Professional and College Basketball Forums banner

81 - 100 of 104 Posts

·
Sexy Moderator
Joined
·
13,497 Posts
TheGoods said:
And you accuse me of rhetoric :rolleyes:...
It was an attempt at humor (BK accent), sorry it fell over your head.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,387 Posts
ralaw said:
The idea that slavery in America has something to do with blacks being more athletic than whites is foolish and misguided. In hindsight it is possible to apply any form of belief you want to appropriate an idea of today. The belief that blacks were helped in becoming more athletic than whites by being servents, beaten, whipped, raped, hung, worked like oxen, etc. only illuminates people's ignorance. The fact is slavery in America began around 1619, so to say blacks have evolved in less than 400 years into becoming this surpreme athlete is ingnorance at it's finest.
Foolish and misguided is denial. If you take a genetically superior segment of a population and the reproduce only with each other, the result is genetically superior. Obviously not every slave brought over was physiologically superior, but the ones that were presented a greater percentage of the slave population than they previously would have.

I'm not sure that you understood what I was saying. I was not attributing black athleticism to white slave owners. The predisposition was there to start with in a concentrated group and it was allowed to be cultivated, whether naturally or by forcible slave breeding, and manifested in an even greater population percentage with the desirable genetics. So the peak-athletic population exanded as a result of the bottleneck in population and was enhanced by natural selective reproduction and any selective forcible cultivation. The selective breeding may or may not have had a negligible effect.

Imagine this, you go Africa and you select a founder population made up of only those with elongated tendons and high fitness. After enough generations, those will be the only traits if they are subject to natural selection. Essentially, a smaller in scope version of this is what happened with slaves.

Since I see that slavery is touchy subject I'll use sickle cell as an example. In Africa the greatest physiological fitness in respect to hemoglobin comes from the non-sickle cell allele. However due to malaria, the heterozygous (one normal, one sickle cell allele per person) form is naturally selected because it provide a malarial resistance. Genetic adaptation based on natural selection will tend towards the most fit population. However if you selectively bred only heterozygotes to cultivate a population with only malarial resistance, you'd speed up the process. In relation to slave fitness, the essential spectrum of genetic possibilities was not changed, but trends may have been, and likely were, accelerated...


Kitty said:
It was an attempt at humor (BK accent), sorry it fell over your head.
Yeah I can see how something becomes a joke after you look like an idiot.
 

·
Sexy Moderator
Joined
·
13,497 Posts
TheGoods said:
Yeah I can see how something becomes a joke after you look like an idiot.
Yea you should know. :biggrin: When you assume that is what happens. Keyword: Offended.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,387 Posts
Kitty said:
Yea you should know. :biggrin: When you assume that is what happens. Keyword: Offended.
And you act as if you're not, however you write as if you are. While tone doesn't transmit, posture in wording does and you're writing as if offended... Despite facts, your willingness to accept what you want is admirable, in a cult-follower sort of way.
I have no illusions as to my intelligence... You however, are quite self-inflated.
 

·
Sexy Moderator
Joined
·
13,497 Posts
TheGoods said:
And you act as if you're not, however you write as if you are. While tone doesn't transmit, posture in wording does and you're writing as if offended... Despite facts, your willingness to accept what you want is admirable, in a cult-follower sort of way.
I have no illusions as to my intelligence... You however, are quite self-inflated.
Because someone states a post is terrible, you're assuming they are offended? Like I said, don't assume. Quit..:boohoo:and get over it.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,387 Posts
Kitty said:
Because someone states a post is terrible, you're assuming they are offended? Like I said, don't assume. Quit..:boohoo:and get over it.
Posture and passion in your wording and this subsequent exchange indicate you are offended... Whatever. Your points are still idiotic and without FACTUAL merit... But I can see facts don't suit you...


I'm done humoring your ridiculous attempt to divert the conversation. You can't deal with factual information so you resort to diversionary tactics like a little internet troll... I've got better things to do, but do go ahead and drink that Kool-Aid.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,991 Posts
TheGoods said:
Foolish and misguided is denial. If you take a genetically superior segment of a population and the reproduce only with each other, the result is genetically superior. Obviously not every slave brought over was physiologically superior, but the ones that were presented a greater percentage of the slave population than they previously would have.

