Human races after all!?! --- What now?

[lucwarm]

*Originally posted by edwino *
**
Also your inference that cultural and societal influences are “unconvicing” to explaining black dominance in sprinting means automatically that there is a unifying answer in genetics is somewhat akin to creationists arguing that evolution is so improbable to be unconvincing to them, the default must be literal Biblical 6 day creation 6000 years ago. There is a huge logical leap to say that because you are unconvinced that it must be something else, which happens to contradict most scientific discoveries to date. **

First, a usage note: By using the word “unconvincing” I wasn’t trying to say that I lucwarm am the supreme judge of what theories are to be accepted and what theories are rejected. If you look a couple posts down from my original post, I made a slightly clearer statement on the issue:

I suppose what I said could have been clearer.

I’ll give it another shot:

The cultural/environmental/socio-economic explanations I have seen for black dominance in short-distance running do not logically account for 100% of the dramatic results that everyone has seen over the years. This suggests that other factors, i.e. genetic differences, are at work too.

Ultimately, I don’t think that my reasoning is that huge of a logical leap, for several reasons:

First, we are dealing with somewhat extraordinary facts. It’s not as if 15 or 25 or 35 or even 55 percent of the top short-distance runners are black. I don’t know what the number is, but I suspect it’s well above 90%. If you look at the runners who have successfuly run 100 meters in less than 10 seconds, there might not be a single white or oriental in that group.

Second, there are basically only two possible explanations: Either the disparity is 100% cultural/sociological in cause or partly genetic.

Third, the “partly genetic” explanation is not even that outrageous of a theory. We already know that some subgroups of the black race are more likely to carry certain alleles than other groups. So it’s not even that daring to hypothesize that there are one or more alleles that affect short-distance running ability that are more common in some sub-group of blacks.

Finally, as mentioned before, the cultural/sociological explanations are pretty much unconvincing.

So I don’t think it’s that big of a leap (so to speak).

If it’s really true that the “partly genetic” explanation contradicts most scientific discoveries, I’ll certainly rethink my position. Please feel free to share.

[IzzyR]

Originally posted by Edwino
To Izzy. I have to make a big distinction

Edwino, one of the difficulties I have with your posts, is that since you are evidently not too fond of using quotes, and frequently refrain from posting for long periods of time while cloning genes and other such, it is sometimes difficult to determine which point you are responding to, let alone how. Best as I can figure, you are now repeating a distinction (also previously made by DSeid, IIRC) between your various posts about the race/athleticism issue. Which does not address my point which is that your post of 08-17-2002 04:32 PM addressed the point made by DSeid, not IzzyR. (I have previously responded, BTW, to the distinction between AAs and Africans, when DSeid made it).

Originally posted by tomndebb
I would certainly agree with IzzyR’s point that once one has set up some boundaries to separate people, one will find that measurements of people within those separate groups will not be uniform. Some group is going to have the largest or the smallest “average” everything.

I agree that this does indeed represent my position (though I would change “Some group is” to “Some group might”). I would add that, in most cases, the groups being discussed have already been defined, albeit on a non-genetic basis. We all agree, for example, that there exist sociological groupings of African-Americans and White Americans (and this despite the presence of numerous borderline people of mixed ancestry). People’s interest in the characteristics of the groups has a non-scientific basis. It is a mistake to assume that people pondering or arguing about possible genetic differences are doing so out of adherence to some genetic theory or other. And yet, the discussion is still over whether there might be a scientific basis for the distinction (which again, is of interest for non-scientific reasons). For this reason, I think that a post in response which primarily declares that “there is no concept of race” etc. or something similar, is interpreted as meaning that “there is no genetic difference” and not as “any such genetic difference is not meaningful from a scientific standpoint, because the underlying groups are not defined scientifically”, as now appears to possibly be the intended meaning (at least of some “anti-race” posters). It could be that you guys are merely reading too much pure scientific meaning into these types of questions.

Which is not to say that it is not informative to point out that one cannot treat all people with identical skin color as belonging to some homogenous “race”. Just that you need to be more clear about exactly what (or how strongly) one can infer from this fact.

He saw my expanded statement as a denial that American blacks had a high prevalence of Sickle-Cell (since, from what he could see, we were clearly discussing that group).

I realize you were only using this as an example. But once you bring it up…I don’t think I’ve ever made this assumption (about your position) - could you recheck that?

[lucwarm]

once one has set up some boundaries to separate people, one will find that measurements of people within those separate groups will not be uniform. Some group is going to have the largest or the smallest “average” everything.

*Originally posted by IzzyR *
**
I agree that this does indeed represent my position (though I would change “Some group is” to “Some group might”). **

Just wanted to point out that there is a distinction between (statistically) significant disparities and (statistically) non-significant disparities.

Of course it’s generally true that if you take any grouping of people, measure some traits, and average, you will find a disparity. You will not necessarily find a statistically significant (and reproducible) difference, however.

I think that IzzyR’s point is that the lack of genetic coherence of the various races does not rule out the possibility of these sorts of significant differences.

The fact that insignificant differences are inevitable is true but irrelevant, IMHO.

[The_Flying_Dutchman]

This just in.

• http://www.blackathlete.net/Ski&Surf/Olympic/index.shtml *

According to scientists, African Americans, who are almost exclusively of West African ancestry, are the population group most likely to have the explosive fast twitch muscle fibers that are critical to getting a great start on the track or going down a bobsleigh chute.

“It’s a strong genetic component what type of muscle fiber you have, either slow or fast” says Bengt Saltin, director of the Copenhagen Muscle Research Center. According to Saltin, who just received an award of his own at these Games, selected as the 2002 recipient of the IOC Olympic Prize on Sport Sciences, African Americans and other populations of **West African **ancestry, should continue to flourish in sports that require quick speed bursts. “**West Africans **have already 70 or 75 percent of the fast type when they are born. And that’s needed for a 100-meter race around 9.9 seconds.” Because quickness is so important, it makes sense that the most explosive, contemporary athletes – blacks who trace their ancestry to West Africa --would be among the best bobsled pushers.