Genetic variations effects on athleticism in homo sapien

haha wow. For the nature vs nurture argument nurture is getting assraped right now.

what I said in the other thread that pissed off some people is that different races each have a most efficient way of speaking because on physiological differences such as slight differences in muscle attachment locations in the head and neck and other language producing regions of the torso. I learned this from a university professor of anthropology. Now in light of these recent posts showing people that race is possibly more than a single genetic trait for skin color. Can people finally stomach what I was trying to say?

and for all you to say im a racist, im not. I just cant stand eating shit. I like knowing the truth. I appreciate that the world is round.
 
to answer this question look no further than the NFL

how many white people do you see in speed positions (DB, RB, WR, etc...)?

or even just the lack of white players in the NFL

or even look at your grade school/high school gym class, who were constantly the fastest/most athletic kids in class?

to deny these simple facts is pure ignorance, i think some whites are just scared and intimidated that their race isn't so superior after-all
 
its evolution baby

anyways, even though i do agree about races have superior traits. i think its a unsportsmen thing to say "oh jamal beat me in a race because he's black". a black person is more likely to beat you in a race because maybe you just aren't as fit as he is, so you need to work on that. no one should be making excuses or quitting sports because black people seem to be dominating. if anything that should just be motivating you to start pushing yourself 110%
 
lol i'm not making excuses, the guy im going to be playing behind on the depth chart at uni is a jamal kearse reincarnation, and i dont plan on playing behind him for long
 
Actually, it's been scientifically proven that there is no gene for race. Looks like you lose. Now, countless generations of a particular race living in a certain environment and coping with additional natural stresses could mold genes to endow more athletic ability, and these genes would obviously be more commonly found in people of this race... but race and athletics are not directly related.
 
tell that to the tenured anthropology professor who pays more taxes in a year than youll earn in 10.
 
Such subtle sarcasm here. I'm too lazy to find links, but I took a badass special interest class about this exact kind of shit and I can assure you, there's no gene for race. If you don't believe me, well you're wrong, but given that I have no proof you can pretend to be right I guess.
 
how bout, "pics or it didnt happen". Your special interest class is especially full of shit, why dont you actually think about what you just said and figure out if it makes any sense at all

if there is no gene for race AS YOU SAID what the fuck makes some people born WITH A TAN and others without one?

yah?
 
Of course there isn't one gene that accounts for race, but there are genetic markers specific to races, and there are gene sets that are contained in the population. Traits are often linked and inherited together, which is why particular races seem to show a set of particular traits.

Are you just argueing it isn't one gene that determines race or are you saying that races do not have characteristic genetic markers, and that race related traits aren't linked?
 
Uhm, that's a gene for skin color, not a gene for race. Skin color may be what humans have decided on as an indicator of race, but it has nothing to do with the fact that a person's Caucasian or whatever and everything to do with their ancestors' living conditions and environment. Are you telling me that the gene that tells my skin to be white is also giving me my athleticism and so on? Because that's ridiculous. There's not even one specific gene for skin color, much less one specific gene for skin color and a person's natural athletic ability.

I'm not saying there aren't marked differences between races, what I'm saying is that race isn't the cause and it isn't across the board. Certain genetic traits are just going to be much more common in some races than others.
 
For example, have you ever wondered why we are called the "human race"? Biologically, race doesn't exist and all humans are genetically similar enough to be considered one race. Race is a human construction and we chose skin color as the defining factor. If you honestly think there's an Asian gene, you're an idiot. It was a white guy who saw a yellow guy and was like "Yo, that guy's doesn't have white skin color, he's different than me" even though skin color is as minor in alteration in genetic material as eye color, which is not considered "race-specific".

I don't argue unless I know I'm right, so have fun beating your head against a wall champ.
 
I've said it once (to Quinny) and I will say it again... " Why don't you spread your infinite wealth and

idea political views else where? You fucking come onto a ski website to

flame any one who brings up info/ideas which you find unacceptable. I

know you are a smart guy, but the fact that you come on here and try to

undermine every fucking person is just lame. Join a debate team or

something to get your superior intelligence some exercise."

 
we are all genetically similar enough to be considered one SPECIES is what you mean to say you idiot. We are all part of the human species just as all dog breeds are members of the wolf species. We can all interbreed and produce fertile offspring so we are biologically the same species. German shepards and australian shepards are different breeds of a species just as chinese and korean are different people of a species, but the shepard breeds are both more closely related to eachother than they are to say a chihuahua , just as the 2 asian peoples are more closely related to eachother then they are to say the polish.

