# Biological difference between blacks and whites? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [February 11, 2006, 6:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/biological-difference-between-blacks-and-whites/344011 "2006-02-11T18:09:44Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 17\ **Page:** 6
**Author:** ![Blake](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/a9a28c/32.png) [@Blake](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Blake)\ **Post date:** [February 17, 2006, 6:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/biological-difference-between-blacks-and-whites/344011/101 "2006-02-17T06:51:05Z")
> [@Shagnasty](#): > > The socioeconomic argument is absolutely piss-poor. Gee, now there’s a compelling debating style “It’s pisspoor. Not for any reason, just pisspoor. :rolleyes: > [@](#): > > Do you care to elaborate how black people gain this special ability by being poor when every other poor group in the entire world does not or cannot? Cite! Whatever are you talking about? Do you believe that Poor Kenyans and poor Nigerians aren’t good runners? Do you believe that poor Cockneys aren’t good footballers? Do you perhaps believe that poor Aborigines are no good at AFL or Rugby Legaue? Or do you believe that poor Pakistanis are no good at cricket? Do you in fact have any evidence at all that poor black people have any abilities at all that are not also exhibited by numerous other poor populations? Any evidence whatsoever? Or is this yet another claim made by your side that has no factual basis whatsoever, and for which we call for cites but never see any. Well come on, you asked me to explain a phenomenon. I want you to produce evidence that the phenomenon even exists. > [@](#): > > Please respond with elaboration you expect from others on how these socioeconomic factors work. No problem. The only elaboration I have expect from anyone in this thread is factual; support for claims presented as fact. Now what factual claim of mine do you want evidence for again? > [@](#): > > If people made the assertion that certain people from different groups were the fastest out of everyone in the world, how would a scientist best address that? By performing a double blind trial with randomly selected test subjects and a control group. If that were not possible then the bare minimum would be to conduct a matched pairs study accounting for as many factors as possible. He would **not** allow self selection of the test subjects. He would **not** select subjects on the basis of the opinion of a series of coaches, trainers, funding organisers, sponsors and fans. Such a study would have no validity whatsoever. The fact that you think that professional sporting competitions and college teams constitute scientific evidence simply highlights what a poor grasp you have of real science. > [@](#): > > I have no idea why you think that absence of evidence is evidence of absence with DNA. I don’t think that. I have never said that or anything like that. The statement is a total strawman. Unless of course you would like to quote where I said that? Hmm? > [@](#): > > You can’t just say that anything that DNA science hasn’t caught up with doesn’t exist. I don’t think that. I have never said that or anything like that. The statement is a total strawman. Unless of course you would like to quote where I said that? Hmm? An I am still waiting to see any evidence at all that black sporting prowess is related to black genetics. Any evidence at all. A single gene. A suite of genes. Anything. But of course no such evidence exists. Your entire position is an argument from ignorance. You believe it not because you have any evidence of it, you believe it because it can not be disproved. ---
**Author:** ![MrDibble](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mrdibble/32/114_2.png) [@MrDibble](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MrDibble)\ **Post date:** [February 17, 2006, 7:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/biological-difference-between-blacks-and-whites/344011/102 "2006-02-17T07:52:47Z")
> [@Broomstick](#): > > Actually, mixing the milk with blood does nothing to alter the lactose in it. What’s really going on is that the Masai and related groups who commonly drink milk as adults retain the ability to digest lactose into adulthood. In other world, the adults in those groups are _not_ lactose intolerant, whereas the adults in many neighboring groups are. > > This is, in fact, a beautiful example of why you shouldn’t lump “black people” or even “Africans” in to one group. In this area, the **Masai have more in common with Swedes than with, say, Khoi-San**. It’s an inherited biological trait that allows them to digest milk past childhood. My bolding. Actually, that’s not true. Khoi-khoi were pastoralists like the Masaai, with a very similar lifestyle. The San subgroup of KhoiSan, while today exclusively hunter-gatherers, was, pre-contact, more likely just a disenfranchised social class rather than a wholly separate population. That is, a khoi-khoi who lost all his cows might be forced to become a servant to a wealthier man, and would then be considered San. As far as I’m aware, there’s no particular prevelance of Lactose Intolerance in KhoiSan. I mean, I’m partly KhoiSan, and I can drink all the delicious, fresh milk I want. And there’s no Swede in me that I’m aware of… ---
