Why are African-American athletes better than white american athletes

Great Debates
121

Hatred in my heart? What are you talking about? I dislike denseness and people who trot out arguments which have already been addressed. And what do we find? We find that you fucking ignore what we’re telling you. Ergo, me being a bad human being, terribly impatient and intolerant, has to bring to your attention that you’re willfully ignoring what we’re telling you.

What? To my knowledge no one has attributed any “false” statements. We have pointed out a number of your hypotheses have rested on implicit false assumptions. You may not have understood that. I suppose re dogs you are misinterpreting something I said in the pit. I believe I said something including the phrase “fucking dogs” using fucking as an adjective, not a verb. I was referrring to past posters who have brought up dog breeds in a misplaced analogy to humans. No reference to yourself.

Height: It is not a matter of anectdotal evidence at all, it is a matter of good scientific evidence. In this latest discussion we haven’t bothered to provide every piece of information, but it is well established that height is highly dependant on diet (as well as, of course genetic heritage).

Why do you continue to misunderstand? I do not recall ever calling or purposely infering bigotry. I simply noted your misconstruing what we have been telling you. If I thought you were a bigot I would say so up front. I just think you’re being dense.

Sigh: Okay primo, the HGP mapped the human genome (in large part) based on samples --not a single person. Celera used a different set of samples, same process more or less. The 30k genes are all of humanity. Gaspode and I have patiently explained, ad fucking nauseum that there are no alleles, i.e. varients on these 30k genes, which are private to any given population (i.e. not shared throughout the world – excepting rare mutations here and there in confined populations).

Secundo: We have also patiently explained how variation occurs in human populations and explained how that renders the idea of “common West African ancestry” rather ludicrous and irrelevant to the question of sports domination because of hte issue of variation (which you seem unable to grasp or, more frustrating unwilling) Thus my annoyance.

I don’t know any other way Edwino, Gaspode and I can explain this to you.

You might consider that the research is fundamentally not concerned with the issue you’re obsessing about, because its moved on to more interesting questions. Just like it doesn’t address racial superiourity directly either, noted that? (nota bene, I’m raising this as an illustration, not accusing you. I’m drawing your attention to the fact you are expecting issues to be highlighted which just are not due to the nature of where we are at.)

I’m going to leave dealing with the Chimp/Human issue to others for the moment since I want to get to the heart of the matter.

How many fucking times do I have to ask what the fuck is primarily west African ancestry What meaning does this assertion have?

Elsine asserts without the least sense of an understanding and now you’re parroting it back with the same lack of understanding.

I already critiqued the empty nature of the assertion --you gleefully ignore it. That’s why I opened the pit thread, just this sort of crap.

Fucking justify the assertion “primarly of West African heritage” and then tell me how this should imply a commonality in trait distribution in light of West African traits – big fucking hint not all of West Africa is savanna, not all (or even a majority to my knowledge) of West Africans have the lanky savanna body form --the sole thing I can think of one could reasonably attribute to (dry esp.) tropical populations which would lead to a real advantage in certain sports. (Long limbs)

You are assuming the conclusion. Not only a logical error, its terrible science.

As quoted I have trouble understanding the statement.

Again, why “West African” populations? I know you’re parroting our dear sports journalist but perhaps you could just bring yourself to examine what we’ve told you, oh throghout the whole god damned thread, and you might grasp the objection.

(a) insofar as speed in running may depend on lanky body form, long legs and all that, this is hardly a West African trait per se. West African is clearly too broad, we’ve explained this ad nauseum.
(b) given the data already before us what leads you, other than the a priori conclusion it must be so, that such a phenotype expresses in a “far greater frequency” among WA descended pops?
© Care to address head on the critiques or are you going to simply parrot Elsine?

Environment. I keep saying fucking environment, you come back with culture. I think its been made clear. Stop fucking ignoring the points.

(1) I asked once already, where are the fucking West African runners? – like Elsine you seem to be ignoring a major problem here… See my Elsine comments.
(2) Insofar as New World “Black” populations are (a) heterogenous in descent as noted many times before (b) share a common cultural denominator in terms of at the very least percieved discrimination against them © share percieved ability to excell in sports, we have an excellent reason to depend on socio-economic explanations.

