[quote]Shadowzz4 wrote:
TheBodyGuard wrote:
heavythrower wrote:
in a hurry, did not read the entire thread, sorry if this has been covered already. the more diversity a paricular race has in their DNA, the more likely that that population is going to produce an athletic freak. there is more diversity in the genome in an east african village than all of europe and the americas combined. so it would be easy to assume that people of east african decent, more than likey have more diversity withen their DNA, thus more likely to produce extremes in one area or another. be it intelligence, height, or athletic ability.
can people of european decent prduce stud speed athletes form time to time, yep, just does not happen as often. is the current 400 meter world record holder not white?
for more detail on this stuff check out the most recent national geographic magazine.
Eureka!!! Finally, I ray of intelligence - fine post White Boy. The intelligence in your post is undoubtedly due to your rather limited athletic ability - which in turn, required you to study more to learn how to be “crafty” or otherwise get by on your intelligence. LOL.
J/K - nice post.
And just to muddy the waters, and piss people off, and open your minds, - while we’re wondering aloud why no white man has gone sub 10 in the 100m, could we take some other human endeavor relying on intelligence and wonder aloud why no black man had accomplished the same as a means to validate a theory?
I hope not.
WRONG! East african genes are not more capable of producing an athlete at the extremes of endurance and power if that is what you were alluding to. Name one athlete that can trace his lineage from east africa that is good at a power sport and I will give you a sticker.
East africans are speed, west africans power. There is no master gene pool that has the best of both. Or that may be white athletes, seem to not be as good at either extreme but are moderate at both. And to the poster below me dont even start with the whole intelligence thing unless you have evidence to back it up.
When we are talking differences in the 100m times keep in mind that there are far fewer people of african decent in a situation that allows them to excel at speed sports than there are white athletes and they still have the fastest times. Training for speed sports is expensive, especially with regard to food and more precisely protein that not many people in africa have access to, distance running…eat some rice and go run.
Dont just think because your white you have to find something that white people are better in. We are talking about physical attributes here. No one on this board is knowledgable enough to even talk about the physical attributes never mind the intelligence of humans from certain areas, dont even start.
[/quote]
Dickhead, as I’m fond of saying, reading is fundiminental - I made that statement as a means to illustrate how flawed the argument of the alleged lack of white men going sub 10 in the 100m. While conclusions on either side may be proven one way or the other - that reasoning of that 100m statement was as equally flawed as my intelligence statement - it was an illustration Mr. Dumass.
And by the way, lest you actually believe I’m ignorant, yes, I’ve studied, with a passing fancy, anthropology - where we can find scientific, yet politically incorrect answers to the differences between the so-called races.
Where would you like to begin? Want to start with comparative skull thickness among the races? Oh yes sir, the information IS out there is you want to find it. Find it and let’s discuss it. Instead of this nonsense about 100m times, basketball players, etc., let’s at least inject some actual science.
To begin, an excerpt…
"American Anthropological Association
Statement on “Race”
(May 17, 1998)
The following statement was adopted by the Executive Board of the American Anthropological Association, acting on a draft prepared by a committee of representative American anthropologists. It does not reflect a consensus of all members of the AAA, as individuals vary in their approaches to the study of “race.” We believe that it represents generally the contemporary thinking and scholarly positions of a majority of anthropologists.
In the United States both scholars and the general public have been conditioned to viewing human races as natural and separate divisions within the human species based on visible physical differences. With the vast expansion of scientific knowledge in this century, however, it has become clear that human populations are not unambiguous, clearly demarcated, biologically distinct groups. Evidence from the analysis of genetics (e.g., DNA) indicates that most physical variation, about 94%, lies within so-called racial groups. Conventional geographic “racial” groupings differ from one another only in about 6% of their genes. This means that there is greater variation within “racial” groups than between them. In neighboring populations there is much overlapping of genes and their phenotypic (physical) expressions. Throughout history whenever different groups have come into contact, they have interbred. The continued sharing of genetic materials has maintained all of humankind as a single species.
"
Let’s leave that white boy can’t jump stuff at home - and discuss this interesting topic with a foundation of at least some damn science.