**Author:** ![Blake](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/a9a28c/32.png) [@Blake](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Blake)\ **Post date:** [February 17, 2006, 8:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/biological-difference-between-blacks-and-whites/344011/103 "2006-02-17T08:06:50Z")
> [@MrDibble](#): > > The San subgroup of KhoiSan, while today exclusively hunter-gatherers, was, pre-contact, more likely just a disenfranchised social class rather than a wholly separate population.] I;d have to see some strong evidence to even consider that. The Khoi San were hunter gatherers and largely retricted to areas that were completely unsuitable for pastoralism. They lived a different lifstyle with different customs. I have seen no evidence that they were “just a disenfranchised social class”. > [@](#): > > That is, a khoi-khoi who lost all his cows might be forced to become a servant to a wealthier man, and would then be considered San. Again, that is not in agreement with anyhting I have ever seen. Khoi khoi and khoi san translate roughly to our people and their people repsectively. That alone suggests a clear dleinetaion betwene the cultures. I have never heard that an indentured Khoi Khoi was ever referred to as a Khoi San. That term always seems to have been reserved for neighbouring HG groups. ---
**Author:** ![MrDibble](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mrdibble/32/114_2.png) [@MrDibble](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MrDibble)\ **Post date:** [February 17, 2006, 10:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/biological-difference-between-blacks-and-whites/344011/104 "2006-02-17T10:03:33Z")
Well, firstly, there’s no such thing as “Khoi San” people. There’s a KhoiSan linguistic grouping, but the people speaking it were either Khoekhoen (Khoi) or (just plain) San (modern Bushman), like the !Xam or !Kung. “KhoiSan” is an umbrella term for both groups, not a name for the San. At least, not currently. Recently, the term’s also been adopted by the local First Peoples movement. San is a Khoi pejorative, and doesn’t translate to “their people”, but more something like “people different from us”, with a note of “people less than us” to it. Khoekhoen translates as “men of men”, “true people”. The difference being lifestyle, in this case pastoralist vs. HG. But intermarriage and social migration seems to have been a possibility, and the two groups were “racially” the same. See [here](http://www.scienceinafrica.co.za/2002/august/khoi.htm) for two takes on the social interaction between HGs and herders. As you can tell, I lean towards the second theory mentioned by Smith. Still, I should have phrased that as " and would then be considered **to be like the** San", whom the Khoi viewed as clients or children. For a little more on current views about the interconnectedness of both the pastoral and HG strains of Khoisan, look [here](http://www.museums.org.za/sam/resource/arch/strandlo.htm) (esp. the paragraph headed “the gorinchaicona”) and [here](http://www.museums.org.za/sam/resource/arch/hunters.htm). These are from a museum site, not scientific papers, but the current view seems to be that there was a greater degree of interconnectedness between the Khoi and San parts of the equation than previously supposed. I didn’t mean to imply that the San were not a distinct grouping. That wasn’t my point. My point was that the Khoekhoen were pastorialists like the Masaai. And likely lactose-tolerant (see [here](http://www.scienceinafrica.co.za/2002/june/lactose.htm) for a mention of this). The point of that last cite, BTW, is that some “genetic” factors are more complicated than we initially assume, and lactose intolerance in a population is more determined by lifestyle than anything else. Which addresses the OP, somewhat. ---
**Author:** ![Blake](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/a9a28c/32.png) [@Blake](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Blake)\ **Post date:** [February 17, 2006, 10:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/biological-difference-between-blacks-and-whites/344011/105 "2006-02-17T10:15:49Z")
I’ll see if I can chase up the refernces for Khoi San as a reference used by both the Khpoi Khoi and the British to refer to the ‘Bushmen’. But it’s all good, I really just wanted to clear up that that the San were not simply indentured Hottentot/Khoi Khoi. BTW hardly think that “their people”, vs. “people different from us” is a gross mistranslation, given the nuances that these terms invariably have. Similarly “true people” vs. “our people” hardly seems a mistranslation. As for the lactose tolerance statsus of the Khoi Khoi, I really couldn’t comment. ---
**Author:** ![MrDibble](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mrdibble/32/114_2.png) [@MrDibble](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MrDibble)\ **Post date:** [February 17, 2006, 10:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/biological-difference-between-blacks-and-whites/344011/106 "2006-02-17T10:49:55Z")
> [@Blake](#): > > I’ll see if I can chase up the refernces for Khoi San as a reference used by both the Khpoi Khoi and the British to refer to the ‘Bushmen’. I’m sure you’ll find British (and Afrikaner) references, but I doubt you’ll find Khoekhoen ones. The name given to HG wasn’t even the same from the Western Cape to Namaqualand. “San” is a Nama variant, I believe. here in the Peninsula, they were called Son/qua > [@Blake](#): > > But it’s all good, I really just wanted to clear up that that the San were not simply indentured Hottentot/Khoi Khoi. Sorry about the