GENEALOGY-DNA-L Archives

Archiver > GENEALOGY-DNA > 2001-01 > 0979613918


From: "Orin R. Wells" <>
Subject: Re: [DNA] GENES
Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2001 18:58:38 -0800
In-Reply-To: <77450391108B.AAC3C13@o1.telstra.easymail.com.au>


At 12:42 PM 1/16/01 +1100, Sandra - wrote:

>perhaps I may be colour blind then...every picture I have seen they have
>white skin as did Jesus as did the disciples as did Mary and Joseph as did
>all the main players of Christianity.

So, who do you suppose photographed them 2,000 years ago? <g>

Keep in mind that Jesus and the others were mostly if not all Hebrew
(allowing for some deciples from the masses). So, yes, they most likely
had white skin. But the reference was to Adam and Eve. There is no
information in the Bible, the source work for them, of which I am aware
that provides any information on the color of their skins. I doubt even if
all the research confirms that we all track back to Africa as the root of
mankind that it could be said what color of skin our original ancestors
had. Are the caucasian characteristics the original or did we (those of us
who have the pinkish skin) mutate off the darker colored skin of the
africans? Or was it the reverse? Given that Africa is mostly populated by
peoples with dark skin one would be tempted to say that is the way we
started out. But, if the clues to the origin of man do lead us to North
Africa, it is possible that the skin color was much lighter - more on the
tone of an Arab although many of them are light skinned and it is probable
that the darker skins came as a result of mixing with nomadic African
tribes and civilizations, some of which were quite sophisticated. Take a
look at some of the populations in Spain where the Moors had a lengthy
influence. But, there are certainly far more peoples in the world with
dark skin than light. In fact Europe is the only place where light skin
prevailed.

I think for now we don't have an answer. DNA research may not find that
answer unless they can figure out what gene combination represents skin
color and can match this up with the early skeletons.

>Is there no comment about this new skeleton discovery?

I would love to read something on this. But no reference was provided,
only that they had dug up a skeleton. Want to give us more or point us to
where we can read about it. I think it is fascinating and would certainly
like to know what they learn about this skeleton.

We have one here in Washington dug up a couple of years ago that they are
calling the Kenniwick man (sp?). It appears from the limited study they
have been able to do that he was NOT from the indiginous American Indian
origins although he died 9,000 years ago. The Indians (almost every tribe)
are claiming him as their ancestor and demanding that he be immediately
reburied with no scientific studies. In other words, they don't what to
hear that someone else might have been here before THEIR ancestors. This is
a shame as we might be able to learn more about man's history from his
remains. But, Political Correctness will no doubt win out again.


Orin R. Wells
Wells Family Research Association
P. O. Box 5427
Kent, Washington 98064-5427
<>
http://www.rootsweb.com/~wellsfam/wfrahome.html
Subscribe to the "Wells-L" list on RootsWeb

This thread: