Ok. I don’t believe that there is any evidence that supports the genetic explanation to the exclusion of other hypotheses.
The fact may also remain that all of them have European ancestry. And considering that there are many sports where being very fast is very important that aren’t dominated by black people, as well as the fact that we know environmental and cultural factors have influenced the domination of other ethnic groups in various sports in the past, I see no reason to believe that the current breakdown of over and under-representation in various sports is based on different genetics between populations.
Yes, I know. But if that were the determining factor for the world’s fastest sprinters, wouldn’t you expect to see some of them without the West African ancestry? When you look at the fastest sprinters and at the position in the NFL which require the most speed, you find people without a West African heritage woefully underrepresented. To the tune of zero, or near it.
What are these “many sports” where being very fast? What are you thinking of?
But the main thing is to look at the sports in which blacks have ample participation, where, if there were a genetic advantage, it would show up. It makes no sense to look at sports where Black athletes haven’t expressed great interest. Correct?
There’s probably nearly zero without European heritage, too, especially in the NFL.
Tennis comes to mind, as does hockey (though the speed is for skating, obviously), rugby, and swimming (a different type of speed again), plus probably lots of less common non-international sports like Aussie football.
If we’re looking to test the genetic explanation for why top sprinters (or NFL RBs, or whatever) are more likely to be black, then I think the data to look for is genetic. I think it’s reasonable that the reason white people dominate tennis is cultural/environmental, not genetic- and I think it’s also reasonable that most other ethnic dominance of various sports are cultural/environmental. There may be genetic reasons, but until I see genetic data, I see no reason to support it.
You’re missing the point. If there was not an advantage had by those of West African ancestry, wouldn’t you then expect that, say the world’s 50 fastest runners would be somewhat dispersed, from a descent standpoint? Wouldn’t you expect there to be a non-trivial percentage that did NOT have West African descent?
I think it’s fair to say that all of these sports have a large cultural component, some even a strong class (income) component, so cultural factors clearly play a large role. Some reward a mix of talents. Tennis, for instance, rewards great eye-hand coordination. Sprinting is the purest thing to look at as virtually all populations participate in it and it requires no additional skill to be paired with it. It’s pure. If you go to any high school, you will find a bunch of fast kids running the 100 yard dash. And you’ll see kids of every ethnicity. But as the kids get older and the races become more elite, the kids running are disproportionately black—and largely so. Look at the U.S. Olympics. Blacks make up around 16% of the U.S., but not one guy lacking West African heritage has made the sprinting team in quite a while. That’s astounding.
At this point the Jewish kid playing basketball in the middle of the last century is often brought up. That is different, because we didn’t have full participation from other races. So it would be wrong to have assumed that Jews had a genetic advantage. Sprinting, and football as well, do not have that problem. Id venture to say that at the high school level, there are more kids at speed positions that do NOT have a West African heritage then do. That aligns with the population of the U.S. But once you go to college, things change rapidly. More so at the elite football schools. And once you get to the NFL, Wide Receivers and Running Backs that do not have a WA heritage are almost non-existent. Where you’ll find the most is at Full Back, which requires more size and power and super fast speed isn’t as important.
So, in your world view, is direct evidence the only type of evidence you thing worthy of consideration? Is there any indirect evidence you can possibly imagine that would lead you to say that a hypothesis that states something along the lines of: the gene set found in people of West African ancestry—either by acting alone or in tandem with the European gene set—increase the likelihood that a person can be among the 100 fastest humans is a sensible one? Not necessarily correct, but sensible? (I use “can” as to acknowledge potential and to not ignore the role of nutrition and coaching.)
I think you’re missing my point. It’s likely they all have European ancestry- so wouldn’t you expect there to be a non-trivial percentage that did NOT have European ancestry?
And I’ll make the same point as before- especially with American black people, it’s almost certain that not one guy lacking European ancestry has made the US Olympic sprinting team in quite a while (probably even longer than for the African ancestry!). That might be astounding too- or it might not.
NFL WRs and RBs that do not have European ancestry are also (probably) almost non-existent. And there’s at least some factors here about the culture of football (and maybe basketball too, though I know a lot more about football)- it’s a not-so-open secret that through high school and college, the best white athletes are encouraged by coaches into positions like QB, FB, LB, TE, and sometimes S, while the best black athletes are encouraged to play RB, WR, and CB (and, increasingly, QB). If John Lynch, for example (or Steve Young, or many others) had focused on RB or WR through high school and college, few would doubt that they still would have been great players at those positions too.
