Genetics - split from Rip critique thread

Wibbs

blackgold>> wrote: »

I will agree that what I call black others will call something else.
Colour is not race is a fair and valid point.I will in my post call them by there ethnic origins in future.As you knwo we have Mongoid, Caucoid, and negroid. each having various characteristics.Would you argue against that?Some people say there are 5 races by the way.

Actually I would argue against that. It's far too limited a description. Race as an idea is largely a victorian construct. It has little overall basis in genetics. Genetics talks about populations. That's very different. Yes certain populations appear to have similar phenotypes such as skin colour, but within that, there can be huge variation. And in unexpected ways. Lets look at "white" Europeans. There is more phenotype diversity as far as eye, hair and even skin colour within that population. All the way from near silver eyes to near black eyes, from almost white blond hair to red all the way to jet black, dead straight to very curly. Sometimes you can even see this in the same extended family. Compared to other populations the difference is quite striking. At first sight an observer would reckon Europeans had a very diverse genetic background, yet we have among the lowest of any large scale population. Far lower than African or Asian populations, who have a much wider spread of genes going back for far longer. As I pointed out Neadertals had white skin and blond and red hair(possibly black), so their phenotype looked quite similar to our own. Indeed except for the stocky build and large noses they could walk down a street in Europe and not really be noticed much(especially the later more gracile type). If you stood a stocky modern human beside a Neandertal and beside him a Massai tribesman, a casual observer would be not be wrong in thinking the two "white" fellas were related, purely on observable phenotype, yet they were as far apart genetically from "us" as it is possible to be. 200,000 years + further away. A different species. This is why I would have a scientific objection to race as a concept.

Well you admit that genes do play a part.You don't want to say there black or white thats fair enough. Do you think calling them west-african traits or kenyan traits is more appropriate?I do and i'll agree with you once agian.
But this does not change the fact that african americans who came from a certain part of africa have better genetics suitable for a certain sport.

I could go along with that somewhat.

If lances legs were full of fast twitch fibers then he would not even be known to you.

Which I agreed with. Though Lance has quite a few of the fast twitch fibres actually as he was known more as a sprinter before his cancer. Indeed many commentators have suggested, not without merit, that the cancer treatment that wasted his body actually helped him to rebuild his body into one more suited to winning long distance races, as he was too muscular and bulky before.

Good point as you can see genetics do matter.
Enjoyed reading that thanks.

I for one never said genetics don't matter. Of course they do. I would take issue that said genetics are based on an outmoded and unscientific notion of race.

What wibbs said was not correct.I pointed that out. Whats your point?That you support wibbs when he's wrong? "more efficient oxygen transport system". Did i say it mattered that they have lower levels of haemoglobin? No I did not.

Actually I was correct and somewhat agreed with you. You just read it wrong or I wasn't clear enough for you. I said that people from a high altitude environment will have a more efficient oxygen transport system, inc higher haemoglobin levels than other populations in a different environment. So Kenyans of that population would be better for long distance events, if they also had more slow twitch muscles. They would not in general make good sprinters. Some Africans from another population may be more genetically gifted with fast twitch fibres which would make them better sprinters.

As for african americans, while you can make general assumptions based on their results in different events, the reasons for those results could be based on more than just genetics. Access and interest and trailblazers would be bigger factors. Certainly in America. More black kids do athletics and basketball as it is cheaper to get into. Less take up competitive cycling as it's not. Does this mean blacks can't cycle on a genetic level? Hardly. Tennis was a good example. Few black kids took it up, until the black middle class gained ground in America. 20 years ago, with the exception of Arthur Ashe(and he was of mixed "race" so of course.....), you could have equally argued that "blacks weren't suited to tennis"(and I remember that people did). Now the Venus sisters have knocked that one on the head. Watch as more do. Cycling is another one. In the 80's Ireland fielded some world class cyclists. Out of the blue. Does this mean the Irish are good cyclists? Nope it was due to many many factors beyond their genetic heritage. Golf? where were the black kids? Oh look.... Weightlifting? Correct me if I'm wrong here folks but do not the turkish have a huge presence on the world stage. Is this down to their genetics or is it down to the fact that it is a more valued route to kudos in Turkey, so everyone wants to be the next whomever? Table tennis and the Chinese lads and ladettes. Are the Chinese genetically gifted with ping pong? Nope. They love it as a sport, more do it and so more will get to the top and wow, it looks like they have a genetic advantage.

I would contend if the 100 metres suddenly became the most popular sport in the world among white kids, I would put damn good money that in one generation you would have white men and women jostling with black men and women at the front. Simply because more would be coming through and among them people with, yes a genetic advantage. Little to do with race. It's down to numbers in a population going for a particular event

g'em

blackgold>> I'm finding your tone very patronising and irritating so after this post I don't think I want to continue engaging in this discussion.

blackgold>> wrote: »

You've yet to explain why caucasians can't win the 100meters Or get below 10 seconds.

Who says they can't? Just because it hasn't happened it doesn't mean it's impossible.

blackgold>> wrote:

Random african american population have highter testosterone,longer limbs,less bodyfat per (bmi),denser bones,noticabley faster motor skills,up to 40% better metabolic pathways,shorter trunks,higher percentage of fast twitch fibers and are more prone to obesity and osteoporosis.
Would you disagree or agree with any of those traits?
Feel free to discuss one at a time.

How can I disagree or agree with conjecture? Who says they have all the above? All the studies you quoted thus far are looking at athletes and are 50+ years old.

blackgold>> wrote:

I will agree that what I call black others will call something else.
Colour is not race is a fair and valid point.I will in my post call them by there ethnic origins in future.As you knwo we have Mongoid, Caucoid, and negroid. each having various characteristics.Would you argue against that?Some people say there are 5 races by the way.

Characteristics, yes. But this is not genetic predisposition, it's selection and breeding. All ethnicities are capable of carrying equivalent genomes - there is no exclusivity involved in being from one background over another.

blackgold>> wrote:

Well you admit that genes do play a part.You don't want to say there black or white thats fair enough.

That's ALL I'm saying.

blackgold>> wrote:

Do you think calling them west-african traits or kenyan traits is more appropriate?

No, because I'm yet to be convinced that they are exclusive to those groups of people.

blackgold>> wrote:

What wibbs said was not correct.I pointed that out. Whats your point?That you support wibbs when he's wrong? "more efficient oxygen transport system". Did i say it mattered that they have lower levels of haemoglobin? No I did not.

If you're going to make sweeping statements they'll be misinterpreted. You're probably better off clarifying yourself instead of dropping sentences into the discussion without qualifying them.

What was the point of what you said then?

Wibbs

g'em wrote: »

Characteristics, yes. But this is not genetic predisposition, it's selection and breeding. All ethnicities are capable of carrying equivalent genomes - there is no exclusivity involved in being from one background over another.

Nail on head. Ignore my longwinded post. This sums it up pretty much.

Racing Flat

blackgold>> wrote: »

I'll get back to you later on tonight wibbs Racing Flat and amazingemmet.
It took me awhile to reply so, later.

No need to get back to me as I'm not agreeing or disagreeing with anyone, just stating the indisputable, incontrevertible facts...

Genes determine athletic potential

Gene-environment interaction determines whether athletic potential might be fulfilled

Gene-environment interaction in conjunction with personal factors (motivation, confidence, tactics etc.) determine athletic performance

.