How “distinguishing” can a trait be if a whole bunch of other non-blacks have that same trait? Maybe I don’t understand your point about blacks having dark skin.
That is a total non sequitur. As Colibri says, even if it is due entirely to physiology you haven’t gone any way to addressing the request for evidence of your claims.
For the moment let’s accept that the success of American black athletes of West African origin is ‘primarily due to physiology’. Now I want to see your evidence that that the physiology of American black athletes of West African origin can be linked genetically.
It’s turtles all the way down. I am still calling you out. I still want a reference for your claim that the success or the physiological traits of American black athletes of West African origin can be linked genetically.
Can you provide any evidence for that claim, or were you just making it up?
Are you trying to claim that African American athletes are an identifiable population with a known geographic and long historical isolation?
If so then I am going to have to ask for some extraordinary evidence to support that extraordinary claim.
If not the what relevance does that statement have? It seems like yet another non sequitur.
I disagree, but that is irrelevant.
What is relevant is that you made a claim of a factual nature, in GQ, on a board dedicated to fighting ignorance. I asked you for evidence to support that claim.
Can you or can you not provide evidence for your claims?
No, I am not happy. I am far from happy.
If this is your way of admitting that you made up your claim of a genetic link between with the success of Black athletes (and it is far form clear that it is) then you made an ignorant statement in the worst possible place. These boards are supposed to be about fighting ignorance, not spreading it. Propagating it doesn’t make me happy.
And if it is simply your way of saying that you can’t name any specific alleles, but that you still contend that it is a fact that there is a genetic link then it doesn’t even address my request.
Flying Dutchman could we please just cut to the chase? No non sequiturs, no long ‘explanations’. Can you provide any evidence at all to support your claim that the success of black American athletes can be linked genetically?
I just want to be quite clear about whether you are admitting that you made that claim up out of whole cloth, or whether you still contend that it is factually true.
There are non-black Blacks? 
I don’t think **David **meant to limit the term “Blacks” in his post to only African Blacks, even though that has been the general case in most of this thread.
You know, there are a large majority of genes in all our bodies that are also common with Chimps. No person is just one allele and few significant traits are the result of “just one allele”. It could well be a combination of several or many genes. In this case, it likely is.
Humans have inbred so much that it is doubtful if anyone is of “pure blood”. 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. The “sickel-cell” gene is very common amoung some sub-saharan African populations, and rare in other populations- but as pointed out, it does exist there. Since such a mutation is unlikely to arise twice spontaneuosly, the occurance in other populations likely means simply that that person is not too distantly related to a tribe from that section of Africa, even if only by a “sixteenth”.
Thus, what you’re asking for is a Snark. There’s no such thing, and you know it.
In this present case, there seems to be something physiologicaly different about such runners, and it seems to be coming from some genetic background, which is certainly a combination of several genes*. Now that combination could occur in other populations- either spontaneously or through interbreeding. I don’t think it’s been studied enough for us to tell exactly what combo causes such superior running skills, and whether that combo was at *one time in the not so distant * *past- * unique to one population. Even if so; after several centuries or more of modern-day long distance interbreeding, that combo could well exist in other dudes who do not -on the surface- appear to be related (or of that “race” ) to the original tribe/population. Nor would now all the members of that tribe/population have that once unique combo, even if at one time they did.
- and of course it’s NOT tied to skin color- many with “negroid” skin have no such combo. “Pygmies” for example aren’t known for their running skills, nor are New Guinea tribesmen. It is just that it *looks like * the original population where such combo was common had dark skin and came from a Sub-saharan african “tribe”, thus most who have it now still have such features.
I really don’t know if there is such a “running combo of genes”. It appears like there may be, but it could be cultural. :dubious:
First off he didn’t say it was likley he said it was fact. He said that it had been demonstrated. So you haven’t adressed the question of where it was demonstrated and by whom.
Secondly you have presented a grand total of no evidence to show that it is likely or even possible. You are arguing entirely from assertion.
Inbreeding is used to purify bloodlines. It doesn’t decrease the certainty of an individual being pure blood, it increases the certainty.