misunderstanding. > [@Blake](#): > > BTW hardly think that “their people”, vs. “people different from us” is a gross mistranslation, given the nuances that these terms invariably have. Similarly “true people” vs. “our people” hardly seems a mistranslation. It’s not a _gross_ mistranslation, but it misses out on the subtleties implicit in the words chosen, IMHO. Like I said, “San” carries conotations of _inferiority_, and in fact "Bushman"or tribal-specific names are still prefered by many First People for that very reason. Similarly, “our people” misses the immense pride implicit in the word Khoekhoen. It’s not just an assertion of group status, but also inherent _superiority_. The assertion seems to have been "we are the true people, because we have cattle. ". I’m sure something similar is at play in the interactions between Masaai and surrounding people, and the Fulani vs the Hausa in Niger. > [@Blake](#): > > As for the lactose tolerance statsus of the Khoi Khoi, I really couldn’t comment. I think my cite covered it nicely. I think one thing this hijack shows, is that culture can matter a lot more than genetic differences, to explain population differences. ---
**Author:** ![Blake](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/a9a28c/32.png) [@Blake](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Blake)\ **Post date:** [February 17, 2006, 11:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/biological-difference-between-blacks-and-whites/344011/107 "2006-02-17T11:25:11Z")
> [@MrDibble](#): > > I think one thing this hijack shows, is that culture can matter a lot more than genetic differences, to explain population differences. Agreed. ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [February 17, 2006, 1:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/biological-difference-between-blacks-and-whites/344011/108 "2006-02-17T13:12:56Z")
> [@Blake](#): > > No, you did not. You are now being dishonest. You said, and I quote: > > > [@](#): > > > > Thus no **race** /population/tribe/nationality has no one particular allele that separates it from others. However, several could have a combination of genes that makes them somewhat **distinct**. > > Bolding mine. However, you are being disingenuous in the extreme. Note the slashes between the word “race” and the words “population,” “tribe,” and “nationality.” **DrDeth** has already made the point that there are discernible groups _whatever we call them_, and has, here, thrown out a joined list of terms that have been used at different times. Focusing on the word “race” when he is clearly NOT claiming the traditional use of that term is simply distracting from your argument. Your other claim that there certainly is a “black race” when everyone participating in the last couple of pages of this thread recognize that the term is not a genetic identifier of a homogeneous group is equally dishonest. One can easily use the _social_ identifier of “black” to distinguish between the citizens of the U.S. or South Africa whose ancestors in the 15th century were African from those whose ancestors were European without falling into the trap of claiming that everyone orginating South of the Sahara is one race. The discussion has focused on a couple of specific groups from different locations within Africa. When you first object to “race” (when it is used as a one of a string of possible nouns to identify a distinct group) and then you change the meaning to include all dark-skinned Africans, you are the one creating the strawman. Now, I tend to agree that the original formulation that there was _clearly_ evidence was much too strong. However, you are doing nothing to further the discussion when you pretend that NO _suggestive_ evidence has been presented. If you want to carefully demonstrate that the information presented in [this citation](http://www.gnxp.com/MT2/archives/002505.html?entry=2505) (already provided) is inconclusive or misleading, please do so. Constantly posting “Cite” as if no evidence had ever been presented (and focusing on your own misreading of **DrDeth** ’s inclusion of the word “race”) is simply making you look petulant. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Flying\_Dutchman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/9fc348/32.png) [@The\_Flying\_Dutchman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Flying_Dutchman)\ **Post date:** [February 17, 2006, 3:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/biological-difference-between-blacks-and-whites/344011/109 "2006-02-17T15:00:36Z")
> [@Stranger On A Train](#): > > Let’s try this: consider baseball. Americans are good at baseball; indeed, it is no stretch to say that Americans are the best in the world at the sport of baseball. (We’ll conveniently ignore Cuba for the sake of the argument.) Americans are not good at cricket; we’d be amiss if we did not point out that Americans collectively rank in the bottom bracket, ability-wise, of cricket players. There are, in fact, exactly no world-class American crickteers. > > By the logic espoused by those arguing for the premise of “superior black running genes” we’d have to attribute this difference to genetics. Wrong! On several points. First off, we have the problem that there are a hell of a lot of Americans that have a common genetic heritage with British subjects. I understand the British are good at cricket. Sorry **Blake** , I can’t provide the particular allele. Secondly no one here is arguing that culture does not play a huge role in the relative outcomes of