So to put it in terms of muscle development and atheletic ability…
I can look at populations with maternal ancestry in a certain region of West Africa and note a prevalance or lack of a particular mtDNA haplogroup in that area as compared to the worldwide population of all people.
I can note that persons with/without a certain mtDNA haplogroup have a biologically identifiable difference in muscle development and function.
I can hypothesize that therefore the group of persons having/lacking a particular mtDNA haplotype will, on average and as a whole, have a different muscle characteristics that might tend to give them advantage in certain athletic endeavors.
It does not mean that all persons with ancestors from that region of West Africa will outperform all persons without ancestors from that region.
It does not mean that all persons with ancestors from that region of West Africa have the particular trait of interest.
That is addressing a different issue. No one here is arguing that there aren’t populations who can, after the fact, be found to have a frequency of certain genetic markers that distinguish them from other populations and that these populations can be arbitrarily large or small.
You and John Mace are, at least, closer to discussing the topic in reasonable fashion than most of the other posters, here.
The problem that John Mace has been attacking has been the overbroad assertions about individuals as memebrs of groups that are based on casual observations and not actually supported by genuine research. The distinctions may be real and testable, but the observations put forth to support them, (and to more accurately define the groups), has been lacking. (For example, discussions of “Eastern” and “Western” Africans tend to miss one clear data point. There is no trend for marathon winners to come from Zimbabwe, Madagascar, Somalia, Ethiopia, etc. Even the claims for Kenya are too broad. The actual marathon winners have tended to be members of the specific Kenyan ethnic minority, the Kalenjin tribe. I have no idea whether they are great runners because of a genetic feature or because their culture promotes long distance running and I will await actual studies to determine that point. I will note, however, that in that case, at least, we have a discrete group to examine while references to “East Africans” is too broad.
Similarly, with regard to"West African" sprinters, the testing for an actual genetic trait would be rather more accurate than simply claiming “West Africa.” When an actual set of alleles was identified, we could then go back to West Africa and see where those traits are common. It is hardly out of the realm of possibility that the great sprinters with African ancestry actually have a common origin in a very specific group that we cannot currently identify due to the way that slaves were never segregated by point of origin once they were brought to the Americas.
On the other hand, several of the “no races” posters have been equally counter-productive to the discussion in that they are so admant that there are no “races” that several of their posts have seemed to indicate that there are no recognizable populations, either. That sort of over-generalization simply clutters up the discussion, bringing “rebuttals” that further cloud the issue.
Of course, when that gets posted into general discussion, it tends to show up as that “blacks” are susceptible to sickle-cell, (ignoring the number of groups of people from sub-Saharan Africa where the the trait is entirely absent), while ignoring that peoples on Sicily, Malta, Greece, Turkey, and Lebanon who would be generally considered “white” share that trait.
And then what? Are you able to deduce with significant accuracy the membership of that population of patients in some pre-understood population group? Old-Worlders? Sub-Mediterraneananders? Africans? Sub-Saharan Africans? Blacks? Africans and African-Americans?
Is your choice of genetic markers a proxy for some pre-defined ethnic/racial/skin color population? Or is it just a tautology?
Well, you are giving him $1,000 and then taking it away for every correct guess and doing nothing for an incorrect guess, so he is going to wind up with $0, regardless.
It’s a stupid question, because it ignores the central problem: “Looks black” is not a good, scientific proxy for genotype. It is fraught with errors because of the way race is defined in the US. For the purposes of this discussion, it doesn’t matter how much the reporters observation would align with self-reporting by the players, as that is not the standard it needs to be compared to. If you want to do actual science related to genetics, you need to look at the genotype, not the phenotype.
This is not rocket science-- we have lots of national figures who are “black”, but who only trace 50% or less of their ancestry to Africa. The all “look black”, but when you have only two boxes to put people in (black or white), they either belong in the white box, both boxes, or neither box. But they don’t belong in the black box.
Three logicians visit Scotland for the first time. Looking out of the train window they see several black sheep.
“Look” says the first logician, “all sheep in Scotland are black”.
“No” interrupts the second logician “some sheep in Scotland are black”.
“No” says the third logician “some sheep in Scotland are black on at least one side”
I think many on the topic fall into the fallacy of the first logician (“all black athletes are faster than white athletes”) while many are on the other side of the spectrum (“we can only infer that these particular 10 black men are faster than white athletes”), which while technically correct, is somewhat logically-pedantic and in the real world a bit useless. It seems to me that, in the real world, the truth is closer to the second logician’s statement.
No one doesn’t understand this. Everyone is perfectly aware that the designation black covers a broad swath of different peoples. That does not make it useless as an indicator.
I suggest you call Dr Schoepf and the rest of the scientific community to inform them that their efforts are useless. I’m sure they’d be happy to know.
Let me add further that this issue is only getting worse over time, as more blacks and whites are pairing up. Keep in mind that Obama is a rare 50/50 genetic split with one black parent and one white. In the vast majority of cases, when a white and black person produce a child in the US, the child is genetically more European than African, even if most of these children are going to “look black”.
If you want to study the genetics of Africa, you really should study Africans, not African-Americans. They may be an ethnic group, but they make a terrible subject for what geneticists consider a “population”. They are exactly the type of people you would want to avoid if you are trying to understand something about the genetics of people originating from certain geographic areas. Same thing for most people in Latin America.
I’m asking the degree which you think the reporters observations align not necessarily with self-reporting, but with the actual facts, if you were to give all those athletes genetic tests. The reason I ask is that you seem to want to discard a potential piece of evidence that the speed positions in the NFL are dominated by one race. If scientists tested all the athletes, we’d be able to determine that X% of the speed positions are held by Black athletes. The reporter says it’s Y%. How much would you expect X to deviate from Y? And do you think that delta is large enough to reasonable discount the reporter’s observations?
Also, how well do you think you’d be able to do by making the same assessments the reporter did?
That doesn’t change the fact of whether or not there is a Black “speed gene”. It just makes it more difficult to see. The U.S. is a good place to look at this because you largely control for culture. I’d venture to say that more young whites grow up wanting to be NFL stars than young black kids, simply due to the greater numbers of whites. Yet, we have the results of the reporter’s observations.
