Edwino
You have gained my utmost respect.
-grienspace
grienspace:
Well, I’m not going to swear to it, but conceivably, yes. Say you have a species of salamader. One wide-ranging sub-species extends across the Great Plains of the U.S. living in widely separated pond habitats. It’as not outstandingly vagile, though it may have some mobility. The population is considered a single subspecies ( probably erroneously, but I won’t get into controversies over subspecies concepts ) because they all look the same. They all have roughly the same phenotypic expression, because the environmental selective pressure is virtually identical - Monotonous Great Plains sinkholes. But there is a lot of genetic diversity in the population, say because of accumulating little differences and lack of a great deal of interbreeding among populations over a long period of time. Meanwhile another subspecies is stuck in a relictual habitat, with a great deal of variation, maybe a mountainous region in the desert or something. It is has fragmented into several different populations, all under somewhat different selective pressures ( shallow, high temp valley stream; mountain spring; what have you ). Although the genetic diversity within the relictual populations is less than that of the huge Great Plains populations, they have a lot more expressed phenontypic expression due to harsher/more varied habitats.
A rather tortured example, and perhaps not entirely germane to this discussion. But my point is just that these things aren’t always necessarily clean-cut.
In some cases, perhaps none 
. I’m not saying it’s unimportant. Obviously a species that has gone through a genetic bottleneck and has very low genetic diversity ( Cheetahs, Elkephant Seals, etc. ) may potentially be less able to “respond” to a novel threat, such as disease. But after you reach a certain point, a lot genetic diversity may be just superfluous junk. Non-coding little genetic mutations that don’t really have a great deal of significance.
Again, I’m not necessarily making that claim here( I really don’t know the answer ). Just the point is that “greater genetic diversity” doesn’t necessarily equal superiority, or even advantage. It might be a quite neutral thing ( I doubt it would ever be negative, though ).
Huh. Well, perhaps I’m wrong . It does happen, all too frequently 
.Was there a cite for this?
- Tamerlane
…expressed phenotypic differences…
And to I think I actually do try to review these things before posting. Expressed expressions, indeed :rolleyes: . My point is that the members of these disjunct relictual populations all look a lot different from each other, even though they are genetially closer to one another than the members from two similar looking Great Plains populations might be.
- Tamerlane
No greeny, I have directly engaged your position, pointed out failings based on the facts.
Greeny old man, this is tiresome. I already explained to you that the fact that ALL tropical populations do not reflect the same morphological tendencies does not bear on the hypothesis (which was after all a futile attempt to get you to think logically) since I was not attempting to characterize all tropical/sub-tropical populations as better but rather use an objective fact in re a tendency to explain a higher proportion of hypothetically advantageous morphology.
If you were able to entertian multiple thoughts, perhaps you might have grasped that in the several other explanations I’ve given you.
Very funny greeny, now instead of dodging try addressing the critiques. I and edwino have repeatedly explained why we regarded your hypothesis as racial in essence, address the substance instead of whinging about how we “mischaracterize” the argument.
Oh no, your West African magical genes are not at all such a generalization.
Short cut, longer limb to torso, but I doubt you could not follow that.
Oh please, go look in a motherfucking text book. You haven’t addressed one motherfucking bit of the god damned data I provided to date, I feel no compulsion to cite for you such a simple, basic item.
Greeny, really I sure you can discern that I was setting up an example, not actually claiming this. Let me spell it out reaaaaaaal slooooowly for you greeny, cause I know you don’t understand things too well.
It was a hyper-simplified EXAMPLE of a logical argument. Of course Africans can get sunburn greeny. Bloody hell, arguing with a bloody functional illiterate.
The presence of a handful of West African soccer players in European leagues proves something to you?
Oh brother.
It does no such thing greeny. No such thing. I haven’t the heart to go on.
Greater as compared to what? But generally, possible, yes. Necessary, no. Likely, depends on the population history.
As usual you are wrong.
(a) Reread, for comprehension this time, Edwino’s post re muscles and response to training
(b) reread prior dialogues about assertions in re specific populations.
bon appetit!
And, once again, sjgouldrocks demonstrates that he does not understand a single thing that he claimes to have read on this MB.
Understood. Environmental factors can be heavily weighted in phenotypic expression in some cases. Interesting though, during my informal research on this whole subject, I came across the well known Joseph Graves who informs us that there is more genetic diversity in one tribe of west African chimpanzees than in all the human race. I bring this up only because of all the wild animal species, chimpanzee individuals are the most visually distinct from each other. At least it appears that way to me.