It appears you don’t undertsand what selective breeding is or what role line breeding plays in it. That does not instil me with confidence concerning your knowledge of human genetics
And there could be a dragon in your garage.
This is a classic argument form ignorance. Your problem is that we have searched for the dragon and not found any evidence at all that it exists. See Colibri’s last post.
Please present your evidence that the sickle cell gene is rare in populations other than sub-Saharan African, since such a claim directly contradicts the publication from Harvard University quoted above. Italy and Greece are not in sub-Saharan Africa yet the trait is common in populations from those regions. My opinion of your knowledge of human genetics isn’t exactly soaring.
That’s exactly what it does appear to mean, yes. And the fact that the gene is long established and common in European populations runs counter to your claims that a gene of survival advatage could possibly be restricted to African population.
You are defeating your own argument. Sickle cell proves that a gene of survival advantage, whether it be sickle cell or a ‘running gene’ can and will be common in European populations even if the gene appeared in Africa in the very recent past.
I know there is no such thing. I would now like Flying DUtchman to admit that there is no such thing despite his claims that such a thing had been demonstrated.
Cite.
Please show evidence which shows that this appears to be coming from genetic background and not cultural background.
We haven’t yet seen evidence that any genetic ‘combo’ causes or even can cause superior running skills. That would be a good place for you to start. At least then your argument wouldn’t be entirely a house of cards.
So you don’t know that such a thing exists. You have no evidence that it does exist. You don’t even have an evidence that it could exist.
Yet you believe that it is not just possible but likely to be the case. :dubious:
I understood DrDeth’s comment to mean he believed that there are African populations in which sickle cell is common and African populations where sickle cell is rare and that he wasn’t disputing your point.
The OP is questioning whether or not there is some genetic distinction between white and black runners. This statement of mine
refers to a distinguishing feature between blacks and whites.
The point is that the idea that there is a genetic factor that blacks have that makes them superior runners is without any merit whatever. I believe that the only genetic factor that all blacks have that distinguishes them from whites is that their skin is darker that whites in most cases. And even that is not a clear distinction. And, of course, even if it were it would have nothing to do with the ability to run.
The word “mongrel” has a pejorative connotation when applied to people but it certainly describels white Americans, and it also describes black Americans. And I think that if the intermixing were carried to its completion we would finally be able to rid ourselves of these 18th century, or even earlier, ideas.
Maybe he meant that , but that is the exact opposite of what he actually said.
What he actaully said was that a race such as Blacks could have a combination of genes that separates it from other races. In the very next sentences he introduces sickle cell and claims it is never common but still occasionally found in populations other than those of sub-Saharan Africa.
It is hard to read that as saying anything other than that sickle cell is never common in populations outside sub-Saharan Africa. If he believes that the triat is commmon in European popuaktioins then how does it support his contention that races can have genes that differentiate them?
If his only intent was to point out that different sub-Sharan populations have differnt frequencies of sickle cell or any other trait I fail to see any point in his entire post. Nobody has ever disputed that point, and all it does is illustrate that if a trait is valuable it will spread to all human populations rapidly. Since running ability was just as valuable in Greece as it was in Tanzania it is implausible to suggest that sickle cell gene made the journey and became fixed in Grecian populations, but running did not.
<mod>
OK, folks, this has moved into GD territory.
So moved, seconded, and passed.
</mod>
I didn’t read what he said like that at all. People keep flipping this back to the “distinct races” argument because it is easy to debate but I haven’t seen anybody try to advance that position. That happens every time someone brings up this subject here.
Again, the question isn’t “Are all black people better runners than whites?”
It is, “Why do populations with black skin produce such exceptional runners?”
That question only requires some combination of traits that may appear rarely in black individuals but even less frequently or never in whites.
It is completely plausible that the sickle cell gene crossed into Europe but we don’t see the same effect in running.
Exceptional running requires at least three things:
- Optimum body build - long limbs in particular.
- Exceptional cardiovascular efficiency
- Strong muscles suited to the type of running.
