[quote]drewh wrote:
Wow original calling out grammar mistakes, anyway it’s simple gentics you dumbshit not breeding in anyway. GENETICS [/quote]
HAHAHA.
Right. I’ll give you a minute to think really hard about the irony (or rather, stupidity) of your statement.
It’s not ironic at all breeding over a hundred years or so will not make a difference dumbass that’s like saying Blacks are less intelligent than whites because of breeding. Did breeding occur yes there is historical evidence in written documents. Did it make a difference in blacks athletic ability NO. I really don’t feel like arguing you have no real evidence to support your ideas and arguing with an idiot such as yourself is tiring so peace out retard.
[quote]drewh wrote:
It’s not ironic at all breeding over a hundred years or so will not make a difference dumbass that’s like saying Blacks are less intelligent than whites because of breeding. Did breeding occur yes there is historical evidence in written documents. Did it make a difference in blacks athletic ability NO. I really don’t feel like arguing you have no real evidence to support your ideas and arguing with an idiot such as yourself is tiring so peace out retard.[/quote]
Are you fucking retarded?
I have 10 people. 5 male and 5 female.
1 of the males is very big and strong. The other 4 are weak and small.
2 females of the 5 are tall and strong. The other 3 females are, in comparison, weak.
i have the strong male breed with all the females.
Chances are, DUE TO GENETICS, that the strongest offspring will be the ones concerning the 2 strong and tall females.
I sell the strong male off for a good price and sell the weak males off for little and keep the offspring. I assume that the strong male will be mated with other women because he has desirable qualities in a slave.
A generation is 20-25 years.
That means in the span of 100 years you can expect to go through 4-5 generations.
Figure that into several hundred years and you can have 20 generations of selective breeding.
Selective breeding which focuses on keeping the biggest, tallest and strongest males and females that there are.
So the strong survive and breed and the weak will perish. This is the general case.
If you cannot understand this, then there is no hope for you and i pray that you never have kids.
did anyone say black people yet?
if not, black people!
Why is there no good white Running backs in the NFL?!
How about who has the WORST genetics?
Tied for 1st place would have to be Jews and East Indians?
[quote]drewh wrote:
It’s not ironic at all breeding over a hundred years or so will not make a difference dumbass that’s like saying Blacks are less intelligent than whites because of breeding. Did breeding occur yes there is historical evidence in written documents. Did it make a difference in blacks athletic ability NO. I really don’t feel like arguing you have no real evidence to support your ideas and arguing with an idiot such as yourself is tiring so peace out retard.[/quote]
I’m going to go out on a limb and say your parents were not too bright.
Obviously you still came out smart…
[quote]Bokkokan wrote:
How about who has the WORST genetics?
Tied for 1st place would have to be Jews and East Indians?
[/quote]
I bet you already have a solution for this.
ehh let’s not go there
[quote]Bokkokan wrote:
How about who has the WORST genetics?
Tied for 1st place would have to be Jews and East Indians?
[/quote]
Clearly you are mistaken.
Speed = Africans/Asians
Strength = Eastern Europeans/ Scandinavians/Asians (In particular the Chinese).
In my experience with training with many islanders (e.g., Samoans, Tongans, Maoris), they are quite strong, however this is due to their sheer mass/size. Not so, relatively speaking (strength to weight ratios). Generally speaking.
Holy Thread resurrections batman!
I don’t know many Pacific Islanders have ridiculously strong. I grew up in Hawaii and my high school has a 400lbs bench press club. Almost all the members are some Polynesian decent. Strength to weight ratio is very overrated as well since according to that the 150lb guy who can bench 450lbs is “better” than the 250lb guy who can bench 600lbs. Yet if you use those coefficient calculators we see the 250lber doing 600 is rated better
[quote]undeadlift wrote:
[quote]scottiscool wrote:
I thought I posted on this topic this morning but maybe not. I basically said what Phil did, different sports favor different genetics.
undeadlift wrote:
I wouldn’t be suprised if African-Americans had the best genetics. Their ancestors were used to work after all.
And then this sort of comment comes out and the thread will spiral totally out of control. Joking or not which I hope you are.[/quote]
Well, I hope nobody here’s too sensitive. It was just an objective comment.
