I’ve seen no evidence so far that black athletes with more West African ancestry are faster or better than those with more European ancestry. Maybe there’s a correlation, but if there is, it hasn’t been demonstrated to me.
If this is so, then it shouldn’t be hard to prove – just show that black athletes with more West African ancestry do better than those with more European ancestry. Maybe they do – but considering that most of the top athletes cited have European ancestry as well as African ancestry, it seems just as reasonable to me that it’s something specific about African Americans/Caribbeans (culture, society, or even something about the genetics of African Americans and Caribbeans which includes ancestry from multiple continents) that is responsible for the disparity.
Your analyses continue to be nonsense with ‘black and white’ (either/or ha ha - and it is not just either or for the ‘european’ heritage but also within the african heritage with its great and in fact larger variability) choices that do not relate to the human genetics. As the others have pointed out, there is not an either or factor, despite your archaicism in understanding.
You keep asserting either this or that, but I have never seen any substantial rationale other than your evident preconceptions.
it is in any case a nonsense and ad hoc justification. Which of the west african ancestries? He wants to pretend the short and short limbed forest peoples are the same african heritage as the long limbed and tall ouloufs or the peul of the Sahel? This is not genetics, it is old archaicisms trying to pretend to use the idea.
To argue that the sports dominance of some groups is based in genetics, we need to show that the difference is larger than differences based in culture.
For example, on a per-person basis,Norway utterly dominates the winter Olympic medals rankings. And does not do too badly in total numbers either.
So do we conclude that Norway has very different genetics from countries like Sweden, Finland, Russia, Iceland etc. that seems to be equally climatically suited? Or is it an example of a cultural focus on, and appreciation for, winter sports?
And if we think the achievement has a cultural explanation, is it smaller or larger than the supposed effects of west African genetics?
Note that I could make exactly the same argument as Chief Pendant from the results of Norway in the winter Olympics. I could point to one of the many maps of European genetic population structure, note that one can make out Norway, and hence declare that the difference is “obviously” due to genetics.
Of course, the genetic difference is much smaller than the difference between an African and a non-Africa group, but since we have no established standards for what is a sufficient difference, that makes no difference.
Go right ahead.
Make sure it also accounts for why the Nigerian team sucks until it recruits Nigerians who grew up in America.
Then explain why nurture is such a strong factor in the World Champs, but not significant in a country as unequal, on racial lines, as we know America to be.
It doesn’t matter.
The sports argument is supposed to indicate that there are genetic differences in populations that affect athletic performance. And somehow, that is supposed to indicate that there also exists analogous differences in intellectual ability.
However, this neatly leapfrogs the fact that athletic performance can be affected by broad physiological changes, which are genetically simple. Leg length, frame, lung volume, oxygen uptake. And which can be tracked back to selective pressures.
Intellectual ability however, seems to be highly polygenetic (regulated by many genes), and pleiotropic (one gene influencing multiple traits). Nor have I seen any indication that selective pressure would be different.
The notion that a genetic component to athletic performance that varies between populations indicate the presence of a genetic variation that does the same for intelligence is a massive unsupported leap.
The notion that a genetic component to athletic performance that varies between populations indicate the presence of a genetic variation that does the same for intelligence is a massive unsupported leap
Real genetics is too hard, so they make up their own.
I’m amused by the idea that the evidence for a west african-based genetic superiority for basketball is not obvious.
It is.
In the US there is an excellent cohort comparison, and the idea that white culture somehow prevents a white kid from achieving NBA stardom is laughably naive, along with the idea that previously dominant whites just decided to roll over and stop trying when blacks were admitted to the NBA chain.
I’m not particularly interested in arguing the point other than to suggest the only reason for any resistance to it is a determination that human gene pools are more or less the same.
Silly.
So…how about the difference in creatine kinase levels for US black men and US white men. Is that because they are different average genetic pools?
If so, which gene variations has mother nature excepted from diverging in these two populations that have been separated by 65,000 years? If not, what causes that widely accepted difference in creatine kinase reference levels?