Some of the genetic advantages may have passed into Europe. However, you have to have all three qualities before you can become an elite runner. It may be that the genes for all three traits happen to be floating around in any number a few populations. Every once in a while a child will be born that gets all three advantages at once and that makes it possible to become an elite runner given other favorable circumstances.
Blake- there’s an elephant in the room. Like it or not, the edge is there. So, if not genetic, what do YOU think causes it? Culture? :dubious: You may bring in allusions to mythical dragons, but still- mythical or not- the elephant is still in the room, and all the closing your eyes and saying “it’s improbable that there is an elephant, thus none exists” will cause it to go away.
So, you don’t like my theory- what’s yours?
As to the sickle cell gene, I believe it is very rare amoung the Innuit. :rolleyes: Are you trying to say it is common in EVERY population? 
I didn’t say that it was rare outside sub-saharan africa. I said it was "rare in other populations, not “rare in ALL other populations”. Are you confused by my wording (Which I admit could have been better, but ZeroGyro wasn’t confused), just being argumentative or trying to put words in my mouth?
I meant interbred; typo, sorry. Me culpa. :smack:
Like it or not there are genetic differences between populations/races/tribes. For example the Watusi are very tall, and the Pygmy are very short. Although I don’t doubt that the tallest Pygmy might be taller than the shortest Watusi, the height difference averages around two feet. It can’t just be diet. Thus, there must be a group of genes that makes the Watusi taller than the Pygmy. Now sure, they don’t live too far apart, and there certainly could be members of each population/tribe that are mixed background, thus we can’t find just one gene that* everyone *in one tribe has that no-one in the other tribe doesn’t. But still- there’s the elephant in the room.
And, remember- what makes a race/population/enthicity/tribe? Social rules, not genetic rules. My father was an Innuit- the tribe adopted him when he was quite young. He was also 100% Caucasion, too. Legaly & socialy he WAS an Innuit of that tribe and thus the genetics of that particular Innuit tribe was rather mixed. 
Blue eyes, pale skin, fair hair & no epicanthic folds - rather odd for an Eskimo, wouldn’t you say? But who’s to say he wasn’t one?
So because we use Social guidlines (and to an extent outward appearance) to determine ones membership in a “population”, then certainly we won’t find anything too very “unique” genetically in any population. If we defined a population/tribe/race as having this & such collection of genes, then certainly we would.
Flying Dutchman has never claimed there was a Snark- it’s only you that is demanding proof of one. No one has said there is* one single unique gene* that differs amoung the races/populations, he was just quoting a cite that showed strong evidence that one such gene was present in many athletes: “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.”
Do you deny this study? Do you deny the possibilty that this allele may give a great benefit to runners? And, is it not likely that this allele is MORE COMMON amoung certain populations? FD never said that ALL and ONLY black athletes have this gene, now did he? But that’s what you are saying he is by demanding that CITE!
So, the elephant is in the room, Blake. FD posted a cite to a study showing that running could be aided by a certain allele. If it isn’t this allele, what *does *cause the difference? Come on, tell me it’s culture, I dare ya!
No, I most certainly did NOT say that or anything close that that. There is no such “race” as “blacks”- are you claiming there is? I do claim that populations do have groups of genes that differ from other populations groups of genes. If they didn’t, all tribes/races/populations would look pretty much alike, environmental & social differences aside. Coroners & Anthropologists wouldn’t be able to guess at someones likely “race” by bone structure, either. But give a GROUPING of differences in the bones (no* one unique *trait sure) then they can make a good guess.
My intent was to talk about the fact that the sickle cell gene likely arose just once, and that those who possess that gene are likely related in some way. The populations interbred, thus causing the gene to spread to some areas and not others.
**If **there is a “running allele” then again, it *likely arose once. It’s spread and occurance would be the result of interbreeding. If it arose in East Africa, then we’d find it more common there, and very rare in areas where few East Africans have been & interbred with other populations. Thus, it wouldn’t crop up much amoung the Innuit or the Ainu would be my WAG. It’d thus be MORE likely to find it in a man who had dark skin, but it wouldn’t mean that no white skinned man could have it, or that all black skinned men would have it. A fairly large number of dudes that may think that they are "100% white’ have some not-too-distant African ancestor. However, my educated guess (as Shagnasty posted) is that faster running is caused by several genes, not just one.
