Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
No I don't dispute that but what I do dispute is the reasons you [fast twitch fibers] and others [genes alone] have given as to why, as well as, the inferences concluded from this fact - that blacks are better athletes or that the 100m event is somehow indicative of what it is to be athletic. This is what is stupid my friend as well as the utter negation of anyone ever running similar times just because they are not Black. Sure they may have a greater percentage within their group to do such performances but genetically speaking (even if that is the sole reason - and it is not) would not limit those genes to one group alone. Even if the ratio was 1:1,000,000 (which no one even knows but for my point it does not matter if you understand basic genetics) you would still have a number of other 'races' that would have individuals that could do such performaces. Furthermore, if it is soley genes then why is it that only a couple of black athletes have been able to perform such times. Those would be rare genes indeed - not only are they rare in the world population (only blacks) but they are rare in blacks (only those who have run those super fast times). So where are these special genes?
Some questions should be asked and points raised regarding this event (100m) though.
1) Why is it that previous slave nations (particularly Jamaica and North America) are the ones whose black population are the ones who hold those times as oppossed to those from Africa - 4 Africans (from the Continent) out of 39 people from slave nations. The point being how do we know that it is not Admixture (As we know took place with primarily European populations) due to slavery that is partially the reason for the success?
2) 1 person (Asafa Powell from Jamaica) alone has 44 of them. So using the '200 performances' number as oppossed to the performer sounds more impressive than it really is.
3) At this level of competition the actual differences are really not that great - for instance we look at a time like 9.60 as oppossed to 9.90 and say that this is huge - and it is when other competition is betwwen 9.60 and 9.89 - that person who has the 9.90 is going to be unrecognized and on a different tier. Yet the difference if feet measured at the finish line is roughly 7-8 feet - which is a really narrow margin over 100m. All that training, focus, and genetics for 7-8 feet. [If the 9.60 guy is going slightly over 10 meters/second at the finish then the 9.90 guy is 3 tenths of a second behind and appoximately 1/3 of that 10+ meters.] The difference between 'you suck' and 'superman' is 7-8 feet. Of course between that difference is a world of emotion and promotion if you know what I mean. Point - it really does not warrant the extreme statemnets that people derive from such performances that take place in ONE cherry piked event.
Just listen to this video of the WR performace and notice the complete and utter hype and hyperbole of the commentators. Gay is about 4 feet from Bolt at the finish and ran a 9.71 to 9.58 for Bolt. They just dismiss gay as being utterly destroyed. I get it but let us not lose site of reality. Quote: 'he is a long, long way back' - yeah I guess in the ultra world of the 100m - 4 feet is a long, long way back.
4) As stated above when did the 100m event become the standard to judge athleticism? Evolutionarily speaking it is really useless seeing that even Usain Bolt is still the slowest creature in the jungles (wait he can't run that fast in the jungles - make that the Savannah). Top speed for him (Mr. Unique Freak) is about 27 mph - how many preditors can he out run?
Anyway, do not get me wrong, I love the 100m races but I am frankly sick of the ignorant conclusions from the results - which everyone seems to love to point out when talking about athletics and genes. Yet they can not cite the African genes responsible. They fail to step back from the hype and from appearances and make unjustified inferences and fail to ask pertinent questions regarding the interplay of history, genes, diet, culture, and other biological and social factors and instead make blanket absolute statements without any facts.
No one is denying that people are different and that some groups may have percentages of greater potentiality than other groups but that is a far cry from saying that it is attributed to one factor (genes or fast twitch fibers) or that no one from the other group will never perform at a similar level - particularly when you cannot back it up with facts - not just apppearances.
Take the same person and his family and move them to Minnesota and after a couple of generations see what happens.
Again you can't factor out environment, culture, or history when discussing this issue.
Where I live, all the gas station attendants from a certain brand are Sherpas. Their superior lung capacity and other physical traits are really helping them to be extremely effective on the job.
You ever thought about the many many black guys that dont fit your stereo type? So Im smart good with people,cant dunk and was an average athlete at best. So where does that leave me?
You are missing the point completely and seem to be correlating someone believing different groups may inherit certain traits with the good 'ol boy "All black people look alike" racist babble.
Is your doctor a racist for testing you for sickle cell and not testing a white patient? Of course not, you have a higher risk of inheriting the disease. If you have a family history, your chances go up. It doesn't mean you're going to get it.
I'm sure you have in your family smart and personable ancestors, probabally some athletes too. Sounds like you were dealt more cards from one deck than the other.
There seems to be an assumtion that it's a 0 sum game when it come to inheriting traits. Because someone is a gifted athlete does not mean they will be stupid. If you're married, have an athletic wife and have kids, you've got a great shot of having kids that excel in the classroom and the gym.
You ever thought about the many many black guys that dont fit your stereo type? So Im smart good with people,cant dunk and was an average athlete at best. So where does that leave me?
You give a good example of the reason why this topic is so difficult to discuss, not only on city-data, but in general. It seems that most people either don't comprehend or want to consider stastical averages. Racial or ethnic differences are all about averages. They don't apply every single person from each ethnic group. They are just averages.