So if instead of the wolf species, you said the wolf race, does that mean that all the breeds of dog are actually only one dog breed or one dog "race"?

 
yea no. we are mostly the same just with very small differences like skin color, eye color, hair color, etc. but whats inside is VERY similar to every one, and whats inside is what counts :)
 
and your argument is ambiguous and doesn't prove anything in the first place anyway.

All you do is say "there is no such thing as race". real fucking convincing
 
no, i know there are differences in every one but i see no reason to divide every one. why not focus on what we have in comon? and anyways with interracial relationships we will all be even more the same soon
 
Uhm no, I didn't. I said that a gene for skin color isn't equivalent to a gene for race, which is true. If you think about it for more than three seconds when your head is at least partially removed from your rectal cavity, then you'd realize it makes perfect sense. Your argument claims that there is a "Caucasian" gene that dictates I have white skin. Why would biology even know what a Caucasian is? It wouldn't. So, if it's just a skin color gene, how would that dictate athletic ability? Are you dumb?
 
I know you think you have a real cool theory going here, but if you combine common sense with the points I've provided, it just doesn't make sense. I don't need to provide links, it's fucking obvious. Use your head, man.
 
Theres so much confusion and anger here that I'm completely baffled. You guys are debating some pointless shit. You're trying to back up psychology with biology (and vice versa, if I understand it). What is your point?
 
ok check it out son,

If west africans make the best sprinters, and they are black as a people, than its pretty hard to be a white of west african decent.

still with me?

so if you made a generalization that the fastest sprinters in the world are NOT WHITE, you would be correct, because no white people are of WEST AFRICAN decent.

your saying that race is more complex than just skin color. Thats true, but it doesnt change the fact that genetic factors determine the characteristics of a people, and skin color remains more or less constant within a population.

Its theoretically possible to genetically engineer a caucasian with black skin. But at least for now, a populations characteristic skin color will stay constant, and skin color will not separate from other genes representative of that population.
 
i think this is an attempt for yauch to prove he is smart and redeam himself for his blatently rascist last thread. but is failing at the proving he is smart and is just barfing up someone elses words and ideas.
 
hahahahaha your the dude who was harrasing me in pm's calling me a child preditor, fag, retard, saying i cant read, etc... and im harrassing you? and im sure im not the only one who had to deal with your immature insults.
 
cause everything you say in my threads is against me, you harassed the fuck out of me in these threads and you have no clue what the fuck your talking about. For all I know you are a child predator. Why dont you quit posting shit like "yauch is just barfing up somebody elses ideas" and contribute something useful and ill stop telling you to fuck off you faggot
 
just proved what i said. and obviously you ignore when i do contribute. and i dont agree with what you say so obviously im going to post against your points, thats what arguing is. and i never said i was an expert but i have taked some science class's and do have some common sense. and i said you are barfing up somebody elses ideas because this thread is completly about what somebody else said, those who wrote the article in your main post. and seriously is the name calling necisary? grow up
 
i admit i am no english expert, kinda funny cause my grandma was a english teacher. she is probobly rolling in her grave right now.
 
I'm not arguing that, in fact I agree with almost everything you say here. What I don't agree with is that there's a gene that dictates that because I'm West African, I am automatically a fast runner because it is an attribute of that particular "race". There's a gene that makes their skin black because countless generations have lived in West Africa where it's sunny and hot as fuck, so now black skin is part of the gene pool there and is passed on by default. It's still not a "racial" gene, as such a gene doesn't exist. It's a black skin gene that became so central to living there that it became the most common, and then the only gene available.

Now, it's clear that being a fast runner is valuable in West Africa because there's a gene that promotes natural athletic ability that is commonly found in that region. That's not a result of their blackness, however, or their West Africanness. It's a result of the fast people being vastly more successful and passing on their genes more often than the slow fucks, so now, that gene is predominant. It's not inherent, there's slow West Africans just like there's fast white guys. Even if it is inherent and all West Africans are speedy, it's still not related to their race.

