4 Play:

@Davidylan

All Bastage has done, which is why his argument lacks cogency, is google muslim genes and cited the first article he came across. That he doesn't understand the full import of the article has no bearing in his stridence.

He makes it up as he goes along contradicting himself with wreckless abandon. Everything is as a result of religion indeed

Nwam! If you google "religion genes" his article is EXACTLY the first one you come across!

Bastage na wa o. Go to school again my friend.

It's a good thing he didn't copy and paste this: http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/matthew_moore/blog/2008/04/15/gay_scientists_isolate_christian_gene

4 Play:

@Davidylan

All Bastage has done, which is why his argument lacks cogency, is google muslim genes and cited the first article he came across. That he doesn't understand the full import of the article has no bearing in his stridence.

He makes it up as he goes along contradicting himself with wreckless abandon. Everything is as a result of religion indeed

davidylan:

Nwam! If you google "religion genes" his article is EXACTLY the first one you come across!  

Bastage na wa o. Go to school again my friend.

Whether the article was the first or thousandth may NOT detract from its plausibility, which is determined by its content.  The thrust of this position is that if ultimately our mental state is owed to our genetic makeup, a position for which there is good scientific evidence, it stands to reason that our vulnerability to religion may also be explained by our genes.  This area of research is still in its infancy, but the chances are good that we will begin to see more psycho-genetic work in the public arena in the near future.

Things you don't grasp suck, like logical consistency. Is this supposed to be a repudiation of the first point, that Stalin's beliefs were secularist, because it's obviously not.

LMAO. You were the idiot that decided to use genetics to prove your untenable position. I've merely replied to the false statements you've made to create a smokescreen. Let me remind you:

Only a cretin will claim that religion constitutes the ''vast majority'' of a human being's life influence. There is little room for any other cause; genes, income, education.

The craven dolt has dodged his earlier claim; that everything is a product of religion, presumably, even our genetic make up.

You can hardly accuse me of illogical consistency when it was you who pursued the subject. Don't come crying back to me just because it's bitten you in the ass.

As for your own mangled analogy. It is undermined by one crucial question: is there a unique Muslim gene ab initio that eventually gets ''added to the local gene pool''? As an unrepentant dolt, you have chosen to assume the premise as proven.

Read the article again. The reason they know that there were conversions was because of the similarity of genetic make-up between the anscestors of the converted and the Moors. There is a genetic similarity that would not exist if there had been no conversions to religion. They would not be able to get a result if there was not a genetic marker. Which part of that don't you understand?

They found that 20 per cent of men in Spain and Portugal today still have distinctive Sephardic Jewish ancestry while 11 per cent have DNA that reflects Moorish ancestors. In addition, the scientists characterised the Y chromosomes of the Arab and Berber army that invaded Spain in AD 711 from data on people living in Morocco and the Western Sahara.

I guess you're doubly screwed. Not only is the chromosome present in modern day Spain because of religious conversion but it made it's original appearance on the back of a religious crusade.

Of course, according to you, that is not evidence of religious influence.

If you google "religion genes" his article is EXACTLY the first one you come across!

LOL. Then I guess you can't accuse me of using material that is not known to the mainstream. Are we meant to assert from your childish outburst that it's any less pertinent because it features at the top of Google?

As for your claims about Seraphic Jews you've emboldened "enforced population movement" without seeing the irony that you're trying to use it in your argument. You also totally ignore the fact that Jews and Christians didn't intermarry. But anyway, you were asking specifically about Muslims so I concentrated on them. How do you excuse the fact that they are present in the gene pool? They settled there? Is that all you can come up with. Of course they settled there you fool!!! They settled there as a result of religion and they converted as a result of religion. Their genes are now present in the Christian population. Or are you going to tell me that, just as with the Jews, interfaith marriages were the norm?

