humans and not what the Anthropologists speculate. They should update their knowledge, revise the textbooks, and stop misguiding people.

[sky]

[quote=OPVerma]

This Thread is meant to trace the scientific reasons for differences in physical make up of humans and should not be taken in racist context.

Anthropologists believe, that humans have evolved from primates in Africa during 5- 6 million years ago and their physical makeup changed while migrating to different parts of the world.

Indian Scriptures give an account of their origin from different ' Prajapaties' or Progenitors.

2 billion years ago Brahma, prototype human, produced 10 Progenitors by biological fission on Pamir. 10 Progenitors in their Airy Bodies dispersed in different directions, and became the fore fathers of different human races. as folows

Angira : Red Indians.
Marich : Europeans, Middle East, Indians.
Vashisth : Chinese Japanese, Central Asians.
Pulah ; Short Pygmies
Pilastya : Tall Africans Julus.
Daksha ; Indian
... ... ...
During past 100 millions , there has been a lot of migrations and intermixing.The present Europeans are inter mixture of genetically modified humans 'Gurunds' + Devas sons of Kashyap / Marich, + Aryan Indians. ( Source : The Real History of the Ancient World' ISBN 9788190950268 )

Thus it is apparent that progenitors with different genes are responsible for the difference in physical makeup of humans and not what the Anthropologists speculate. They should update their knowledge, revise the textbooks, and stop misguiding people.[/QUOTE



and I thought it was just Evolution ]

[Lucky 1]

[quote=sky123]

Originally Posted by OPVerma

This Thread is meant to trace the scientific reasons for differences in physical make up of humans and should not be taken in racist context.

Anthropologists believe, that humans have evolved from primates in Africa during 5- 6 million years ago and their physical makeup changed while migrating to different parts of the world.

Indian Scriptures give an account of their origin from different ' Prajapaties' or Progenitors.

2 billion years ago Brahma, prototype human, produced 10 Progenitors by biological fission on Pamir. 10 Progenitors in their Airy Bodies dispersed in different directions, and became the fore fathers of different human races. as folows

Angira : Red Indians.
Marich : Europeans, Middle East, Indians.
Vashisth : Chinese Japanese, Central Asians.
Pulah ; Short Pygmies
Pilastya : Tall Africans Julus.
Daksha ; Indian
... ... ...
During past 100 millions , there has been a lot of migrations and intermixing.The present Europeans are inter mixture of genetically modified humans 'Gurunds' + Devas sons of Kashyap / Marich, + Aryan Indians. ( Source : The Real History of the Ancient World' ISBN 9788190950268 )

Thus it is apparent that progenitors with different genes are responsible for the difference in physical makeup of humans and not what the Anthropologists speculate. They should update their knowledge, revise the textbooks, and stop misguiding people.[/QUOTE



and I thought it was just Evolution ]

It is just evolution........ Every human being alive today can trace there genetic origin to 41 surviving woman of child bearing age in Africa's Great Rift Valley from about 70,000 years ago when there was a die off in the human population and only 41 women survived.

Today there are exactly 41 unique genetic lines of human beings and everyone alive today carries the genes for all the different racial types.

Meaning skin color is nothing more than a adaptation to solar light levels...that's it!
People who dwell in equatorial regions develop darker skin......people who live in regions of low ultraviolet concentrations have lighter skin and eye's

DNA research has shown conclusively that you could take a Caucasian couple.... Put them in an equatorial environment and in about 15 to 20 thousand years there descendants would have dark skin and dark eyes to handle the sun.

Same in reverse for a couple with dark skin.

This whole skin and eye color adaptation has to do with ultraviolet light levels and processing vitamin D.

The amazing part is that those 41 genetic lines give such a diversity of appearance world wide!
The study of origins of man is one of my passions and a prime reason l spent about a month in the Great Rift Valley a few years back....well it was an amazing hunting trip too!

[OPVerma]

[quote=Lucky 1]

Originally Posted by sky123

It is just evolution........ Every human being alive today can trace there genetic origin to 41 surviving woman of child bearing age in Africa's Great Rift Valley from about 70,000 years ago when there was a die off in the human population and only 41 women survived.

Today there are exactly 41 unique genetic lines of human beings and everyone alive today carries the genes for all the different racial types.

