Do you have a cite for your numbers?
It would certainly prove that the one population had one advantage in running over the other population. Now, let’s move on to understanding all the physiological inputs that go into making a good runner, and do the same for those. Do we even know what all those inputs are?
Almost. As pointed out earlier in the thread (if you think you have something to add, you should really read the posts first), it’s not ALL Kenyans who excel at distance running. It’s particularly the members of the Kalenjin tribe who represent the vast majority of Kenya’s best runners.
So, if the same measurement registered about the same for all Kenyans but the Kalenjin were unusually represented among top distance runners, that’s a strike against this particular feature being a predominant factor (though it could still be a significant contributing factor).
I’d also like to see the corresponding measurement on the Tarahumara, as they are even better distance runners.
In science terms, we have to eliminate the possibility of both confirmation and selection bias.
This is an elaboration of what John Mace has been repeatedly trying to say. While this is a decent hypothesis, proving a hypothesis requires a bit more than a simple correlation.
Of course, that’s an impossible task. You’ll always be able to find something where the people who don’t do well in actual races appear to have an advantage (e.g., Irishmen have more efficient evaporative cooling, or something…)
It’s also impossible since people aren’t machines–there’s always going to be variability (e.g., proportion of this limb to this other limb is an advantage if and only if your achilles tendon has a certain flexibility and your VO Max is at a certain level.)
I think this is the point where common sense must prevail…
This is one of the more famous studies.
The results are a bit high-- it’s usually closer to 20%, but depending on the part of the country you do the study in you can get slightly different results.
No. If it’s an impossible task, then responsible scientists say “we don’t know”. You don’t get to take a short cut because the problem is too difficult.
But I’m not even sure that is the case here. You identify as many inputs as you can, and see what you come up with. But if you are invested in the outcome, you will be tempted to stop at the first piece of data that confirms your beliefs. And that’s what a good scientist does his best not to do.
That study looks very sloppy. They used a bunch of markers that were not exclusively European, African, or Native American. In other words, if a gene is 80% European and 20% African, those 20% of Africans are going to be reported as more European than they actually are. It also looks like they picked up 4 AAs with 90%+ European ancestry, including one with nearly 100%. Tough to see how that would be. My brief googling looks like the # is more like 10-15%. Here’s one chart, for example: Comparing self-reported ethnicity to genetic background measures in the context of the Multi-Ethnic Study of Atherosclerosis (MESA) | BMC Genomic Data | Full Text
This is also pretty true for brute force sports like powerlifting, hammer throw, discus, and shotput. They require very little specialized training, relatively, so it’s much harder for people who aren’t genetically-ideal for those sports to compete at the highest levels.
Basketball is definitely a different animal, and baseball even more so, and you do see proportionally more racial diversity in those sports.
Again, not proof, but interesting.
Yeah, I would guess it’s more like 10-15%, just based on the African-Americans whose ancestry I know.
Also, I’m less interested in whether or not the blue-eyed, mocha-skinned girl with naturally kinky hair is pure African (doubtful, to say the least), and more interested in just how pure all the dark-skinned brothers dominating sprinting are…because Carl Lewis, Donovan Bailey, Usain Bolt, and Michael Johnson are some dark fellows.
My guess is that the world-class sprinters are probably a little more likely to be pure.
I bet there’s more than one “sprinting gene”, though. I imagine it’s at least a dozen, because there are a number of adaptations that most West Africans have that confer sprinting superiority.
You’re right. Your “guess” is much more meaningful than a result from an actual peer reviewed study. :rolleyes:
I’ll tell you what. Why don’t you give us a cite to back up this claim you made upthread:
You’ve been misinformed. Incidentally, Frank Sweet’s scholarly work is thoroughly researched, meticulously documented, and as John Mace pointed out, peer-reviewed.
The Perception of Racial Traits
The Rate of Black-to-White Passing
Cutting to the chase, there are many black Americans with little or no African ancestry. The average Euro ancestry in black Americans is typically 17-18 % (what you’d get if every other black American had either a white grandparent or a white great grandparent). Some studies show higher percentages depending on locale.