Ah, just thought of the budding area of research called epigenetics.  I once saw a scientific program about this that discusses how environment might impact on DNA?   Don't know any more.   Is is what you are alluding to?

huxley:

Whether the article was the first or thousandth may NOT detract from its plausibility, which is determined by its content.  The thrust of this position is that if ultimately our mental state is owed to our genetic makeup, a position for which there is good scientific evidence, it stands to reason that our vulnerability to religion may also be explained by our genes.  This area of research is still in its infancy, but the chances are good that we will begin to see more psycho-genetic work in the public arena in the near future.

The stupid copy and paste job didn't establish the existence of a Muslim gene, or any other religious gene. You would think supercillious atheists will be able to inteprete science.

At best, all the article has shown is ancestral links with people of a certain Middle-Eastern origin. In summary, genetic evidence of different racial origins not of religious origin.

huxley:

Whether the article was the first or thousandth may NOT detract from its plausibility, which is determined by its content.  The thrust of this position is that if ultimately our mental state is owed to our genetic makeup, a position for which there is good scientific evidence, it stands to reason that our vulnerability to religion may also be explained by our genes.  This area of research is still in its infancy, but the chances are good that we will begin to see more psycho-genetic work in the public arena in the near future.

this is nothing but poppycock. Now there is no "good scientific evidence". All you woolheads who like trotting out such misinformation like you've been doing any real study on this issue shld be ashamed of yourselves . . .

Here is another article that should "strengthen" your case  - A gene for Religion?

The problem is the Dopamine receptor D4 talked about in that short article is "implicated" in just about anything scientists cannot explain, from addiction to obesity, psychiatric and neurotic disorders. What shoots down the theory is that you get increased dopamine levels in the drug addict for example YET it doesnt make him any more religious than the average person doing just fine on lower dopamine levels.

Again let me repeat . . . enough of this attitude of deliberate misinformation. There is NO good scientific evidence for a genetic linkage to religion.

huxley:

Ah, just thought of the budding area of research called epigenetics. I once saw a scientific program about this that discusses how environment might impact on DNA? Don't know any more. Is is what you are alluding to?

epigenetics is a good 10 yrs old now so its not so "budding".
Epigenetics describes phenotypic changes that can be inherited without any change in DNA. Epigenetics is most studied in the area of cancer biology.

However it has precious little to do with religion so i wonder how it comes into play here.

The stupid copy and paste job didn't establish the existence of a Muslim gene, or any other religious gene. You would think supercillious atheists will be able to inteprete science.

Dear 4-Play. Quite simply, you defy logic.

But have this one too:


Scientists have detected the faint genetic traces left by medieval crusaders in the Middle East.
The team says it found a particular DNA signature which recently appeared in Lebanon and is probably linked to the crusades.
Details of the research have been published in the American Journal of Human Genetics.
The researchers found that some Christian men in Lebanon carry a DNA signature hailing from Western Europe.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7316281.stm

Of course, you can say that this has nothing to do with religion either. After all the Crusades had nothing to do with Christianity did they?
You can also belittle this one as it was the first I got when I Googled "crusades+genetics".

LMAO. You were the idiot that decided to use genetics to prove your untenable position. I've merely replied to the false statements you've made to create a smokescreen. Let me remind you:

What an unrepentant dolt. What has the question of Stalin's beliefs, for which I raised the analogy, got to do with your phantom religious genes? Still working on the simple task I set you?

Read the article again. The reason they know that there were conversions was because of the similarity of genetic make-up between the anscestors of the converted and the Moors. There is a genetic similarity that would not exist if there had been no conversions to religion. They would not be able to get a result if there was not a genetic marker. Which part of that don't you understand?

The article states such? Surprise me, show me where this dumb claim was made in the article.

And another:

http://spittoon.23andme.com/2008/04/22/historical-genetics-researchers-find-traces-of-crusades-spread-of-islam-in-lebanon/

"Generally, the DNA in a man’s Y-chromosome contains information about prehistoric migrations that happened many millennia in the past. But a recent study of men in Lebanon shows that genetics can be a reflection of more recent events as well.

