Black People Politics : Molecular Biology, "Blackness" and the Bible

Perfection

Well-Known Member
REGISTERED MEMBER
Aug 21, 2012
2,325
643
This issue, at times, is such a confusion for me! However, I feel it is paramount that we try to understand how big governments have used these terms.

I read earlier a post that mentioned something that I respectfully will disagree with and that is the origins of genes.
Some of us have come to believe that Africans have all of the original genotype for all humans, but as a person who studied genetics, I tell you that is not true at all. And part of the confusion amongst people of African descent is this kind of mis-information that has been taught to us.

I earned a BS degree in Biology and have a passion in this kind of research. So one main research I reference is the international report of the Genome Project headed up by Stanford University. Another reference is ancient scriptures.

When it comes to the Original Modern Mankind, it is traced back to one individual out of Africa from which genetically all modern anatomically straight males Y DNA Haplo groups stem from. That one male individual is the origin of

Black skin

So, prior to modern mankind 'Black skin' has not been proven to exist in the Primitive Hominids. They exhibit very dark skin that may appear to be black, however, Black skin is a unique creation that is genetically traced back to modern mankind origins.

Another reference I refer to is the scientific museum, the Smithsonian, and the Human Origins museum.

The genetic term for black skin is Eumelanin.

Primitive hominids to not have this genetic material. Today, scientist define Eumelanin as being either black melanin or brown melanin, but this, I disagree. The origin is specifically 'black'. This I reference the animal species and for this reason, it can be recognized that the western scholars are distorting the origins of Eumelanin, in that it was exclusively 'black melanin'.

So most people are misled to believe that today, there is no such thing as black skinned people, but this is absolutely not true as the ancient scriptures attest multiple times.

The reason for this confusion is better understood by another scientific term; Polygenetics.

Due to polygenetics, and the fact that all of us humans are intermixed, therefore, the original eumelanin is now, never exclusive, but is combined with other genes of varying melanin from 'brown melanin' and etc.

The only other melanin in all human and animal species is called Phaeomelanin, and this is where different shades of brown melanin and red melanin come from. So all human and animal skin and hair express in varying degree wither Eumelanin [black pigment] or Phaeomelanin [red/brown] melanin. That's it.

Therefore, the original male out of Africa had to have expressed, along with nappy hair, that he was 'very black skinned' and he also had 'intense black hair'.

When modern mankind intermixed, overtime with primitive hominids, this brought about other variations that all humans today have in their genes.

So no, African people are not the origin of all gene makeup. We express all genes to certain extent, but we are not the origin of all genotype. All humans have primitive genotype within our gene makeup, and this is detailed in the ancient scriptures as well.

So the evil of Colorism evolved out of humans that, for some strange reason, came to believe that White or fair skin humans were more supreme than darker skinned people. Therefore, to ignore how Colorism is still affecting us today, is not good. We need to address it, if we want to have a better humanity.

Lastly, for now, I will say this of which will probably not sit well, with some African Americans that want to ignore the issue of a Color Caste System, that is still being used to divide, conquer and suppress;

When the Jews realized that Jesus the Christ did not look like Moses, they were shocked.
The thought that the prophecy of the Great Prophet that Moses wrote about would be a very light skinned Negro,
as Moses had been. The Egyptian depiction of Moses was not as he is falsely portrayed here, in the western films though,
he was not a White man. He was not a Hittite.
The Egyptians were masters at script and records and their depiction of Moses showed that he had very thick hair under his scribe cap.
But the Jews were enraged that God, the Creator would send his only begotten son, to look like and Original Israelite!!!
LOL!

Like Solomon wrote a thousand years prior about the Coming of Jesus, though, he would not be Black skinned.
Solomon wrote in the Book, Sonf of Solomon Chapter five [5] that the Greatest Beloved would be ruddy, meaning
reddish brown. Jesus was NOT as black skinned as Solomon was!!!
Solomon wrote that he was 'a twin' to the Black virgin, that he eventually married. Yes, a lot of African Americans have
miss that aspect, even though it is right there in the Bible.
David, loved many of Black women, as Solomon, wrote, the Black skinned virgin was 'as black skinned as the tents of Kedar,
and 'as black skinned' as 'the curtains of Solomon'. Solomons usage of the term 'tents' refers to the Kedarite, but his usage of the word 'curtain' refers to 'his maternal origins'; his mother Bathsheba. All throughout the book, Solomon links himself to the black virgin as being 'like a twin'. He uses the genetics of the deer family. In the deer family the female deer always gives birth to twins, one female and one male deer!!!--under natural environment. Right now today, when you see new born deer, you will see one female and one male sibling feeding together!!!

Solomon wrote about the issue of Colorism that plagued the Hebrew people and why the virgin spoke to him about how her own people mocked her for becoming very black skinned.

