Top American gets whipped by Top Female at Boston!

A reason african-americans are better at basketball, football, and other sports is that they were actually selectively breeded for size, strength, and physical ability when captives as slaves. Slave owners selected the best stock for working, ie. big, strong, "athletic". They also attempted to breed out intellegence. These genetic lines are the starting point hundreds of years ago for the african-americans today, so there should be no wonder why they, as a whole are bigger, stronger, and more "athletic". Just a thought.

That should read "bred for size...." not breeded, my brain isn't working correctly yet.

someone wrote:

A reason african-americans are better at basketball, football, and other sports is that they were actually selectively breeded for size, strength, and physical ability when captives as slaves. Slave owners selected the best stock for working, ie. big, strong, "athletic". They also attempted to breed out intellegence. These genetic lines are the starting point hundreds of years ago for the african-americans today, so there should be no wonder why they, as a whole are bigger, stronger, and more "athletic". Just a thought.

Please refer me to some academic evidence for this nonsense.

Academics is too PC to even think about doing these kinds of studies. I don't think it is hard to find evidence of policy of slave owners selectively breeding slaves to get the most favorable traits for their profit. I also think it is pretty widely known that slave owners would kill a slave that they knew as being able to read.

While you're at it please refer me to any "academic evidence" that states that slaves in America were allowed to openly "breed" (for lack of a better term) and determine their own genetic lines.

Who said there isn't? All I said was that the emperical evidence suggests people of west African decent are genetically superior when it comes to sprinting. I didn't say genetics is all that matters. I didn't say genetic differences in populations plays any role in who has the best stock car racers, basketball players, etc. Heck, I didn't even say west Africans have a genetic advantage in sprinting. I only said that should probably be our starting assumption since the only evidence we have suggests that it is true.

Number 1: I never said anything about jumpers and hurdlers.

Number 2: Females of west African decent ARE overly representated in world sprinting lists. What is your logic for excluding women from the US? Women of west African decent don't dominate the sprint lists in eastern Europe and Russia because there are very small numbers of those women in eastern Europe and Russia. What countries were you refering to where there is a significant population of west Africans, yet they aren't well represented in the sprinters of that country?

Number 3: Even if the same evidence didn't exist for women it wouldn't matter. There are lots of genetic differences between populations that are present in men and not in women and vice versa. Sickle cell anemia is one, if I'm not mistaken.

A stupid thread gets stupidER. Yet another discussion over race. Get over it already.

top american still would not finish too far ahead of #1 woman, if that.....

Miles is right - this is getting stoopider.

Sickle cell is probably caused by a single gene - "running" requires thousands" - there isn't a single gene that makes someone a great runner. Fact remains that all populations have a tiny percentage of people who have the right gene combinations to be exceptional - but no evidence exists that these combinations are better expressed in one population than another.

The posts about slaves being "selected" is the biggest bunch of rubbish I've seen yet!!! There's been less than 10 generations between the slaves and today - and slaves were "selected" for only a couple, about 10 orders of magnitude less than the minimum needed to see any significant evolution in any population. Don't forget that many african descendents in the US (and probably most NBA players) have a mixed genetic package owing to the number of young black slaves that had children from plantation owners.

It's a convenient excuse for white American distance runners to blame our poor performance relative to the Kenyans on race - that's what pussies who can't live up to the fact that they do not work as hard, race as hard, or suffer as hard do. Our best are just as capable as the Kenyans, and someday one will come along and prove it. Today's top Americans are either 1) not our genetical cream of the crop, or 2) are not training as hard and smart, or 3) don't believe they can race with the Kenyans and therefore don't, or 4) some combination of the above.

Slavery years: 1501-1865, that would be 364 years of very aggressive selective breeding practices on a relatively small population of people. Now, evolutionary changes would not occur, that would be a new species being evolved, but certainly specific traits that are hand picked would come to the surface. This does not even count the years pre-american captivity where many of these slaves were in bondage in their homeland.

That does not mean that all african americans would be great NBA players, but the genes to do so would be more common.

You are not going to get the "directional" selection that you infer in such a short time span unless you are putting selection pressure on an isolated population - slaves were breeding with other slaves that were already here, slaves brought over later, and stupid southern white folk. You guys are acting like we put 10000 Africans in a park, killed the smart little ones, and ended up with bunch of big stupid stupid black people! No evidence at all suggests that any of this is true!! You guys need to read what you write before hitting that "post message" button.

Bum wrote:

Fact remains that all populations have a tiny percentage of people who have the right gene combinations to be exceptional - but no evidence exists that these combinations are better expressed in one population than another.

But there doesn't seem to be any evidence that the possibility should be dismissed out-of-hand either, which you seem to be doing. Why can't you admit that we don't know if it is true or not, rather than assuming it is not?

And why haven't you addressed the sprinter question? It's not direct genetic evidence but it seems to be pretty strong indirect evidence.

When faced with a lack of evidence, you assume the simplest explanation. Since Kenyans have been dominant only a short period of time, and since you can explain their dominance easily WITHOUT invoking some strange genetic processes that we have not identified, then you assume there is no genetic difference. And time will probably show that you made the correct assumption.

You're right, there is not any direct genetic evidence, so you again assume the simplest explanation, and there is no way that you can make any arguements that Kenyans were somehow isolated from other populations, had some selection pressure that only worked on them to make a population of faster people. Not plausible. No, let me restate - wrong!

You want to know why this genetic thing does not work? You have to assume that this population of Kenyans evolved isolated from other populations (nope!) and were subjected to selection pressures that the rest of the populations were subjected to. It's just plain wrong!!

I guess the gene for sub-2:09:00 withered away in the USA subculture/species after 1983 with the exception of the endangered Doctor Bob K. in 1994?

Bum, I totally agree with your points. I don't believe there are genetic factors that make people of african background better at distance running and sprinting.

We have so many sports to choose from here in the US that our best runners might not be our most physically gifted. I'm sure it's like that in other countries where soccer is the most popular sport. Many of our talented kids decide to play football, soccer, basketball, baseball or wrestle in high school. Some never even run.

Zipp wrote:

You're right, there is not any direct genetic evidence, so you again assume the simplest explanation, and there is no way that you can make any arguements that Kenyans were somehow isolated from other populations, had some selection pressure that only worked on them to make a population of faster people. Not plausible. No, let me restate - wrong!

Up until a couple thousand years ago east Africans were essentially an isolated population, as were the natives of west Africa, and North America, and Australia, and Asia. That's why they all look different. What was the selection pressure that caused Asians to evolve straight black hair? I don't know. It must have been some strange genetic process that we have not yet identified.

People of west African decent dominate the sprint lists of every country in which they make up a significant portion of the population. What is the simplest explanation of that?

Simplest explanation = culture

no, genetics are the overriding factor.

PROVE IT!!!! You can't. hahahahahahahahahhahahahahhahah