Analysis of “How did all the different ‘races’ arise (from Noah’s family)?”

Analysis of “How did all the different ‘races’ arise (from Noah’s family)?”

Thomas Allen

The following is an analysis of “How did all the different ‘races’ arise (from Noah’s family)?”, chapter 18. Unfortunately, I do not know who the author is or the title of the book from which this chapter comes.

The author is a racial nihilist who preaches the new morality and has no qualms about sacrificing the races on the altar of humanity. Although he claims to be a creationist, he is really a creationist evolutionist. Like orthodox creationists, he is a monogenist and claims that all humans come from a common origin, Adam and Eve, and, consequently, rejects polygenism, i.e., the various human races are descended from a different set of parents. Like all monogenist creationists, he resorts to using evolutionary principles to prove his theory, and, thus, he is really a creationist evolutionist. (For the difference between monogenism and polygenism, see Species of Men: A Polygenetic Hypothesis by Thomas Coley Allen; also, see Adam to Abraham: The Early History of Man by Thomas Coley Allen.)

Moreover, the author rejects the term “race” and prefers to use the term “people group”; most orthodox evolutionists prefer “geographical population.” Species is a more accurate term (see Species of Men: A Polygenetic Hypothesis by Thomas Coley Allen). Whether the Negro is called a people group, a geographical population, or a race is irrelevant. The essences and traits of the Negro do not change regardless of the name.

The author claims that “all humans descended from Noah and his wife, his three sons and their wives, and before that from Adam and Eve” (p. 223). He is wrong. Since the Nephilim existed before and after the Noachian Flood, they could not be descendants of Noah. (Their existence before and after the Flood proves that the Flood was not global.) No indication is given in the Bible of Noah taking them on the ark; on the contrary, the Bible indicates that they were not on the ark since God sent the Flood to destroy them. The Nephilim were of the giant people group, Homo gigantus.

To support his claim to a common origin of all humans, he uses the evolutionary principle of the Mitochondrial Eve, which claims “to show that all people today trace back to a single mother” (p. 224 fn). His main disagreement with most orthodox evolutionists is the rate of mutation of mitochondrial DNA. He has the mutation occurring at a much higher rate than orthodox evolutionists originally thought. However, more recent studies show that the mutation rate is high enough to place it in the biblical time frame. On the other hand, he and other creationist evolutionists reject mutations as proof of evolution because most mutations are degenerative, and the remaining mutations are neutral. What never occurs to him is that God may have used a common mitochondrial DNA for all people groups instead of giving each people group a different mitochondrial DNA. Or he gave the original parents of each people group the mitochondrial DNA that the people groups have today.

Unlike orthodox evolutionists, who believe that the various people groups evolved over tens of thousands of years, creationist evolutionists like this author believe that they evolved (or developed as they prefer to say) over a few generations. If the creationist evolutionists are correct, then the North American Indians, White Europeans, and Black Africans should be virtually indistinguishable in the United States since they have been living in the same environment and, to some extent, interbreeding, for 400 years, which is about 10 to 13 generations. Yet, after 10 to 13 generations, these people groups are still distinguishable.

The author notes that all human people groups can interbreed and produce fertile offspring. Although true, it does not prove that all humans are the same species (see “Christians and Creationism” by Thomas Allen). Also, he notes that the DNA differences of the various people groups are slight. Thus, he rejects the notion that God would use mostly the same DNA in His creation of the various human species. (Evidence shows that the genetic difference between a male and female human is one gene.)

As do nearly all creationist evolutionists, the author has a fixation on skin color that exceeds that of any stereotypical racist. Except for distinguishing between Aryans and Melanochroi, skin color is of secondary importance in distinguishing one people group from another. An albino Turanian (East Asians, Southeast Asians, and Turks) can be easily distinguished from an albino Negro (sub-Saharan Africans). (For more on skin color, see “Skin Color” by Thomas Allen.)