I'm not sure that you understood what I was saying. I was not attributing black athleticism to white slave owners. The predisposition was there to start with in a concentrated group and it was allowed to be cultivated, whether naturally or by forcible slave breeding, and manifested in an even greater population percentage with the desirable genetics. So the peak-athletic population exanded as a result of the bottleneck in population and was enhanced by natural selective reproduction and any selective forcible cultivation. The selective breeding may or may not have had a negligible effect.

Imagine this, you go Africa and you select a founder population made up of only those with elongated tendons and high fitness. After enough generations, those will be the only traits if they are subject to natural selection. Essentially, a smaller in scope version of this is what happened with slaves. .
That makes sense from an idiological standpoint, but in reality blacks, whites, hispanics, etc have all intertwinned, thus making no one 100% unless they are immigrants. Therefore, what happens when the majority of blacks in America who dominate their sport have white ancestors as well as black? Wouldn't their "bottleneck" ancestors genetics have been mixed with their "non athletic" ancestors genetics by now making it a moot point? Besided slavery is too new of an event to appertain that blacks across the board are more athletic due to slavery (or a part of).

Blacks being more athletic has to do with genetics that go far beyond slavery, and has to do with factors while living in Africa that deal with the natural environment. Slavery had nothing to do with this it is too new of an event! That theory is equivalent to me believing if someone rapes a girl at the age of 11 and at the age of 24 she becomes a great wife, than obviously the rape had something to do with her being a great wife. That thoery totally dismisses the facts that her upbringing had something to do with her being a great wife today.

TheGoods said:
Since I see that slavery is touchy subject......
Trust me I am confortable talking black and white issues all day any day.
 

·
Sexy Moderator
Joined
·
13,497 Posts
TheGoods said:
Posture and passion in your wording and this subsequent exchange indicate you are offended... Whatever. Your points are still idiotic and without FACTUAL merit... But I can see facts don't suit you...


I'm done humoring your ridiculous attempt to divert the conversation. You can't deal with factual information so you resort to diversionary tactics like a little internet troll... I've got better things to do, but do go ahead and drink that Kool-Aid.


Here you go hold that.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
9,187 Posts
ralaw said:
The idea that slavery in America has something to do with blacks being more athletic than whites is foolish and misguided. In hindsight it is possible to apply any form of belief you want to appropriate an idea of today. The belief that blacks were helped in becoming more athletic than whites by being servents, beaten, whipped, raped, hung, worked like oxen, etc. only illuminates people's ignorance. The fact is slavery in America began around 1619, so to say blacks have evolved in less than 400 years into becoming this surpreme athlete is ingnorance at it's finest.
To say that this idea is foolish and misguided is foolish and misguided. With that said it's not that blacks were 'helped' in becoming more athletic, but it goes to a very very simple belief that goes back to the beginning of time.

Survival of the fittest.

To call this theory foolish and misguided is to say that it is foolish to believe that if you took 10 men, and 10 women, put them in harsh living conditions, that those who are strongest will survive and muliply, and produce offspring that is stronger than their counterparts who struggle to survive.

The average slave lived to what, 30-40 years old? Also notice that those who were of mixed race with the white slave owner usually worked in the house, away from the real rigors of slave life in the field. Naturally if you take a group of people, and put them in harsh conditions for hundreds of years, those who are physically able to handle the pressure will live longer, and be able to multiply.

Sure, there are blacks who are un-athletic, as there are many whites who are great athletes, but it still doesn't change the fact that if you took the nba as a case study the upper tier of athletes are dominated by blacks, despite being a very small percentage of the population.

Look at European athletes for example, can you think of any who are on the level of the black AMERICAN athlete - as far as physical athletics?

It's not that blacks have evolved, its basic genetics that are into play here. Many the posters here don't live in large cities like new york, but try going to a basketball playground in the hood, and then go to one in an environment like say... the upper east side or something.

You can only go so far with physical training. For instance, I'm a pretty fast runner, and training would only help to maximize my running ability. Someone who isn't as fast a runner couldn't become a faster runner than me with the same training. Some part of it is natural physical ability.

To downplay this side-effect of slavery as foolish and misguided is just weak.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,387 Posts
ralaw said:
That makes sense from an idiological standpoint, but in reality blacks, whites, hispanics, etc have all intertwinned, thus making no one 100% unless they are immigrants. Therefore, what happens when the majority of blacks in America who dominate their sport have white ancestors as well as black? Wouldn't their "bottleneck" ancestors genetics have been mixed with their "non athletic" ancestors genetics by now making it a moot point? Besided slavery is too new of an event to appertain that blacks across the board are more athletic due to slavery (or a part of).