sporting success of populations in general. This is a strawman that needs to be burned. If you want to convince me that my position here is wrong then stop it. If you’ve read all my posts on this subject then you’d know I’ve already acknowledged that with my reference to the domination of Canadians in ice hockey. A previous cultural argument trying to explain the current dominance of black skinned sprinters and black skinned NFL/NBA players has been to point out that other ethnic groups have dominated boxing in the past. The obvious suggestion of course is that this must be a cultural based phenomenon that would explain how any group could dominate based on cultural factors alone. However given the crux of this debate is about the performance of American blacks in the sprint demanding sports it is totally irrelevant. Furthermore the most significant cultural explanation for Irish and Jewish past dominace in boxing was the deliberate exclusion of blacks at the elite level. > [@](#): > > Why do American blacks excel at certain sports? Certainly, for those who do succeed to some measure of success it is due to their innate athletic prowess, but those who do achieve great success are a mere fraction of a percent of the total American black population; we cannot infer that the capabiltiy of a tiny minority is reflective of the whole population, No argument here. I myself am a tiny minority amongst the ethnic Dutch population yet given that the Dutch are the tallest people on average in the world why am I only 5’ 9". Once again, please respond to the argument I and others are making here and do not erect strawmen. No one here is generalizing about the black population. > [@](#): > > Nonetheless, blacks dominate certain sports; say running, basketball, and football, but not swimming, skiing, hockey. Is this because blacks lack the swimming, skiing, and hockey genes, No. Once again no one is arguing against cultrual influences > [@](#): > > or is that because among (most) black populations, particularly those in which sport is held as being the ultimate road to success and wealth, running, basketball, and football are far more popular than swimming, skiing, and hockey? First off, the sport where black peple dominate the most, to the point of exclusivity is sprinting, once the preserve of European aristocracy. This is the least likely avenue for any black American to achieve success and wealth . Furthermore, even for a superior black American athlete, the prospect of achieving wealth through sprinting is pretty dismal. I wonder how rich Donovan Baily is today. > [@](#): > > Those arguing for the existance of a “running gene” in blacks are set to dismiss any impact socialization, exposure, economic opportunity, peer pressure, and so forth have to do with how we develop and what skills we exercise. Two more strawmen. Sigh. No one is arguing for a “running gene” No one is dismissing social factors in sport. > [@](#): > > I’m an excellent freediver–I can hold my breath for over three minutes under water–but had I been born a Bedouin nomad, I’d have never been exposed to water deeper than my waist. I’ve never had the desire to be proficient at holding my breath. They never taught me that at school either. But you and I have been in competition in the 100 m sprint like maybe a billion other people today. That is a particularly large sample, and given the intense scientific and financial input given to American and Russian sprinters it is all the more remarkable that a Jamaican and a Nigerian have cracked the 10 second barrier, The exclusive preserve of those who can claim West African genetic heritage. > [@](#): > > It is possible that the black population–particularly those of West African (typically negroid) descent–collectively has some slight aggregate advantage with regard to sport. This is the point that I vehemently disagree with. That the success of black American athletes should be ascribed to the black population in America as a whole. There is no evidence for that, but I can understand why. It is pretty hard to look beyond the black skin. It is quite simple to say that black Americans are superior athletes whether it is due to social factors alone or not. If you want to ascribe the success of black athletes to the black population as a whole then you have to have an agenda to make your point relevant to you. > [@](#): > > It is unlikely that this is due to a single genome, or a particular type of muscle fiber; if it exists, it’s more likely a combination of physical traits–long legs, lean muscle mass, high metabolic rate, et cetera–which come together in advantageous confluence slightly more often or with greater effect than in the pale-faced, largely European heritage population of the US. This hasn’t been demonstrated other than by inference, but even if it is true, all it indicates is that of the segment of the overall population that appears more “black” has a slightly higher average confluence of these genomes as compared to the total population. Oh my God!!! That is exactly what I’m trying to tell you !!! [/QUOTE] ---
