Thursday, June 12, 2008

"WTF? - Adam was a "Black" African?"

A few years ago I read the book "The Journey of Man: A Genetic Odyssey" by Spencer Wells. Wells, a geneticist, traces the DNA forefather of all current living mankind back to a single man who lived in Africa 60,000 years ago.

In a National Geographic article on this subject we read:

“By analyzing DNA from people in all regions of the world, geneticist Spencer Wells has concluded that all humans alive today are descended from a single man who lived in Africa around 60,000 years ago.

Modern humans, he contends, didn't start their spread across the globe until after that time. Most archaeologists would say the exodus began 100,000 years ago—a 40,000-year discrepancy.

Wells’ take on the origins of modern humans and how they came to populate the rest of the planet is bound to be controversial.

His work adds to an already crowded field of opposing hypotheses proposed by those who seek answers in "stones and bones"—archaeologists and paleoanthropologists—and those who seek them in our blood—population geneticists and molecular biologists.

Over the last decade, major debate on whether early humans evolved in Africa or elsewhere, when they began outward migration, where they went, and whether they interbred with or replaced archaic species has moved out of scientific journals and into the public consciousness.
Wells addresses these issues in a new book, The Journey of Man: A Genetic Odyssey, and a National Geographic documentary of the same title. In a straightforward story, he explains how he traced the exodus of modern humans from Africa by analyzing genetic changes in DNA from the y-chromosome.

"As often happens in science," he said, "technology has opened up a field to new ways of answering old questions—often providing startling answers."

You can read the rest of this article here:

The poster Zelph, in a comment left on my Mormonism is Dependant on Death First Occurring 6,000 Years Ago post, made the following comment….”on the topic of the first humans, it is evident that the first humans came from Africa. I doubt that the white bread people we see in the temple video would survive the African Sahara. The first humans probably looked like Africans today. Just shows the level of racism to automatically assume that the first parents were white.”

Not only that but…knowing that our first parents were of African descent throws a Huge “WTF” moment at the Mormon ban of Blacks of ONLY African descent holding the so-called super duper magical Mormon priesthood powers. For the Mormon paradigm to work, Adam had to be “White and delightsome” for only then could God have cursed Adam’s son Cain with his dark loathsome skin we find in the African race (according to Mormon doctrine). For it was by being labeled as the descendants of the evil Cain that generations of Blacks {of only African decent} were denied the full rights and so-called privileges of Mormonism's Priesthood.

Once again...the realities of science are screwing with the rational for the Mormon ban against the African race.

Funny how NOTHING discovered by Science confirms ANY of Mormonism’s bizarre core doctrines…

Actually its rather sad...


conley730 said...

What's really sad is that most of the rank and file Mormon's blindly believe what they've been taught and have no idea that it's completely false.

Bishop Rick said...


You and Zelph have it all wrong. Our white forefathers could easily have survived in the lush environment of Missouri.

Cr@ig said...

You've obviosly NEVER been to Missouri...

Bishop Rick said...

At least not when it was paradise.

Anonymous said...


I like your blog! I'm not a Mormon, but I must give credit to the Mormons on one thing: they point out problems with the Bible that most Christians gloss over.

Whenever the BoM is under attack, Mormons immediately point out similar contradictions, errors, etc. in the Bible and then proceed to say..."but you wouldn't thow out the Bible, would you?" This usually shuts up some critics but the correct answer is: YES! I would! Both books make claims that are unsupported by evidence and both are full of problems unworthy of being in a "perfect" book. The difference between the two is just how truly EASY it is to find out the truth about Mormons because the church is so young and left such a huge paper trail (original diaries, newspapers, etc.). Doing the same type of research on the Bible is do-able, it just takes alot more time and effort to dig into a couple thousand years worth of crap (but at least SOME of the Bible probably happened...just not the crazy parts).