Let me expound anyway as to avoid any misunderstanding. If you and your children and their children and their children’s children, etc. become gym lovers and lift heavy, chances are that your descendants will inherit genes conducive to heavy lifting. It’s simply an adaptive response that has shaped the genetics of many people.[/quote]
not to be an ass but this concept is completely wrong. the theory of evolution states that traits that are acquired cannot be passed down to an organisms offspring. acquired traits are not inherited. for example, i am the only powerlifter in my family. my dad never powerlifted, and neither did my grandpa. now, if the powerlifted, it wouldnt make a difference in my genetic make-up.
according to lamarck’s theory of inheritance of acquired characteristics, he proposed that giraffes got their long necks from stretching out to eat leaves of high trees, and that if they did this for long periods of time, their offspring would eventually evolve to the point that they had long necks as they do today. however, this is not the case.
Today, we understand how inheritance works and can see that Lamarckâ??s proposed evolutionary process could not work as he described it. Acquired characteristics are not inherited. The fact that a prospective father pumps iron doesnâ??t mean that his children will look like Arnold Schwarzenegger. Gregor Mendel, the father of genetics was born a few years prior to Lamarcks death, and his principles were not taken into consideration until many years later. so your idea is completely wrong.
unless the giraffes with shorter necks died off leaving the genetic mutations with the longer necks to propagate. he’s still wrong, because 300 years is not enough time for such a thing to happen. 3,000 maybe.
Prior to the end of slavery in the southern U.S. I’d imagine the average black man in the southern U.S. was bigger and stronger than the average man of other races in the southern U.S. Wether or not that was really the case I don’t know. Breeding people isn’t actually like breeding dogs or horses. If you’ve bread dogs with the best sent for 500 years, you’ve probably been through 200+generations and have already arrived at blood hounds. With people youd only have been through 25 or 30 and I’m not so sure that’s enough screening to have weeded out all the less desirable genes. Than, since slavery ended there’s been pleanty of breeding for that “superior gene pool” to have been watered down so how much of that (if it ever did really exist) is really going to be left today?
With that said, every sport has different emphasis on different physical features, so even if a race is predisposed to certain physical features they’re just as likely to be bad at one sport as they are to be good at another. (i.e. tall people with long limbs might excel at basketball, but they’d be at a real disadvantage in powerlifting). Also, cotton picking isn’t a sport, so slaves bread to be the best cotton pickers aren’t neccesarily going to excel at anything else.
What difference does it make anyway? Even if there wasn’t a million and one more important factors it’s not like you can go down the street to a clinic or something to get yours changed. And if your scouting for something, you’d be doing a poor job judgeing people by their race since even if it were true that one race was better than the rest for your sport in 95% of cases, than you’d be loosing out on the chance to scout that other 5%.
Post count +1
[quote]Bokkokan wrote:
How about who has the WORST genetics?
Tied for 1st place would have to be Jews and East Indians?
[/quote]
Actually, back in the 30s-40s Jews were considered the best race at basketball (lol) probably because such a large proportion lived in urban areas where the sport was primarily played
Mongolians.
[quote]Bokkokan wrote:
How about who has the WORST genetics?
Tied for 1st place would have to be Jews and East Indians?
[/quote]
Really? I’m a Jew and I deadlift 535 @ 164.
[quote]maxbm wrote:
[quote]Bokkokan wrote:
How about who has the WORST genetics?
Tied for 1st place would have to be Jews and East Indians?
[/quote]
Really? I’m a Jew and I deadlift 535 @ 164.[/quote]
Maybe you’re adopted? You’re parents didn’t happen to be in a task force of nazi hunters that killed Hitler inside a burning cinema did they?
[quote]The other Rob wrote:
[quote]maxbm wrote:
[quote]Bokkokan wrote:
How about who has the WORST genetics?
Tied for 1st place would have to be Jews and East Indians?
[/quote]
Really? I’m a Jew and I deadlift 535 @ 164.[/quote]
Maybe you’re adopted? You’re parents didn’t happen to be in a task force of nazi hunters that killed Hitler inside a burning cinema did they?[/quote]
No, I’m 100% Ashkenazi (Eastern European) Jew. That’s the most prevalent type of Jew in the world, comprising about 90% of Jews today.
BTW, I enjoy demolishing stereotypes. 
What a dumb topic…