Blacks being more athletic has to do with genetics that go far beyond slavery, and has to do with factors while living in Africa that deal with the natural environment. Slavery had nothing to do with this it is too new of an event! That theory is equivalent to me believing if someone rapes a girl at the age of 11 and at the age of 24 she becomes a great wife, than obviously the rape had something to do with her being a great wife. That thoery totally dismisses the facts that her upbringing had something to do with her being a great wife today.



Trust me I am confortable talking black and white issues all day any day.
To address a few things in no particular order:
Yes there has been plenty of genetic mixing. That's why there is only a small percentage of elite athletes among a population of over 6.5 billion globally. But despite mixing, those who have maintained the advantageous traits still have that advantage. The genetic makeup of such traits falls under the category of QTLs (quantitative trait loci); there are many factors that go into each thing. Height is controlled in this manner. So while certainly African genes mixing with various European offshoots will cause variation, there will be preservation in some cases as well. But initial population had these benficial traits in a high enough percentage that they were maintained well.

And yes in the bottleneck population you will have the normal genes as well. In the overall gene pool however, there will be a significant percentage of the advantageous genes. Natural, paired with artificial selection insured that the good and the bad were cultivated with their like. So someone with superior fitness would mate with another person of the like, while the person of defficient fitness would as well. That's why I said the deviation in athleticism is likely to be greater while maintaining higher peak athleticism. And of course there are those in the middle of the road. While pairing in mating is not a definite, nor exclusive event, regarding fitness, it's the underlying trend. Have you ever taken an econ course? Think of it in terms of the GDP or a real measure; a graph oscillates up and down, but the trendline is what is the descriptive function.

Regarding the statement that slavery is too new, that is blatantly false. Once genes are introduced into a population in a high enough percentage, population changes which affect the gene pool balance can induce significant changes of generations sometimes. The sickle cell example I used still applies. So selection on these QTLs over thousands of years in Africa is the initial effect; and then in an artificially high percentage in the slave population it's kick-started. Slavery is not the "cause," but it is certainly a contributing factor in terms of the contribution to the gene pool. And even now after the pool has been diluted a small percentage maintains the advantages. Does it make that small percentage among blacks (which are themself a relatively small percentage in the US) automatically superior athletes? No, but they are physiologically predisposed to be superior athletes. That's why a guy like Spud Webb (whom I compare to size-wise) could do what he did, but if I do exactly the same training program, I would still not be at that level.

Strength is another issue entirely which hasn't been throughly explored due to oversensitivity towards the scientific community. But there could be something there as well. If you read my post a few pages back about muscle fibers, it's possible that there are loci that control for the conversion of fast glycolytic to fast oxidative fibers. I haven't seen any such studies, but it's something worth looking into. Although I have no intuitive feeling either way.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,991 Posts
Tragedy said:
To say that this idea is foolish and misguided is foolish and misguided. With that said it's not that blacks were 'helped' in becoming more athletic, but it goes to a very very simple belief that goes back to the beginning of time.

Survival of the fittest.

To call this theory foolish and misguided is to say that it is foolish to believe that if you took 10 men, and 10 women, put them in harsh living conditions, that those who are strongest will survive and muliply, and produce offspring that is stronger than their counterparts who struggle to survive.

The average slave lived to what, 30-40 years old? Also notice that those who were of mixed race with the white slave owner usually worked in the house, away from the real rigors of slave life in the field. Naturally if you take a group of people, and put them in harsh conditions for hundreds of years, those who are physically able to handle the pressure will live longer, and be able to multiply.

Sure, there are blacks who are un-athletic, as there are many whites who are great athletes, but it still doesn't change the fact that if you took the nba as a case study the upper tier of athletes are dominated by blacks, despite being a very small percentage of the population.

Look at European athletes for example, can you think of any who are on the level of the black AMERICAN athlete - as far as physical athletics?

It's not that blacks have evolved, its basic genetics that are into play here. Many the posters here don't live in large cities like new york, but try going to a basketball playground in the hood, and then go to one in an environment like say... the upper east side or something.

You can only go so far with physical training. For instance, I'm a pretty fast runner, and training would only help to maximize my running ability. Someone who isn't as fast a runner couldn't become a faster runner than me with the same training. Some part of it is natural physical ability.

To downplay this side-effect of slavery as foolish and misguided is just weak.