So, fast forward, to when the Jews were told that the Great Prophet was healing people and had a huge following, they became furious when they found out that Jesus was not as light skinned as Moses had been. LOL.
Jesus changed Peter's name from Simon to 'Peter' for this very reason! In Europe and Bizantium, Peter was depicted as being
swarthy, as black as petroleum--rock oil. Bitumen. there is so much more that needs to be addressed when it comes to people of African descent and our problems with Colorism. It needs to be addressed and not hidden under a rug.
We want to blame White Supremacist for problems that we, ourselves, have and this is not good.
There is nothing negative about having a light skinned relative and a dark skinned relative, however, we sometimes are very deceptive in how we harbor the same issues that we say White people have when we do not address how Colorism has been used to oppress darker skinned people. smh.
Chevron Dove offers an astute analysis and I would like to go deeper into her understanding.
 
Chevron Dove offers an astute analysis and I would like to go deeper into her understanding.

Hey!!! @Perfection

I see this topic is under 'Black Politics'!
So what better start point than to delve into ancient Egyptian history!

It's early in the morning and I will get back to this but for starters,
I will mention this;

The Second Egyptian Dynastic period and its'

HERO-CLEO-POLICY Period. I think this time period is unique because of the division that occurred due
civil divisions that occurred in Upper Egypt versus Lower Egypt. But this time period came much later have a great conflict had already happened. This conflict has been brought back up due to Archaeology and the Narmer Palette and was unearthed.

The Narmer Palette revealed this great conflict and agrees with other historical records about the unrest during this time period in early Egyptian history.

The leader who headed up this conflict, Narmer [i.e, Menes], became a major figure that many 'Black Egyptians' continued to identify with for thousands of years afterwards. His identity was connected to the symbol of

The Black Bull

The Black Bull is the key symbol that many other later Black civilizations during ancient times too, identified with in connection with this ancient war in Egypt. Narmer warred against the Asiatics of Lower Egypt in the north and united both Upper and Lower Egypt.


1724573057914.png


The major symbol of the cow is so amazing in how it was a major theme in so many ancient 'black' civilizations and this kind of history is key to understanding ancient history. In fact, the worship of the cow is so important because, cattle was one main animal that early peoples depended upon as a food source. Even in ancient America, this animal was a main source of survival.

During the time period of the Biblical exodus, the worship of the 'black cow' became a serious contention because like many civilizations thousands of years prior, the 'black cow' went from being a main food source to being worshiped. So the Israelite people became part of a resurgence of this worship of 'the black bull' and so when Aaron made 'the golden calf', it marks that time period!

Prior to this time period, the ancient Minoans of Crete also had the 'black bull' as a major theme. And so the future Babylonian empire that rose during the 500-400s BC also had this as a major theme as well. All of these ancient 'black civilizations' stemmed from the very well documented Narmer, the Unifier of Egypt. etc.
 
I'm back! @Perfection It's almost 2:00 AM in the morning but I wanted to respond briefly before I go to sleep because, I love this subject and I am passionate about it!

"But I'm wondering if you can provide some time lines please. I'm not seeing any in your analysis. For example, above you explain that "...Modern Mankind...is traced back to one individual out of Africa..."

When? 1k years ago? 3k years ago? Will you be able to provide some kind of working time-line please."


The timeline offered by scientist today is completely different from the Biblical timelines on the very same topic or the origins of modern mankind! So even though the timelines differ, however, their conclusions are the exact same! Both sources state that all modern mankind come from one male individual out of Africa. So then, here are the differences in timelines;

kya

This is the unit that modern scientist use and also 'mya'. kya means a thousand years ago.
mya means a million years ago. And so, the dates given about the origin of modern mankind goes back to 50,000 years ago.
One aspect of todays' scientist though, would be that they do state their timelines are 'theoretical' and back in 1950s, they based their findings about human origins on 'carbon dating'. The problem with carbon dating is that the timeline prior to 45,000 years ago, it theoretical because the carbon extracted from human bones, cannot be confirmed earlier than 45,000 years ago.

I will get some references later, hopefully when I get up.

Now concerning Biblical timeline, that is based on astronomy and because astronomy is 'an exact science', these timelines can be confirmed with accuracy. Therefore, science scholars today, agree with Biblical timelines for one main reason:

The First Civilizations!

Both secular scientist and ancient records agree with the records of the earliest human civilizations that formed.

Therefore, do I base my research; on a contrast and comparison with ancient civilizations and their timelines.