- Good post, by-the-by, ** Shagnasty**!
No, I flipped to the distinct races argument because he said explicitely that different races could have distinct sets of genes. No flipping involved.
Would you like me to quote where he said that? Here:
Bolding mine. No flipping, simply addresing what was plainly stated.
All that you have managed to do is make the the any genetic explanation even more complicated without introdcuing any more evidence to support it.
The only thing the genetic argument had going for it was that it was supposed to be simpler, remember? You have just made it even more complex than than any socicultural argument. But we have evidence that there are sociocultural differences between black and white atheletes, No such evidence exists for a genetic difference.
Your argument becomes less compelling by the moment, and it wasn;t very good to start with.
And it may be that there is adragon in your garage. This is an argument form ingnorance. We’ve looked for these “genes for all three traits” and we haven’t found any at all. That makes your position an argument fom ignorance. Accepted solely because it can never be disproven.
Tell me simply, do you have any evidence at all that such genes actually exist in all or even most Black athletes? And if you have no evidence then why assume they exist?
Blake, Blake, Blake
The socioeconomic argument is absolutely piss-poor. 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? You would think this would be popular with poor people everywhere if it is the case or are black people just special in some way despite being absolutley swamped in numbers by all other poor groups?
Please respond with elaboration you expect from others on how these socioeconomic factors work.
Organized running races are scientific evidence when you are looking for the fastest people in the world. 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? The scientist would organize a series of races or “trials” all over the world and have this lead to head to head competition among the best and carefully measure the results under exacting conditions. As luck would have it, people already do those experiments in the results can be seen in the Olympics, Boston marathon etc. The results are especially imprtant today because everyone, even people from black populations, can fly in from all over the world to make it an unlimited competition.
I have no idea why you think that absence of evidence is evidence of absence with DNA. I always thought you were somewhat brighter than that. DNA science is still very primitive and you cannot map every human trait to DNA at all. In fact, that is the exception. There are very few complex traits that are mapped to DNA well. You can’t just say that anything that DNA science hasn’t caught up with doesn’t exist. It could be there or it may not but we are lucky to have what little information we do. You can turn that same argument on all kinds of issues that are almost surely inherited with ugly results.
I have no idea why you are saying this. It makes perfect sense to me. I look at it in terms of set theory.
Say it takes three major traits to make a good marathon runner: X,Y,Z
There are genes floating around with those traits and if you made a map, you could color code the distribution of each trait. If you mapped one trait, you would find that it was concentrated in some areas with a smear over here and maybe a dot way over somewhere else representing migrations.
If you overlay that with the distribution of the second trait, things get more more rare but there are still a few populations with smears and dots combining trait X and Y.
Finally, we overlay trait Z and find that the genes for all three traits are found in only a few areas. 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. Some of them will go on to dominate competitive running if other circumstances are favorable.
That is the simplest explanation that fits the facts and is supported by evidence.
Gee, I bet that strawman will burn wonderfully come July.
Can you please quote where I have said that blacks are not disproptionately represented in some sports? If you can not then that is a blatant strawman. Clearly I am NOT ignoring anyhting for which there is evidence.
As others have said many times in this thread, sociocultural factors.
I was confused by your wording.
Now I am just confused about what point your are attempting to make. If what you intended to convey is that sickle cell can be rare or common regardless of a population’s geographical reference to the Sahara then how is that in any way an example of a race having genetic differences that separate it?
Because you did use sickle cell as an example in refernce to your claim that races could have genes that make them distinct.
Well in that case you are just posting nonsense. Humans have never been ‘pure blood’ and as such interbreding can not have any effect on it in any way.
Cite. Please present one example of agentic difference between races.
Cite!
Please present evidence establishing that these hieght differences are genetic and not nutritional. Please present evidence that conclusively disproves diet as the sole factor.
No there mustn’t. Even if we accept that the difference is genetic, which I do not, you are utilsing a fallacy of two parts.