As I said, it is possible to apply any belief to something in hindsight! You are totally ignoring the fact that blacks lived in Africa for millions of years in certain living conditions and with that Africans evolved to survive in the environment! This is what Survival of the fittest is about! Get your facts straight!

Survival of the fittest - Natural selection conceived of as a struggle for life in which only those organisms best adapted to existing conditions are able to survive and reproduce.

As I said, the notion that blacks being enslaved somehow relates to blacks being more athletic than whites is foolish and misguided. The only type of slavery that could produce athletes (as some of you are trying to ascertain) was somewhere between 1619 and the 1800s or so. So, this is just 200 some odd years of producing "athletes"! Do you know how short of a time frame that is when discussing evolution and genetics? When blacks were enslaved their genetic makeup had already been made from what happened in Africa! Do you even know what happended during slavery? Not all blacks were field slaves, some actually were house slaves who lived better than field slaves and in some cases they were treated like the slave owners children and some where even educated.

This idea is nothing more than a classic case of Confirmation bias.

Confirmation bias refers to a type of selective thinking whereby one tends to notice and to look for what confirms one's beliefs, and to ignore, not look for, or undervalue the relevance of what contradicts one's beliefs
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
9,187 Posts
ralaw said:
As I said, it is possible to apply any belief to something in hindsight! You are totally ignoring the fact that blacks lived in Africa for millions of years in certain living conditions and with that Africans evolved to survive in the environment! This is what Survival of the fittest is about! Get your facts straight!

Survival of the fittest - Natural selection conceived of as a struggle for life in which only those organisms best adapted to existing conditions are able to survive and reproduce.

As I said, the notion that blacks being enslaved somehow relates to blacks being more athletic than whites is foolish and misguided. The only type of slavery that could produce athletes (as some of you are trying to ascertain) was somewhere between 1619 and the 1800s or so. So, this is just 200 some odd years of producing "athletes"! Do you know how short of a time frame that is when discussing evolution and genetics? When blacks were enslaved their genetic makeup had already been made from what happened in Africa! Do you even know what happended during slavery? Not all blacks were field slaves, some actually were house slaves who lived better than field slaves and in some cases they were treated like the slave owners children and some where even educated.

This idea is nothing more than a classic case of Confirmation bias.

Confirmation bias refers to a type of selective thinking whereby one tends to notice and to look for what confirms one's beliefs, and to ignore, not look for, or undervalue the relevance of what contradicts one's beliefs
Thank you for missing the point. You keep arguing evolution, and that is NOT what I am talking about. What I am saying is that those who were stronger survived, and their genes had a greater chance of being passed down than those who worked in the fields that were not as strong.

What is so difficult to understand about that? If i take your family, and I kill off all those who are physically frail, and leave those who are strong will survive and breed. It's like cutting the fat off meat.

Obviously, you do not read, because I said

The average slave lived to what, 30-40 years old? Also notice that those who were of mixed race with the white slave owner usually worked in the house, away from the real rigors of slave life in the field. Naturally if you take a group of people, and put them in harsh conditions for hundreds of years, those who are physically able to handle the pressure will live longer, and be able to multiply.
Bu you still feel the need to add

Do you even know what happended during slavery? Not all blacks were field slaves, some actually were house slaves who lived better than field slaves and in some cases they were treated like the slave owners children and some where even educated.
As if you are bringing anything new to the table.

You keep ASSuming that I am saying the genetics of africans have changed in 200 years. That I am NOT saying. What I am saying is simple, those who were stronger physically, which was NEEDED to survive the rigors of slavery did, and were purposely breeded by slave owners with women who were physically strong as well to have children who would be able to handle a greater amount of work than weaker counterparts.

What is so hard to understand about this. I am NOT TALKING ABOUT EVOLUTION OR ANY CHANGE IN GENES. I AM JUST TALKING ABOU THTE SURVIVAL OF STRONG GENES.

Don't try to insult my intelligence by posting a link on confirmation bias, who do you think you are, Pan Mengtu? What I am trying to tell you is high school stuff man. You don't need to refer to no dictionaries of any sort.

Also, the point about light skinned slaves is important, because its more rare for an athletic light skinned male than an athletic black male - simply because there was less pressure for survival physically.