I have yet to see a coherent refutation of this. What I see is responses such as “I just don’t think so” - “It can’t be” etc All based on the sentiments of the viewer. I want data. I have in front of me good hard data, genetic data which tells me there’s no logical reason to suppose a genetic coherence which will give New World black populations any real advantage.

The most I can see may be an elevated occurance of a lanky “tropical savana” body type which I could imagine would be advantageous in running. That does not indicate to me that having WA heritage is a meaningful indicator of some advantage. Now tracking somone’s heritage to some specific area --to the extent there might be some remaining coherency-- that might give us something.

Bloody hell.

122

Col: throw the poor guy a bone, wilya? It seems like there may be a “population” in East Africa that has a genetic advantage in running. Just so long as the guy knows that it would only be one “tribe” or population, and is in no way connected to skin color or frizzy hair. If some one showed me that all/most the “fast east african runners” were all members of the same tribe, or similarly thus slightly related, i could buy it.

grein- if “blacks” are superiour in certain sports, like running, where are the Pygmy gold medal runners? There reasonably could be some genetic advantage which is possesed by a “tribe”- but in no way can it be connected to the exteriour characteristics we use to group folks into “races”.

123

I don’t throw bones. (Actually I did, if you read my conclusions carefully)

Since the start Gaspode and others have been clear on the issue of New World black pops, and this is what he keeps arguing. There is no bone to be thrown for his current conclusions.

124

And what would lead you to that conclusion? What makes it ‘seem’ like anything of the sort is true aside from an a-priori expectation that it must be so? Yes it is possible and that is a bone I have already offered him. But we have absolutely no evidence that any such population exists. It seems just as likely that there may be a ‘population’ in Norway that has a gentic advantage in running.
So long as he keeps suggetsing there is some greater likelihood of, or evidence for, such a population occuring in West Africa conceding this point will only encourage him to ignore the facts.

So could I but the evidence demonstrates nothing of the sort. It’s pure speculation and a highly improbable conclusion.

125

You have got to be joking** Daniel** The writing is on the wall. You haven’t read this thread and are merely assuming Collounsbury’s strawmen and stereotype for my position. If you had followed carefully every posting I have made on this subject, I ascribed no trait among blacks that was consistent other than dark skin, broad noses and kinky hair. for the sake of argument I would even withdraw broad noses and kinky hair. Furthermore, I never stated that dark skin was exclusive to Africans. Furthermore, I never ascribed superior athletic ability to any race or population The first person to introduce race in this discussion was Collounsbury.To summerize for you.

In short, the one thing I am adamant about is that science has not ruled out genetic factors to significantly help explain the stats.

498 of 500 of the fastest times recorded in the 100 meter sprint are held by those who can claim west African descent.

No one but those with west African ancestry(include African-Americans) can claim having completed the 100 meter sprint in less than 10 seconds.

Collounsbury claims these fantastic statistics have absolutely no genetic basis, in fact claims that genetic science has disproven any possibility that a population from Africa can produce more individuals now and then of superior speed than other populations black,white or what have you. Although these people of west African origin who exhibit superior sprint abilities come from various cultures, he has no choice but to look to culture to explain the awesome disparity.

Now,* on an evolutionary basis* I can’t explain why some west Africans can jump and sprint better than the rest of us ,any more than why some Caucasians have blue eyes. I can’t explain oaeb why some Africans are really short and some are really tall. I can’t explain oaeb why east and north Africans dominate in long distance running. However studies have been done on the muscle physiology of athletes, leading to this conclusion and genetics forcast.

Daniel, I am only speculating, but what if a particular tribe as distinct as a pygmy tribe were characterized by a high ratio of fast-twitch muscle fibers throughout the population. But after several thousand years the tribal distinction disappeared just as much as the
distinction of the Frisians have in Britain. However, we can be fairly certain their genetic contribution in Britain hasn’t been wiped out. Some time in the future, Americans will all be black based on present day criteria for grouping allocation and the question will be "Why do Americans dominate in the 100 meters? And the answer will be better answered culturally, since Americans spend so much more money on sports than Nigeria et al.

