[quote]OctoberGirl wrote:
No that would have been watermelon.
In the original post it says the place has chicken for $5.00 for lunch and dinner. I have no idea if they even serve anything else but referencing the OP’s post, they do serve chicken.
[/quote]
[b]joking…[/b]
While it is possible that this guy you saw had the best genetics in the world, you will never know because I guess you were too busy staring at his ripped abs (what was he shirtless in a jersey store?) to ask him if he works out. On the other hand, If you want to say his genetics are due to being African-american you might have a lot of explaining to do to all the 400lbs nothing but fat kids walking around in these ghettos where blacks live.
Big_Eats yes there is a difference between stereotyping and racism. This guy was being racist, fortunately it is harmless because it effects nothing.
To be honest I see nothing wrong with stereotyping, its basically a hypothesis it might keep you out of a bad situation if used correctly. “All black people have great genetics”
Racism can be dangerous, or hinder progress like when a person stops working out because he believes he doesn’t have the genetics. His racism was dangerous to his physique.
How is it racist? He sees a guy he claims has “Huge” ripped muscles, yet doesn’t think he pays attention to his body. Thats borderline stupidity. I’ve been to many places and I’ve never met a person (black,white, or other) who had huge muscles and did nothing to get them.
[quote]nephorm wrote:
OctoberGirl wrote:
No that would have been watermelon.
In the original post it says the place has chicken for $5.00 for lunch and dinner. I have no idea if they even serve anything else but referencing the OP’s post, they do serve chicken.
[b]joking…[/b][/quote]
NEPHORM!!!
I got the joke, which is why I said “No that would have been the watermelon”
[quote]meangenes wrote:
What do you mean when you say deduce? That is the topic of this thread. Genetics clearly play an important role in your physical development.
Are you saying then that you don’t agree that Africans have superior physical genentics?
This can be argued very extensively. And is too extensive to just claim that it’s not “worth the bother”.
Moors were Muslim Africans of Northern Africa.
But you are right about Italy not being exclusively Moorish. But then you have to see the Arabs as just decendents of the Africans anyway.
That’s besides the fact that Africans were the first human. So I guess by a kind of a long shot we are arguing that anyone closer genetically to the African or original man has superior physical genetics. Right?[/quote]
Hi meangenes.
You clearly know what you’re talking about, but I’m not sure what you mean by the Africans being the first human proving anything. Geography and genealogy have changed so much since the time of the first humans. That sounds like something C.S Coon would say (Actual American anthropologist, not a pun!) and that sort of pseudo-science has long since been discarded.
Also, I know who the Moors were, in fact I remember the scene from True Romance where Christopher Walken argued something along the lines of what you were about Sicily and the Moors.
That said, in the end, I agree with your point.
I’m not a scientist, but if you look at the effect of genetics on physical development, it is very profound. Different phenotypes tend to be good at different endeavours.
Western Africans that are fast-twitch dominant do well in threshold power-sports such as sprinting and American football.
But in general, I’m skeptical of this proposed overall superiority. I see many people with great genetics in Eastern Europe. In Scandinavia. What about Samoans? Australian aboriginals? These ethnic groups probably wouldn’t break the 10 seconds in the 100m but they definitely have their own share of freaks.
[quote]meangenes wrote:
Blacksnake wrote:
Southern Italians descend from African or Moorish blood.
[/quote]
It is true that southern italians,especially from the islands are darker, but still white, maybe not as white as a Swedish but not african either!!! Come on!
You can easely distinguish a northern african from a southern italian
[quote]Nikiforos wrote:
meangenes wrote:
What do you mean when you say deduce? That is the topic of this thread. Genetics clearly play an important role in your physical development.
Are you saying then that you don’t agree that Africans have superior physical genentics?
This can be argued very extensively. And is too extensive to just claim that it’s not “worth the bother”.
Moors were Muslim Africans of Northern Africa.
But you are right about Italy not being exclusively Moorish. But then you have to see the Arabs as just decendents of the Africans anyway.
That’s besides the fact that Africans were the first human. So I guess by a kind of a long shot we are arguing that anyone closer genetically to the African or original man has superior physical genetics. Right?
Hi meangenes.
You clearly know what you’re talking about, but I’m not sure what you mean by the Africans being the first human proving anything. Geography and genealogy have changed so much since the time of the first humans. That sounds like something C.S Coon would say (Actual American anthropologist, not a pun!) and that sort of pseudo-science has long since been discarded.
Also, I know who the Moors were, in fact I remember the scene from True Romance where Christopher Walken argued something along the lines of what you were about Sicily and the Moors.
That said, in the end, I agree with your point.
I’m not a scientist, but if you look at the effect of genetics on physical development, it is very profound. Different phenotypes tend to be good at different endeavours.
Western Africans that are fast-twitch dominant do well in threshold power-sports such as sprinting and American football.