I claimed fuck-all, John. My very next sentence said exactly that I have no idea. Seriously, did you not read it? I mean, shit, what do I need to do, bold everything I post? Capitalize it? Italicize it? Seriously. Read my posts.
That has nothing to do with the point I want to make. I don’t give the slightest damn about the average percentage. My point was that the champion sprinters are quite dark compared to the average African-American, and my guess was that they are probably on the purer end of the spectrum.
I would venture to guess that there are quite a few genes involved with sprinting dominance, and, given that possibility, being on the purer end of the spectrum would be especially important.
No African ancestry? Please. That doesn’t stand up to the scrutiny of common sense. LITTLE African ancestry, absolutely. I find it kind of bizarre when someone who has green eyes and medium-olive-colored skin calls themselves “black”, and speaks with an Ebonics accent. It happens a lot, though.
Well, why post something that you have no idea about? I think that is becoming abundantly clear…
I’m not interested in your guess. It means nothing.
Why not? My mom has (AFAIK) mostly pure European ancestry but she self-identifies as Coloured because - get this - she has been living with my dad for 40 years, and he’s Coloured, and all her friends are Coloured, and her kids are Coloured. Similar things could happen in the US, easy. Especially when you throw in, say, a little Tamil, or a little Samoan - you don’t have to be African to be dark, or have curly hair, or anything. You’ll be called Black, but you wouldn’t be African.
My first reaction to that is that it would be extremely unusual in the US. However, since one of the active posters in this thread uses “looks black” (as opposed to self-identifies as black) as a criteria for determining whether or not someone has African ancestry, I can see where it would happen quite a bit under those circumstances.
We’re more likely to have people who claim Native American ancestry who, in fact, have no evidence of such. It’s actually rather common in the black community to claim some Native American genetic ancestry when none is present, but it happens in the white community, too.
Re: Drops of African Blood Argument
I’m wondering how much of this discussion about what percent American Blacks comes from Europe is a red herring.
According to the last few paragraphs of this article: Still Evolving, Human Genes Tell New Story - The New York Times
advantageous mutations in a “block” of DNA can easily sweep through an entire population so eventually everyone carries them (e.g., mutation making you an extra fast sprinter–I think more accurate might be adaptation giving you higher percent fast-twitch muscle, but whatever).
Further, some alleles can show “complete dominance,” so even in a heterozygote individual (as respect to the sprinting alleles), the phenotype is still that of having fast sprinting adaptations.
So, someone of West-African descent, even if 49% of their genome is European, so long as the 51% carries the sprinting adaptation, they’re going to be an extra fast sprinter…
I already noted exactly that on that on the last page. It’s certainly possible, but just because something is possible doesn’t mean that it actually explains things. When you find the gene, then you’ve got something. Until then, you’ve just got an untested hypothesis.
So I guess we’ve moved on from the question of whether the American institution of slavery constituted a de facto breeding program for runners …
The thing is you keeping applying some theoretical “scientific” standard of proof that is almost never achieved in the actual practice of science.
“Gravity? Until you show me a gravitron, it’s an interesting theory, but could just as well be purple dragons pulling masses together. And doesn’t jive at all with quantum mechanics, so sounds bogus.”
“Plate Tectonics? Yeah right, where’s the definitive historical, directly observed data showing long-term movement of all the continents? Have you identified the specific currents in the magma which explain all continental drift?”
Further, for data that supports your position, you rely on the cop-out of “peer-reviewed” as if that’s any gold standard these days. (Just look at the case of the hyped study on Arsenic life-forms: http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/journal-retreats-from-controversial-arsenic-paper/2012/07/08/gJQAFQb7WW_story.html , which was peer reviewed, published in “Science,” and was incredibly poorly done science.
So, I suppose it could just be some 1 in 3 trillion chance that sprinting champions happen to be of West-African descent, and they also happen to have an incredibly high percentage of fast-twitch muscle. But, I think for the standards of an internet discussion board, that’s probably enough for most people…