Jeez, what is so difficult about this. You cannot compare slavery to anything really, when you consider the amount of slaves who died on route to America, as well as those who died during slavery. There really is nothing in the History of the world that really compares. NOTHING.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
9,187 Posts
Funny you should post that link and definition of Confirmation bias, when it is more applicable towards YOU.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,991 Posts
Tragedy said:
This is simple. As I said earlier. In hindsight it is possible to apply any form of belief you want to appropriate an idea of today. Survival of the fittest as related to slavery had no bearing on why blacks are more athletic than whites. Blacks were already more athletic than whites from day one of slavery due to living conditions in Africa. So is it safe for me to say had slavery never happened then whites and blacks would be closer in athletic ability?

Tragedy said:
Funny you should post that link and definition of Confirmation bias, when it is more applicable towards YOU.
Good comback!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
9,187 Posts
ralaw said:
This is simple. As I said earlier. In hindsight it is possible to apply any form of belief you want to appropriate an idea of today. Survival of the fittest as related to slavery had no bearing on why blacks are more athletic than whites. Blacks were already more athletic than whites from day one of slavery due to living conditions in Africa. So is it safe for me to say had slavery never happened then whites and blacks would be closer in athletic ability?



Good comback!

I didn't say that either, I am simply saying it plays a part in it.

Of course it will be easier to apply any form in hindsight, but even when it still happened that was the whole point of consciously breeding the stronger men with stronger women. They never expected slavery to end, so it turns out to be a side effect presently.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,991 Posts
Tragedy said:
I didn't say that either, I am simply saying it plays a part in it.

Of course it will be easier to apply any form in hindsight, but even when it still happened that was the whole point of consciously breeding the stronger men with stronger women. They never expected slavery to end, so it turns out to be a side effect presently.
I can see where you are coming from with this idea, but in my opinion it is false and undermines the evolution process that happened in Africa? Slave owners forcing their stronger men to breed with their stronger women is a variable that is idependent of what why blacks across the board are more athletic then whites. The fact is every black person today didn't come from two "strong blacks" breeding and the percentages of slave owners actually forcing this is extremelly low. The main and statistically more prevalant reason slave owners wanted blacks to breed was due to financial factors such as trade and commerce.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
9,187 Posts
ralaw said:
I can see where you are coming from with this idea, but in my opinion it is false and undermines the evolution process that happened in Africa? Slave owners forcing their stronger men to breed with their stronger women is a variable that is idependent of what why blacks across the board are more athletic then whites. The fact is every black person today didn't come from two "strong blacks" breeding and the percentages of slave owners actually forcing this is extremelly low. The main and statistically more prevalant reason slave owners wanted blacks to breed was due to financial factors such as trade and commerce.
Every black person? I just speak for American Blacks, the majority of which are descendants of former slaves. In this case it is something that it does pertain to.

Even then, compare African players (Bol, Deke, Deng, etc) to Black American players. There is a difference.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,991 Posts
Tragedy said:
Every black person? I just speak for American Blacks, the majority of which are descendants of former slaves. In this case it is something that it does pertain to.

Even then, compare African players (Bol, Deke, Deng, etc) to Black American players. There is a difference.
I actually was referring to American blacks as well.

I can see where you are coming from with this idea, but in my opinion it is false and undermines the evolution process that happened in Africa? Slave owners forcing their stronger men to breed with their stronger women is a variable that is idependent of what why American blacks across the board are more athletic then whites. The fact is every American black person today didn't come from two "strong blacks" breeding and the percentages of slave owners actually forcing this is extremelly low. The main and statistically more prevalant reason slave owners wanted American blacks to breed was due to financial factors such as trade and commerce.
 

·
Top Of The Pops
Joined
·
27,472 Posts
TheGoods said:
Foolish and misguided is denial. If you take a genetically superior segment of a population and the reproduce only with each other, the result is genetically superior.
This is the basis of eugenics, which is, at best, highly controversial and many consider it to be a discredited psuedo-science. Hitler believed in eugenics, and tried to breed a "master race" using only the brightest and strongest (and white, of course, but that's a different matter).

However, I've read statistics that show that these traits tend to regress to the mean. Two brilliant parents will likely produce a less intelligent child, two great athletes will most likely produce a less athletically gifted child. On the flip side of this, two people less intelligent than the mean are most likely to produce a child more intelligent than themselves.

Therefore, it's not possible to breed a race of "super-athletes" and I doubt slavery had a noticeable effect on the fitness of the African-American population. Through regression to the mean, whatever advantages the original slaves had were likely down to normal levels after all the generations of slavery.
 
81 - 100 of 104 Posts
Top