The notion that nature exempts genes for neurophysiology from diverging is a massive, unsupported leap. Nature acts blindly on all genes, not just the ones we don’t really care about.
In fact, the overwhelming evidence from cohorts studied supports that neurophysiology is not exempted from evolution. Why you can take a wealthy and privileged black cohort with essentially unlimited educational opportunity and educated parents and show they score barely on par with poor and underprivileged whites and asians. And no one, anywhere, using any effort to eliminate that difference has been successful.
No one. Anywhere.
The pattern has been stubbornly resistant to every initiative higher academics can throw at it for decades.
Highly privileged blacks. Unlimited opportunity. Enormous special assistance, black-specific programs.
Nada. The gap remains. The pattern never varies.
Real nature is too cruel, so genetic egalitarians are left hoping Creationists are right about the human race and evolution.
That’s not an argument son. When your opponent points out a total lack of evidence for your position, stating that you find it laughable that they don’t accept the idea because it’s obvious is not a rebuttal.
Why is it only actually expressed outside of west Africa?
Why is it only expressed in the US outside West Africa? Why isn’t there a team of English or Brazilian basketball stars? There are plenty of people west Africans ancestry in those countries.
It almost makes you think that the choice pursue basketball rather than soccer or acting is somehow affected by cultural.
Nah, that’s crazy talk.
If it was “obvious”, you’d be easily able to address the specific points I made.
No, it’s not obvious. It’s obvious that there’s some reason that black athletes dominate the NBA, statistically, but it’s not obvious that black athletes with greater amounts of West African DNA dominate the NBA. If you have even the slightest shred of evidence that black athletes in the US with more West African ancestry are better basketball players than black athletes with more European (or other) ancestry, then please present it. Otherwise, pack up your silly “obvious” non-argument.
No one is arguing that “mother nature” has exempted any genes from diverging.
Completely irrelevant, since not a single person in this thread is arguing that “nature exempts genes for neurophysiology from diverging”.
This doesn’t support your argument.
The gap has bounced up and down, and has only been measured for a miniscule fraction of human history. Opportunity is not “unlimited”, not even close. Opportunity is not equal, even for high-income black people.
Real arguments are hard, so CP makes up fictional straw-man “egalitarian” and “Creationist” crap that no one is arguing to pretend he’s winning.
This, as previous posters have posted out is neither an argument nor supports one.
That is quite true. However, words like “neurophysiology”, “genes” and “evolution” are not magical incantations that lets you wave the “just so” wand around.
Your argument, if I’ve understand it correctly is that since there has been a divergence 65 000 years ago, and we can observe differences in gene frequencies between the two groups, other observed differences must “obviously” be due to differences in average gene pools.
This, needless to say, is a wildly rickety edifice of reasoning.
First off, it seems based in an understanding of how evolution works acquired from the “X-men”.
Genes do not all change at the same rate. A human being shares about 50 % of its DNA with a banana. Athletic ability can be related to traits that are coded for in much simpler ways than intellectual ability. More complex, polygenetic traits do not necessarily change at the same rate as simpler functions.
Also, pointing out a difference in frequencies in one gene in a population does not mean that every difference between that population and others are genetic in nature. Especially if you cannot point out a clear adaptive pressure.
And while you seem very fond of the 65 000 years of initial separation, the lack of any standards for how much time is needed to establish clear differences in function across several interrelated genes in humans make it meaningless. And the genepool we are discussing is nearly halfway back to being fully mixed again.
Why? Because the difference is cultural. If it was genetic, the children of black couples who are high academic achievers would also be high achievers. Only the cultural explanation fit an observed pattern where they also underachieve.
I think I’ll need cites that this pattern exists in other nations. Outside of the US culture. Scandinavian adoptees. Black Russians. Pupils in Nederland. Because it seems that this genetic factor you say is so obvious is very hard to notice outside the environment of US culture and race relations history.
Finally, I think I must point out that you are trying to argue the same side of the case that has been argued by white supremacists, phrenologists, eugenicists, and people into racial hygiene. Your side of the argument really has no advocates with social standing. to put it very mildly. When you are arguing in favor of a publicly vilified notion, perhaps you imagine that condescension makes your arguments look stronger and more convincing. Here is a tip: It does not work like that.
