ATTN Ober: Genetic potenial and difference in asians and asian americans?

[Chopstix]

mike, no offense taken.. i was just trying to create a worthy arguement. coincidentally, a report that was released this weekend showed that race does not show in genome, as in scientists cannot tell from race to race when their looking at different people's genes, so race is almost just skin deep. i think a lot of the differences are from eviroment and social differences..

[Grahf1]

Exactly.

[Mik_36]

diversity

Yes I heard the press release about the mapping of the human genome also. The problem I have when they say that humans have 99.9% of the same genes is the following. They also said that humans and all mammals have something like between 70% to 80% of the same genes and so the scientist on the news said that this could be explained by the fact that some genes are "active" in some species while in others they are not. This only makes sense because it is hard for me to imagine that we are 70% to 80% the same as a rat etc.. This kind of thing can be misleading and some people (esp. in the press) present it that way purposely (I don't think anyone hear is doing that, I think people are giving their honest opinions). For example I saw on Oprah a couple years ago, she brought out a huge aquarium full of marbles, she took out like 3 marbles and said, if this aquarium represents any human's entire genome then these 3 marbles could represent the differences in genes between any two humans on earth. What she did't mention was that if she took out like another 4-5 then that could represent the difference between the genes of any human and some of our primate relatives (chimps etc.). Unfortunately I think some people (like Oprah for one) have selfish political motives and their intentions are not necessarily to try to represent what is an accurate big picture. But look if there is no difference between people (we are 99.9% the same in genes) why do people even bother dating, you could pick someone at random and get married to her, right, people are all the same! The fact is that it doesn't take alot genetic difference to make a whole lot of difference between people (I suspect a part of this is because some genes are active in some and not in others). Let me give you an example, apparantly Anna Kournakova and the 400 pound woman on my street corner (that screams about Jesus) are 99.9% genetically identical, so why would any guy be choosey about which one he was to date?! I also remember back to my grade 10 biology class when our teacher said that race makes no difference due to the fact that a man and woman from any races can reproduce offspring, and that offspring can in turn reproduce offspring (the classic definition of what makes a species). Well, if that is the case then why do people refer to Neanderthals as such (we should be calling them homo sapians) there should be no distinction between them and homo sapiens because they believe that the two (homo sapiens and Neanderthals) could have successfully mated, and made fertile children. I should say here that I am not refering to Neanderthals to insult people (calling other races Neanderthals), unfortunately that name has alot of negative connotations, but I am not trying to use it in that light. So what I'm saying is that I think most people use their common sense and realize that people are different and there is nothing wrong with that (this is what makes life interesting right?), but I know there is a propaganda campaign currently under way especially in the United States to down play or deny that there would be any differences between peoples, and thus they tell half truths (tell the public the part they want them to hear), and occationally out right lies. But far and wide people just aren't buying it (they will often say they do, out of fear of being politically incorrect) but in private they are more open about what they really think (at least in my experience). Propaganda can never extinguish common sense, and what people think inside. It will just drive those opinions underground.

[SweepEm]

Man, you dudes got bitten by the same bug as Darren, symptoms are diarrhea of the keyboard.

Wipe your keys with some Kaopectate or Imodium

[Grahf1]

I had a hard time understanding that post.

[Dick S.]

Asians are smaller than whites or blacks in general, and tend to concentrate in sports that suit their body type. They'll catch up in time.

Baseball's reflecting that right now, and let's not forget Dat Nyguen, who dominated at Texas A&M as an undersized linebacker. Pretty amazing since his parents were what we call "boat people".

As for black athletic superiority, isn't the top male high jumper a Swede? And Jason Sehorn is a pro bowl caliber cornerback. And Sakuraba kicks the entire spectrum's ass..

[Oberleutnant]

Random notes:

-The japanese have their own professional baseball league- and I imagine they pay comparable salaries to the United states; playing in the US would require an unrelated incentive, I think.