All Pygmies are shorter than all Watusi.
Height is determined in some part by genetics.
Therefore there must be a group of genes that makes the Watusi taller.
All Ferraris are faster than all Model-A Fords
Speed is determined in some part by fuel.
Therefore there must be a fuel that makes the Ferrari faster.
It’s illogical nonsense. No such conclusion can be reached.
I have no idea what you are talking about. I am only demanding proof of one thing: his claim that the success of American black athletes of West African origin can be linked genetically. I don’t care what form that evidence takes, I just want to see it. If the evidence is Snark then that’s fine by me. If it’s a peer reviewed genetic article that’s fine too. But I want to see proof of his claim, not proof of a snark.
No he wasn’t. He said explicitely that the success of American black athletes of West African origin can be linked genetically. Not the success of Atheletes generally, but the sucess of the success of American black athletes of West African origin.
No, and even asking the quetsion is ablatant strawman. I have never adressed the study one way or the other.
It’s guaranteed.
What is so improbable as to be laughable is your insinuation that it is more common amongst such a heterogeneous population as American black athletes of West African origin . :rolleyes:
I neither know nor care. All that I care about is that he did say that the success of American black athletes of West African origin can be linked genetically.
Yawn. No, I’m not.
All I am saying by demanding that cite is that he has no evidence for his ecxtraordinary claim that the success of American black athletes of West African origin can be linked genetically.
It’s culture. The cultural explanation has this thing called evidence to support it. I don’t know if you’ve heard of evidence but it’s something that we scientists set quite a bit of store by.
See, we know that there is a cultural diference between successful American black athletes of West African origin and successful American white athletes of non-West African origin. So we can make a cultural link.
What we don’t have evidence of, depsite numerous requests , is that there is a genetic diference between successful American black athletes of West African origin and successful American white athletes of non-West African origin.
As such your claims of a genetic link are an argument form ignorance and nothing more.
Of course I bloody well am. How could anybody deny that there is such a race as Blacks? I would need to be exceedingly ignorant not realise that Blacks are a race. The least you could do is get yourself a dictionary before you try to particpate in debates concerning race.
black Pronunciation Key (blk)
adj. black·er, black·est
- Of or belonging to a racial group having brown to black skin, especially one of African origin: the Black population of South Africa.
- Of or belonging to an American ethnic group descended from African peoples having dark skin; African-American.
There is no doubt that there is race called ‘Blacks’.
Cite please.
Evidence that any race has groups of genes that differ from other races groups of genes.
You make a lot of blanket statments, but so far no evidence for any of them.
That is a trivial statement that illuminates nothing. You still haven’t managed to relate your piintin any way to successful American black athletes of West African origin.
Are you attempting (badly) to say that successful American blacks of West African origin are all related? If not then the whole statementis a total non sequitur.
Cite!I look forward to seeing your evidence that mating with the progenitor populaton is ever a significant predictor of gene prevalence.
Nonethless many East African genes obviuosly do, since the Inuit and Ainu ancestors are from east Africa.
I really look forward to seeing some evidence for your multiple assertions.
So far you have ben doingnothing but using your assertions to support your opinions and vice versa. Can we possibly see some evidence for either the opinion or the assertion?
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.
Blake. Blake, Blake. I did not say “dsitinct race”, I said a 'race/population/tribe/nationality might have a combination of genes that is different from another race/population/nationality. But I also said that every race/population etc here on earth has interbred with the others, thus there is bound to be some members of each population that has genes that are more commonly found in other populations. I also said that we currently define "r/p/t/n by Social factors, not genetic factors, thus genetic factors won’t work as the “acid test” for any given r/p/t/n. Don’t take things out of context.
However, let me repeat my questions- what is your explanation for the difference observed? What is your explanation for the study that Flying Dutchman cited/ Do you claim there is no such allele? If there is such an allele, do you claim that it is impossible that such an allele would be *much more common *in one population than in another? No one is saying there is some sort of magic gene that “actually exist in all or even most Black athletes”.
What we are saying is:
That there certainly is a difference.