126

What is this, a set up Daniel? Are you feeding me a pass?

For the record, the Kalenjins near Lake Victoria in Kenya. These people are 500,000 strong, 1/12,000 of the world population. If they competed as a nation, they would hold 3 times as many distance medals as any other country in the world. Eldoret, one of the towns they live in claims within a 60 mile radius 90% of Kenya’s top athletes.

I’ve been trying to verify the claim by the hard culturalists that these guys run 30 miles back and forth to school each day. :slight_smile:

127

The only known facts in this thread that I have come across are well published statistics on athletic results and their relationship to particular populations. I have also brought to light the physiological parameters which might explain it genetically. I have searched for the facts that you and Collounsbury claim to have presented, and though you both have provided many irrelevant conclusions on a much broader issue of race, I have not seen one iota of data or one reference to openly published conclusions which contradict the possibility for a genetic basis. Why don’t you provide me with one study that we can discuss? That would be interesting.

If you are going to atempt an argument from authority, you shouldn’t pick Carl Sagan. Isn’t he the guy who claimed that the world was subject to nuclear winter from nuclear war, and was forced to admit his calculations were wrong years later? :slight_smile:

Now this really pisses me off !

-black people can’t be reduced…
-they(back people) are human…

What the f… has that to do with what we are discussing.Trying to paint me as a bigot?

128

You missed this question Collounsbury

129

And I repeat ad nauseum that no one has said otherwise.

By the way, the name is Eltine non Elsine.

130

I’ll refrain from using the F-word again for DITWD’s sake, but this has become like a Peace rant with better grammar. The same slop is being spewed out again and again with no new facts and the same logic that has been torn to shreds time and again is flogged around the track for another lap. He has now resorted to posting lies and posting in bad faith as I’ll demonstrate below.
I’m going to respond to Grienspace one last time and then I’m going to deal with him as I did with Peace.
He can’t produce any fresh evidence or any new line of logical argument not based solely on authority.
If he fails to do so in his next post in a way that that suggests his theory is any less a result of ignorance than my theory that the IPU is magically responsible for African-American sporting prowess then I’m out of here. I’m going to chalk this up as a personal ‘win’ but a loss in the war against ignorance. I just can’t see any point in wasting more time with the same slop.

This statement is an out and out lie on Grienspace’s part. Collounsbury has linked to several prestigious genetics journals just chock full of facts. We know you have come across these because you have acknowledged them.

And I have brought to light the IPU which might explain it magically. Trouble is neither of us has any evidence. At least the IPU theory isn’t in direct contradiction to the genetic evidence, statistics and common sense.
Put on a new record Grienspace this is getting boring.

And if you can find even one iota of data or one reference to openly published conclusions which contradict the possibility for a Unicorn basis then I’ll dignify this with a response.
I think everyone can see how stupid this argument from ignorance is when it’s put in those terms.

I was not attempting an argument from authority. I was stating a truth and respectfully attributing it to its source. The authority only becomes relevant if you choose to argue the truth of the statement.
To paraphrase another non-authority “I’ll quote snoopy the dog if that’s where I find the truth”

No trying to paint you as illogical. There’s a difference you know.
The statement “African Americans and middle class African-Americans and African -Canadians, share a cultural common denominator.” sort of begs to have the piss taken out of it when such an assumption is not only not necessary, it’s not logical. You brought up common denominators in human populations, I expanded on it. If the use of human common denominators paints you as racist in your eyes so be it. It was your poor choice of words.

Considering that Grienspace has acknowledged reading the links provided, I’m just going to quote Col here to demonstrate the level of bad faith inherent in that statement.

131

OK, this group could be small enough & discrete enuf to be a “population”- HOWEVER, before we start assuming it is genetic, let’s look at 'cultural" first. It so often is.