For example: In AD 2002, all science reports have recorded the planetary alignment of which synchronizes all timelines from ancient times to this day. The reason why I know this is because, I heard it being reported on the 6:00 News and so, I set my alarm clock and was up at 5:00 AM that next morning to witness it myself. I still can't believe it, but I did see it. Afterwards, i went to a planetarium to watch a show. This planetary alignment occurred on April 16, 2002 @ 6:00 PM in the Middle East, but it was still visible that next morning but only for less than an hour before the sun came up. I couldn't believe it, but I saw it.
The scientist say that exactly 2000 years prior was the exact same planetary alignment with the exception of the later planets.


So, for this reason, I have been able to compare and contrast ancient timelines and can see that even though secular timelines differ from timelines of ancient civilizations like ancient Egyptian timelines, Sumer, Crete, and of course Israel, they all agree when it comes to modern mankind.

Modern mankind developed civilizations. This is the key to the origins of modern mankind.
A civilization is defined based on 'record keeping'.
The ancient Sumerians were MASTERS at record keeping.
Archaeologist have unearthed thousands of their cuneiform tablets and can date them to be around 4000s BC.
yes, I have developed timelines that mark exact historical events.


There are three (3) terms that can be confusing: Anthropologist, Archaeologist and Paleontologist, and these scientist help to date human history both Primitive and modern mankind.

"And my second query to you is, just so I know I'm clear about your analysis, do I hear you saying that this "one individual out of Africa" is the first and oldest and therefore the beginning of the --and I say this in quotes-- "black race"?"

Yes, absolutely! That is what I am saying. Prior to the 'creation' of humans that express 'eumelanin', along with 'nappy hair', I do not know. But primitive humans existed for thousands of years prior to humans that are dated to express 'eumelanin' in their skin cells. In other words, Black skinned humans are a new creation. And ancient records are redundant in the association of humans with the planet earth in relation to being 'black'. A lot of us may not realize it but the planet earth is defined as being 'black' in some regions and the word 'Kemet' is just one word that describes this.

Both the planet earth and its' satellite are defined the same, as being 'black'.
In NASA, this is confirmed. The astronauts were reported as being shocked when they reached the moon and saw that
the moon sand was BLACK!

The early Europeans reported in surprise when they first came to the ancient Americas and in certain regions they saw that the ground was black. Texas is one such region where this was reported. So Africa is not the only region on earth that shows this geology. If anyone lives in Ohio, West Virginia and Western Pennsylvania, it is crazy to drive through the mountains and see the black mountains where coal was abundant. So, I don't believe the ancient scriptures were wrong when it says that mankind was made from the dust of the earth!

Hopefully, I can add more to this in the other thread that you started!

I'm back! @Perfection It's almost 2:00 AM in the morning but I wanted to respond briefly before I go to sleep because, I love this subject and I am passionate about it!

"But I'm wondering if you can provide some time lines please. I'm not seeing any in your analysis. For example, above you explain that "...Modern Mankind...is traced back to one individual out of Africa..."

When? 1k years ago? 3k years ago? Will you be able to provide some kind of working time-line please."


The timeline offered by scientist today is completely different from the Biblical timelines on the very same topic or the origins of modern mankind! So even though the timelines differ, however, their conclusions are the exact same! Both sources state that all modern mankind come from one male individual out of Africa. So then, here are the differences in timelines;

kya

This is the unit that modern scientist use and also 'mya'. kya means a thousand years ago.
mya means a million years ago. And so, the dates given about the origin of modern mankind goes back to 50,000 years ago.
One aspect of todays' scientist though, would be that they do state their timelines are 'theoretical' and back in 1950s, they based their findings about human origins on 'carbon dating'. The problem with carbon dating is that the timeline prior to 45,000 years ago, it theoretical because the carbon extracted from human bones, cannot be confirmed earlier than 45,000 years ago.

I will get some references later, hopefully when I get up.

Now concerning Biblical timeline, that is based on astronomy and because astronomy is 'an exact science', these timelines can be confirmed with accuracy. Therefore, science scholars today, agree with Biblical timelines for one main reason:
Quotes borrowed from:
 
I see this topic is under 'Black Politics'!
So what better start point than to delve into ancient Egyptian history!
Chevron Dove,

I just wanna be sure of your response.

Just 2 questions please.

Are you saying that the first human, according to scientists, appeared 50k years ago?

Is 50,000 years ago the number?

I'm wondering if you can respond with the number if 50k years ago is not your belief.

Secondly. You argue the first appearing "human" (again, according to scientists), was a black man, right? Ok, cool.

What's the scientific name the scientists have given this black man?
 
Are you saying that the first human, according to scientists, appeared 50k years ago?

Is 50,000 years ago the number?

I'm wondering if you can respond with the number if 50k years ago is not your belief.

@Perfection Scientist theorize that dates about mankind and so here are some references about what they say about the Cro-Magnon man, the Neanderthals, and some other hominids. Furthermore, they are vague on their conclusions and say that each of these primitive hominids are based on evolution. Before I even present their references, I will respond with a number since this is not my belief in their evolution and timelines about modern mankind.