**Author:** ![Stranger\_On\_A\_Train](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/13edae/32.png) [@Stranger\_On\_A\_Train](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stranger_On_A_Train)\ **Post date:** [February 17, 2006, 3:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/biological-difference-between-blacks-and-whites/344011/110 "2006-02-17T15:30:55Z")
> [@The Flying Dutchman](#): > > Two more strawmen. Sigh. > > No one is arguing for a “running gene” > [@Shagnasty](#): > > Furthermore, expression of those genes is up to the genetic lottery when a child is conceived. However, a child is sometimes born that expresses the necessary traits for elite running. > [@The Flying Ducthman](#): > > No one is dismissing social factors in sport. > [@The Flying Dutchman](#): > > I will now proceed to make the case that superior black athletes have **crucial biological advantages**. Right. Now please stop waving the term “strawman” around as if merely introducing it to the discussion it dismisses any counterargument. Getting back to the issue at hand–the one stated in the OP–let’s address the question of “Is there a biological difference in blacks that make blacks faster?” Redefining the terms of the question to narrowly suit your case is not an acceptible technique of argumentation. Stranger ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [February 17, 2006, 3:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/biological-difference-between-blacks-and-whites/344011/111 "2006-02-17T15:36:59Z")
> [@Blake](#): > > You claimed that races could be made distinct on the basis f genetics. Those are your words. Not mine. > > I have no intention of answering “what is your explanation” yet again. I answered it for you twice, very directly, in my last post. If you wish to admit that you can not understand what I said I will happily repost it so that others may judge whether my answer was clear and see that you are being either disingenuous or intellectually dishonest. I have no intention of simply playing silly buggers by repeating myself. > > Ditto for “Do you claim there is no such allele” > > Ditto for “do you claim that it is impossible that such an allele would be much more common in one population than in another? > > I answered those exact same questions in ,my last post quite clearly and explicitely. > I expect that it was published on an offset printer in some printery. How do you explain it? > Cite. > > Please show us this study that shows that part of the difference between black and white athletes may be linked to a specific allele. And kindly quote where the study states that conclusion. > > (Yet another request for evidence that will be ignored by DrDeth I suspect). > that wans;t the question. You asked if there was a Black race. There quite clearly is a Black race. Are you now willing to concede that point? Or do you still deny that Black is a race according to the dictionary and hence common speech? > > Now, can I please have those references that I requested? You have made at least 7 statements of ‘fact’ that I have requested evidence for. So far we’ve have seen none at all. Your entire position seems to be based on making asserting things like height is primarily genetic and that mating with the progenitor population is a significant predictor of gene prevalence. > > Can we some evidence for those wild claims, or were you just making your facts up as you went along? No, I didn’t. Your whole debating tactic seems to be misconstruing other dudes posts and misquoting them. Here is your _last post_, in total: "But you have no evidence for ANY of it. That is the problem. You can postulate all you like that the dragon in your garage is a surviving dinsoaur, but its very existence remains an argument from ignorance. And that’s all you did with that whole post. You attempted to produce a logical set of events that could lead to the conclusion you describe. But nobody has ever denied that it could possibly be true. What everybody has said is that there is no evidence to support such a conclusion. Even when the evidence has been sought it hasn’t been found. That makes your position an argument form ignorance. You accept it despite the total lack of evidence, solely because it can’t be proven to be impossible. Good grief man I could paraphrase your entire last post using God’s blessing as the explanation as instead of genetics. It would be neither more nor less disprovable or suported by the evidence than your hypotheses. That’s why we don’t just endorse arguments form ignorance. We don’t accept things just because they can’t be proven to be impossible. We need some evidence. Can you provide evidence of a genetic difference between black and white athletes? Because I can certainly provide evidence of sociocultural differences." I see no explanation there, in fact I see a complete LACK of an explanation. I see no explanation for the allele, I see no explanations at all. So much for your claim “I answered those exact same questions in ,my last post quite clearly and explicitely”. \*You didn’t answer them at all. \* Well, at least not in your “last post”. Here is my cite for the allele, which has been given to you three times now. You have failed to explain it "Australian study. Quote: Scientists in Australia have found evidence to suggest that genetics may also play an important part. They say top class sprinters are more likely to have a copy of a particular version of a gene called ACTN3. They believe this version, the R allele, enables them to produce the explosive bursts of speed they need. R allele produces a protein called actinin, which is found in muscle fibres. Scientists believe it enables muscles to contract more quickly and more powerfully. " See Flying Dutchmans post above for the link. Where are _your_ explanations that we have all asked for for multiple times? As for cites, you keep asking for cites for claims I have not made. It’s an interesting debate tactic- put words in someones mouth, having them make a claim that can’t be supported by a cite; then demand the cite. Lovely. :rolleyes: Genetically, there is no such thing as a black race. However- “according to the dictionary and hence common speech”??? :dubious: :rolleyes: :eek: What the fuck are you talking about? We are talking _genetics_, here dude. Once more- on a genetic level, the idea of a single “black race” is a complete & utter falsehood. ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [February 17, 2006, 3:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/biological-difference-between-blacks-and-whites/344011/112 "2006-02-17T15:59:36Z")