A paper published in the April issue of the American Journal of Human Genetics shows that two major events in the history of religion – the spread of Islam and the Crusades – have left their mark on Lebanon’s male population."

Bastage:

Read the article again. The reason they know that there were conversions was because of the similarity of genetic make-up between the anscestors of the converted and the Moors. There is a genetic similarity that would not exist if there had been no conversions to religion. They would not be able to get a result if there was not a genetic marker. Which part of that don't you understand?

Do you mean to "read" the REAL article or the news clippings you posted earlier on?

Because i'm not sure you read the article at all yourself. The portion i highlighted is rubbish and is not supported anywhere in the original article. Again here is the main thrust of the article:

1. A good percentage of Spanish males (sample size of 1140 i think) have sephardic and North African ancenstry.

2. Bear in mind when they say "North African", they essentially mean arab not necessarily muslim.

3. The question the researchers now asked is - where did this jewish ancestry come from?

4. Possibility 1 - since there is no distinct jewish presence in Spain, it could be that some of the jews converted to catholicism to avoid discrimination, inter-married with the native Spanish population and thus introduced the jewish lineage into the overall spanish gene pool.

5. Possibility 2 - The North African lineage could have come from either net migration of north africans (Morrocco for example is quite close to Spain) or during colonization of the Moors, or during the period of arab domination of Spain.

Now note . . . the article is NOT talking about religion at all . . . simply trying to figure out how those lineages appeared among Spanish men.

That's as easy as i could put it without wondering if you have the mental capacity of a 5yr old or not.

Bastage:

Dear 4-Play. Quite simply, you defy logic.But have this one too:


Scientists have detected the faint genetic traces left by medieval crusaders in the Middle East.
The team says it found a particular DNA signature which recently appeared in Lebanon and is probably linked to the crusades.
Details of the research have been published in the American Journal of Human Genetics.
The researchers found that some Christian men in Lebanon carry a DNA signature hailing from Western Europe.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7316281.stm

Of course, you can say that this has nothing to do with religion either. After all the Crusades had nothing to do with Christianity did they?
You can also belittle this one as it was the first I got when I Googled "crusades+genetics".

This unrepentant dolt is still assuming the premise as proven:that there is a unique religious gene, unique to different faiths, in the first place which is spread in the process of human interaction.

This guy must be a comprehensive numbskull

Bastage . . . the more you post the more stupid you sound.

Again see this:

Bastage:

Scientists have detected the faint genetic traces left by medieval crusaders in the Middle East.
The team says it found a particular DNA signature which recently appeared in Lebanon and is probably linked to the crusades.
Details of the research have been published in the American Journal of Human Genetics.
The researchers found that some Christian men in Lebanon carry a DNA signature hailing from Western Europe.

1. The crusaders came from where? - Western Europe.

2. Western Europeans are what? - Caucasians

3. Since the crusades took place over a couple of yrs, it is possible that certain western Europeans intermingled with the natives thus introducing their DNA to the gene pool.

4. Is the article talking about religion perse? - No, simply trying to advance a theory as to where the western European markers found in Lebanese men could have come from.

Learn to read with an objective lens next time.

The reason they know that there were conversions was because of the similarity of genetic make-up between the anscestors of the converted and the Moors.

The article states such? Surprise me, show me where this dumb claim was made in the article.

How blatant do you want the evidence to be?

"Their decision to do so is revealed through the genetic make-up of modern Spanish Catholic men who were often unaware of their ancestry. . . 11 per cent have DNA that reflects Moorish ancestors. In addition, the scientists characterised the Y chromosomes of the Arab and Berber army that invaded Spain in AD 711 from data on people living in Morocco and the Western Sahara."

Now unless those "Moorish ancestors" were also "Spanish Catholic men". Unless they were Muslims and Christians at the same time, I'd say that there had to be conversions somewhere along the line, wouldn't you?

davidylan:

this is nothing but poppycock. Now there is no "good scientific evidence". All you woolheads who like trotting out such misinformation like you've been doing any real study on this issue shld be ashamed of yourselves . . .

