>>wishfeather

From your observations, are blacks genetically stronger than whites?

It is a matter of fact that the African gene pool is larger and more diverse than the European one. This is largely a result of man’s migrational and evolutionary legacy.

All evidence points the out-of-Africa theory. Mankind evolved somewhere in Africa, and it is only with subsequent migrational waves that the rest of the Euro-Asia continent was settled. Subsequently, because more people stayed in Africa longer, they’ve had more time to accumulate genetic variety. This idea is backed by genetic studies from different ethnic samples.

@DrugInducedDuck - The concept of racism today is ridiculous. Everyone is a racist, which isn’t a bad thing, it’s when racism leads to hate that it becomes bad…

Don’t play this semantics game, bud.

There are clear physical, social, and cultural differences between members of different ethnic groups. Mere acknowledgement of this difference does not make one a “racist” in our everyday use of this work. To refer to “racism” in common language denotes a sort of undue hate or ignorance. Not everyone is a “racist” in this sense.

@whataboutbahb - From what you know, does genetics having to do with muscular composition get an advantage from a more diverse genetic variation? Or would environment have the greater effect?

I don’t have much specialized knowledge in the area. I can only make general hand-waving deductions. A couple ideas on the point:

1.) I think the comparison between white and black atheletes is almost laughable.

Africa is a very large and very old continent. It’s gene pool is so much more vast than those of European or Asian descent. With a much larger gene pool, you’d expect better odds of finding alleles good for particular things like sprinting or being tall. Atheletic blacks represent only a small sample of their overall gene pool. I don’t think anyoen will call members of Africa’s pygmy tribes atheletic.

Anology: If we were to have a sample of 1000 random individuals in room A and sample of 50 random individuals in room B, which room would we expect to have the highest person? The very setup of the problem gives us biased odds.

2.) I think I’ve read an article about how training is able to trigger some conversion between fast twitch and slow twitch muscle fibers. I don’t know enough to make a judgement of environemtnal effects and its relative contribution on muscle growth and development. I’m much more interested in genes and DNA =).

Natural selection would be a serious environmental mold for athleticism. Historically, though, I don’t know whether the selective pressures of Africa were more or less severe than those of Europe.

@JJ_Ames - The sample size linked to the article seems too small to make a proper judgment on. It also seems like a case could be made for experimenter bias.

Larger ideas and scientific theories suppor the conclusions of the article. I would like to think that the professors and graduate students of Cornell Universiities know enough of statistics to put together a competent study.

But I’ll add that the most powerful nation in the world was started by a bunch of pasty white guys in tights and wigs.

An interesting take on the causes inequality of nations and civlizations is Jared Diamond’s Guns, Germ, and Steel. And no, inherent genetic characteristics has little to do with the rise and fall of nations.

@findingliberty - I believe majority of blacks are physically stronger than white as of right now.  Maybe, that’s because black people have longer existence than whites (from south America).

My guess is that most of the African-Americans in the United States were the generational products of artifical selection, and that this would artifically enhance the frequency of atheletically gifted blacks.

Most slaves imported into the U.S. were selected for the aim of manual labor. Physically weak or dimunitive Africans were probably weeded out at various points of the selection process. The ancestors of the lots of the American blacks, I think, were the cream of the crop physically.

@whataboutbahb - Regarding population genetics, more genetic variation is a result and not a cause of mutations.  Most mutations are neither beneficial or deleterious; they’re neutral.  Genetic variation is beneficial in the sense that if you have 1 bad copy of a gene and randomly marry someone, then your chance of marrying someone else with another bad copy of the same gene and creating a child with 2 bad copies of the same gene is incredibly low.  Genetic variation is also beneficial in the sense that if there is a plague, then there is a higher likelihood of someone surviving to carry on those remaining genes.

Typically, genetic variation is a product of having a large population with near random mating.  You don’t see a lot of genetic variation on islands or other forms of isolation such as groups of people that are not open to mating outside of their own group.  This is because there is limited introduction of new mutations into the population.  Everyone eventually becomes very closely related without new mutations since the rate of sporadic germline mutations in humans is very low.  The quickest way to diversify is to mix your genes with someone from a completely different population.

I also have to point out the ad on the right- “Legit cash for Black folk”

@ChIcKaRoO831 - in the U.S. at least. it all goes back from the slave trade. the whites got the strongest black people they could find, and all the weak black people died out from disease on the boats (on the slave trade). so that kinda left only the strong black people in the states.

My thoughts exactly.

Alibi – Discussion is the point, no?…and I’d like to take this opportunity to thank our host for many interesting ones. :curtsey:: pleasure!

How Am I Supposed to Know That??? I am Mexicannnnn 

@LauraChristine83 - Because, I am sorry this is quite silly. There are whites that have african descent. There are blacks with european descent. This is just another way to separate. This is just one of the many reasons why blacks rarely donate their bodies to science after death. For years, we have been labeled as animals while whites have not. Separating us more would just make it even harder for us in society. Hence the reason for my attitude towards the question.

I don’t get it. What defines “white”? Which nationalities are considered being “white”? Are “whites” what they are because of their skin colour? Because although I’m Asian, my skin colour could be mistaken for a “white” person’s one. Does that make me white?
Clarification anyone?

@Endowedbythecreator - so if whites are defined of European descent, does that mean mixed (sorry, bad term but I can’t think of another) people like Eurasians are considered white?

what’s that thing we all learned in elementary school “we’re all equal and should be treated as such” this study proves not true I guess, yes I believe black people are physically stronger, I live in a community with few black people, but all of them are in some type  of sport and good at it too,that being said, it doesn’t really matter, as long as we don’t get into a racial war I’m fine with them being stronger, but y’know if we got into some manson-like helter skelter race war us white folk would be royally screwed, assuming we have no weapons and it’s hand to hand combat.