Why are black people so fast?

[Az]

Genetically conditioned features come in a package. That is why. It's the same reason that the Arabs and the Persians got the largest penes in the world, while the Chinese and the Japanese got the smallest ones (read this somewhere a few days ago ).

You're reading the wrong.. magazines.

[Ming]

Azazel...

What part of my last post DIDN'T you understand....

[Az]

ok, sorry.

[Jac de Molay]

Re: Re: Why are black people so fast?

Originally posted by The Vagabond
Genetically conditioned features come in a package. That is why. It's the same reason that the Arabs and the Persians got the largest penes in the world, while the Chinese and the Japanese got the smallest ones (read this somewhere a few days ago ).

It's not penes, it's penii.

Proper plural usage is important.

[Az]

You better edit it out. NOW.

[Ming]

DetroitDave... I'll ask you the same question...

Looks like people are just DEMANDING to be restricted today

[SlowwHand]

Azazel getting a little excited.


You people.

[TCO]

Originally posted by Tingkai


Interesting links.

I thought the following was significant:


If this is true then we could hypothesise that:
1) It is not all blacks who are fast sprinters;
2) It is not all East Africans who are fast sprinters;
3) It is people from specific tribes/communities.

This would make sense genetically. For some reason, these two tribes have genes that make them great runners. Those genes are confined within a small geographical area among people who happen to have black skin.

Now probably those "runner" genes have dispersed throughout East Africa to a lesser extent but are concentrated in one community.

This indicates a potential problem with the studies being done. The scientist goes to Africa and does a study of Kalenjin people and then jumps to the conclusion that results are valid for all black people. That might be true, but it is also possible that the people tested are actually from a select group that the scientist doesn't recognise.

So the question we should be asking is not why are blacks so fast, but whay are Kalenjin people so fast.

Ting, yes. I'm sure that the actual story of genetic effects is more complicated than black/white. There are significant ethnic subgroupings in each "race" and these groups have variances in genetic endowments. But if you accept that idea, it seems like more of a support for the idea that there are general racial differences as well. Basically, you're accepting the heridity argument and just showing it to be more complex. At this point, I don't think Berzie, would disagree with you.

[TCO]

Originally posted by Tingkai


GP: You need to take your own advice.

If you are saying x=environment and y=diet then I never said that a strong dependence on y proves x is not a factor.

x is nature (genes). y is nurture (environment to include diet, and physical environment). You also need to differentiate between the time scale of an effect on a person and that on a population. There are different effects going on. (Watch out for Lamarkian fallacies.)

What I said was the Berzerker's hot cause tall/cold cause shortness hypothesis is incorrect in and of itself.

I don't think Berzie would have a problem with refinements showing that things are more complicated when you take into account tree cover, etc. That doesn't do anything to eliminate the first factor though. (See the F=f(x,y) concept.

[QUOTE] There is ample emphirical evidence showing the hypothesis is not valid. The average height of people in cold regions can be tall, and average height of people in hot regions can be short.
(Han Chinese stuff excised by mistake)
[QUOTE]

You are doing it again. If you show that two genetically identical populations of Han Chinese vary in diet, it does nothing to disprove the idea that genes may have an effect independantly. See the F=f(x,y) concept. What you have to do is hold diet constant and vary genes to make that argument.

Yes, a change of diet will affect height. We have evidence that suggests this is true.

During the previous century, the average height of 17-year-old Japanese males increased by six inches. Most of that increase occurred during the post-WWII period.

The most accepted reason for this rapid increase in average height is the change in Japanese eating habits. They began to eat more western foods, and I'm not talking about McDonalds. I'm taking about eating/drinking more milk, cheese and wheat-based foods all of which were not traditionally part of the Japanese diet.

So as Japanese people began eating more western-style food, they began to grow taller.

However, the increase in average height might be a result of increase quantity of food consumed rather than just type of food eaten.

Still, it is clear that diet has a significant impact on height and it can overshadow genetic influences. Just because a Japanese father is short doesn't mean his son will be of similar height. The statistics show that Japanese sons are taller on average than their fathers.

I didn't ask that question.* Stop and think for a second. F=f(x,y). Do you really think that there is not genetic component to stature? That if there is it does not vary by population? We would be the only animals that this holds true for, if that were the case. Lions, tigers, bears, deer, elephants, horses, dogs and such all vary in size depending on breed/location (in a genetic manner).

*You keep wanting to show me how F changes when cycling x and keeping y constant, when I asked you the reverse. Have you ever had multivariable calculus?

[Az]

Sloww... *looks at ming*.... Nevermind.

[SlowwHand]

Gosh, Azazel. What was wrong with a mere observation?

Just in glancing through here, I'd be surprised if no one has said something REALLY ignorant, like because they train with a watermelon under each arm.

[Ming]

If the thread turns in THAT direction... somebody might get a LONG vacation...

[SlowwHand]

No joke.
I was even surprised at the thread's existence .
Then it stayed. Then people said some odd things.
Math was funny to use, I thought.

[reds4ever]

Originally posted by SlowwHand
No joke.
I was even surprised at the thread's existence .
Then it stayed. Then people said some odd things.
Math was funny to use, I thought.

Why? granted the thread title couldn't have been worded better, but on the whole the threads remained reasonalby senisble. BTW math is a BIG aprt of evolutionay theory.

[Japher]

At the risk of being banned:

I do think that the abilities of all races (not just those traits that make a black person seem to run faster) are in some way genetic, or more like passed down through genetic code by breeding for dominant characteristics. Whether it had to do with sociological, environmental, or religious rites I am not sure, but it was probably more oriented to what area, time, and state of the economy of the world one was in, that would determine what they looked for in a spouse.

Also, since back in the day, arranged marriages were more the norm, breeding for such specific characteristic was more common. Why? Because those who were dubbed "royalty" were generally done so based on these characteristics; smarter, faster, stronger, could swim farther, etc... If one had these traits they were more likely to a) survive their rite of passage b) be recognized by their leaders, or even c) become royalty themselves.

I think in more recent times, however, these traits are still what we, as people, look for in other mates. Yet, it is disguised in the mess that is society, and takes forms of attraction to likes, instead of having your father, mother, or someone else, point, grunt, and tell you two to get married.

What does this have to do with African being better runners, at least in certain areas? Maybe it was a part of their rite of passage over the many generations, maybe it had to do with their society, environment, or economy... Whatever the case it is genetic. Yet, it is the same genes as others have, only that those others developed other genes through the years...

Side note: Anyone ever see Rapa Nui?