Here is another article that should "strengthen" your case  - A gene for Religion?

The problem is the Dopamine receptor D4 talked about in that short article is "implicated" in just about anything scientists cannot explain, from addiction to obesity, psychiatric and neurotic disorders. What shoots down the theory is that you get increased dopamine levels in the drug addict for example YET it doesnt make him any more religious than the average person doing just fine on lower dopamine levels.

Again let me repeat . . . enough of this attitude of deliberate misinformation. There is NO good scientific evidence for a genetic linkage to religion.

Who said there was?   Certainly NOT me.   It is  a hypothesis that is currently being tested, as far as I know.  You should treat such articles in the public domain, written by less-proficient scientific journalists with a great deal of salt.

Now, the hypothesis is the following:  Our mental states are a function of the integral link with the body.  Our bodies are shaped by our genetics. Thus our mental states are also shaped by our genetics. Religious beliefs are a form of mental states. There is a subtle argument here, which I think many people miss.  There is a distinction between a mental state and a consequence of the mental state.  What has been measure in the labs is the consequence of the beliefs.  Thus if a certain thought or belief induces tremors, for examples, it is the tremors that are pick up.  The careless scientists or journalist sometimes report this as the belief itself.

While I think science is getting closer to this issues, I think ultimately, there are too many indetermintes that we will "never" disentangle all the contributory factor out.

@Davidylan

I think Bastage's bewilderment is a product of living in the UK. People often talk of Muslims as if they are a race. Hence, Bastage thinks that references to racial genes in races where Muslims are dominant is as good as references to a Muslim gene.

davidylan:

this is nothing but poppycock. Now there is no "good scientific evidence". All you woolheads who like trotting out such misinformation like you've been doing any real study on this issue shld be ashamed of yourselves . . .

Here is another article that should "strengthen" your case - A gene for Religion?

The problem is the Dopamine receptor D4 talked about in that short article is "implicated" in just about anything scientists cannot explain, from addiction to obesity, psychiatric and neurotic disorders. What shoots down the theory is that you get increased dopamine levels in the drug addict for example YET it doesnt make him any more religious than the average person doing just fine on lower dopamine levels.

Again let me repeat . . . enough of this attitude of deliberate misinformation. There is NO good scientific evidence for a genetic linkage to religion.

Who said there was? Certainly NOT me. It is a hypothesis that is currently being tested, as far as I know. You should treat such articles in the public domain, written by less-proficient scientific journalists with a great deal of salt.

Now, the hypothesis is the following: Our mental states are a function of the integral link with the body. Our bodies are shaped by our genetics. Thus our mental states are also shaped by our genetics. Religious beliefs are a form of mental states. There is a subtle argument here, which I think many people miss. There is a distinction between a mental state and a consequence of the mental state. What has been measure in the labs is the consequence of the beliefs. Thus if a certain thought or belief induces tremors, for examples, it is the tremors that are pick up. The careless scientists or journalist sometimes report this as the belief itself.

While I think science is getting closer to this issues, I think ultimately, there are too many indetermintes that we will "never" disentangle all the contributory factor out.

Bastage:

And another:

http://spittoon.23andme.com/2008/04/22/historical-genetics-researchers-find-traces-of-crusades-spread-of-islam-in-lebanon/

"Generally, the DNA in a man’s Y-chromosome contains information about prehistoric migrations that happened many millennia in the past. But a recent study of men in Lebanon shows that genetics can be a reflection of more recent events as well.

A paper published in the April issue of the American Journal of Human Genetics shows that two major events in the history of religion – the spread of Islam and the Crusades – have left their mark on Lebanon’s male population."

Again an example of how poor your capacity for higher reasoning is.

The paper again asks an important question . . . where do the various genetic markers/traits found in Lebanese men come from? The crusades could be a strong possibility for the presence of Western European markers.