> [@tomndebb](#): > > However, you are being disingenuous in the extreme. > > Note the slashes between the word “race” and the words “population,” “tribe,” and “nationality.” **DrDeth** has already made the point that there are discernible groups _whatever we call them_, and has, here, thrown out a joined list of terms that have been used at different times. Focusing on the word “race” when he is clearly NOT claiming the traditional use of that term is simply distracting from your argument… > > Constantly posting “Cite” as if no evidence had ever been presented (and focusing on your own misreading of **DrDeth** ’s inclusion of the word “race”) is simply making you look petulant. Thank you. I admit that I could have worded some of my posts a bit better, but now there’s several of you who apparently can understand them. It’s a truism here though- whenever the word ‘race’ is mentioned, dudes get WAY too excited. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Flying\_Dutchman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/9fc348/32.png) [@The\_Flying\_Dutchman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Flying_Dutchman)\ **Post date:** [February 17, 2006, 5:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/biological-difference-between-blacks-and-whites/344011/113 "2006-02-17T17:37:38Z")
> [@Stranger On A Train](#): > > Right. > > Now please stop waving the term “strawman” around as if merely introducing it to the discussion it dismisses any counterargument. Getting back to the issue at hand–the one stated in the OP–let’s address the question of “Is there a biological difference in blacks that make blacks faster?” > > Redefining the terms of the question to narrowly suit your case is not an acceptible technique of argumentation. > > Stranger With all due respect, I addressed the question to explain the prevalent and in my view erroneous perception that blacks in general are faster than whites whether by way of biology or culture. However I felt compelled to present the biological evidence, which can not be ignored that within the American black population which has a greater genetic diversity than other identifiable peoples are athletes with various specific morphological traits either not shared or in greater manifestation than amongst the rest of the population both black and white. If that is not acceptable to you as a “technique of argumentation” then I shall not continue with you further. ---
**Author:** ![Blake](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/a9a28c/32.png) [@Blake](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Blake)\ **Post date:** [February 17, 2006, 9:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/biological-difference-between-blacks-and-whites/344011/114 "2006-02-17T21:04:01Z")
> [@tomndebb](#): > > However, you are being disingenuous in the extreme. No, I am not. > [@](#): > > Note the slashes between the word “race” and the words “population,” “tribe,” and “nationality.” **DrDeth** has already made the point that there are discernible groups _whatever we call them_, and has, here, thrown out a joined list of terms that have been used at different times. Yes, and he said that those groups, could conatin genes that make them distinct. And I asking him for the evidence he has that the groups called races contain genes that make them distinct. He made that claim, I did not invent it. There is nothing disingenuous about asking him for his evidence for it. > [@](#): > > Focusing on the word “race” when he is clearly NOT claiming the traditional use of that term is simply distracting from your argument. Far form focussing in the term race I have used the term _only_ when respodning directly to a statement of someone else who has already used the word quote. Someone is being disingenuous here, and it is you in your claim that I am focussing on race. > [@](#): > > Your other claim that there certainly is a “black race” when everyone participating in the last couple of pages of this thread recognize that the term is not a genetic identifier of a homogeneous group is equally dishonest. Rubbish. I was asked a direct question about whether Blacks were a race. I answered that direct question. > [@](#): > > the original formulation that there was _clearly_ evidence was much too strong. However, you are doing nothing to further the discussion when you pretend that NO _suggestive_ evidence has been presented. More nonsense. The studies that have been cited do NOT indicate that successful Black United States athletes have any genetic difference at all . At best they indicate that some East African populations have gene that is somewhat les common amongs other groups. The reference explicitely states “Bouchard’s group, for example, is collecting DNA samples from 400 runners and other top endurance athletes from the United States and Europe, but he says they haven’t spotted any running genes yet.” There is simply no evidence of the existence of running genes, much less running genes found in successful Black United States athletes that are not found in successful White United States athletes. If you disagree then perhaps you would care to present this evidence that the success of Black United States athletes can be linked to genetics. ---