I don’t know about sensible- I’m not sure what you mean by that- but if the word is “possible”, then sure. It’s very possible. It’s even a reasonable hypothesis (to answer the question “why are black people over-represented at the top levels of sprinting, and at positions like RB, WR, and CB in the NFL?”). But it’s an untested hypothesis- because, just like for academic test-scores, I don’t believe “nurture” is even close to being normalized. And considering that there are still tons and tons of great players in the NFL (as an example we both are familiar with) who are white, and who push the limits of human speed and strength, any hypothesized genetic advantage for any particular population must be tiny.
Because genes aren’t useful in that regard, an examination of the proteins would be be, however. Our proteins may originate from different genes but their proteins products are generally the same, this is precisely why you can transplant an organ from Human A to Human B and it’ll work just as fine.
You’re not addressing what I wrote. I’m acknowledging your point. Let’s say that 100% have European ancestry. So, acknowledging that they all have European ancestry, why is it that of the fastest runners, none of them do not have West African Ancestry. It seems that one of two scenarios is most likely:
A) people of West African decent have the advantage of a “speed gene”
B) the fastest humans must have both West African ancestry and European ancestry, and when their gene sets mix, you have the potential to have a super-fast human.
You seem to be offering a third scenario that European ancestry might be responsible for the speed gene.
See above.
There certainly is validity to your point, though it was a larger problem decades ago. But no one is arguing that Blacks are the best athletes, just that they are the fastest. Of the 4 quarterbacks that played in my high school when I played, one was super-fast (and Black). The two qualities that they ALL shared was 1) the ability to throw well and 2) poise.
By "sensible: I mean logical, valid, non crazy.
Let’s look at sprinting. What cultural factors do you think are keeping non-Blacks out of competing? Please keep in mind that right now there are more non-Black kids than white kids on high school sprinting teams. (That seems like a very safe assumption, just taking into account the percents of the population that are Black / White, respectively.
I’m just making the point that you can reverse the words “West African” and “European” and probably be just as accurate. This highlights how, in my mind, it’s deceptive to see the top runners as black- because almost all have, probably, both African and European ancestry, highlighting only the African part seems not particularly informative.
It’s sensible, then, to make that hypothesis. I don’t think it’s sensible to conclude that this hypothesis is more likely to explain the gap then a non-genetic explanation at this point.
I don’t know. If I had to guess, it could be things like what the coaches are encouraging the kids to focus on (and unconsciously, through different expectations perhaps, encouraging the black kids more into traditionally black roles in sports and vice versa), or a self-fulfilling prophecy that kids tend to try to emulate role models that look like them, it could be that black kids tend to play outside more (this is a wild guess), or a combination, or other factors.
I’ve read the thread’s 12 pages along with the various papers and articles linked by its cites. It’s not often that I’ve seen such a persuasive argument as that delivered by Chief Pendant. While I’m unsure of the root causes, I’ve concluded that “race” exists and - in aggregate - meaningful attributes and behaviors are linked to it.
But that’s not right. Only about 16% of the American population is of African American ancestry, with an even smaller subset being of West African ancestry. Yet, when you look at the elite sprinting team, they all—100%—possess West african ancestry. Let’s take the 50 fastest men in America, with a normal distribution you would expect to see 16% them possessing of West African Ancestry, 84% having ancestry that is not West African. But we see 100% having the WA ancestry. That is striking.
I think if you look at any piece of evidence alone, you’re probably right. But in conglomerate I think it’s more reasonable to conclude that genetics is playing a role.
Yes, but that is why it’s good to look at speed. It’s largely God-given. Sure, through the proper nutrition and training, everyone cab get faster, but the increase is marginal. And it is not the case, which I think your position necessitates, that non-Black kids are not interested in running. Again, there are more non-Black high school sprinters than Black sprinters, yet as you get to the elite levels, the non-Black kids disappear. In high school and college they were on the same teams and had the same coaching and training, they attend the same practices, yet, they disappear. It seems that a hypothesis stating that something genetic is at play is the most reasonable one.