The author adheres to the young earth (God created the earth about 6000 to 8000 years ago) global flood model (the Noachian Flood occurred about 4400 years ago), although God’s geology refutes such a model (see “Geology Disproves a Global Flood 5200 Years Ago and a Young Earth” by Thomas Allen).

According to the author, Adam and Eve were mongrels and possessed all the genetic material necessary to form all the extant and extinct people groups (the identities of the extant and extinct people groups are given below). Yet, the Bible describes Adam as White (Aryan) — see “What Race Was Adam?” by Thomas Allen. Since Eve was made from Adam, she would also have been an Aryan. Moreover, God forbids mongrels in His assembly (see “Commentary on Deuteronomy 23:2” by Thomas Allen).

A characteristic of mongrels is that they do not breed true. As the author notes, the descendants of mongrel humans can range from extreme dark to extreme light and can have all sorts of mixtures of racial attributes. Yet, today’s people groups breed true. Their offspring possess the same racial attributes and traits as their parents. (The author describes Adam and Eve as looking like Melanochroi. However, as the author notes, they would have had to be mongrels if they possessed all the genes of today’s people groups.)

Also, according to the author, Noah and his sons and their wives were mongrels. Since all the people spoke the same language and lived in the same area, they would have continued to interbreed — mongrels producing mongrels. Yet, the Bible says nothing about the skin color of the people who built the Tower of Babel.

Like all creationist evolutionists, the author asserts that the various people groups resulted from the confusion of languages while the people were building the Tower of Babel — thus, proving that God is a segregationist (see “Does God Abhor or Approve Miscegenation?” by Thomas Allen). Amazingly, all the people of the people group that possessed the traits and attributes of the Negro (Black, Homo niger) spoke the identical language and, consequently, segregated and separated themselves from the other extant people groups (Turanians [Mongolians, H. luridus], Aryan (Whites, White Caucasians, H. albus), Melanochroi [Brown Caucasians, H. brunus], Indo-Australian (Australian aborigines, H. australis), and Khoisan [Hottentots, H. khoisanii] and the extinct people groups (Neanderthal [H. neandertalensis], H. erectus, giants [H. gigantus], Denisovan man [H. denisova], and Florisbad man [H. heidelbergensis]). Likewise, each of these people groups coincidentally spoke the same language and consequently segregated and separated themselves from all other people groups. Such segregation and separation of human people groups should prove to creationist evolutionists like this author that God wants the people groups to be separated and not to integrate and amalgamate. But, sadly, it does not.

Furthermore, the way that the author describes the formation of the people groups following the confusion of languages seems to conflict with “the Hardy-Weinburg theorem, which states that genetic diversity cannot be bred out, i.e., the population will not grow more nearly uniform over successive generations. A group that separates from one race will not acquire the characteristics of another race. It will not lose its racial characteristics. At most, various racial characteristics will occur with a different frequency in the new group than occurred in the parent group. According to the great anthropologist Carlton Coon, ‘selection alone cannot produce changes of race or species; new genes must appear from which the selection can be made.’ One race of man cannot produce another race of man without the introduction of new genes. Genetic mutation is required to produce a new race.”[1] Thus, a mongrel people group will always produce mongrels even if divided into small separate people groups. For a people group, e.g., the Negro, to be formed from a mongrelized people group, a beneficial genetic mutation must occur. Creationist evolutionists reject the notion of beneficial genetic mutation.

According to the author, the evolutionary principle of natural selection produced the people groups of today after they left Babel. Oddly, natural selection seems to have stopped forming people groups millennia ago. The lack of new people groups being formed over the last thousand years is strange since as the author states, only a few generations are needed to change one people group into another people group, that is to have a new people group spin off an existing people group. Yet, for thousands of years, no new people group has been formed although some have become extinct.

Perhaps the author and other creationist evolutionists err because they reject the Biblical principle of “kind after its kind.” He asserts that a mongrel people group can produce different kinds (Negro people group, Turanian people group, etc.)

Also, like other creationist evolutionists, the author rejects the notion of immutable people groups. Consequently, he disagrees with Jeremiah, who declared that people groups are immutable (see “Jeremiah on the Fixity of Race” by Thomas Allen). Like orthodox evolutionists, the author believes that people groups are mutable and that a large people group can change into several different smaller people groups.

