[quote]larryb wrote:
This seems like a strange argument, since clearly there is enough variation to create a dominant sunburn-resistant race. Are the genetic mechanisms that control other physical qualities so different?
[/quote]
Ok, lets see if I can explain this further. Mitochondrial DNA is 100% from the mother, so the similarities accomidate the idea of similar origin. A white man may be most genetically similar to a chinese woman (according to mitochondrial DNA).
The skin color development is thought to be based on uptake and manufacture of certain necessary nutrients in the body. Lighter skin adapted because sunlight was less concentrated in Europe so the body decreased the pigment to allow for greater uptake.
One problem with the whole arguement of race is defining races. We have all heard that our DNA is 98% similar to apes. If our DNA is that similar to a different species imagine how small the difference is between humans. It is not possible to look at DNA and assign a race based on differences in the genetic code. Race is a social construct and definitions have changed over history, like the change from English and free vs. slaves to white vs. black. It is very easy to point out similarities, it is harder, if not impossible, to point out an exclusive difference that separates races beyond skin color (even that is iffy).
If a person is gifted in sports and it is not hard work that got him there, genetics may play a part like dominance of different muscle fibers. The problem is when you associate it to race it again becomes easy to find a hole in that association.
I hope that made sense because I am rushed and rambling.
[quote]magblue wrote:
A white man may be most genetically similar to a chinese woman (according to mitochondrial DNA).
Race is a social construct and definitions have changed over history,
[/quote]
Two great points that need a bump.
[quote]BALBOS wrote:
thats bullshit.
white voleyball players jump higher than nba players.
athleticism has nothing to do with race.race is a cultural and not a scientific term.have you read latest scientific reports.
[/quote]
If that is true, which I doubt, but I could be wrong. Is because bball takes more skill than VB. We can’t spend most of our time working on our verts when there’s ball-handling, dribbling, passing, shooting etc.
Vb takes way less skill. I doubt they’re jumping higher than NBA players though! Show me a study or than just STFU!
[quote]BRUCELEEWANNABE wrote:
BALBOS wrote:
thats bullshit.
white voleyball players jump higher than nba players.
athleticism has nothing to do with race.race is a cultural and not a scientific term.have you read latest scientific reports.
If that is true, which I doubt, but I could be wrong. Is because bball takes more skill than VB. We can’t spend most of our time working on our verts when there’s ball-handling, dribbling, passing, shooting etc.
Vb takes way less skill. I doubt they’re jumping higher than NBA players though! Show me a study or than just STFU![/quote]
Volleyball takes way less skill?
Actually I would argue just the opposite. What do you know about high-level volleyball?
I’d be willing to be that top level volleyball players do have higher verts than top level basketball players. Just think about the damands of the sport, basketball is basically an endurance sport, running up and down the court for 2 hours, while volleyball demands maximal jumps 40-80 times per match with rest in between.
As a whole though, there’s probably not a single group that can hold a candle to football players in terms of vertical leap- maybe olympic weightlifters.
[quote]magblue wrote:
BALBOS wrote:
athleticism has nothing to do with race.race is a cultural and not a scientific term.have you read latest scientific reports.
That is entirely true. If someone looks at the mitochondrial DNA there is very little variation among the human race. There is more variation within a small group of monkeys than the entire population of humans on the planet. Not enough variation to create a dominant athletic race, social differences may cause race dominance.
Also, mitochondrial DNA is considered to be 100% from the mother, so that would support the idea that the entire human race came from a small group, somewhere, at some point (read that however you want).
[/quote]
MAGBLUE - do yourself a favor and pick up the book “Seven Daughters of Eve” - the book discusses your post. You’ll enjoy it and it’s a quick and easy read. And yes, we go back to the same “eve” about 7 of them but logic would dictate you could go back further.
[quote]larryb wrote:
magblue wrote:
That is entirely true. If someone looks at the mitochondrial DNA there is very little variation among the human race. There is more variation within a small group of monkeys than the entire population of humans on the planet. Not enough variation to create a dominant athletic race, social differences may cause race dominance.