**Author:** ![Blake](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/a9a28c/32.png) [@Blake](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Blake)\ **Post date:** [February 17, 2006, 9:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/biological-difference-between-blacks-and-whites/344011/115 "2006-02-17T21:43:31Z")
> [@The Flying Dutchman](#): > > First off, we have the problem that there are a hell of a lot of Americans that have a common genetic heritage with British subjects. I understand the British are good at cricket. Sorry **Blake** , I can’t provide the particular allele. Can you provide any evidence at all for your claim that the success of Black North American athletes is linked to genetics? You’ve conceded that you can’t provide a particular allele, so what actual evidence do you have for this link? Can you name a suite of alleles? In short Flying Dutchman do you have anything at all to support that claim other than stuff you made up? > [@DrDeth](#): > > No, I didn’t. Your whole debating tactic seems to be misconstruing other dudes posts and misquoting them. Please provide one example of where I misquoted you. > [@](#): > > Here is my cite for the allele, which has been given to you three times now. You have failed to explain it "Australian study. > Quote: > Scientists in Australia have found evidence to suggest that genetics may also play an important part. But I never asked for cite of an allele. I asked for a reference for the actual claim you made. What you claimed a study that shows part of the difference in success of Black and White North American athletes may be linked to a specific allele. The Article you cited doesn’t even mention America. The word is only ever used as part of the Journal title. What I want to see is this study that you claimed links this allele to the different success of Black and White North American athletes. The Australian study shows no such thing. Indeed it never mentions any such link. So we are still waiting for the study that links the different success of Black and White North American athletes to a specific alelle that you claimed exists. Do you have such a reference, or was your claim made up? And lest you also try to weasel out of this one by claiming you never made any such claim: > [@](#): > > That there certainly is a difference. > There is study that shows part of this difference may be linked to a specific allele. We all await the name of this study that shows that the difference in success of Black and White North American athletes may be linked to a specific allele. Of course we await evidence of numerous other claims you made too, that we will never get it appears. > [@](#): > > Where are _your_ explanations that we have all asked for for multiple times? And as I said, once you admit that you are unable to understand what I have posted I will happily repost the explanation, _a third time_. All you have to do is admit that you can not understand it, then we can let others decide whether it was clear and concise the fist 2 times I posted it. > [@](#): > > As for cites, you keep asking for cites for claims I have not made. Are you asserting that you never claimed that there is a decent possibility that original population also had “black” skins? Are you asserting that you never claimed there are genetic differences between populations/races/tribes? Are you asserting that you never claimed that the height of pygmies can’t just be caused by diet. Are you asserting that you never claimed that there seems to be something physiologicaly different about successful Black North American runners? I could go on. I have asked for so many cites for claims that you have made. But that handful will do for a start. Are you asserting that you never made any of the claims listed above? > [@](#): > > What the fuck are you talking about? We are talking _genetics_, here dude. Once more- on a genetic level, the idea of a single “black race” is a complete & utter falsehood. I no longer have any idea what _you_ are talking about, you have tied yourself in so many nots and made so many bald faced assertion that you have no evidence for. Let’s try to unravel your string of claims shall we 1. We are talking about Blacks and Whites. Says so right therein the title aside form anything else. 2. I have not noted you defining any other races to which you comments pertaining to race could be applied. 3 You claimed that populations, including races, could be genetically distinct. I think at this point you should explain what exact racial grouping you were referring to when you made the claim that races could be genetically distinct. You have now clarified that you were not referring to the Black race. So tell us what races you do believe can be genetically distinct? And can we at any stage see those references for your claims? References for your claim that there is a decent possibility that original population also had “black” skins? References for your claim that the height of pygmies can’t just be caused by diet. And references for numerous other claims that I have requested? Or are you still asserting that you never made any such claims? Because if so I will be more than happy to post where you made those claims. That’s the great thing about a message board where you can’t edit your own posts. We can always go back and prove that you did make those claims. ---