To give an example of group averages, let's look at men and women. Everyone understands that men are stronger on average than women. This is not even disputabale. That's the reason that men and women compete in their own sports. That's not to say that all men are stronger than all women. There are plenty of men that can't compete with many women physically. The fastest female sprinter is faster than the average male, but the fastest female sprinter is not faster than the fastest male sprinter. These same type of differences in averages apply to race and ethnic groups as well. So while the fastest east Asian sprinter is faster than the average human, as well as faster then the average person of west African descent, he is not faster than the fastest west African.
Group averages do not represent every individual from the group. That's what really needs to be kept in people's minds when they discuss racial differences.
As for the "fallacy of race", I'll tell you what, I'll look at a group of people who have a northern European ethnic backround, and a group with a sub-Sahara African ethnic backround, and I absolutely guanantee that I'll be able to tell which is which. Then you can shuffle the two groups together and I'll be able to separate the two groups with almost 100% accuracy. So whether you, or anyone else thinks race is a fallacy is irrelevant. Everyone sees race. Everyone knows what it is. The question is, are you going to use race to be judgemental. I for one am not.
And I will tell you why you're 100% wrong.
How do you classify someone like Obama?
Obama's Mother is of European descent. That means his mtDNA (which you inherit from your Mother) is an ethnic European haplogroup. His deep genetic ancestry on his mother's side is European.
Obama's Father is of African descent. That means his Y-chromosome is an ethnic African haplogroup. His deep genetic ancestry is African on his father's side.
If you didn't know what his mother's ethnicity was, how could you tell that he's not only of African descent, but of ethnic European descent?
How do you classify someone like Halle Berry who's mother is of European descent. She ONLY carries, and can only pass along her mother's mtDNA to her offspring. Her genetic ancestry says her maternal line started in Europe. On the surface she appears to be "black" but genetically her deep ancestry says the females in her family history started as "white" European and over time and selection became to appear more African. Going back even further in all of our genetic ancestry everyone started as African and over the course of 400,000 years morphed into the appearance across the globe that humans have today.
How would you know who has European ancestry if you didn't know something about their background. Put Halle Berry next to Nicole Kidman and they both have the same deep genetic ancestry. On the surface they look different, but their DNA tells a different story.
This is why the concept of RACE is a fallacy. Superficially the way we look is only an expression of an arrangement of different alleles that code for various features. On the INSIDE, it's our DNA that tells the TRUE story of who we are and HOW we became what we are today.
If you believe that you can determine someone's "RACE" only by just looking at them, then you are using superficial qualities to describe what "group" someone belongs to according to the way they look. How someone looks on the surface isn't the true picture of who they are genetically.
When people argue that "race" matters with regard to behavior, and physical talent in sports, it really means absolutely less than ZERO, because people use "race" to categorize people according to how someone looks on the surface. The DNA is what tells the true story of who we are. There is no scientific or genetic basis for race.
This is why the concept of RACE is a fallacy. Superficially the way we look is only an expression of an arrangement of different alleles that code for various features. On the INSIDE, it's our DNA that tells the TRUE story of who we are and HOW we became what we are today.
If you believe that you can determine someone's "RACE" only by just looking at them, then you are using superficial qualities to describe what "group" someone belongs to according to the way they look. How someone looks on the surface isn't the true picture of who they are genetically.
When people argue that "race" matters with regard to behavior, and physical talent in sports, it really means absolutely less than ZERO, because people use "race" to categorize people according to how someone looks on the surface. The DNA is what tells the true story of who we are. There is no scientific or genetic basis for race.
That's not true. As you've already stated, we can use genetic testing to determine a person's deep ancestral roots. What we call "race" in America is just shorthand for a person's ancestry. It's true that how we decide to categorize someone often has to do with cultural and political factors. Indians, for example, used to be categorized as White, but they lobbied to get their own category in the census so that they would get minority status. But even when Indians were put into the ethnic category of White, they were still genetically distinguishable from people of European descent.
And the idea that science doesn't support the concept of race is something that is pushed by cultural anthropologists. Forensic anthropologists can determine a person's race(at least with regard to the major continental groups) by looking at an individual's skull. Genetics studies have also found that people match up with their chosen racial category 96 percent of the time.
Obama's Mother is of European descent. That means his mtDNA (which you inherit from your Mother) is an ethnic European haplogroup. His deep genetic ancestry on his mother's side is European.
Obama's Father is of African descent. That means his Y-chromosome is an ethnic African haplogroup. His deep genetic ancestry is African on his father's side.
If you didn't know what his mother's ethnicity was, how could you tell that he's not only of African descent, but of ethnic European descent?
How do you classify someone like Halle Berry who's mother is of European descent. She ONLY carries, and can only pass along her mother's mtDNA to her offspring. Her genetic ancestry says her maternal line started in Europe. On the surface she appears to be "black" but genetically her deep ancestry says the females in her family history started as "white" European and over time and selection became to appear more African. Going back even further in all of our genetic ancestry everyone started as African and over the course of 400,000 years morphed into the appearance across the globe that humans have today.