This seems like a strange argument, since clearly there is enough variation to create a dominant sunburn-resistant race. Are the genetic mechanisms that control other physical qualities so different?
[/quote]
The genetic code for skin color is but a speck of the entire code. The genetic code for “Black” skin has nothing to do with all the attributes we think of necessary for elite athletic performance. I’ve said earlier in the thread, you name a so-called “black attribute” and we can find it in the white race as well and vice versa. Do a little field experiment today; blacks are supposed to have prominent buttocks or so the story goes…start looking around today - you will find as many flat black asses as you will whites.
[quote]Bulldawgcountry wrote:
I’ve only read about half of this thread, and I’m no scientist, but I have made an observation on the matt for myself. I attend a white school in an area that consists of many mostly-white schools. In track, if the other team has a black sprinter, he is always the best one on the team. I can think of six or seven schools in the area that have only one black sprinter, and I haven’t seen any exceptions. However, the fastest 100M sprinter in the county is white.
Am I saying that white people can’t be fast? No.
Am I saying that all black people are faster than all white people? Obviously not, since white sprinters beat black ones plenty of times. However, in my experience, it seems as though a higher proportion of blacks have the genetics for muscle and speed than whites.
This could be coincidence, could be correlation - I’m not sure. Just stating how it is around here.[/quote]
You’re ignoring a social issue that may drive blacks to pursue sports in a higher number than whites - population wise. You’re also ignoring the poor little white kid that hears this crap and NEVER even considers becoming or trying to become a sprinter. I also do believe blacks may mature quicker than white children and that would explain early performance and the shifting of an athlete to a certain sport or event. If you start out “behind” your peers, what are the chances that you will continue to push and attempt to develop?
On another note, I heard all this shit when I was a kid, “you’ll never dunk”…“only blacks can play basketball”. Well, 38" vertical and overseas contract later, they were all proven wrong.
I say the characteristics for elite athletic performance occur in all races and we are then divided by other factors. I remember a sport scientist years ago posited that for every Carl Lewis, there were 20 white Carl Lewis’ by virtue of our greater population - but that we may never discover them because of social issues - I firmly believe that.
[quote]RJ24 wrote:
Okay, there always seems to be talk about how black athletes have an advantage when it comes to power sports, especially when speed and jumping ability are involved.
As a white power athlete (100M sprinter) I think that they myths about blacks being faster or jumping higher are false. I say a white guy can be trained to jump just as high and run just as fast as any black guy.
As an example, I submit Pavle Jovanovic from JB’s G-Flux article. If one does the math, with his 30M time he could run the 40 yard dash in less than 4.3 seconds, and this is weighing 220 lbs.
So what does everyone else here think about the role race plays in athletic success? Please feel free to tell storiesand list stats when available.[/quote]
Genetics do play a role in athletic performance. Whether genetic advantages can be clearly mapped out along race lines is something I do not have the answer to.
However, I recall reading a book on athletic performance and race. The book analyzed several factors across dozens of professional athletes. The conclusion of the author was that the single common factor among all of the professional athletes was the fact that they put in 20+ hours per week of training for at least 8 consecutive years.
So to answer your question, the peole who excel in sport are the ones who pay their dues. Not necessarily the ones born with a genetic advantage.
Case in point, Lance Armstrong is a mutant on a bike, but if he didn’t train as hard as his genetically inferior peers, he would just be another mediocre cyclist.
Why is it only White vs Black? Apparently no other races are involved in any athletics?
Blacks dominate some sports…other races dominate other sports. Therefore, how can people say blacks are the best athletes? In certain sports ie: sprinting…no doubt they are the best. However, other sports such as swimming…no.
Genetics is a factor, as is: determination, social/economic situation etc.
[quote]ArcaneCocaine wrote:
Why is it only White vs Black? Apparently no other races are involved in any athletics?
Blacks dominate some sports…other races dominate other sports. Therefore, how can people say blacks are the best athletes? In certain sports ie: sprinting…no doubt they are the best. However, other sports such as swimming…no.
Genetics is a factor, as is: determination, social/economic situation etc.[/quote]
Good point but I think we make this comparision because we are looking at what some believe to be “opposites” e.g., blacks and whites.