This has NOTHING to do with religion.

Just one question . . . found an article for what unique gene characteristics are found among Ogun worshippers?

The crusades could be a strong possibility for the presence of Western European markers.

And in the next breath.

This has NOTHING to do with religion

I told you that they'd even try to deny that the Crusades had anything to do with religion.


Merry Sol Invicta Day guys!!!!

Bastage:

How blatant do you want the evidence to be?

"Their decision to do so is revealed through the genetic make-up of modern Spanish Catholic men who were often unaware of their ancestry. . . 11 per cent have DNA that reflects Moorish ancestors. In addition, the scientists characterised the Y chromosomes of the Arab and Berber army that invaded Spain in AD 711 from data on people living in Morocco and the Western Sahara."

Now unless those "Moorish ancestors" were also "Spanish Catholic men". Unless they were Muslims and Christians at the same time, I'd say that there had to be conversions somewhere along the line, wouldn't you?

actually the evidence is stacked against you.

Yes there had to have been a conversion because you the predominant religion in Spain is roman catholic. Since there is no dominant jewish or muslim culture in spain and we know from genetic characteristics that spanish men carry traces of both north african and jewish lineages there have to have been north africans or jews living in spain at some point who inter-married with the natives.

The question is where did there culture disappear to? Did they leave Spain completely or converted to catholicism and thus lost much of their culture over the centuries?

That is what the article poses . . . NOT a unique gene for judaism or islam.

Bastage:

And in the next breath.

I told you that they'd even try to deny that the Crusades had anything to do with religion.

Merry Sol Invicta Day guys!!!!

You have a problem with mental coordination. The crusades were about religion but that is not the issue. The question is did the crusaders carry a gene unique to ALL christians?

Ok lets assume that is true . . . would i also have the same genetic markers as a Lebanese man with western European ancestry as a result of net migration of western europeans to the middle east during the crusades?

I'm sorry but critical thinking isnt your strongest forte.

The campaigns of Ghenghis khan left ist mark right across the Asian continent. His genes and those of his soldier are still traceable in people living today from China to the hills of Istanbul.  Does this also mean that warfare has a direct impact/influence on genetics.  I mean warfare and NOT the indirect consequences of warfare, which tends to "redistribute" populations.

huxley:

Who said there was? Certainly NOT me. It is a hypothesis that is currently being tested, as far as I know. You should treat such articles in the public domain, written by less-proficient scientific journalists with a great deal of salt.

Now, the hypothesis is the following: Our mental states are a function of the integral link with the body. Our bodies are shaped by our genetics. Thus our mental states are also shaped by our genetics. Religious beliefs are a form of mental states. There is a subtle argument here, which I think many people miss. There is a distinction between a mental state and a consequence of the mental state. What has been measure in the labs is the consequence of the beliefs. Thus if a certain thought or belief induces tremors, for examples, it is the tremors that are pick up. The careless scientists or journalist sometimes report this as the belief itself.

While I think science is getting closer to this issues, I think ultimately, there are too many indetermintes that we will "never" disentangle all the contributory factor out.

I dont believe that for a second. We now live in a society that is desperate to wipe out religion and profer "scientific" rationalisations for just about anything. Is partying also a mental state? Compare two fellows . . . one likes to watch movies while the other would rather read a book . . . does that also have to do with their mental states?

The reason science will never be able to determine this is because such rationalisations exist only in the minds of the deluded.

Take for example the idea that drug addiction is mostly a mental state . . . while science has been able to tease out a few of the neurochemistry behind addiction it still hasnt found a cure. If there was one single genetic factor no one would be smoking today.

@Bastage

Bastage:

How blatant do you want the evidence to be?"Their decision to do so is revealed through the genetic make-up of modern Spanish Catholic men who were often unaware of their ancestry. . . 11 per cent have DNA that reflects Moorish ancestors. In addition, the scientists characterised the Y chromosomes of the Arab and Berber army that invaded Spain in AD 711 from data on people living in Morocco and the Western Sahara."