-WHen comparing proportions of athlete race at the ELITE level, I think it's important to examine the proportion of the athletes participating at the entry-level, NOVICE stages in order for elite athlete comparisons to provide logical arguments (eg. - if at lower levels, the participants in the sport are primarily of a certain race, and at higher levels, they exist too in comparable proportions, then the argument holds little significance. But, if at low levels a race is a minority, then as levels advance they become increasingly frequent by proportion, and it occurs in more than one sport...then you know it's probably safe to assume it's more than just coincidence)

Here's an article that gives more food for thought regarding differences between West african VS East african geneticly correlated performance traits, as well as elaborates on some points I broght up previously(does a pretty good job of debunking environmental/social factors as being the SOLE cause, and exaggerated significance): http://www.salon.com/news/sports/oly...ace/index.html (1)

And if you still think it's impossible for any differences regarding physical performance traits to be correlated with a higher incidence of occurence per given race, why is an athletically correlated genetic trait any different from a pathological disease such as sickle cell disease, multiple sclerosis or melanin content or keratin chain configuration in scalp hair (afro vs straight hair) ?

Mick_36 saved me some trouble of lecturing regarding race being unidentifiable by genetics... (ex: We share 98.4 percent of our genes with chimpanzees, 95 percent with dogs, and 74 percent with microscopic roundworms) we aren't at the level of being able to 'translate' the entire conglomeration of data (beyond specific protein manufacture) from genes. Different breeds of dogs for example, share 99.99 of their genes, but, with current levels of science and technology, neither can geneticists determine which breed a dog belongs to simply by looking at it's genes. Wouldn't you agree significant pysiological differences exist between breeds? Would it be innaccurate to say, greyhouds generally make better runners than poodles? Pitbulls better dog fighters than cocker spaniels? Mastiff's bigger than chihuahua's? Or are the PHYSIOLOGICALdifferences between breeds really all a result of social/environmental and not genetic? Would a poodle raised at the racetrack grow up to resemble a greyhound with comparable performance? I think that's kind of silly. If we can;t even determine which genes will finally determine keratin configuration or total melanin content, which specific genes will be expressed, and how to exponentially extrapolate the data from those genes to determine that, how can we expect to determine more complex things such as motor skill capacity and adaptation, or specific protein ratio differences in muscle/osteoblast cells and fiber differentiation? It becomes increasingly complex as the body develops and as information is transcripted from DNA and finally expressed as a specific protein or abscence of protein(which is the only data individual genes posses, amazing isn't it? We are still pretty much clueless as to how to assemble each tid bit of data in order to determine the final outcome in most traits. If geneticists came across the genome for an undiscovered species, they wouldn't have the vaguest idea what the animal looks like by viewing its genome, we simply aren't that advanced yet). We would be able to tell if a person(assuming he isn't a mutant) had strong african heritage if he possesed the genes for afro hair or extremely high melanin content, wouldn't we? If we could identify genes for blond hair and no other color in an individuals genome, in addition to low overall melanin content, does it not cancell out that he still could be black?

For an article taking a look at the most recent Olympics from a genetic perspective, check out http://www.jonentine.com/reviews/sfexaminer_entine.htm

Regarding the high jumper example... high jumping is a very skill dependent sport as well. Ex: Elite olympic lifters have much higher straight verticals than elite volley ball players, runners, basketball players, and high jumpers.... anecdotal evidence supports this, and comparison & testing of athletes at the 1976 Olympics confirms it, as well as other studies. But, they aren't the best high jumpers.

Regarding training influence... many of the studies involving black anaylsis involved children to mitigate the potential of training differences as well, and "coincidentally," findings were similar in that blacks seemed to share the same traits at adult elite levels.