He describes natural selection leading to lighter-skinned people inhabiting higher latitudes and darker-skinned people inhabiting lower latitudes. However, he identifies some exceptions, such as Eskimos and Pygmies. Apparently, it does not occur to him that genetics determines people groups and not the environment.

The author concludes by stating that a large interbreeding people group of mongrels at Babel became the extant people groups of the Negro, Turanian, Aryan, Melanochroi, Indo-Australian, and Khoisan and the extinct people groups of the Neanderthal, Homo erectus, giant, Denisovan man, and Florisbad man within a few generations after the confusion of languages. Natural selection instead of God formed these people groups. Furthermore, no new genetic material was needed to form these people groups. Whatever gene mutations that did occur had a degenerative effect.

Then, he states that (1) if God did not create the world in six literal 24-hour days, (2) if all humans are not descendants of Adam and Eve through Noah and his sons and their wives, (3) and if the Noachian Flood was not global, then the remainder of the Bible is not trustworthy. (For arguments to the contrary, see Species of Men: A Polygenetic Hypothesis by Thomas Coley Allen; also, see Adam to Abraham: The Early History of Man by Thomas Coley Allen.) Yet, I would be surprised if he believes the geocentric flat earth model although the Bible clearly describes the earth as flat and geocentric (see “A Response to ‘What’s Wrong with Progressive Creation?’) According to his logic, if the earth is spherical and the solar system is heliocentric, then the Bible is untrustworthy.

Also, he claims, “One of the biggest justifications for racial discrimination in modern times is the belief that people groups have evolved separately.” (P. 235.) Yet, people discriminated against other people groups and even within their own people group millennia before the theory of evolution came into being. Could racial discrimination result from people obeying God’s law not to produce mongrels (see “Does God Abhor or Approve Miscegenation?” by Thomas Allen)? 

Further, he cites Acts 17:26, but like all creationist evolutionists, he focuses on the first part of the verse. The first part reads, “And hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth.” Thus, since the verse says that God made of one blood all humans, all humans descended from a common pair, Adam and Eve. Whatever “blood” means in this passage, it does not mean that all people have the same blood. A person’s people group can be determined with a high degree of accuracy from his blood (see “Of One Blood” by Thomas Allen.)

He ignores the implications of the second part of the verse because it leads to the notion that God created the various people groups (species of humans) at different times and at different locations. The second part reads, “and hath determined the times before appointed, and the bounds of their habitation.”

Moreover, the author errs when he claims that Rahab the Canaanite was an ancestor of Jesus (see “Rahab” by Thomas Allen). Also, he errs when he claims that Ruth, an ancestor of Jesus, was a Moabite. Being a pious man, Boaz would have followed the law, which prohibited marrying Moabites (Deuteronomy 23:3), and would not have married Ruth if she were a Moabite. He knew that she was an Israelite. 

Then, he asserts that God discourages (forbids) interfaith marriages but does not forbid interracial marriages. The stories of Dinah and Ezra requiring the Israelite men to send their foreign (strange) wives and children away refute this assertion.

To marry Dinah, the Hivites converted to her religion. Nevertheless, her brothers killed them — not because of their religion as they were of the same religion as Dinah, but because of their people group, which differed from hers.

Ezra’s separation was based on people groups and not on religion. The Israelite men had ceased following the Israelite religion, or else they would not have married strange women. They expelled their strange wives and children regardless of whether they followed the Israelite religion. The division was based on people groups instead of religion.

(For more on Ruth, Diana, Ezra, and similar stories, see “A Response to Bibleinfo's Justification of Miscegenation,” “Does God Abhor or Approve Miscegenation?,” and “The Bible, Segregation, and Miscegenation” by Thomas Allen.)