What you're saying is that correlation equals causation, which is wrong. There's a correlation between sleeping with your shoes on and waking up with a hangover. The shoes didn't cause the hangover though, drinking that entire bottle of Jack Daniels on a bet did, but you were hammered and forgot to take off your shoes. If you went to a lot of parties and people kept sleeping with their shoes on and waking up with hangovers, it would be conceivable that the shoes were causing the hangovers in the morning. That would, however, be false. Just like assuming that there's an Asian gene that promotes mathematic ability. Or an African or black gene that promotes athletic ability.
 
I'm not saying that we should be breeding people for their traits or genetically engineering humans, but I don't have the power to stop that either. If we created the nuclear bomb what makes you think we won't create a highly genetically altered human. In fact, it is probably happening right now.

I do think it is retarded to censor science to try and support socially comforting ideas though.
 
dude you and quinny both sound exactly the same in your posts with your condescending shit and your clever cutdowns. Your like the same person
 
I didn't read the thread that prompted this one, and this one is mostly hating, so there's not a whole lot actually going on that's relavent.

When whoever it was implied that I support eugenics, a word with Nazi connotations today, thats getting close. Just because someone recognizes that some races are better inclined for certain traits than others doesn't make then a eugenicist, at least not in the popular sense of the word.
 
I guess I'll just end this now.....

Your argument

there are real physical differences between different races of people.

AKA I think black people are born to run faster

lets take a look at the articles you posted, I'll just grab the first few lines from each one, good thing you actually read these....

Fuel economy

Just as

more aerodynamic cars get better gas mileage, the KENYAN build helps

explain their fuel efficiency. A recent British TV documentary

described the Kalenjin as possessing "birdlike legs, very long levers

that are very, very thin [on which they] bounce and skip" along.

KENYAN runners also have a

higher concentration of an enzyme in skeletal muscle that spurs high

lactate turnover and low lactate production.

And heres the part where you say BUT WAIT THIS LAST PART SAYS....and I say well lets look at the facts shall we? To argue this you would post this tid bit up

A

team led by exercise physiologist Adele Weston of the University of

Sydney, Australia, compared BLACK South Africans, whose running

strengths are similar to those of KENYANS, with WHITE runners.As with the KENYANS, the BLACK South African

runners accumulated less lactate and had higher levels of key muscle

enzymes.

So this is the part you say HA I TOLD YOU! And you would be wrong. There is no info here at all, white runners from where? Russia? Great they run a TON there not even from the same continent! Also there is no specific numbers here, they could be .0000000000000000000000001% better but you wouldn't even know. And to completely reverse this and I'm not going to site this but on the science channel I was watching a show on UFC fighters, Randy Couture actually reversed the lactic affect and had more stamina. HE LITERALLY DEFIED SCIENCE, so check that show out. I don't see any KENYANS or BLACK South Africans doing that.

Next arguement

A little more twitchy

Whereas

East Africans dominate long-distance running, West Africans have surged

to the fore in short-distance events. LITTLE RESEARCH has been done on

West Africans, but there's powerful CIRCUMSTANTIAL evidence for some

physical advantages

Well, it looks like you have no solid facts here, great one to pick! I LOVE circumstantial evidence!

Various

studies have shown that West African athletes have denser bones, less

body fat, narrower hips, thicker thighs, longer legs, and lighter

calves than whites. But the differences between East and West Africans

are even more striking. The fabled Kenyan runners are small, thin, and

tend to weigh between 50 and 60 kilograms, whereas West African

athletes are taller and a good 30 kilograms heavier, says Timothy

Noakes, a prominent exercise physiologist and researcher at the

University of Cape Town.

Your argument is....

FULL OF HOLES IT SAYS RIGHT HERE THIS HAS EVERYTHING TO DO WITH WHERE YOU COME FROM

Running ACEs

Bouchard's group, for example, is collecting DNA samples

from 400 runners and other top endurance athletes from the United

States and Europe, but he says they haven't spotted any running genes

yet.

NO HARD FACTS

Kenyans are faster because of the sole fact they live in KENYA, not once does it say black people are mad fast yo!

Well, what have we learned here today children? Read things before you start posting random facts on the internet that have not been proven. You can't prove circumstance

Now, please shut up

 
I'll start off by saying i didn't bother reading past the first page because I can't really stand it. But with that being said...

to the thread creator:

You're talking like an idiot and completely missing the point here. Genetics is such a complex and difficult subject. You really need to take an upper level biology or genetics class. Based on what you've said so far, trying to explain meiosis, segregation, independent assortment, crossing over, and the overall process of sexual reproduction and the transmission of genes, would be absolutely pointless.

 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top