132

I lost another long-ass reply due to the crappy connection.

Okay, patience. Another try.

First, Greiny, before accusing others of distorting your argument, please don’t distort yourself. It wears on my patience, little of it that there is.

Second, Gaspode and I have directed our responses not to sports --Tom has already pointed out how such “data” is undata in and of itself in re group performance per problems of selection bias which are well documented. It may seem to you to be a distortion, however we are addressing the underlying genetic assumptions which must go along with your line of argumentation. So far you have not addressed these problems, preferring to restate the same old same old and accuse your interlocutors of distortion.

Your argument, as I believe we understand it, is that (a) there is a dominance of “West African” descended sports figures (b) this must be generically explained ** at the group level**. Not the following, it is utterly incorrect to describe either Gaspode or I as "hard culturalists** — please do at least keep your insults accurate. I am a jerk, true and you should feel free to so note, even here, I give you permission, but hard culturalist? Fraid not. I have clearly indicated my position in re the dynamic nature of genetic heritage and clearly indicated I believe it to be important. What I am not is a crude and simplistic generalizer based on genetics.

My replies have addressed both your assumptions, head on. (a) regarding West African heritage (i) that West African heritage is a meaningful category (1) see Edwino’s comments on traits (ii) that New World black populations could meaningfully be described as “predominantly” of “West African” heritage by either source heritage or recent historical population mixing (iii) that the same dominance by supposed WA heritage where I am utterly unaware of actual WA in int’l sports. North Africans, yes, East Africans, yes. WA? (b) and we have questioned your a priori assumption of genetic (on the level of the group as defined, not on individual bases) basis for the supposed dominance. I’ll try to expand on this once more.

As far as I can see, you have failed to address these points. Rather, your replies have simply restated your initial hypothesis — which we already refuted on the basis of what is known about trait distributions in populations(), although as Gaspode noted such refutations are never absolute, however it runs against all known patterns in the evidence. And of course accused us of distorting, which as I said, is not the case in my view. Rather, in repeatedly drawing your attention to the issue of trait distribution and the problem with the ad hoc category you are employing, we have attempted to get to the heart of the issue. In order for there to be a group advantage in X we need to have some coherence by group in the distribution of traits relevant to X.
(: thus the continued relevance of the initial citations)

I recognize the difference between the gross generalization “all blacks” and the finer generalization which you are working with, which appears to be that some % of blacks express some traits which give an overriding advantage in sports, or a range of sports. I have no doubt some do, our issue with the observation is the a priori conclusion that this must mean that that % is a priori a significant larger % than in (all) other populations. All genetic evidence runs against such a conclusion, and in my mind points to the conclusion that simply the x% of superior NWB population with superior phenotype is channeled more effectively into sports endeavors vis-a-vis the x% from other populations. (I also do not view it as supportable to conclude NWB are a coherent genetic entity) I once more draw your attention to Edwino’s recent exposition on trait distribution in populations and once more indicate that given what is known now about trait distribution, populations etc., the argument fails. I believe Gaspode and Edwino have adequately explained the basis for this conclusion on our parts previously, so I’m not going to go into it again.

In re my comment, I believe in the prior sports thread, regarding the Kenyans running x kilometers, I was relying on my recollection of reading articles about the Kenyan stars and their description of their childhood: having to run x kilometers to school bec there was no transport (or none which they could afford). While my memory may be fault, I do not think so. Of course, one should note that in the case of the Kenyan runners, here is an instance where I readily admitted the possibility of a coherent genetic explanation. True, I view the issue in terms of relative advantage and certainly something to be actualized through environment, but the relevant population might be repository of a real genetic advantage in running. But do note, ** might **. Until there is real data, there is no reason to conclude one way or the other. Their current, and possibly emphemeral dominance may be simply transitory luck or in fact based on environmental factors such as elevation and life-style. (Turn em into TV watchers, see what happens.) I prefer caution before leaping on simplistic genetic explanations having a lively understanding of the degree to which environment in total can effect expression.