Ok. But the facta that, probably, 100% have European ancestry, is just a bit less striking, then. Regardless, this is the question that you’re attempting to answer with the genetic explanation, and I don’t believe it’s any more than a hypothesis without genetic evidence.
Ok, I disagree (I’m not convinced).
I don’t think it’s any more reasonable then any others (like the sum of the ones I offered).
<sigh> If you look at your cite, it says successful transplantation is enhanced by those variables. The main impediment to successful transplantation is not whether the organ will work (it most likely will) but whether the immune system (natural killer cells, specifically) will reject it. This’ll probably blow your socks off but pig hearts and baboon hearts have also been transplanted into humans; additionally, before the 90’s, most of the insulin given to diabetics were harvested from pigs. What matters is not the gene but the protein. Please reread the previous sentence. Thank you.
Honesty
P.S. Isn’t funny brazil84, how in this thread you’re arguing that blacks are dumb and inferior while in the Israel thread you’re arguing that that Jews are smart and superior. Fire and Ice, I guess. No comment needed or expected, just felt obligated to point it out.
I would say that if the immune system rejects the organ, then it will not work by any reasonable definition of the phrase “will not work.”
I do believe it . . . I take it you feel that the small genetic differences between people and baboons are just as inconsequential as those among human races?
Please quote me where I have argued that blacks are “dumb and inferior” Failing that, please admit that I said no such thing and apologize.
Again, please quote me where I have done so.
I suspect that’s the fundamental problem in your thinking – you see this as a debate over who is superior as a human being.
The organ being rejected is not the same as the organ not working, these are two interconnected but distinct processes. You’ll find, as I’ve stated before, no difference in function if you transplant organ from Human A to Human B even if they are not of the same ethnic group. If you’re interested, look up nude mice. This is all small potatoes though. The point is that changes in genes only matter if there a change in the protein product, otherwise, you have another useless, but nonetheless, fascinating silent mutation.
The relative deficiency in STEM fields for women is not a consequence of a differential in quantitative scores. Women and men have fairly trivial differences on things like SAT math scores, or other quantitative exams.. Therefore it’s reasonable to conclude there may be cultural, versus skillset, differences between men and women. On the other hand, STEM-related academic exams show a markedly disproportionate difference among SIRE groups, and these differences are resistant to all efforts to change them (see, for example, the MCAT scores I posted earlier).
I do not know what inference you have take that makes you think it would be a catastrophe for my beliefs to have more intermarriage among SIRE groups. I don’t care who marries whom, and I think we should find a way to give everyone a place in society. That’s all I’ve ever argued for, including a promotion of race-based AA. If you have taken an inference that I think any given group should somehow protect its purity or its existing status, you are badly mistaken. Nor do I think we need to protect the IQ of society or any such nonsense. I believe that view was taken by James Flynn (see his quotes in the cite of mine above), so maybe that’s who you have me confused with. But it was iiandyiiii who championed Flynn’s views; not me.
Welcome back! I thought you’d run off for good after trying to pretend that every human had exactly the same genes. I hope you’ve had a chance to read some more about genes, and how the short name nickname for a gene doesn’t mean it’s the same one at all, from person to person. Many many genes have many many variants. A good example paper for you to review is the one I cited earlier with 1800 variant genes among the SIRE groups of black, white and asian. These 1800 are all positively selected genes, and that alone is powerful evidence that the proteins they are coding for differ. If the output proteins didn’t differ, there would be nothing driving positive selection.
You’ve chosen an unfortunate example to illustrate your point, since the opposite is true. Because genes are different, and because the proteins they code for are different, organs don’t work “just fine” at all when transplanted from Human A to Human B. They have to be very carefully selected for major histocompatibility complex tissue type or they will be rejected. Genetic differences among humans code for different proteins, and allograft reactions remain very problematic. Genes making up the MHC tends to be very polymorphic, and among the considerations for getting better HLA matches is SIRE population.
It’s true that a liver still works as a liver–heck; a chimp liver would work as a liver–but organ transplantation is a marvelous example of how different genes in different people drive different protein manufacture.
Are you kidding me? Flynn essentially said nothing more than smart people should have more babies. Do you really want me to bring up the various white supremacist (or white/asian supremacist) quotes of the likes of Rushton and Lynn?