I’m not sure what there is to follow.
Argument: Afro-Americans are better at sports because they were bred that way.
Counter argument 1: The time period that there was breeding was rather short.
Counter argument 2: Lots of Africans, where breeding is not a factor, are better at sports as well.
200 years is what, 7, 8 or 9 generations… that’s not long enough???
really? i thought it was just a few areas and not all of Africa as a whole
This site states that by 1850 most black Americans were third, fourth or fifth generation.
Not saying the effect would be nil, though. Plus there was already some selection before they were put on the ships.
Precisely.
Areas where there is poverty but the opportunity to become good at a certain sport.
Like running in Ethiopia.
Not for large-scale differences throughout an entire population. In so short a time, huge reproductive groups would be wholly isolated from each other. Families in New Orleans would have no reproductive contact with families in Kentucky, etc. It doesn’t work.
Comparisons to animal-breeding programs might be enlightening. It took a lot more than nine generations to produce the modern racing horse, or the Clydesdales of beer-wagon fame.
July 2015. What a surprise.
I’m not a geneticist or biologist BUT, my guess, based on nothing other than personal observation, would be that influencing things like hair color, skin pigmentation, eye color, etc. are fairly easy to influence in a short period of time.
What you are talking about has more to do with influencing size or structural changes to organs or body structure. I suspect that is more difficult and thereby requires more time.
Or I could be totally wrong. Hopefully someone will chime in who can explain better why this idea makes no sense.
Ah, ok, well maybe it’s not long enough then
No doubt there were a few plantation owners who wanted well endowed slaves for their sexual desires. But I’m thinking they would have just gone out and bought a slave who fulfilled their needs rather than trying to breed one.
Oh c’mon, the OP is ridiculous.
Do you really not understand my post was in jest? The idea you were responding to was ridiculous on its face. I was trying to point that out in my response.
I guess that’s what I get for assuming you had good sense of humor…
I don’t know. The OP just registered about 24 hours ago and has evolved from newbie into, well…you know. And with a grand total of one post!
I can’t believe the OP. It is taking longer than we thought.
I’ve always believed this is an urban legend as well, the breeding slaves for increased strength thing not the big package thing. However some interviews with former slaves were posted in another thread and at least some claimed to have witnessed such.
If it is an urban legend it is old.
It’s not evolution if it’s human directed. It’s husbandry. You only need one generation if the mutation you’re seeking for is already present in the population, and the smaller the population the better. But I doubt they were enough strigent in their selection.
Oh look!
Another round of “Slavery was good for them darkies!” rationalization.
Why do people still rise to this bait?
The appropriate, fulll response was the first response.
Dozens of threads on this. Search brings up this 800 post version which is predacated on Michael Johnson fronting a documentary - he suggests it’s pretty likely some advantage from slavery persists:
When dealing with the kind of ignorance the OP demonstrates, I prefer to leave out any attempts at irony. Otherwise, we’ll be getting future posts asking us if it’s true that the reason black men have big penises is because they were bred that way by gay slave owners.
No, it most certainly is evolution.
The terms are not mutually exclusive.
No. The only way you could possibly achieve the result in one generation is if *all *the following conditions are met:
If all those conditions are not met then you can not possibly achieve the result in one generation.
In this scenario, only a single one of those conditions is met.
No. Because the only way to achieve this is through ruthless culling, the larger the population the better.
Or their culling of millions of dollars of assets, or their ability to correlate"package size" with strength, or…
The whole suggestion is farcical.
Well, I doubt any of us want that.
I have a genetics degree and do recall a bit of population genetics.
To literally answer the question, "Do African-Americans have extra energy in their muscles? " requires a little clarification.
Muscles primarily use a chemical, ATP, as the preferred fuel source. There is no reason I’ve ever seen to indicate that African Americans have more ATP in their muscles than others. If that is the measure of “extra energy” then I’d say the answer to the OP’s question is simply No.
Muscles do have a couple different types of muscles fibers, fast-twitch and slow-twitch. Production of these fiber types falls under genetic control.
Fast twitch fibers contract faster (no surprise there) and with more force, but tire more quickly. A particular individual genetically blessed with a high proportion of fast-twitch fibers may, through further training and conditioning, be able to particularly excel at sporting events favoring bursts of muscle contraction such as sprinting in track and field or weightlifting.
Slow twitch fibers are more of the slow-and-steady wins the race type of fiber. They don’t contract as fast or as forcefully but can keep going like the Energizer Bunny. Individuals blessed with favorable amounts of slow twitch fibers may, through training and conditioning, be able to particularly excel at events requiring prolonged endurance such as running a marathon or boxing.
In as much as the slave trade to the Americans primarily drew slaves from western Africa it is possible, in theory, that the relative prevalence of slow and fast twitch fiber genes from that source population was different than that from elsewhere in Africa or Europe. Different environments may have favored different gene variants.
So maybe African-Americans have more of one muscle fiber type, on average as a population as a whole, than do populations with ancestry elsewhere. Maybe. Not proven. If having more of one or the other type of muscle fiber is a measure of “extra energy” then I’d say it’s possible, but unproven.
Finally, there is one way that the relatively short time scale (short in evolutionary terms) of the slave trade could have produced dramatic swings in gene frequency other than directed breeding - by random chance and a founder effect in a relatively small isolated population. As an example, if the modern Afro-Caribbean population on a particular Caribbean Island were descended from a small group of slaves then there could be significant deviation from Hardy Weinberg equilibrium for genes affecting particular types of muscle twitch fibers when compared to the larger population of descendants of slaves throughout the broader Americas.
Is penis length even something that can easily be selected and bred for?
Is there a lab somewhere that houses rats and mice with enormous schlongs?