But in general, I’m skeptical of this proposed overall superiority. I see many people with great genetics in Eastern Europe. In Scandinavia. What about Samoans? Australian aboriginals? These ethnic groups probably wouldn’t break the 10 seconds in the 100m but they definitely have their own share of freaks.[/quote]
Thank you for seeing my point. And thanks for the reply. For a second there I was wondering if my post was invisible, I thought it was highly relevant to the topic. Anyhow.
lol. I remember Christopher Walken killing Dennis Hopper for his supposed point.
I suppose I was trying to say something for the evolutionary factors that have taken place from mans evolutionary path (an argument in itself). From when man was a purely more archaic and more physical to becoming an upright, tool user (i.e. bigger brained).
Okay. Now this is where the argument tends to take a racist direction because clearly that would mean that further down the evolutionary chain man will have an even bigger brain and the further you travel from the “original man” the smarter we get/less physical/less athletic.
So I don’t know really. We could build on this subject for forever especially considering the scientific research that has been put into it.
But I was just trying to tend to topic at hand when I asked the question–Are you saying then that you don’t agree that Africans have superior physical genetics? I wasn’t trying to be condescending.
I’m still not all that sure that it can be written off as pseudo-science considering that, even as you said “but if you look at the effect of genetics on physical development, it is very profound. Different phenotypes tend to be good at different endeavours.”
The other thing is that, as you travel down the evolutionary path one might come to think that one race or the other would evolve slower mentally. I think this needs to be addressed and is the only thing pseudo-scientific about the entire study, if even implied. Skin color remained an adaptation because of the climate clearly, but where there any mental evolutionary hang-ups?
If not then what enforces the possible notion that blacks are more genetically superior evolutionarily? In turn what genetic factors are lacking if some are superior? Kinda push/pull, yin/yang, vice/versa.
I would really like to know if there is any direct correlation between athletic ability and race. I didn’t like that it was being written off as not “worth the bother”. It’s easier to prove and less contemptuous then trying to study the mental factors of evolution.
Found this.
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1208/is_n40_v219/ai_17495095
I proposed a lot of questions and made little points but that’s because I’m not a geneticist/evolutionary biologist but because it seems logical to me. I also think I kinda talked in circles but oh well. Let this be an intelligent base for this thread.
[quote]Horazio wrote:
meangenes wrote:
Blacksnake wrote:
Southern Italians descend from African or Moorish blood.
It is true that southern italians,especially from the islands are darker, but still white, maybe not as white as a Swedish but not african either!!! Come on!
You can easely distinguish a northern african from a southern italian
[/quote]
Descend, man, descend. Not - are exactly like. “!!!”
Sorry. Here.
[quote]Southern Italians descend from African or Moorish blood. The Moors of Northern Africa in particular. Kinda disproves your point. I kinda think that’s known as well, although most Southern Italians don’t exactly “throw it around” but Northern Italians will be quick to note that they are not of Southern heritage and Southern Italians will be quick to try and note that they are not of African heritage. Hence Northern Italian, Southern Italian, and North African[/quote].
I don’t know what you’re getting all “!!!” about. Look the Moors invaded Sicily and occupied it between the IXth and the Xth century. During this time, it became a prosperous emirate, and Palermo was a brilliant center of Islamic culture.
It was then later occupied by the Normans of Northern France.
One thing is for sure, they aren’t straight-blond-hair, blue-eyed like the Swedish either.
Technically I’m white too. I’m surely not as black as an African, there is a clear distinction. So I am white. Or not or hell, maybe I’m just BI-RACIAL. Not going to sit here and attempt to deny either one of my heritages. I am what I am. And proud, you should be too. I’m sure conquering Sicily wasn’t an easy task, and they wanted it for some reason.
[quote]Horazio wrote:
meangenes wrote:
Blacksnake wrote:
Southern Italians descend from African or Moorish blood.
It is true that southern italians,especially from the islands are darker, but still white, maybe not as white as a Swedish but not african either!!! Come on!
You can easely distinguish a northern african from a southern italian
[/quote]
Descend, man, descend. Not - are exactly like. “!!!”
Sorry. Here.
[quote]Southern Italians descend from African or Moorish blood. The Moors of Northern Africa in particular. Kinda disproves your point. I kinda think that’s known as well, although most Southern Italians don’t exactly “throw it around” but Northern Italians will be quick to note that they are not of Southern heritage and Southern Italians will be quick to try and note that they are not of African heritage. Hence Northern Italian, Southern Italian, and North African[/quote].
I don’t know what you’re getting all “!!!” about. Look the Moors invaded Sicily and occupied it between the IXth and the Xth century. During this time, it became a prosperous emirate, and Palermo was a brilliant center of Islamic culture.
It was then later occupied by the Normans of Northern France.
One thing is for sure, they aren’t straight-blond-hair, blue-eyed like the Swedish either.