Meaning skin color is nothing more than a adaptation to solar light levels...that's it!
People who dwell in equatorial regions develop darker skin......people who live in regions of low ultraviolet concentrations have lighter skin and eye's

DNA research has shown conclusively that you could take a Caucasian couple.... Put them in an equatorial environment and in about 15 to 20 thousand years there descendants would have dark skin and dark eyes to handle the sun.

Same in reverse for a couple with dark skin.

This whole skin and eye color adaptation has to do with ultraviolet light levels and processing vitamin D.

The amazing part is that those 41 genetic lines give such a diversity of appearance world wide!
The study of origins of man is one of my passions and a prime reason l spent about a month in the Great Rift Valley a few years back....well it was an amazing hunting trip too!

It is nice that you are a researcher trying to find origins of humans. For knowing origins you have to track down 155.4 trillion years record of actual events that had taken place in the universe and earth. All such subject matter is presented in my 4 books that could be seen on www.discoverybooks.org

41 genetic line are somewhat similar to 60 daughters of Daksha from which a lot many human species have emanated.

[PeaceSeeker]

Originally Posted by OPVerma

For knowing origins you have to track down 155.4 trillion years record of actual events that had taken place in the universe and earth. All such subject matter is presented in my 4 books that could be seen on www.discoverybooks.org

[/quote]Do these books promote Hindu religion and culture?
These books deal with science and truth and promote universal religion, Hindus were custodians and followers of principles laid down in the scriptures on which these books are based. [/quote]

Science & truth & universal religion? Oxymoron? Aren't all religions man-made?
Which scriptures? See https://www.amazon.com/Urantia-Unite...ia+united+book

Albert Einstein Quotes on Philosophy of Religion, Theology, God: The religion of the future will be a cosmic religion. It should transcend personal God and avoid dogma and theology. Covering both the natural and the spiritual, it should be based on a religious sense arising from the experience of all things natural and spiritual as a meaningful unity. Buddhism answers this description. If there is any religion that could cope with modern scientific needs it would be Buddhism.

[OPVerma]

Do these books promote Hindu religion and culture?
These books deal with science and truth and promote universal religion, Hindus were custodians and followers of principles laid down in the scriptures on which these books are based. [/quote]

Science & truth & universal religion? Oxymoron? Aren't all religions man-made?
Which scriptures? See https://www.amazon.com/Urantia-Unite...ia+united+book

Albert Einstein Quotes on Philosophy of Religion, Theology, God: The religion of the future will be a cosmic religion. It should transcend personal God and avoid dogma and theology. Covering both the natural and the spiritual, it should be based on a religious sense arising from the experience of all things natural and spiritual as a meaningful unity. Buddhism answers this description. If there is any religion that could cope with modern scientific needs it would be Buddhism.[/quote]



Yes Buddhism is quite a scientific religion based on Karma Theory. However, it is an offshoot of Hinduism that covers all religion ( except Islam ) including Christianity.

You can see my thread " the Scientific Grading of Religions" Link http://www.spiritualforums.com/vb/sh...d.php?t=110632

[OPVerma]

[quote=Lucky 1]

Originally Posted by sky123

It is just evolution........ Every human being alive today can trace there genetic origin to 41 surviving woman of child bearing age in Africa's Great Rift Valley from about 70,000 years ago when there was a die off in the human population and only 41 women survived.

Today there are exactly 41 unique genetic lines of human beings and everyone alive today carries the genes for all the different racial types.

Meaning skin color is nothing more than a adaptation to solar light levels...that's it!
People who dwell in equatorial regions develop darker skin......people who live in regions of low ultraviolet concentrations have lighter skin and eye's

DNA research has shown conclusively that you could take a Caucasian couple.... Put them in an equatorial environment and in about 15 to 20 thousand years there descendants would have dark skin and dark eyes to handle the sun.

Same in reverse for a couple with dark skin.

This whole skin and eye color adaptation has to do with ultraviolet light levels and processing vitamin D.

The amazing part is that those 41 genetic lines give such a diversity of appearance world wide!
The study of origins of man is one of my passions and a prime reason l spent about a month in the Great Rift Valley a few years back....well it was an amazing hunting trip too!