How would you know who has European ancestry if you didn't know something about their background. Put Halle Berry next to Nicole Kidman and they both have the same deep genetic ancestry. On the surface they look different, but their DNA tells a different story.
I was just listening to the radio and Louis Gates was on and talked about the exact same thing. He noted that 85 percent of Dominicans have mitochondrial DNA that traces back to Africa, which to him showed that they were Black.
Here's the problem with that: mitochondrial DNA doesn't have anything to do with your genetic makeup. It's a convienent and inexpensive way to find out ancestry and relatedness, but it only tells part of the picture.
With Halle Berry, if she had a son with a European man, their son would show both European ancestry on the Y chromosome and on his mtDNA. Would that mean that he was 100 percent of European ancestry? Of course not. You have to look at autosomal DNA, which matches up much better with a person's outward appearance.
The fact that Nicole Kidman and Halle Berry might both have the same mtDNA haplotype doesn't mean much. They are genetically different from one another. Nicole Kidman is much more similar genetically with someone from her own ethnic group than she is with Halle Berry.
I was just listening to the radio and Louis Gates was on and talked about the exact same thing. He noted that 85 percent of Dominicans have mitochondrial DNA that traces back to Africa, which to him showed that they were Black.
Here's the problem with that: mitochondrial DNA doesn't have anything to do with your genetic makeup. It's a convienent and inexpensive way to find out ancestry and relatedness, but it only tells part of the picture.
With Halle Berry, if she had a son with a European man, their son would show both European ancestry on the Y chromosome and on his mtDNA. Would that mean that he was 100 percent of European ancestry? Of course not. You have to look at autosomal DNA, which matches up much better with a person's outward appearance.
The fact that Nicole Kidman and Halle Berry might both have the same mtDNA haplotype doesn't mean much. They are genetically different from one another. Nicole Kidman is much more similar genetically with someone from her own ethnic group than she is with Halle Berry.
The fact remains that there is no genetic basis for race.
Across the human species people are far more genetically similar than they are different.
Autosomal DNA throws everything in one big lot and there's no way to determine from which side you inherited what. Because every company tests differently no scientific definitions for genetic ethnicity are universally accepted.
If Nicole and Halle share the same haplogroup they have a common ancestor. My genetics are going to be different from anyone's genetics I am not directly related to in a direct bloodline e.g. by DNA. If they have the same haplogroup, they share a common ancestor.
Obama's Mother is of European descent. That means his mtDNA (which you inherit from your Mother) is an ethnic European haplogroup. His deep genetic ancestry on his mother's side is European.
Obama's Father is of African descent. That means his Y-chromosome is an ethnic African haplogroup. His deep genetic ancestry is African on his father's side.
If you didn't know what his mother's ethnicity was, how could you tell that he's not only of African descent, but of ethnic European descent?
How do you classify someone like Halle Berry who's mother is of European descent. She ONLY carries, and can only pass along her mother's mtDNA to her offspring. Her genetic ancestry says her maternal line started in Europe. On the surface she appears to be "black" but genetically her deep ancestry says the females in her family history started as "white" European and over time and selection became to appear more African. Going back even further in all of our genetic ancestry everyone started as African and over the course of 400,000 years morphed into the appearance across the globe that humans have today.
How would you know who has European ancestry if you didn't know something about their background. Put Halle Berry next to Nicole Kidman and they both have the same deep genetic ancestry. On the surface they look different, but their DNA tells a different story.
This is why the concept of RACE is a fallacy. Superficially the way we look is only an expression of an arrangement of different alleles that code for various features. On the INSIDE, it's our DNA that tells the TRUE story of who we are and HOW we became what we are today.
If you believe that you can determine someone's "RACE" only by just looking at them, then you are using superficial qualities to describe what "group" someone belongs to according to the way they look. How someone looks on the surface isn't the true picture of who they are genetically.
When people argue that "race" matters with regard to behavior, and physical talent in sports, it really means absolutely less than ZERO, because people use "race" to categorize people according to how someone looks on the surface. The DNA is what tells the true story of who we are. There is no scientific or genetic basis for race.
Well, first of all, "race" is not just about looks. Race in the unscientific layman's world is about differences in individuals based on their ethnic backround, their ancestors' "post-Africa-exodus" region of evolution. Looks can be a part of it, but looks is not the end-all of unscientific racial identification.
Here's the reality... Take 100 persons of Sub-Sahara African ancestry and take 100 persons with ancestry from northern Europe. Mix them up. I can tell you which is from Northern Europe and which is from sub-Sahara Africa with 100% accuracy. Of the 200 people total, I'll hit all 200 correctly. I'll bet you could do the same thing. Whether the scientific community calls that "race" or not is pretty much irrelevant to the world. And that's the reality. I am the first to admit that it is a trouble-causing reality. But it is the reality nevertheless. And all the science in the world likely can't change it. It's like saying that the Bible should be dismissed because science has proven that the universe wasn't made in seven days, and an arc can't carry all the world's animals. So, are people dismissing the Bible?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