My exact timeline when I began with the Biblical Adam and traced his lineage from his son Seth ... Noah to Shem ... Abram [Abraham] to Isaac, to Jacob, to Judah ... to David to Solomon [Jedidiah] ... Joseph to Jesus and the Star of Bethlehem is 4022 B.C. However, when I started with the Star of Bethlehem and traced the timelines backwards to Adam, I came up with 4012 B.C. So, I could have an error of ten (10) years, or what I really believe is that perhaps, there was a ten year gap from the time that Adam was created and the actual time that he took his first breath and became a living, breathing human. I don't have my timelines on hand. But, the dates from each descendant are specific and the age given when Cain was born was specific and all of the other descendants. I believe I remember this correctly in that Noah's father and grandfather and Great-grandfather listed were as follows: Enoch died at the age of 365, Methuselah died at the age of 956 and then Lamech died at the age of 777. All three of them when I plotted it on my timeline actually died just before the very year that the Great World Flood occurred. The flood occurred in the year 2356 B.C., April 17. So, with an understanding Astronomy a lot of historical events can be understood from other ancient documents. The Egyptian pharaohs and the timelines match at this point. Egyptian records say that 2350s B.C. was a 'wet phase'; that is how they term it. And this time period, it was an abrupt end of the Fifth Dynasty. It was also an abrupt cut off from 'The Old Pyramid Age'. And also archaeology reveals that there was also an abrupt end of the Old Pyramid construction. After this the Sixth Dynasty that eventually formed used small bricks made out of sand instead of the large massive well-cut stones. So, this is just a brief statement on my timelines that I have developed. There is a huge volume of historical events about other civilizations that alignment exactly with the Biblical timelines that becomes simply astonishing. So, therefore, all civilizations are dated to form after the 4000s B.C. Prior to the formation of civilizations, there are thousands of artifacts that confirm human existence that go back to 6000s B.C. and also, there is a lot of information on the age of the sphinx in Egypt of which I do believe might have some truth to it. But as far as civilizations, this only came about due to the creation of the Black African humans that came from one male individual. Prior to Black Africans, there were no civilizations that formed on record. none. All historians agree that humans went from a 'hunter-gatherer' existence to eventually forming a classic civilization and began to become 'planter-gatherers' and Egypt was the first.

I've seen all of these that I am referencing in the Smithsonian and they all have 'bone-straight hair' and except for the Neanderthal, they are all very, very dark skinned. Some appear to be black but they are just very dark.

References of secular scholars on the presence of early hominids:

'Which species lived 50,000 years ago' -- Homo floresiensis

The last known trace of Homo floresiensis dates to about 50,000 years ago, with the earliest evidence of Homo sapiens on Flores appearing shortly after, about 46,000 years ago.


'Were Neanderthals around 50,000 years ago?
The Neanderthals have a long evolutionary history. The earliest known examples of Neanderthal-like fossils are around 430,000 years old. The best-known Neanderthals lived between about 130,000 and 40,000 years ago, *after which all physical evidence of them vanishes.

*This is an obvious contradiction as Neanderthal DNA is here today and interbred with modern mankind.

'Were humans around 50000 years ago?' -- Cro-Magnon
Cro-Magnon are considered *the first anatomically modern humans in Europe. They entered Eurasia by the Zagros Mountains (near present-day Iran and eastern Turkey) around 50,000 years ago, with one group rapidly settling coastal areas around the Indian Ocean and another migrating north to the steppes of Central Asia.

*an obvious contradiction as Cro-Magnon do NOT have nappy hair nor curly hair. They have bone straight hair.

Homo erectus
Homo erectus (/ˌhoʊmoʊ əˈrɛktəs/; meaning "upright man") is an extinct species of archaic human from the Pleistocene, with its earliest occurrence about 2 million years ago.[2] Its specimens are among the first recognizable members of the genus Homo.


Homo ergaster
... Though fossils are known from across East and Southern Africa, most H. ergaster fossils have been found along the shores of Lake Turkana in Kenya. There are later African fossils, some younger than 1 million years ago, that indicate long-term anatomical continuity, though it is unclear if they can be formally regarded as H. ergaster specimens. As a chronospecies, H. ergaster may have persisted to as late as 600,000 years ago, when new lineages of Homo arose in Africa.


*There are more species and subspecies dated much earlier.
** All of these species even the Cro-Magnon have straight hair.
*** Scientist report that the MRCA, Most Recent Common Ancestor of the Neanderthal would be the Denisovan.
 

Latest profile posts

Destee wrote on Cindy's profile.
YAAAAAAAAAAY @Cindy ... :love:
Destee wrote on frankster's profile.
:wave:
Back
Top