Now unless those "Moorish ancestors" were also "Spanish Catholic men". Unless they were Muslims and Christians at the same time, I'd say that there had to be conversions somewhere along the line, wouldn't you?

Touche. This however leaves unanswered the source of your premise, that Muslims have a unique genetic make up which your dumb copy and paste jobs have left us none the wiser.

Your stupidity knows no bounds.

huxley:

The campaigns of Ghenghis khan left ist mark right across the Asian continent. His genes and those of his soldier are still traceable in people living today from China to the hills of Istanbul.  Does this also mean that warfare has a direct impact/influence on genetics.  I mean warfare and NOT the indirect consequences of warfare, which tends to "redistribute" populations.

Nwam. Bastage . . . even Huxley does not agree with your poor scholarship. 

That just goes to show you how much of a disgrace u're turning out to be for the secular crowd.

Any chance Bastage, resident mutilator of science, can explain what genetic uniquesness exists between Ethiopian Christians and Irish Christians.

Never has science been murdered with such zeal that will put to shame Galileo's inquisitors.

davidylan:

I don't believe that for a second. We now live in a society that is desperate to wipe out religion and profer "scientific" rationalisations for just about anything. Is partying also a mental state? Compare two fellows . . . one likes to watch movies while the other would rather read a book . . . does that also have to do with their mental states?

The reason science will never be able to determine this is because such rationalisations exist only in the minds of the deluded.

Take for example the idea that drug addiction is mostly a mental state . . . while science has been able to tease out a few of the neurochemistry behind addiction it still hasnt found a cure. If there was one single genetic factor no one would be smoking today.

I acknowledge you reservation, but you talk as if the game is over yet.  While there may not be definitive cures or treatment to many of the "mental" disorders today, there has been tremendous leaps in the understanding of many of their mechanism and how to treat some.  Unfortunately many possible cures have other sideeffects which may discourage their use.

You are right in that there may really never be a fully comprehensive understanding of "mental" states and the agents require to effect these states.

The question I had in mind is slightly different from yours above.  Mine is - How would one distinguish a mental state of religious estacy from that of sexual, or literary, or physical estacy?

huxley:

The question I had in mind is slightly different from yours above. Mine is - How would one distinguish a mental state of religious estacy from that of sexual, or literary, or physical estacy?

there is no such thing as religious ecstacy. It is simply a term coined by anti-religious folks like you desperate to delegitimise religion. Christianity is not a "mental state", it is a way or life . . . a spiritual code of conduct for the saved.

This need to classify religion as a "mental imbalance" different from the norm does not hold water at all. People have tried to use brain scans to differentiate between the brain of religious people and secular individuals . . . the result? no difference at all.

Religion is not a "high".

Would you describe the normal law-abiding citizen of having a peculiar mental state different from yours?

Read it and weep.

https://genographic.nationalgeographic.com/genographic/lan/en/globe.html

"Since humans first populated the globe, they've created civilisations, spread religions, colonised distant lands, waged war and experienced pandemics. Through the past 7000 years this has left marks on genetic records."

Bastage:

Read it and weep.

https://genographic.nationalgeographic.com/genographic/lan/en/globe.html

"Since humans first populated the globe, they've created civilisations, spread religions, colonised distant lands, waged war and experienced pandemics. Through the past 7000 years this has left marks on genetic records."

I'm weeping for you . . .

Population redistribution, as Huxley earlier mentioned, is responsible for the differences in the genetic make-up of a people.

Bastage:

Read it and weep.
https://genographic.nationalgeographic.com/genographic/lan/en/globe.html

"Since humans first populated the globe, they've created civilisations, spread religions, colonised distant lands, waged war and experienced pandemics. Through the past 7000 years this has left marks on genetic records."

What a congenital cretin. The 2 bolded parts do not constitute evidence of a gene for religion