Like all creationist evolutionists, the author resorts to evolutionary principles to support his explanation of the origins of the human races or people groups, which is his preferred terminology. Natural selection is the primary evolutionary principle that he uses. Also, when he can use genetic mutations to his advantage, he uses them. Otherwise, he rejects mutations because they are usually degenerative or, at best, neutral. However, while claiming that he is a creationist, he refuses to give God credit for creating the various human races (people groups).

The author abandons the basic principles of zoology in classifying man. To support his dogma, he must abandon these zoological principles and adopt new methodologies. Thus, he rejects the principle of Straus-Durckheim: “In treating this subject [human races or people groups], as it ought to be, simply as a question of pure zoology, and upon applying to it the same principles as to the determination of other species of animals belonging to one genus, one arrives, in fact, at really recognizing many very distinct human species. . . .”[2]

Endnotes

1. Thomas Coley Allen, False Biblical Teachings on the Origins of the Races and Interracial Marriages (TC Allen Company, Franklinton, North Carolina, 2001), p. 7.

2. J. C. Nott and George R. Gliddon, Indigenous Races of the Earth; or New Chapters of Ethnological Inquiry (Philadelphia, Pennsylvania: J. B. Lippincott & Co., 1857) p. 613.

Copyright © 2025 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More religious articles.

Skin Color

Skin Color

Thomas Allen

[Editor’s note: The following is “Appendix 3: Skin Color” with minor modification from Species of Men: A Polygenetic Hypothesis by Thomas Coley Allen (Franklinton, North Carolina: TC Allen Co., 1999. Footnotes have been converted to end notes.]

    Three substances cause skin color:[1] hemoglobin, carotene (or keratin), and melanin. In Aryans hemoglobin dominates. In Turanians and Khoisans, carotene usually dominates. For the other species of men, melanin dominates.
    All skin contains melanin. However, in Aryans it is slight enough so that hemoglobin of blood shows through the skin giving it a pinkish or reddish tinge or appearance. (One distinguishing characteristic between Aryans and Melanochroi is that the blue color of blood vessels can be seen through the untanned, and often tanned, skin of Aryans — hence, the term “blue blood.” However, for Melanochroi the blue color is seldom apparent.)
    Melanin occurs as granules in the granular layer of the epidermis. (The epidermis is the bloodless outer layer of the skin.) Melanin determines the degree of the skin's darkness and its hue (color on the chromatic scale). There are two types of melanin. They are eumelanin (black melanin) and phaeomelanin (dun, or orange to red, melanin).[2]
    Eumelanin granules appear in the untanned skin of Negroes and Australians as blackish discs between 1.3 and 1.0 microns long and between 0.6 and 0.5 microns wide.[3] They lie singly in individual capsules. Eumelanin granules also appear in the skins of Aryans (except Nordics, East Baltics, and many Alpines), Melanochroi, and Turanians (including American Indians). In their skins eumelanin granules are smaller and round or elliptical in shape and are between 0.7 and 0.6 microns long and about 0.5 microns wide. They occur in clusters. The volume of eumelanin granules in the skins of Aryans, Melanochroi, and Turanians is about one-fifth of the volume found in Negroes and Australians. The tint of the skins of Aryans and Melanochroi result from eumelanin.[4]
    Phaeomelanin granules are similar to the smaller eumelanin granules in size and shape. They are found in the skins of Aryans, Melanochroi, and some Turanians. They may also occur in the Negro Melanesians.[5, 6]
    Carotene, a yellowish pigment, is found in the outer horny layer of the skin and in subcutaneous fat. It gives the skin of Turanians and Khoisans a yellowish hue.[7]
    For fair skinned people, blood in the dermis, the inner layer of skin, contributes to color. The hemoglobin in blood gives Aryans their pinkish or ruddy color.
    Three parts of the solar spectrum (ultraviolet, visible light, and infrared) impact the three basic skin colors (white, yellow, and black) differently. Ultraviolet and infrared penetrate white skin while it reflects visible light. Yellow skin reflects visible light, absorbs infrared, and allows ultraviolet to pass through. Black skin absorbs all three bands of radiation. Intermediate colored skins, usually some shade of brown, fall between the extremes of the three basic colors.[8] Thus, the darker the skin the less the ultraviolet and infrared radiation penetrate the skin. The fairer the skin the greater the penetration of ultraviolet and infrared radiation.
    Fair skin reflects more visible light than does darker skin. At 6500 to 6850 angstroms (Å) the percent reflectivity for Aryans averages about 50 to 64 percent. For Turanians average reflectivity ranges between about 35 and 48 percent. For Melanochroi the range is 23 to 41 percent. Australians have a reflectivity of about 12 percent. The reflectivity for Khoisans is about 43 percent, and for Negroes (Sudanese) it is about 24 percent.[9]
   