Muscle physiology has been well studied for many years. Bengt Saltin and Claude Bouchard are two highly respected names you would come across repeatedly as having researched the “race” and athletic implications vis’-a-vis fast and slow twitch. Plug in these names and Jon Entine into google if you wish to learn more.
To summarize;
- East Africans on average have a higher percentage of Type 1 (slow twitch) muscle fibers.
2, West Africans have a higher percentage of Type 2 (fast twitch) muscle fiber.
3. There are actually two types of fast twitch fibers, 2x and 2a. Strenuous anerobic exercise will convert 2x to 2a type fibers, but science has been unable to observe conversion from Type 1 to Type 2.
- Conversion from Type 2 to Type 1 through aerobic exercise has been observed, but takes such a long time that exercise alone being a factor for 90+% type 1 muscle fibre present in the Kenyan long distance runner is highly unlikely.
Please, for those who wish to dispute the above, In particular Point #3 please point me towards a study or reference to a study that has observed significant conversion from Type 1 to Type 2. At the moment, I would have to consider that anyone endowed with a high percentage of Type 2 fiber which can react 10 times faster than Type 1 fiber has a distinct genetic advantage in the sprint.
Don’t worry, Tom, he does that in Gun threads, too.
If you took the time to do a couple searches, you’d see that the whole “fast twitch - slow twitch” thing has been thoroughly debunked.
Anyway, East Africa v. West Africa is a far cry from black v. white. If residents of North Dakota had more “slow twitch” muscle fiber than residents of South Dakota, would that mean anything at all?
Could I just be the first to mention (as one of the resident Australians on this board) and knowing AWC’s propensity for making barely disguised racist predictions about the outcome of 100m races that a white Australian guy came third in the 100m final of the Goodwill Games (world class invitational field) held here in Brisbane, Australia last night?
Point proven. White people are no more intelligent than black people.
Subject closed.
Finally.
Peace,
mangeorge
You haven’t figured out how to turn off “e-mail reply” yet mangeorge?
You’re like Batman now. Whenever we need a mangeorge we can summon him by posting to this thread.
“Look boygeorge, it’s a new e-mail! To the Georgecave!”
As an Australian, you must be just thrilled Princhester. And Matt Shirvington accomplished this feat in 10.3 seconds ! Wow. And the winner of this world class invitational field, Dwain Chambers of England did it in 10.11 seconds.
What I find interesting is that Ghana and Trinidad paced 4th and fifth, both countries being dirt poor yet challenging the rich countries of Britain America and Australia.
I’m not saying you are a racist Princhester but if you characterize AWC’s prediction as racist, then I would suggest your statement that a white guy finished third is racist as well. It seems to me that black can be both a racist and/or cultural term but as far as I know, there is no such concept as a white culture, only race.
Try this one. It looks like the least culture-based one I’ve found.
The difference between AWC’s comments and Princhester’s: Hers was a prediction, based solely on race. His was a review, based solely on fact.
Or has it become “racist” now to say, “So-and-so did such-and such”?
Oh, wait… this is another play on the word “racist” to refer to a “foot race”, isn’t it? Bwaha! I had thought those were done with by page 2, but apparently I was mistaken. Good show!
I hope.
Scientologist:
It still falls into the same problems as any intelligence test. Our definition of intelligence spans many skills which a 25 question multiple choice test cannot accurately assess. The test in question seems to mainly assess spatial type skills without assessing analytical skills at all. Granted my view was only cursory.
Welcome to the SDMB. With a nickname like that, you’re going to have an illustrious time in Great Debates…
Oh, and why isn’t this thread dead and buried yet?
grienspace:
You are making little sense. You can’t accuse someone of being a racist just by reporting the results. I am not a racist if I accuse Charles Manson of being white, or Martin Luther King of being African American. AWC repeatedly made predicitons on future performance based solely on race and perceived past performance. Pointing out how this perceived bias is flawed is not racist.
To be fair, that particular test DOES test patience really well. I got to around question 13 or 14 before they started getting a tad difficult, and finally gave up around question 17. Hell, it was late, and I wanted to watch Conan.
And one last thing… I think Carthage must be destroyed. And race is not an indicator of intelligence.
A careful reading of my post should suggest to you that I didn’t accuse anyone of being a racist. In fact I specifically stated I didn’t believe Princhester was a racist. I am merely challenging the racist label placed on AWC for making a comment based on black while he made a comment based on white.
Your right, I wish this thread had died. But I merely wished to set the record straight on the general tone of a very misleading statement regarding the significance of the race in Australia.
No, dang it, I haven’t. But thanks for the chuckle, Biggirl.
Off to the ATMB to try to resolve this matter, on my trusty georgemac steed!
Peace,
mangeprge