Regarding muscle biopsies, I'm well aware the angle of pennation of fibers can potentially cloud results if it is not consistent. However this was a carefully controlled aspect in much of the research. Besides, even if angle of pennation of fibers was not consistent, it would take a very high proportions of specific fiber type for virtually all studies tohave consistent results, further supporting the initial cause of the argument. True-science has't defined the precise causes of hypertrophy (energy expenditure imbalance theory carries the most weight right now in the scientific community)... but it's irrelevant. Regardless of training backround, blacks of western/eastern african descent still largely posses these disticnt characteristics of fiber type ratio. Exercise physiology has largely indicated how muscles respond to specific exercise parameters and protocols. Other things, such as muscle bellies & insertion points, assessed post-mortem, note additional differences...immutable factors that are not changeable through training.

If genetic factors cannot be the primary determinant of motor skill & mechanism potenial, why is it black(be it american, african, french, dominican) babies typically begin walking 3 months earlier than babies of other races? If genetic factors cannot be a significant determinant of maturation & inherent physical traits, why is it they have a typical gestation length of 8 months, instead of 9? Why is it hospitals around the world record virtually identical findings, regardless of geographic location, culture or economical status?

Why is it that in most sports where a significant number of blacks participate, yet are the overall minority, they end up being the predominant group at the elite level? Take sprinting for example... people around the world practice it. In the US, at the highschool scholastic level, it's predominantly white. Worldwide, blacks are even more of a minority. At the collegiate level in the US, it's predominantly black. Worldwide, blacks are still the minority. At the elite level, whites are virtually non existent when it comes to records and top spots, nationally and internationally.

With basketball & foot ball, same story... if you've ever travelled around the country and are familiar with HS sports teams, whites overall, are the predominant athletes (I'm aware in specific areas blacks are the predominant group...but that's irrelevant-I'm talking about the big picture)...in college they become a minority, and at elite level even moreso. Why is that, if blacks are the minority? Coincidence? (Don't bring up golf, tennis etc. -how many blacks do you see participating at HS level or playing recreationally?)

Also, please don't take my statements out of context. I never said ALL blacks posses better traits conferring to increased performance potential for ALL sports. For example, there isn't a single black weight lifter or power lifter I can think of that has held a world record, or even a national title(well.. there is a small, disproportionate handfull of previous nat'l title holders, ie Kent Johnson, but none that I know of have ever held any all time records). Their longer limb proportion isn't advantageous to the mechanics of competitive lifting. In swimming, their higher bone density & physiological traits conferring to lower subcutaneous bodyfat in homeostasis creating a denser body, decreasing buoyancy, which does not confer to optimal performance and is a detriment.

Here's another article touching up on the topic: http://www.testosterone.net/html/5speed.html

On a final note... in no way am I saying simply because a person is of another race, he will necessarily be the better athlete. What I am saying is that certain races posses high incidences of specific genetic traits conferring to specific aspects of athletic performance capability, and that these traits can conferr to increased potential per given sport. Excellence in sport is dictated by many factors other than genetics; training history & preparation, strategy, & the psychological aspects most importantly. However, genetics in my opinion, can surely go a long way in affecting odds of success in a given sport. I know I've forgotten many points I've intended to bring up, just can't remember right now. If you're interested in this topic I can recommend a few resources, and I may comment later if I have the time & inclination. I'm pooped!


XOXO Ober

"People should know when they are conquered" -Gladiator




[Edited by Oberleutnant on 02-17-2001 at 04:36 PM]

[Mik_36]

Great Post Oberleutnant,
He is absolutely correct. I would also like to address the people who refer to individual pro or collage players when trying to argue that all races are equal (i.e. Jason Sehorn, or a Chinese guy on some collage team). THESE ARE ISOLATED COUNTER EXAMPLES. We are trying to argue about broad trends not "Jason Sehorn is white, and so in general whites are as good at playing Cornerback as blacks", please. By refering to isolated individual examples you only proove our point more. Like I said, give me the teams of the people you are using as examples, I will myself go look at the make-up of that team's roster and it WILL be predominatly black. If your arguement held any water at all you would expect most rosters (in the U.S.) to be composed in such a way that the proportion of races would be consistent with the racial make-up of the U.S. (i.e something like 80% of those on rosters would be white). Let's drop the Politically Correct song and dance and start to be honest with eachother.

