|
Rule -> RE: Race and religion (11/29/2012 6:20:59 PM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: naughtynick81
My point is that there are people who will use the "racist card" whenever a person criticises islam. There is a huge difference between being anti race than there is to be anti muslim or anti [insert religion here].
There is nothing wrong with attributing characteristics to groups of individuals. In biology we do, however, not speak about 'race' - as there has been proven to be no such thing - but either about a species or within such a species about (breeding) populations.
For example, we might say that the average length of the horns of a population of bovines in X is three centimeters longer than that of a population of bovines in Y. This does not say anything about the length of the horns of individual A in population X versus that of individual B in population Y. However, because of an affliction of craziness that goes by the name of 'political correctness' for me having stated these truths about populations X and Y someone on these forums is likely to scream that I am a racist and get this thread pulled.
quote:
ORIGINAL: naughtynick81
So what has race got to do with religion exactly? A muslim can be someone from any race. A christian can be someone from any race.
Race hasn't got anything to do with it, as I stated above.
Populations, though, do, as in essence religions are breeding algorithms, i.e they determine a specific reproductive strategy; and they may also affect the physical integrity of individuals, as for example - though I do not know whether these specific practises are/were integrated into a religion - the binding of the feet of females in China or female genital mutilation in North-East Africa.
In the first case all geneticists and evolution biologists will be certain that there will be evolutionary consequences for the gene pool of such populations. (Reproductive success determines evolution and allele frequencies in a gene pool.) For example, there is a clear difference in the high frequency of inherited diseases in such Christian populations as the Amish and Mennonites versus the low frequency of inherited diseases in ordinary European Christian populations.
In the second case they will start to wonder about evolutionary consequence. Take for example the malformation of the feet of Chinese females. Such females will be less succesfull in escaping from a rapist than females with normal feet. Consequently in a population in which the feet of females are bound we must expect a higher frequency of rape alleles (whatever those are) than in a population that does not practice the binding of the feet.
|
|
|
|
