Actually, there is PROOF that the fastest sprinters are black, and share a West african heritage. I just provided it to you with the link. There is similar proof that the speed positions in football are disproportionately dominated by, again, those of West African descent. You really need to get “evidence” and proof" sorted out.
Nonsense. We have people of West African descent raised in different cultures. So the cultural explanation is largely controlled for.
As far as why the lack of stars from West Africa proper, well, there’s your straw man again. I don’t think anyone is of the mind that training and diet doesn’t help sprinters. The thing is, we have thousands of people who benefit from those things around the world, but if they do not have a West African descent, guess what? They won’t be in the top 25. Probably not in the top 100.
You’re letting your ideology stifle your science.
But the fastest sprinters have not always been black.
Sure there is. There is evidence. It’s not especially good evidence, but it’s evidence nonetheless. Saying that there is evidence of CAUSE A does not mean you are saying that only CAUSE A is a plausible explanation.
I’ve spent most of my life doing science, so with all due respect, I don’t think I need a lesson from you. You are conflating evidence with proof.
They (or most or many of them) probably also share European heritage, and many of them probably share native American heritage. And one of the top sprinters is from Namibia- not West Africa (or, unless he immigrated, of West African heritage). All this says nothing about genetics. Jamaica is disproportionately represented- but there are lots and lots (like the US, Brazil, and of course West African countries) of countries with a lot more people of West African heritage- unless you think there’s a Jamaican gene, then there’s probably something more involved (like, perhaps, the Jamaican cultural obsession with sprinting).
There is no evidence for your genetic explanation. None.
So, there is truth to the rumor that Usain Bolt used to be white! 
There is no evidence that the best explanation for the top sprinting records held by any particular ethnic group is genetic. I don’t see how re-stating the question can count as evidence for an answer to that question (the question being “why are most/all of the top sprinters black?”).
I wasn’t trying to be an asshole- I was trying to explain my train of thought. I still don’t see how I’m wrong about the impropriety of counting as “evidence” a re-phrasing of the question into a statement form.
:rolleyes:
No, there was a time when Blacks, in any numbers, didn’t compete. Or those that did compete did not have the benefit of the best training and nutrition. So, the question is, do you think that a snapshot of yesteryear gives as accurate a picture as one taken today…when it comes to seeing if genetics might be playing a role in sprinting?
:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes: yourself
By the same token, how do you know that fifty years from now all of the best sprinters won’t be Bengalis or Quechuas? Why do you think a snapshot of today gives definitive PROOF regarding the role of genetics in anything?
The answer is that you don’t know a frikkin thing about science or genetics.
I’m not trying to be an asshole either. It’s a semantic issue, sort of like the difference between a hypothesis and a theory. We infer genetic links without direct genetic evidence all the time-- witness twin studies. The trick here is how to rule out cultural influences, which is not so easy to do. It’s more than a bit easier for something like sprinting, which is at least easy to measure, than it is for intelligence.
Is there such a thing as “proof” in science, especially in the kind of observational science where correlations are considered evidence? In statistics, the null hypothesis is never “disproven,” simply rejected because of sufficient confidence in the alternate hypothesis.
“Proof” is a kind of extra-scientific social thing, although, of course, scientists use it also. It’s “proven” that cigarettes cause lung disease; it’s proven that evolution is the origin of species. But, properly speaking, those aren’t scientific statements.
And you don’t know how to read. Try reading what I’ve actually written. Especially regarding what there is evidence for and what there is proof for. Hint: I’ve not claimed that there is PROOF linking athletic performance and genetics.
There is evidence that those of West African descent enjoy a genetic advantage over others when it comes to speed. If in the future a group that is underrepresented now starts to outperform all other groups, we should simply look at the evidence. For now, the evidence is striking. Sorry if you don’t like it.
Well you can call it “proof”; “a reasonable degree of certainty” or whatever you want, but it doesn’t change the reality of the situation, which is that the overwhelming evidence admits of only one reasonable conclusion – the observed racial gap in cognitive ability is in large part the result of genetic differences and the observed dominance of blacks in sprinting is in large part the result of genetic differences.
Sure. Proof that the Thylacine still exists would be presenting the world with a living Thylacine.
It is striking for armchair geneticists, on this one I go for the expert in biology, and that is Colibri.
Even historians can point out how that “striking” evidence is not so because it is ignoring other causes:
The main point is what in reality you don’t like, the social progress that made possible what a lot of what those athletes are achieving, and the sources where you get your information on genetics still suck donkey balls.
So, you and your buddy the biology expert both have a hard time reading, huh?Maybe you need a reading expert. Now, for the too-many-times-to-count, please put this straw man away. I’m not of the opinion that culture, training, nutrition, do not play a role. You’re confusing my position with someone else’s, I guess. That’s being as generous as I can be.
You can’t tell anything from who wins Olympic sprints except who is most willing to use and able to get away with PEDs anyways.
One thing we know for sure is that India is bereft of athletic genes. Just look at the paucity of Olympic medals from the largest country on earth!
Nope, someone that tells a biologists that “the evidence is striking. Sorry if you don’t like it.” did not tell us what you are telling us now in this post, you were not generous at all there but an ass, because you still wanted to have your cake and eat it by also mentioning that they “enjoy a genetic advantage”.
I guess that means the Chinese athletes are 100% clean. Glad to know it