     A standard chart or scale used to measure skin color is the von Luschan's Hautfarbentafel. This scale contains 36 shades of color ranging from pale pinkish white to black, with three yellowish tones.[10] The colors contained on this scale are whitish, reddish white, whitish yellow, olive yellow, light brown, brown, reddish brown, dark reddish brown, blackish brown, grayish brown, and pure black.[11] On this scale skin color for Aryans range between 1 and 17, excluding 4 through 6. That of Melanochroi ranges between 18 and 29. For Turanians the range is between 4 and 6 and between 12 and 23. Negroes have skin colors of 27 to 36. That of Australians ranges between 24 and 29. For Khoisans the range is between 18 and 23.
    Deniker divides skin color into ten shades: pale white, florid or rosy, light-brunette, yellowish-white (similar to the color of wheat), olive-yellow (similar to the color of new portmanteau leather), dark yellow-brown or dark olive (similar to the color of dead leaves), red or copper, reddish-brown or chocolate, sooty black, and coal black. Under his scheme Aryans are pale white, florid, and light-brunette white. For Turanians the basic shades are yellowish-white, olive-yellow, and dark yellow-brown or dark olive. The basic shades in Negroes are reddish-brown or chocolate, sooty black, and coal black. For Melanochroi the basic colors are red or copper and reddish brown or chocolate. Australians are generally reddish-brown or chocolate.[12]
    Similar to Deniker’s scheme is a simplified version of Broca's scale. This scale consists of three basic colors (white, yellow, and black) divided into ten shades. The shades are pale white, reddish white (Northern Europeans), tawny white (Mediterraneans), pale yellow (Chinese), warm yellow (American Indians), brownish yellow, reddish brown (Eastern-Hamites), chocolate brown (Australians), brownish black (Dravidians and Melanesians), and black (Bantus). Thus, skin colors for Aryans are pale white, reddish white, and tawny white. Skin colors for Turanians are pale yellow, warm yellow, and brownish yellow. Black and brownish black are the colors for Negroes. For Melanochroi the skin colors are reddish brown and brownish black. Australians have chocolate brown skin.[13]
    Keane identifies six primary colors. Under his scheme, Aryans fall into two colors: florid white (Northern Europeans and Finns, i.e., Nordic, many Alpines, and East Baltics) and pale white (Southern Europeans, i.e., Mediterraneans, Iranians, Northern Semites, and Southern Mediterraneans). Turanians fall under yellow (Chinese, Tunguses, Paraoeans, and some Indians of South American), brown (Polynesians, Plateau Indians), and copper red (Prairie Indians). The color of Negroes is brown (Negritos) and black (African and Oceanic Negroes). Melanochroi are black (Eastern-Hamites) and brown (Indo-Iranians and Fulas). Khoisans are yellow, and Australians are black.[14]
    Brinton provides the following scale for skin colors:[15]
    a.    White: (1) white, brown undertone (grayish); (2) white, yellow undertone; (3) white, rosy undertone.
    b.    Medium: (1) reddish; (2) yellowish (olive).
    c.    Dark: (1) black; (2) dark brown, reddish undertone; (3) dark brown, yellowish undertone.
    Hrdlička used a scale of five colors consisting of twelve shades. His scale contained white (florid, light, medium, light brown), yellow-brown (light, medium, dark, chocolate brown), pale-yellowish, dusky-yellowish, black (brown-black, bluish-black, grayish-black, ebony-black).[16]
    Color is difficult to measure accurately because of the different ways that people perceive the color of skin. This difficulty leads some to claim that skin color is not a reliable indicator of race. Not only do different people see the same color differently, the same person may see the same color differently under different lighting. People may disagree that a shade of red is carmine or scarlet. However, unless they are color blind, they can distinguish either shade from green. People may argue about whether a person from Northern Europe is a Nordic, East Baltic, or Alpine based on slight differences in skin color.[17] Any argument over skin color vanishes when the color of this person's skin is compared to that of an African Negro.[18] Likewise, one can easily distinguish blue eyes from brown eyes although disagreement over shades of blue or brown may occur.
    Skin color is also criticized as a valid racial identification tool because it can vary with age, diet, and health. The skin of a sickly person may differ noticeably from that of a healthy person. The obvious answer to this problem is that identification should be based, whenever possible, on healthy adults eating a normal diet. When classifying animals, taxonomists choose normal healthy adults to establish the standards and to identify to which species a population or individual belongs.
    That skin tans eliminates it as a valid racial identifier so claim some people — especially those who claim that no races of men exist. The solution to this problem is simple. Observe the untanned skin.
    Skin color is a valid descriptor of the several species of men. Although some overlap of color occurs, especially that of Negroes, Melanochroi, and Australians, skin colors in general differ with race. This is specially true for Aryans and Turanians.