Last notes: Elstine, Pelsine, no matter what the name, the man is still a fucking idiot who got basic facts wrong. And this is your source?

In re the question I am supposed not to have addressed, could you refresh my memory as to where it is found?

133

It is this hard nosed conclusion that I have been opposed to from the very beginning that subsequent quotation C appears to have softened.

Not must, could. If you might accept that the Kalenjins have a real genetic advantage in running(long distance),then you should be able to accept the possibility that some Kenyans have real genetic advantage. Then you could also expand to east Africans, north-east Africans, and Africans,by virtue of Kalenjin representation in all the arbitrary populations until the distinction becomes irrelevant.Fortunately, for the sake of my argument the Kalenjin population has maintained a discreet identity. But what if they didn’t. History has shown many tribes swallowed up into oblivion, although their descendants are still around. It is possible, I repeat possible, that the athletic prowess of many black NBA athletes , after all, there isn’t too many of them, could relate to a long forgotten tribe that is lost in west Africa.

This statement I support 100%

And I prefer caution as well before telling anyone that my way is the right way pro or con, and that someone else is full of shit. In short, as you said, “Until there is real data, there is no way to conclude one way or the other.”

134

Now, see, this is where you go off into “psuedo-science-land”. Once that “gene” (and it would not be just one, it would be a particular combination of many) left its discrete population, there is as much chance of it showing up in White folks (many white americans have some negro ancestors) . "African americans’ are not descended from just one tribe, or even one area of tribes. Many have “inter-bred” also. They are no longer a “population”. Some are not even of African descent. Yes, there certainly IS a genetic advantage held by many athletes, but that genetic advantage no longer has any connection to their RACE, if it ever did.

Look, we KNOW that cultural differences are stronger than genetic ones, thus the assumption should be made that those tribes-folk from that one tribe are running fast because of that culture, not genetics. However, if “culture’ was eliminated, at the small population of a 'tribe”- there possibly COULD be a genetic advantage.

135

Thank you very much Daniel. I’m sure we should be able to find blue eyes in the entire world in the same proportion that we find them in Denmark,Britain, and America.

136

Col, move over, you need another shoulder to that rock. Note in the "persecuted christains thread, your namework was mentioned at the end

137

Scans the latest posts.
Nope, not a trace of new evidence or logic there.
Hell let’s be honest. Not a trace of any evidence or logic there.
I’m sorry folks but I’m out of here. That ‘blue eyes’ shit really is the final straw. It has been adressed so many times on this thread alone that I can’t beleive he has the gall to bring it up again. Greinsapce you are being wilfully ignorant, stupid, obtuse, dense, offensive and obfuscatory all in the one thread. I really think that you should be added to the list of Hydras/Pod People.
If there are any serious posters out there who want to continue this then I’ll be happy to respond.

BTW, Collounsbury, you do know that if you compose a reply on a word processor you can save it then paste it into the reply frame. This way even if the connection crashes you won’t lose your work?

138

Likewise Gaspod , only I don’t feel the need to stereotype you. As long as you or anyone else continues to attack my integrity, intelligence, motivation or apply strawmen to my positions or ideas, I will respond. At this point I unilaterally declare a ceasefire.

139

I agree.

Yeah, I know but I get all worked up and start typing in the reply window…

Greinspice:

Spare us the persecution line. You continue to utterly fail to address the points. I have not changed my position one iota – in re your fantastical misreading --there is a vast difference between allowing for a degree of coherence at the level of the Kenyan group and extrapolating onto ever larger populations. We have addressed this very issue. I frankly don’t have the stomach to take apart the problems with your spectacular misreading and misunderstanding of the materials right now. Perhaps in a day or two. Suffice it to say you can’t willy nilly make the chain of assumptions you’re making. If you could, we would in fact have races (in terms of finding coherent genetic bases) goddamnit!

140

There is no extrapolation on my part and no suggestion for coherence towards a larger population. just a matter of recognition of frequency of a given trait in an arbitrary population defined geographically in an historical context. Blue eyes are cetainly not coherent to caucasians or exclusive to caucasians.