I am just wondering if any religions give reasons to why there are people with different skin colors if we all came from two people without the process of evolution?
Yes. Many religions attempt to account for different groups with different appearances. Also, not all religions have an origin story that includes two people.
I think many religions do.
I was told once that people of lighter or darker skin are the other “tribes” the Old Testament speaks of. I’m sure **Polycarp **or **tomndeb **can affirm or refute.
Several American Indian (“Native American”) nations lay claim to charming creation stories wherein The Creator bakes people out of dough. The first batch is burnt, and thrown away - those are black people. The second batch is undercooked, and likewise thrown away - those are white people. Finally, the third batch comes out perfectly GB&D (Golden Brown and Delicious) and those are The People (Indians).
This makes just as much sense as any other theological attempt to explain the origin of life, and is amusing to boot (though I have to wonder if they didn’t crib it ad hoc from Goldilocks and the Three Bears or vice versa.)
Viper2308, while the term of “race” has no technical meaning in terms of evolution or biological taxonomy (and attempts to track general lineage via cladistics is prone to enormous flaws in reasoning), it is clear to anyone with even a basic grounding in biology that evolution has and continues to occur. Anyone who holds a literal theological view over the vast bulk of biological and zoological evidence behind evolution and natural selection is chosing deliberate ignorance over testible knowledge. On that basis, I’d say that all reglions offer incomplete and contraditory explanations for a whole host of physical phenomena.
Stranger
Doesn’t the Book of Mormon say that blacks are darker because they are cursed by God and that whites are morally and spiritually superior? See - 2 Nephi 5:21.
Christianity, historically; there used to be a claim that the seperate races were all seperately created, often including the claim that only whites were made with souls. Then there’s the Curse of Ham :
As mentioned in the article, the idea’s also infected Mormonism and others.
Not to attempt to defend Christianity in this regard, but does anyone have a better cite than Wikipedia for this being a historical rationale for enslaving of blacks? I’m quite well aware of the Ham/Canaan issue, but there we’re talking two Middle Eastern peoples. Cush was a separate son of Ham than Canaan, and was not himself cursed as Canaan was. As far as I know, there was no skin-color racial prejudice among the Jews – you either were a Jew or a Gentile; if the latter, it didn’t matter if you were Ethiopian or Celt.
I am quite well aware of its use among Christian groups in the American South, as well as slave traders in the 17th and 18th Century, to denigrate black people. What I’m looking for is a cite that goes back to medieval or earlier times, and which is not from a clearly polemic website. (And it would not surprise me to see one, but I’m seeking for clear evidence.)
Well, there’s this from the Straight Dope itself. If you read the article ( both the SD one and the Wiki one ), you’ll note that the story was only used for racial purposes well after it was first written.
In fact, the SD article points out that it rather goes against the general portrayal of dark skinned people in the Bible :
Oh, and I wasn’t so much using Wiki for a cite as I was using it to flesh out details; I thought it was common knowledge and didn’t need a cite.
races DO exist. We just lost one to the 2004 Tsunami, the negritos from god knows what little island that got wiped out.
Just like dogs, we are one species but we have several races. The term became unsavoury after the whole holocaust/segregation period but that we don’t like to use the word doesn’t make it less true.
A race is just a combo of traits within a species shared by a community of individuals.
Christian Identity teaches that only whites are descendants of Adam and Eve. Nonwhite races were pre-Adamite and were create to be the slaves of true humans; also, they have no souls. And Jews are descendants of Cain, son of Eve and Satan in Serpent form. No, I’m not making any of this up.
Odd. Doesn’t Biology prove that they don’t?
Got a definition for that word that will stand up to anything resembling rigorous scientific analysis?
We can identify broad categories of geographic origion (in which many people of startlingly disparate appearances live) and we can identify much smaller populations of peoples who demonstrate affinities of appearance.
Until you put forth what you believe the word “race” means, it is difficult to figure what you are claiming. (And, yes, I am aware of the negritoes on the Andaman Islands, although i havenot seen any evidence that they have actually been wiped out.)
Would ‘breed’ work, even if somewhat offensive when related to humans.
I find I like the dog breed analogy. There are many different shapes, sizes and colors of dogs even though they’re all one species, after all.
Not really. Aside from being artificial breeds all stem from a small recent ancestral population and hence share common genetics. Breed also by defintion breed true.
Now try applying those basic standards to any human “race”.
Artificially created? Definitely not.
Small, recent ancestral populaton and resulting common genetics? Maybe the Amerinds would qualify. Nobody else.
Breed true? Not even close. Unless you twist your breed standards into ridiculous circles then no human race breeds true.
The fact is that all humans are mutts and no race represents a coherent breed. All the evidence to date suggests that there never has been a human population that has been a coherent breed and certainly no population alive today can claim to be.
One of the most common pre-evolutionary views were based on the idea that human beings were still “degrading” after the fall (remember the shorter and shorter lifetimes in the Bible)? Black people were just the ones who had degraded farther faster, and white people were still the least degraded.
The taxonomic and the population definitions on BrainGlutton’s link are close enough to what I have in mind. Ditto for the dog example.
Our jet set society is quickly putting an end to that, though. We are mixing quickly and few of these groups (call them what you want if the word race is offensive) appear as if they are going to survive the end of this century.
It may well happen that by the time we agree on the issue of human having many races they will be gone anyways.
As for the negritos being wiped or not, I just saw an editorial on the NYT lamenting their extintion after the tsunami. Rumours of their death may be greatly exagerated.
Equally common was a view that black people weren’t humans at all and hence didn’t need to be explained since they were created along with the gorillas and horses.
Then can you please answer Tomndebb’s question and provide an example of a race by that definition that stands up to scientific scrutiny.
To give you a hand, which of the following are races by your definition:
Asians?
Mongoloids?
Vietnamese?
Hmong?
The Tran family?
Which, if any, of those groups meet the standard of race that you are applying?
Can we please see some evidence that such groups ever did exist? I can certainly present evidence that all human groups have been mixing since our species first evolved.
True. But that is a result of artificial selection.
an example of a human race? The only one I can think of from the top of my head with minimal chance of choosing a “super-race” or a “sub-race” would be the australian aboriginals.
Consider the Incas in central south america and the Massai in Africa. There are clearly two groups with their respective sets of characteristics that are consistently represented in their successive generations disregarding the individual differences inside each group.
Inca and Inca reproduce and you always get Inca, there is no going around it. They might not be as isomorphic as dog breeds (which are never perfectly isomorphic anyways) but their “Incaness” carries through (i.e. breeds true).
Human groups have been mixing very little since the appearance of the human species. It is only in the last century or two that we have started moving along enough to mix with other groups. Most people were buried meters away from the place they (and their sexual partner) were birthed. Even nomad groups kept mostly to themselves.
The genetical isolation was never perfect, of course. This is why we don’t have speciation, but we have been mostly living in “islands” for most of the history of our species.