Endnotes
1. More details on skin color are given by Babun, pp. 22-27; Baker, pp. 148-160; Bodmer and Cavalli-Sforza, pp. 580-582; Brace and Montagu, pp. 271-293; Brinton, pp. 29-31; Comas, pp. 264-265; Coon, Racial Adaptation, pp. 48-62; Coon and Hunt, pp. 229-235; Deniker, pp. 46-48; Downs and Bleibreu, pp. 244-251; Goldsby, pp. 90-94; Jurmain and Nelson, pp. 141-144; Keane, Ethnology, pp. 171-174; King, pp. 142-146; and Molnar, pp. 119-127.

2. Carleton S. Coon, Racial Adaptation ( Chicago, Illinois: Nelson-Hall, 1982), p. 48.

3. One micron equals one-thousandth of a millimeter or about 0.000039 inches.

4. Coon, Racial Adaptation, p. 49.

5. [Editor’s note: Since the author wrote this book, he has reconsidered the classification of the Melanesian.  He now classifies the Melanesian as part of the Australian species, which he now calls the Indo-Australian species.]

6. Coon, Racial Adaptation, p. 49.

7. Coon, Racial Adaptation, p. 50.

8. Coon, Racial Adaptation, pp. 54-55.

9. Carleton S. Coon and Edward E. Hunt, Jr.,The Living Races of Man (New York, New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1965), p. 230. Stephen Molnar, Races, Types, and Ethnic Groups: The Problem of Human Variation (Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1975), pp. 122-123.

10. Coon and Hunt, p. 229.

11. Juan Comas, Manual of Physical Anthropology (English edition. Springfield, Illinois: Charles C. Thomas Publisher, 1960), pp. 264-265.

12.  J. Deniker, The Races of Man: An Outline of Anthropology and Ethnography (London, England: Walter Scott, Limited, 1900), p. 47.

13. Comas, p. 264.

14. A. H. Keane, Ethnology (Cambridge, England: The University Press, 1896), pp. 173-174.

15. Daniel G. Brinton, Races and Peoples: Lectures on the Science of Ethnography (Philadelphia, Pennsylvania: David McKay, Publisher, [1901]), p. 31.

16. Comas, p. 264.

17. In this particular example head-shape would immediately distinguish a Nordic from an Alpine or East Baltic.

18. This does not mean that the difficulty of using skin color as a distinguishing racial identifier does not or cannot occur. The differences between the skin color of Aryans and Melanochroi can be slight and may occasionally be difficult to determine or distinguish along the transitional zone between these two species in North Africa and West Asia.

 More articles on anthropolgy.