Technically I’m white too. I’m surely not as black as an African, there is a clear distinction. So I am white. Or not or hell, maybe I’m just BI-RACIAL. Not going to sit here and attempt to deny either one of my heritages. I am what I am. And proud, you should be too. I’m sure conquering Sicily wasn’t an easy task, and they wanted it for some reason.
[quote]meangenes wrote:
I would really like to know if there is any direct correlation between athletic ability and race. I didn’t like that it was being written off as not “worth the bother”. It’s easier to prove and less contemptuous then trying to study the mental factors of evolution.
[/quote]
We did not overlook your point you did not understand that racism is the reason you think it would be easier to prove. It is not. Variables you never consider go into performance, so much so that it would take a massive study to ever find out if its directly correlated to race. Because color is in your face it makes it easier to say its because its race.
[quote]Airtruth wrote:
meangenes wrote:
I would really like to know if there is any direct correlation between athletic ability and race. I didn’t like that it was being written off as not “worth the bother”. It’s easier to prove and less contemptuous then trying to study the mental factors of evolution.
We did not overlook your point you did not understand that racism is the reason you think it would be easier to prove. It is not. Variables you never consider go into performance, so much so that it would take a massive study to ever find out if its directly correlated to race. Because color is in your face it makes it easier to say its because its race.[/quote]
I’m going to request that you take more time to think about what you just wrote and come back and explain it further. I think you’re trying to argue my point. But I can’t tell.
Don’t speak collectively either.
[quote]meangenes wrote:
Airtruth wrote:
meangenes wrote:
I would really like to know if there is any direct correlation between athletic ability and race. I didn’t like that it was being written off as not “worth the bother”. It’s easier to prove and less contemptuous then trying to study the mental factors of evolution.
We did not overlook your point you did not understand that racism is the reason you think it would be easier to prove. It is not. Variables you never consider go into performance, so much so that it would take a massive study to ever find out if its directly correlated to race. Because color is in your face it makes it easier to say its because its race.
I’m going to request that you take more time to think about what you just wrote and come back and explain it further. I think you’re trying to argue my point. But I can’t tell.
Don’t speak collectively either.[/quote]
I don’t feel like writing a book which is why I kept it short in the first place. I wasn’t trying to argue for or against your point which is why you might not be able to tell which side of the fence I was on. I was arguing the difficulty in trying to do a study on race and performance, since you said you would like to see a study on that.
I will not speak collectively when general statements are not made.
Anyway. Here this guy thought it interesting enough to write an entire book about it.
http://www.nytimes.com/books/first/e/entine-taboo.html
Jon Entine, the writer of that book states that:
And an interview from TalkBack Live.
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0001/28/tl.00.html
Ability and performance are two different things.
Ability is the quality of being able to perform.
To perform is to carry out an action or pattern of behavior.
Not what I’m proposing.
Genetics don’t perform. They set ability.
Hi again meangenes. I read that transcript you linked.
I think you’ll find Entine’s views express my main problem with your view of a certain superior set of genetics.
That being that I think different races and phenotypes tend to excel at their own set of physical activities which they’re most suited for.
Therefore it’d be inaccurate to label one superior to another unless referring to a specific task.
Perhaps I misunderstood you and you were saying that all along.
Regards, Niki.
[quote]Testy1 wrote:
beebuddy wrote:
eengrms76 wrote:
Pretzel Logic wrote:
WTF do you think when see someone with no teeth?
[/quote]
OH Boy, I’m getting a Gummer tonight 
[quote]Nikiforos wrote:
Hi again meangenes. I read that transcript you linked.
I think you’ll find Entine’s views express my main problem with your view of a certain superior set of genetics.
That being that I think different races and phenotypes tend to excel at their own set of physical activities which they’re most suited for.
Therefore it’d be inaccurate to label one superior to another unless referring to a specific task.
Perhaps I misunderstood you and you were saying that all along.
Regards, Niki.[/quote]
I don’t believe he is talking on the level of superiority, just on the level of what the body can do. Superiority is another subject for another day.
The books he quoted is fine in saying that there are genes that show 5 fingers. However this is my point again. The study would be too massive for the next 1000 years to prove that there is a gene in african americans that make them faster than anybody else on the planet. As much as I would like to see this study, it’s just not possibled(at least for a1000 years). This is why the author listed fingers as proof as opposed to speed and performance.
African-Americans have DOMINATED the sprints for years in the Olympics. The same African genes we have are in many of the genes in Africans, carribean, as well as european Africans. So maybe it has something more to do with culture than genes. Yes, carribean and european-africans in recent 15 years have stepped up in the sprint, but that is AFTER coming to the U.S. and being coached.
Example number 2, 100 years it was known that whites had better genes for endurance, until the last 20 years or so when Kenyans began their dominance. Now all of a sudden Kenyans have the genes for marathons rather than the fact they they run 100 miles a day from the age of 2. (Not worrying about overtraining, nutrition timing and all the other stuff)
The only way I can see a study happening is if you isolate a group of 50 or more babies (even from each other) and raise them identical can you truly test the genetic ability for performance.