When you are representing a socially vilified minority, trying to be condescending and ridiculing the majority does not look strengthen weak arguments. When you can’t answer an argument, trying retorts such as “Wordsmithing, LOL, laughably, obviously, it is”, etc this does not look as if you know what you are talking about.
It detracts from whatever seriousness your arguments may have had.
There should be an internet law that states any discussion of race will mention basketball at some point.
CP likes to use basketball as a intuition pump to get people to agree there are differences. It’s understandable because if white people can produce athletic specimens like Wilt, Jordan, David Robinson, LeBron, or dozens of other all time greats then they’ve been hiding them for 50 years.
On the other hand, it doesn’t quite work because white people can succeed in basketball just fine because a skilled player with average athletic talent can still dominate. Steve Nash was one of the greats, but he can’t jump over a piece of paper. A couple years ago Dwight Howard, who is built like a Greek God, lost the rebounding title to Kevin Love, who looks like a tubby lumberjack. Dirk, a white German, led a title team off stepback Js. The Spurs aren’t generally running teams out of the gym.
A funny little shift is there are a lot of good mixed players now. Fans joke about this being the “light skin” era.
But I’d agree that when white people are good at basketball, it’s different than the way many black players are. Manu might be the “blackest” white perimeter player ever. But usually, good white players are either three point specialists, slow footed but talented big guys, or shrimpy perimeter players who set others up.
Besides obvious athletic differences, another big thing is that black players seem to have much longer wingspans. White people have those T. rex arms, usually their wingspan is the same as the height. Manute Bol was the most exaggerated example of this. Jerry West, a great white player from the '60s, was one of the rare white people to have Go Go Gadget arms.
As a funny example, Shawn Bradley was 7’5" with a 7’5" wingspan. Kevin Durant is 6’9" with a 7’4" wingspan.
White Americans seem to have given up on basketball. White Euros obliterate white Americans in the modern era. It’s probably cultural because throughout the '60s and up until the early '90s good white Americans weren’t too hard to find. A lot of people blame crappy American training. Euros focus on team based fundamentals more than we do, generally. And lots of white Americans see basketball as a black sport.
Even little states like Greece, Lithuania, and Serbia would kick white American butt, forget France, Russia, or Spain. I’m not even sure who the last relevant American born white player was…John Stockton? Mike Bibby? Joakim Noah is elite and American born, though he plays for the French team. Hey, maybe Kevin Love will win a title this year playing the third wheel in Cleveland.
The Brazilian national team has been one of the better teams historically. They usually place well, and they have many good NBA players right now, e.g. Nene, Barbosa, Splitter, and Varejao. Though those last two are pretty pasty.
Africa is under developed basketball wise. I dunno about the West African thing. Hakeem was the best by miles and he was from Nigeria. Mutombo and Ibaka are from the Congo. Deng is from Sudan. Diop was from Senegal, but he was a role player. Steve Nash was born in South Africa. :dubious:
An all time Carribbean team would be pretty scary though.
Thanks, pops!
You may have missed the evidence, but feel free to tune in March Madness.
80 years ago when basketball in the US was closed to west african genes, the Great White Hope dominated.
As soon as it was opened to west african gene pools, whites went missing on the court despite:
- A much larger starting pool of wannabes–about a 4:1 ratio
- Much greater opportunity for grooming to be a basketball star
- Equal incentive to be a basketball star
- No loss of desire, with current games attended by overwhelmingly white patrons and their children (again, due to the general population ratio)
So, in summary, it would appear it’s your turn why the evidence supports some sort of equality in genes for this remarkably consistent disparity.
You can turn to sprinting next, explaining where whites have such diminished nurturing opportunity that they are flagging on the track.
Then pin some rah rah rah Great White Hope posters on your wall for your personal encouragement. 
But don’t look for the NBA and the Olympics to get particularly diverse Real Soon Now. That ship sailed when all comers got a chance to play, and mother nature’s capriciousness altered the gene variants inequitably in separated gene populations.
Bummer.