[Ryu (non-working password]

See what you started, YeLLa TiGeR?

[guppy]

there are fundamental flaws in your arguments

now blacks are not one race niether are asians.
as for the argument of the lack of asians in NFL. name one black player from africa. yes the worlds top sprinters are black but from which part of africa do they originate name one kenyan sprinter, or masai sprinter or pygmy sprinter they are all black. Black sprinters appear to come mainly from west africa. The africans in africa do not consider themselves one race eg. rawanda.
it is also myopic to consider US sports to be an adeqate testing ground for this debate a far more global sport should be considered. i.e. soccer or for the rest of the world football. dominace in football appears to be related to culture than any racial factor.

asians not being creative is just bull

[Oberleutnant]

guppy said: "there are fundamental flaws in your arguments

now blacks are not one race niether are asians.
as for the argument of the lack of asians in NFL. name one black player from africa. yes the worlds top sprinters are black but from which part of africa do they originate name one kenyan sprinter, or masai sprinter or pygmy sprinter they are all black. Black sprinters appear to come mainly from west africa. The africans in africa do not consider themselves one race eg. rawanda.
it is also myopic to consider US sports to be an adeqate testing ground for this debate a far more global sport should be considered. i.e. soccer or for the rest of the world football. dominace in football appears to be related to culture than any racial factor.

"


Ober says: Guppy, the fundamental flaws are derived from your misconstruing and misunderstanding of my arugments. Perhaps I should've been more specific to eliminate the possibility of misunderstanding or potential lack of not employing "common sense." I refrained from being overly specific because this isn't exactly a forum of high level scientific discussion where members are likely to grasp specific terminology, or overly complex analysis. It's the same as a person refraining from using the term "whites" and instead making a differentiation between caucasians of minoan, anglo-saxon etc. decent in this argument, when differences within the broader term of "race" aren't even the topic at hand being discussed. It's poinless besides reducing the chances of people stirring up obviously unproductive debate for the sole cause of creating argument for personal reasons. You are also failing to consider social/cultural factors in addition to genetic/race factors. How many blacks in africa play american football? I've already stated african americans are primarily of west african decent. I've also stated there are considerable differences between west african and east african decent blacks, indirectly stating that I am well aware there are significant differences between race "subdivisions." What benefit would arise from me being thorough to the extent of tapping out pages elaborating on each topic discussed apart from eliminating arguments drawn from arguments apparently fueled by the sole desire to stirr up debate an nothing else? One thing most of my arguments bear in common, is that they refer to examples where when all things being equal, blacks(when I say blacks, I am referring to those of african decent possessing dark skin, & afro hair...) appear to perform better in many sports. This largely mitigates the possibility of the difference being attributable to social-economic/cultural factors. Can you name me one sport where asians or caucasians are the minority at the entry/recreational levels, yet are the overwhelmingly predominant race/ethnic group at the elite level?

I would like to hear if you know of one.

XOXO ober



[Edited by Oberleutnant on 02-17-2001 at 06:05 PM]

[Mik_36]