There is study that shows part of this difference may be linked to a specific allele.
Thus, that allele may well be MORE common in a certain population, and those directly descended from this population.
It appears that there is a decent possibility that original population also had “black” skins, thus you would more often see dudes with that allele having dark skins. It wouldn’t be nessesarily limited to those with dark skins; and since dudes with dark skins are not nessesarily members of the same or related populations, the allele would not show up in everyone with a dark skin.
I am sure there are many athletes with dark skin that do not have that allele, just like there are many black people that are no more closely related to each other than I am to a Ainu. As you should know, there are several large population groupings that happen to have dark skin and are thus called “black”- some of them are from different continents even, and are not propery lumped together geneticly. Thus, one could well be a “black athlete” but ones ancestors are not even sub-saharan-African (well except in the general way that the best guess is that we ALL have African ancestors). “Black” is a completely worthless term as far as genetics go, there is no one "black race’ geneticaly.
But again, we’d like to hear *your *explanation. So far all you’ve done is deny the Elephant. And, misconstrue others posts, I might add.
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. Clearly, Americans–a geographically isolated population–have good baseball-playing genes. They do not, however, have good cricket genes. (Probably lost due to interbreeding.) East Asian Indians, on the other hand, have great cricket genes, but are lacking in their baseball-playing alleles.
This is, of course, an utterly preposterous argument. There are no “baseball genes” or “cricket genes”, and even if there were we’d expect a considerable confluence of alleles given the rough similarity between the skills required by both sports. Instead, we can readily and inarguably attribute the skill of Indians at cricket to the fact that many learn the game from an early age, and compete with each other. This is not true with Americans, from whom a cricket bat looks like something to be brought out when one has been naughty. Americans, on the other hand, play t-ball from an early age, learn about Babe Ruth and Jackie Robinson from their fathers, and are generally exposed to baseball more than they are the common cold, hence, the perponderance of exceptional baseball players among the American population.
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, any more than we could estimate the size of the average diamond from the Smithsonian collection of precious jewels. 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, 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? Is it that there are many blacks who play basketball–to the point that someone who is black and of above average height is expected, as one associate of mine was–of being an outstanding basketball player? Is it that black fathers and older brothers, who are experienced with basketball, teach their kids to play basketball, but do not offer or instruct them in the ways of hockey because they don’t know how to ice skate, or indeed don’t even have an ice rink available?
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. 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.
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. 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. That is not the same as making the claim that “blacks” are faster than “whites”, which seeks by implication to squarely divide the popuation into two artificially distinct groups, and offers up the notion that genetics is the dominant factor in success at sport.
One can readily turn that around and claim that blacks must be intellecutally lacking because there are so few who master chess or are accomplished scientists, instead of acknowledging that few blacks–owing to socioeconomical and educational opportunities–ever have the chance or are encouraged to develop such skills.
Genes aren’t a blueprint; they’re a basic recipe, a collection of barely organized instructions. How a person develops owes much to how he or she is “baked”–encouraged toward one field of endeavor or another. There are, no doubt, skilled neurosurgeons who could be superior runners, and conversely football players who could be brilliant physicists. But you develop in the ways you are encouraged and have opportunity to.
Stranger
No, you did not. You are now being dishonest. You said, and I quote:
Bolding mine.
You have dishonestly attempted to weasel away from your claim. You said that races could have genes that make them distinct. I acre little whether thatis an individual gene or a suit of genes. The key word here is distinct. The word that uyou dishonestly omitted.
You claimed that races could be made distinct on the basis f genetics. Those are your words. Not mine.
I have requested evidence for this claim, and I am still waiting.
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).
The allele may be distributed solely by the blessing of God too.
This is an argument from ignorance. You have no evidence to support such a supposition, you believe it solely because it can’t be proven false. A classic argument from ignorance, and totally logically invalid.
Cite.
Please provide evidence that there is ‘a decent possibility’, and tell us what that probability was determined to be.
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?
I already posted it twice. And like I say, you just have to admit that you can’t understand it and I will post it again and let others decide if it is clear enough.
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?