I give up. Most of you should fail human biology.
Can you provide the studies that show these things? I’m sure there are genetic differences in population, no one doubts that. But my guess is that those studies don’t say what you think they say, at least not to the degree you think they do.
As already shown in this thread there are black world champions in swimming, so one of your basic premises has been shown to be invalid.
Cite?
You might as well look for some other message board where you can discuss this in the spirit in which it’s intended. This board has way too many posters who are completely unwilling to acknowledge the obvious and admit that differences of any kind exist between the races. That way they can pat themselves on the back for being PC and opposing bigotry, even where no bigotry exists.
It is ludicrous to the point of laughability to look at (and even admit, as some around here will actually do on occasion) the differing physical characteristics of the various races and then attempt to claim that these physical differences make absolutely no difference whatsoever in athletic performance.
PC liberalism requires that we acknowledge absolutely no difference whatsoever in performance between men and women, or between the races, and to do otherwise is incontrovertible evidence of racism, sexism and bigotry most vile. No, in the fight against racism and sexism we are supposed to believe that the average Korean can run just as fast as the average West African, and that women are just as strong as men. The proponents of this type of thinking all know that it isn’t really true, but it’s a fiction they insist upon maintaining in the apparent belief that whenever reality does not have a liberal bias, then reality must be denied and the liberal bias it does not support must be proclaimed and shouted to the rooftops anyway.
So again, I’m afraid that if you’re really out to fight your own ignorance and get to the real truth of this matter, whatever that may be, you’re simply going to have to look elsewhere.
Dug up this article I remember reading on this topic.
Yep.
Bones: Bones in different races
You see? It isn’t so hard.
You’ve now established that there is real physiologic difference between the population called Black and the population called White in bone density. Honestly, that’s a very interesting finding, as in general bone density goes along with Vitamin D levels and Blacks have lower vitamin D levels than do Whites, but true it is.
You can now ask whether these differences in bone density could play a role in swim speed. If bone density was the significant factor then Asians (who your cite states have lower bone density than Whites) should excel. Do they? Nope, the US and Australia dominate. (What is the Australian genetic advantage?) So that hypothesis loses some ground.
There are other factors that may play a role. Blacks have a tendency to have more muscle mass than do Whites (who in turn have more than Asians and Indians). Would that be an advantage or a disadvantage? On what basis is either claim made?
And there is the Black sub-population with more fast twitch that dominates sprinting. Fast twitch is used in swim sprints too. Huh. That would seem to be genetic advantage to Blacks.
So we can create some plausible biologic factors that may help or hinder performance on average. But then we’d still need to know the variation about the mean before we can say what kind of possible effect it might have on outcomes at the elite levels. And as Blacks represent the widest genetic spread (given that other populations are subgroups off of the African trunk and have admixed back into the group that is called “Black”) the advantage here, visavis creating the elite sigma outliers, goes to the Black subpopulation too.
But the final factor still swamps the others: what is the size of the population of each group given access and the family/community push to attempt this sport? If say 20% of all White kids are exposed to swimming at camp and by lessons and pushed into keeping up with it if they show any natural talent, and only 2% of Black children are, then even a sizable natural genetic superiority for swimming in Blacks would be swamped, and most of the elites would still be White.
So we can say that it is possible that physiologic differences between Blacks and Whites may contribute to differences in performance, and we can come up with a few plausible stories, but we cannot say that differences in performance are the result of those differences or that those differences, or any other physiologic differences, actually do make any difference in swim performance.
Nobody says it makes no difference. If you actually read and understood other people’s posts, you’d see that the vast majority point that there’s no evidence that it does make a difference when you control for other factors.
People have to rescue rockfish?
A Monkey With a Gun, save your breath. As SA said, too many posters here are simply unable to entertain a reality where everyone race is equal in every way., ignoring some very obvious physical differences.
But here is a question I have for AMWAG’s detractors: Is it your opinion that if every person on the planet was given equal access and incentive to perform in any and all sports, that the winners of the New World Olympics in 20 years would not, in some sports, align with certain races?
I don’t think you can rule out society so easy. I grew up a swimmer in California, probably about a hotbed of competitive swimming as there is in the world. We had slews of young kids of all sizes, shapes and abilities on our teams. But when the reached the 11-12 or 13-14 age ranges, a lot of them stopped swimming. Not because they weren’t good, as some were, but because that was the age when a lot of other interests popped up.
And swimming isn’t really cool. Not in the way that football, baseball or hanging out at the mall are. Some of the best athletes that ever were probably had other stuff to do, like earning for their family, having a career or pissing away their lives. Even one of the best swimmers ever hardly rates endorsements of a slightly good football player. I see more Dhani Jones than Michael Phelps on TV. Dhani Jones!
Cite? (Not for the accidental possessive, but for the idea all groups have equal intelligence 
.)
I have reviewed an extensive body of literature on this topic and take an opposite position (as many posters here know), and I can only think of a bare handful out of tens of thousands of cross-race comparisons which show anything close to equivalent outcomes among SIRE race-based (Self-Identified Race/Ethnicity) cohorts on any sort of quantitative study. The overwhelming body of literature shows race-based differences on direct IQ tests and indirect cognitive-based tests such as educational examinations. These differences persist even when nurturing variables such as parental education or wealth are accounted for. While there is plenty of argument about whether the cause of intelligence differences is nature or nurture, what there is NOT is any credible evidence that SIRE cohorts are equally “smart.”
The default assumption you post here that there is some sort of Grand Egalitarian Design for biologically-based intelligence is precisely the reason the thread so far has so many posters jumping on your back. No race egalitarian trusts someone who proposes biologic differences likely account for physical performance differences. Such a position opens the door for biologic differences accounting for intelligence differences as well.
It is much safer to take a position (as most do here) that “race” is too inchoate a category to be a meaningful grouping, and that nurturing variables are so complex as to permanently render any other explanation suspect.
I have essentially given up on the SDMB, not because I did not enjoy my time here, but because the default assumption of biologic egalitarianism is so permanently ingrained it becomes offensive to many posters here to post otherwise. For some reason egalitarians are able to admit that gene prevalence for sickle cell disease can vary by race, but gene prevalence for genes supporting intelligence cannot. Moreover many take the position that although all sorts of gene prevalences vary by SIRE groups, “race is a social/cultural phenomenon.”
Makes me smile every time.
If God had intended me to swim, she would not have given me a gun I could use to steal a boat with. Who am I to argue with Artemis?
You have no idea how much I disagree with this.
But it is irrelevant here.
That made me laugh. 
Yes. Absolutely.
Post #46. Click the .edu link.
Are you going to deny that they have curly hair now?
Your claim is that everyone of African descent has curly hair?
I don’t think you’ve grasped exactly how big and varied “Africa” is.
Really? I mean really?
You are actually arguing that statistically people from Africa don’t have curly hair?
Really?
All I see is a cite for African-Americans. That does not equate to “people of African descent” so much as “people with an extremely mixed heritage” in my book. It’s well-known that mixed populations can have hybrid vigour, and I shouldn’t wonder that that goes for bone density too. See, eg, this recent study.
That too. Just look at, say, Michelle Yeoh. She’s undoubtedly “of African descent”(being Homo sapiens), but those glossy locks are straight.
Can we at least agree that they have dark skin? Are people going to argue against that assertion?