**Author:** ![treis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/bc79bd/32.png) [@treis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/treis)\ **Post date:** [February 17, 2006, 10:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/biological-difference-between-blacks-and-whites/344011/116 "2006-02-17T22:28:08Z")
I think we can all agree with the assumption that there is something genetic that differentiates humans in athletic ability, right? That is, there is something that genetically differentiates a world class sprinter from your average Joe. Operating under that assumption, is it possible that whichever genetic factors differentiate our Average Joe from a world class sprinter, are more prevelent in certain populations than in others? Certainly human populations have been isolated from each other long enough to develop distinct genetically determined physical traits. Just to toss out a few, Africans have broader noses, darker skin, and coarser hair than Europeans. Is it not possible that Africans’ also have a higher density of whichever genetic factors that differentiate a world class sprinter from our average Joe? > [@Stranger on a Train](#): > > Let’s try this: consider baseball. Americans are good at baseball; indeed, it is no stretch to say that Americans are the best in the world at the sport of baseball. (We’ll conveniently ignore Cuba for the sake of the argument.) Americans are not good at cricket; we’d be amiss if we did not point out that Americans collectively rank in the bottom bracket, ability-wise, of cricket players. There are, in fact, exactly no world-class American crickteers. > > By the logic espoused by those arguing for the premise of “superior black running genes” we’d have to attribute this difference to genetics. Simply becuase there are powerful cultural factors at work does not mean that there are no genetic factors. Do you deny that there are genetic factors that determine ones potential in any sport, may it be baseball, cricket or sprinting? Or do you deny that these genetic factors might be disproportionally distributed among differing human populations? > [@Blake](#): > > Yes, and he said that those groups, could conatin genes that make them distinct. He didn’t say distinct, he said somewhat distinct. ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [February 17, 2006, 10:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/biological-difference-between-blacks-and-whites/344011/117 "2006-02-17T22:52:10Z")
> [@Blake](#): > > No, I am not. > > Yes, and he said that those groups, could conatin genes that make them distinct. And I asking him for the evidence he has that the groups called races contain genes that make them distinct. > > He made that claim, I did not invent it. There is nothing disingenuous about asking him for his evidence for it. > > Far form focussing in the term race I have used the term _only_ when respodning directly to a statement of someone else who has already used the word quote. Someone is being disingenuous here, and it is you in your claim that I am focussing on race. You are still being disingenuous. It is clear from several points in the thread that **DrDeth** is not claiming anything about race in the way that it is generally used, so your harping on the word race is simply a way to sidetrack the discussion. Certainly, he would be better off discussing populations, if for no better reason that to give you less material to derail the discussion. > [@](#): > > Rubbish. I was asked a direct question about whether Blacks were a race. I answered that direct question. Incorrectly, inasmuch as you made no distinction between social constructs and biological realities. If you are going to nitpick **DrDeth** ’s fuzzy “race/population/tribe/nationality” having “combinations” that could make them “somewhat distinct,” then you do well to not post the sort of fuzzy claims with dictionary fall-backs that you made about race. By posting what you did, you clearly attempted to falsely equate his (admittedly sloppy) reference to populations with the whole population of sub-Sahara Africa: that is simply a rhetorical trick to “win” rather than an effort at discernment. In fact, while the notion of race was dealt one more lethal blow, an article in _Science_ in December, 2002, dealt specifically with using multi-locus combinations of genes to identify smaller populations. So, while I agree that we have not yet seen any direct evidence for genetic-based physical superiority, **DrDeth** ’s “combinations” demonstrating “somewhat distinct” populations has already been documented: “Genetic Structure of Human Populations” Noah A. Rosenberg, Jonathan K. Pritchard, James L. Weber, Howard M. Cann, Kenneth K. Kidd, Lev A. Zhivotovsky, and Marcus W. Feldman _Science_ 20 December 2002: 2381-2385. I have no idea whether there is a direct relationship for a gene expression associated with any particular biological population and athletic prowess. (I find the Kalenjin/marathon link suggestive, although I have not yet seen any proof.) I am more interested in the discussion being carried out with more information and demonstrations of logic and fewer attempts to say whatever is required to “win.” [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/biological-difference-between-blacks-and-whites/344011.md?page=5)