argue with facts, not empty rhetoric or denials

Obviously each race is made up of sub components, including whites. I would argue that Blacks from the United States (or the western hemisphere, i.e Jamaica, Cuba, etc) are the best atheletes in the world (my definition of athletic talent here not necessarily being skill but just raw talent). Yes, West Africa, and most of Africa has great atheletes also, but the blacks decended from slaves are the best in the world. Why is this? In my opinion Jimmy the Greek was correct. Why your politically correct morons want to get all upset when someone states this, I don't know, wouldn't you think calling someone a great athelete would be a complement? Anyway, I'm not interested in complements or anything else, I'm only interested in the truth. Sometimes in life we have to accept things we find uncomfortable, slaves were selectively bred, this is done with horses, and it was done with slaves. I don't like it, I wish slavery had never happened, but it did, now let's try to come to grips with the truth and move on. Living in denial will only make things worse. I think most who have read through this entire discussion realize that I'm not here to insult or complement anyone, I only want to discuss the truth and you will not convince me with empty rhetoric. This not some talk show where you say some Politically Correct catch phrase, the audience applauds like trained seals, and you don't have to back anything you say up with facts. I would like to hear your explanation as to why blacks dominate pro and college sports the way they do? Or am I just seeing things when I see mostly black pro teams and college teams playing in a country where they are a minority? Why are teams not composed of races in the same proportion of each race's % of the population? If blacks were grossly over represented as the ones playing as kids and at the lower levels, then I would say, "well, it must be because it is mostly blacks who are interested in these sports", but this is not the case! Whites are the overwhelming majority as children (playing these sports) and at the lower levels (even basketball, although not as pronounced a majority there) and blacks unmistakeably rise to the top. I would like the hear your explantion as to why races being composed of different sub components makes all this untrue (this what I heard in your posting)? You are correct not every black race is filled of terrific atheletes (at least by the definition I'm talking about, raw speed and strength). I think the ones in west Africa are good atheletes, but their slave descendents are far greater than they are (as atheletes).

[Mik_36]

It would appear that Oberleutnant and I both replied to guppy at the same time, and so refered to some of the same things in our postings. This repetion of some arguements was not purposeful on my part, or obviously on his either.

[Dick S.]

Mik,if we support the notion that blacks are inherently better athletes, can we also say that caucasians and asians are smarter, based on avg income, IQ tests, graduation rates etc?

[Mik_36]

You said it, not me

I think people are different, have different attributes, there were different pressures on different populations (over the ages) depending of their circumstances (i.e different circumstances in Europe, Asia, Africa). I'm going to assume everyone is completely familiar with Darwinism (let me know if that is not a correct assumption). Why do the Politically Correct thugs think that Darwinism only applies to animals, and that somehow it now longer applied to us once we evolved into homo sapiens. Why does admitting diversity have to be a bad thing. We can live in denial, but I don't believe that that is healthy for people or society. We can live in a Soviet style society in which truth is really treated as irrelevent, where (official state) truth is made to dance to some political tune, and those who don't dance along are persecuted (i.e. John Rocker, Jimmy the Greek). Now instead of having Stalin kill you, you have the powerful Liberals in media etc. make your life a living hell, to the point where, like the former Soviet Union, people are just to terrified to state the truth. Maybe I'm being a bit extreme by comparing the U.S to Stalin's Russia but it is no more acceptable to ruin someone's life than it is to kill him because you don't agree with him. If you don't agree with Jimmy the Greek collect evidence and show why he is wrong, don't just scream rhetoric and no facts (i.e. give another plausible explanation as to why blacks dominate sports). But Liberals don't do that, they just slander and ruin people because they don't want people thinking in any way that does not jive with their "view of the world", truth be damned. What is that story about when the King is running around town naked and everyone talks about the beautiful clothes he is wearing, to scared to say the obvious, that he is naked. Before you start calling me a racist keep in mind that I believe that all people deserve to be treated with respect, and should not be taken advantage of (the way that our "Politically Correct" country takes advantage of workers in the 3rd world to make our Nikes), what a contradiction in terms, all people are equal once they reach America, but in their native countries they are less than us so we can pay them 5 cents an hour in a sweat shop. Nations should be allowed to advance as little or as much as thier abilities or determination will take them. That means we in the West should not allow our companies to steal their resoures or allow our banks to gauge them for loans that their dictorators borrowed and stole from them. People should not be taken advantage of, but at the same time they should not be carried. They should get just exactly what they earn, not given what I or my people earn, and our companies should not be stealing what belongs to them.