• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Is the evolutionary doctrine a racist doctrine?

Pogo

Well-Known Member
Don't apes and dogs share a common ancestor? LOL.
Yes, but that ancestor was neither a dog or an ape, it was a mammal and you might notice that both apes and dogs still are mammals. that is the way evolution works and Linnaeus figured this part out in 1753, come on and catch up.
 

Viker

Your beloved eccentric Auntie Cristal
The skin is considered an organ, so a variation in it indicates an important change... and that characteristic among others determines the race.

Skin color is not a human construct, LOL.
It's an insignificant trick of light due to melanin. It's no big deal.
 

Eli G

Well-Known Member
A person's race is not determined by his/her origins, but by what he/she look like.

Skin color (race in general) is a human characteristic. We must not make that reality taboo.

Races are part of humans like colors are part of flowers. Everything is beautiful in its diversity.
 

Pogo

Well-Known Member
A person's race is not determined by his/her origins, but by what he/she look like.

Skin color (race in general) is a human characteristic. We must not make that reality taboo.

Races are part of humans like colors are part of flowers. Everything is beautiful in its diversity.
The Caucasian race (also Caucasoid,[a] Europid, or Europoid)[2] is an obsolete racial classification of humans based on a now-disproven theory of biological race.[3][4][5] The Caucasian race was historically regarded as a biological taxon which, depending on which of the historical race classifications was being used, usually included ancient and modern populations from all or parts of Europe, Western Asia, Central Asia, South Asia, North Africa, and the Horn of Africa.[6][7]

Introduced in the 1780s by members of the Göttingen school of history,https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caucasian_race#cite_note-GöttingenGargoyle-13 the term denoted one of three purported major races of humankind (those three being Caucasoid, Mongoloid, and Negroid).[12] In biological anthropology, Caucasoid has been used as an umbrella term for phenotypically similar groups from these different regions, with a focus on skeletal anatomy, and especially cranial morphology, without regard to skin tone.[13] Ancient and modern "Caucasoid" populations were thus not exclusively "white", but ranged in complexion from white-skinned to dark brown.[14]

Since the second half of the 20th century, physical anthropologists have switched from a typological understanding of human biological diversity towards a genomic and population-based perspective, and have tended to understand race as a social classification of humans based on phenotype and ancestry as well as cultural factors, as the concept is also understood in the social sciences.[15]
 

Viker

Your beloved eccentric Auntie Cristal
A person's race is not determined by their origins, but by what they look like.

Skin color (race in general) is a human characteristic. We must not make that reality taboo.

Races are part of humans like colors are part of flowers. Everything is beautiful in its diversity.
If you saw me you would think I am native American or possibly middle eastern. A few here have seen me. But I still pass as mostly "white". I'm a mold breaker, I suppose. My best friend, black, calls me black. She spotted the African in me.
 

Eli G

Well-Known Member
About post#198: The classifications vary, as well as who/what must be considered this or that thing and why. It depends on who you ask.

Acolytes of evolutionary doctrine are obsessed with the word "ape."
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
There are homosexuals who do not want to be called by the biological sex with which they were born... Isn't that a more realistic criterion than calling people apes for a doctrine that is not even believed by everyone?

Biology does not call humans "apes." It is the acolytes of evolutionism who do that. ;)
Citation needed. Like this:


Or this:


Or this:

https://www.reddit.com/r/evolution/comments/jirw6x
Maybe a video instead?:

 

Pogo

Well-Known Member
The skin is considered an organ, so a variation in it indicates an important change... and that characteristic among others determines the race.

Skin color is not a human construct, LOL.
One it is a minor change and varies even in close relations.
Two nobody said skin color is a human construct.
 
Top