"I had the dangerous idea that the Bible's Eve might have been a black woman!"
That certainly would be dangerous in your neck of the woods, as few societies are as racist, to be quite frank, in my experience, as those in East Asia, where different peoples have had occasion to do each the other wrongs, and carry forward enmities for millennia. My life, in fact, has been saved by such sentiments, when as a child I was attacked by a Cambodian who had suffered unimaginably from American acts of war and terrorism in his tender youth, and two little Vietnamese girls defended my life vigorously, not because they themselves had any love for Americans - they did not - but because their people had far longer hated Cambodians than we upstart Americans. Racism saved my life!
However, I am not particularly anxious over such matters, as Americans in a melting pot have little history to have taken offense in, and far too wide a variety of offenders at whom to be offended. The ancestors of our modern people hundreds of thousands of years ago were given to a variety of features different from our own, and many of them far more significant than skin tone. The size of our teeth, the projection of our muzzles, the hairyness of our hides, the shape of our skulls, and certainly the more relevant capacities to consider, communicate, and cooperate with one another to form societies and co-exist would surely be more significant for even the most racist folks today than the degree of melanin enrichment.
Even a few tens of millennia ago, I doubt very much anything much resembling our current tribes and races extant today had arisen. The first evidence I am aware of that fair features had evolved was extracted from remains of an Ancient North Eurasian dating back ~23kya, so whatever racial features racists might hang their hatred hats on likely didn't exist 50 or 100 thousand years ago. Perhaps the difference between pygmies and Denisovans did, as pygmies tend to be less than 5' tall, while such little evidence as we have regarding Denisovans has given some cause to suspect they averaged over 7' in height. Nonetheless, both pygmies and Denisovans seem to have been similarly pigmented, with hair of similar curliness, despite their size differences.
The first hominins arose, so far as we have discovered remains of them, in Anatolia. Anadoluvius turkae has been dated to ~8mya. Subsequently Graecopithecus ~7.2mya has been found in the Balkans and Greece. About that time hominins start showing up in Africa, Orrorin, Sahelanthropus, and etc., but by about ~2mya the genus Homo, which we are likely to recognize as human, began to be found, both in Africa and in Eurasia, specifically in Georgia at Dmanisi. While the remains found in Africa presently are dated slightly earlier than those in Dmanisi, the features of the remains are more primitive in Dmanisi, which suggests that they arose first in Eurasia, and then spread to Africa, despite we have no earlier remains from Georgia. Fossilization is notoriously rare, with very few dead things being uneaten by something and recycled back into the local ecosystem as nutrients, and only happens under extraordinary conditions, which is why we find many fossils in environments that are uncommonly occupied, such as caves. Water is potentially able to cause mudslides and similar events that can bury remains and prevent them from being eaten, and then enable fossils to form from them, but dying in caves and pools of water is a small subset of deaths, and even then most things that die in caves or water don't leave fossils. Absence of evidence isn't evidence, after all, so the nature of fossils we do find, when dates are similar, is easily more significant than the specific dates of the remains found.
Not until ~500kya, millions of years after Homo erectus began to spread out across the old world and evolve into something more like people, do we find evidence of complex structures being built. It's hard to deny that hominids building timber frame structures as have been found in Zambia ~476kya are people, but that's a very recent discovery, and most anthropologists a decade ago were teaching that human speech and similar intellectual capacity only began ~50kya, because we have some evidence of artworks and things that indicate such intellectual capacity. Absent such evidence of things that show intellectual capacity the belief that chipping rocks required it wasn't very strong. The rarity of preservation of most of the things people make besides pointy rocks just left us without any clues.
However, by ~700kya H. erectus and other hominins had to have had boats, because H. luzonensis (another relatively recent discovery) was living in Luzon by that time, and it isn't possible that they swam there. Even very good swimmers like elephants never made it to the Philippines, so people only got there on blue water capable watercraft of some kind. That's proof that we were capable of complex construction, but indirect proof and lacking in any physical examples, which leaves us without anything to discuss or learn about the nature of that intellectual capacity from.
So, for my part, I am sure there have been people long before there has been anything like the races or phenotypes that are around today, so there's very little point in concern about the races and phenotypes that exist today where people might have come from millions of years ago. I don't think H. erectus in Georgia were Caucasians or Mongolians, or that H. erectus in Africa were Negroes, so it doesn't make any sense to care about such things regarding the origins of humanity so long ago. Even ~75kya I don't think there were any Caucasians, Mongolians, or Negroes to be racist about, no matter where they might have been living.
I think a lot of racists are very invested in the OoA theory, however, that are very wedded to sociological ideas about phenotypes and their similarities or differences, and that these folks tend to derange scientific discussions regarding evolution and inheritance of traits that demonstrably differ in peoples that lived a long time ago, and live today in different places. What I see is that people that try to deny ethnic and cultural diversity makes us different and those differences make us special are trying to destroy those differences and what makes us special, and I think that's a horrible thing to do. I say viva la difference! Our cultural, ethnic, and racial differences make many more ways to be human and wonderfully so. Eliminating diversity is a terrible racist thing to do, IMHO.
Thanks!
You know, those who established science or the idea of the whole of humankind deriving from 2 people is nebulous just as saying that 1 spiritual being was capable of creating just everything in 7 days. Listen to this https://www.bitchute.com/video/rj5975bZRRTA/ and look at everything through this perspective and this: https://historyofyesterday.com/u-s-military-to-control-the-weather-around-the-world-by-2025/ and I guess it explains everything. Once I watched a documentary where a guru explained to his novice that when the novice gives up his mundane life and dedicates himself to spiritual learning and is woken up in dream/spirit then he becomes God (another preposterous thing to say).
I am convinced that humanity began with just two originators. I am unaware of any other way it could have begun.
Regarding gurus and novices, I am probably more in agreement with Muslims, who say that 'There is no God but God.'
As to the links you have provided, I am listening to the first now (with a mouthful of mercury amalgam fillings), and I appreciate information to consider myself, such as you have generously provided.
Thanks!
Dear @valued-customer !
I have a hard time understanding your excellent academic English, but I agree with you that the first humans were not divided into whites and blacks!
I guess that from the time of Noah's sons Shem, Ham, and Japheth onward, they were divided into whites and blacks!
Thank you for kind answer!