Subsequent to 100 million years, Kashyap ( a genetic scientists) the son of Marich married 60 daughters of Daksha and produced genetically different varieties of humans, animals and insects. You quote 41, however Pof. Bryan Sykes quotes 33 daughters of Eve to be the original mothers.

Climatic conditions do affect our physical make up but the basic difference/ skeleton remains unchanged. An African may live in Tundra for generations, but he would never become like an Eskimo.

It is nice to hear your interest in Human Evolution and your trip to Rift Valley. However, after publication of my Title 'The Real History of the Ancient World' that is based on 'The Densification Theory of Human Evolution' in 2003, the NATIONAL GEOGRAPHIC Magazine , in their Nov 2004 issue declared that Darwin was wrong and humans are not descended from apes.

[Altair]

Well.. it looks like you actually haven't read the article yourself.

Here's the article..

Was Darwin Wrong? By David Quammen
National Geographic – November 2004

Evolution by natural selection, the central concept of the life's work of Charles Darwin, is a theory. It's a theory about the origin of adaptation, complexity, and diversity among Earth's living creatures. If you are skeptical by nature, unfamiliar with the terminology of science, and unaware of the overwhelming evidence, you might even be tempted to say that it's "just" a theory.

In the same sense, relativity as described by Albert Einstein is "just" a theory. The notion that Earth orbits around the sun rather than vice versa, offered by Copernicus in 1543, is a theory. Continental drift is a theory. The existence, structure, and dynamics of atoms? Atomic theory. Even electricity is a theoretical construct, involving electrons, which are tiny units of charged mass that no one has ever seen.

Each of these theories is an explanation that has been confirmed to such a degree, by observation and experiment, that knowledgeable experts accept it as fact. That's what scientists mean when they talk about a theory: not a dreamy and unreliable speculation, but an explanatory statement that fits the evidence. They embrace such an explanation confidently but provisionally—taking it as their best available view of reality, at least until some severely conflicting data or some better explanation might come along.

Read the entire article here: http://www.uvm.edu/~pbierman/classes...arwinWrong.pdf

Sorry dude.. Evolution is real, it happens. In humans, in other animals, in plants, in viruses and bacteria. If it didn't then live would've died out long ago, actually it wouldn't even have existed in the first place. Change is a fundamental part of our universe, and it's no different with living species who adapt and change due to circumstances.

[Lucky 1]

Originally Posted by Altair

Well.. it looks like you actually haven't read the article yourself.

Here's the article..



Read the entire article here: http://www.uvm.edu/~pbierman/classes...arwinWrong.pdf

Sorry dude.. Evolution is real, it happens. In humans, in other animals, in plants, in viruses and bacteria. If it didn't then live would've died out long ago, actually it wouldn't even have existed in the first place. Change is a fundamental part of our universe, and it's no different with living species who adapt and change due to circumstances.

I Agreed......that article in National Geographic is a bunch of horse hockey written by a nitwit that doesn't understand science.

His nonsense about "theories" right there shows he's clueless!

[OPVerma]

[quote=sky123]

Originally Posted by OPVerma

This Thread is meant to trace the scientific reasons for differences in physical make up of humans and should not be taken in racist context.

Anthropologists believe, that humans have evolved from primates in Africa during 5- 6 million years ago and their physical makeup changed while migrating to different parts of the world.

Indian Scriptures give an account of their origin from different ' Prajapaties' or Progenitors.

2 billion years ago Brahma, prototype human, produced 10 Progenitors by biological fission on Pamir. 10 Progenitors in their Airy Bodies dispersed in different directions, and became the fore fathers of different human races. as folows

Angira : Red Indians.
Marich : Europeans, Middle East, Indians.
Vashisth : Chinese Japanese, Central Asians.
Pulah ; Short Pygmies
Pilastya : Tall Africans Julus.
Daksha ; Indian
... ... ...
During past 100 millions , there has been a lot of migrations and intermixing.The present Europeans are inter mixture of genetically modified humans 'Gurunds' + Devas sons of Kashyap / Marich, + Aryan Indians. ( Source : The Real History of the Ancient World' ISBN 9788190950268 )

Thus it is apparent that progenitors with different genes are responsible for the difference in physical makeup of humans and not what the Anthropologists speculate. They should update their knowledge, revise the textbooks, and stop misguiding people.[/QUOTE



and I thought it was just Evolution ]

You have to study a lot to know