African American Genetics

Discussion in 'Human Science' started by sly1, Feb 7, 2008.

  1. DeepThought Banned Banned

    Messages:
    1,461
    What makes you think this? I live in Europe and Scandinavians are very similar in build to other Europeans. I get the impression your not a European.

    Maori's have a large body mass, like many Polynesian people. They all do rather well at rugby. But Lithuanians? There are many living in London, and again they share a similar physique with other Europeans. Exceptions only prove the rule.

    It's my theory that these people dominate the resource rich areas of central and west Africa because they beat other racial types in conflict (including the east African type that you referred to). It's really the development of weapons which has given us the edge over them.

    Possibly. But since there is a greater genetic variation between Africans than all other races, it's hard to see why the inclusion of any other race in a breeding program would be necessary.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Dr Lou Natic Unnecessary Surgeon Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,574
    Ok, I'll level with you, strongest man contests gave me that impression.
    I'm sure there are many normal sized scandinavians.
    But I think you need to have a look at west africans, most of them are quite small.
    The reality is europeans of all kinds are fairly big, in relation to the rest of the world, there's lots of small ones, but then you get huge ones. White people aren't the "average" sized people of earth, they're on the largish side.
    Bigger even than true natural west africans.
    Ex slaves of west african descent are arguably bigger than white people on average, but west africans aren't. No native populations in africa are that large.
    I'm sure nutrition has something to do with it, but I don't think nutrition is an adequate explanation for the size difference between african americans and west africans.

    Maybe, but look at world's strongest man contests and also the power events at the olympics, scandinavians, lithuanians and russians seem to dominate these events.
    After that the odd samoan, and then other white people from multicultural countries, west africans don't represent in sports like this at all.
    They're not that big. In relation to the tiny kenyans and ethiopians and bushmen of the kalahari they are, and compared to the sudanese and massai they are stout and muscular, but I think people can't help picturing north american and carribean "west africans" when they think of west africans, and this is misleading.

    Interesting theory.
    Just for the record though I don't want anyone thinking I'm arguing for the sake of "why white people have an edge over africans".
    Nothing like that is entering my head, I'm interested in this topic purely like I'm interested in comparing dog types (my favourite subject).
    The upright smooth hominids known as humans are an animal which intrigues me.
    I get accused of racism sometimes but it's not like I hold any one group on a pedestal.

    If you want to go down that road obviously it's not physical strength that gives some humans a dominant edge over others, I mean east asians are the closest genuine rivals to white people as far political dominance of earth is concerned, and they are relatively small and weak.
    Meanwhile they dominate elephants which leave shaq for dead.
    Human society is sadly far past any physical attributes determining status.

    I've been faced with this argument before, and it seems reasonable on the surface, but the flaw is it's not a matter of whether or not it's necessarry.
    Why is there a concerted effort to explain african americans using only african populations?
    The reality is african americans descend from western africans, they aren't mixes of western africans and other types of african, they're much more likely to be mixes of western africans and europeans, and this is sufficient in explaining their size.

    And actually I'm not even confident if mixing short muscular west africans with 7 foot tall lean sudanese people would create huge people rather than a mix of tall and muscular people.
    People that are 6' 7" + and mesomorphic don't exist in africa, naturally only white people reach those proportions with any degree of regularity, it's actually quite likely the huge african american pro-athletes are borrowing from white ancestors with the statures they posess, the west african influence tightens it up and makes them extremely nimble and explosive for their size, and this is why brownish people dominate sports in america.
    Basically the best man is a mongrel, so ultimately a positive message comes from what is mistakenly deemed a contraversial and potentially offensive issue.
    There's no reality which is offensive to a group of people, because all people evolved as perfect for their lifestyle in their environement.
    It's the not-discussing issues like this which allows racism to persist.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    24,460
    As far as height, John Komlos and a couple of associates have done the only actual research on the matter, and their findings so far are that there is no genetic basis for the height differentials between the major human demographic groups in the world.

    That does not settle the matter, because other factors, such as muscle fiber ratios, do seem to differ genetically between, say, Kenyans and Congolese - and Scots. Kenyans and Ethiopians run distance, Congolese sprint, Scots take the middle.

    There are African regions that dominate Olympic events - the northeast corner of the continent dominates distance running, war permitting.

    The slaves in the Americas were drawn from the big Central African civilizations - the ones that could capture enemies by the shipload, get them to the coast, and sell them. They were favored not only for convenience and availability, but for malaria resistance and heat tolerance - and intelligence, also beauty, on occasion. The jumping and running and so forth would have been coincidence.

    Size was not so important - efficiency was far more important. Anybody who was trying to make a profit on a cotton plantation would use horses and mules to drag stones, pull wagons, etc.

    So breeding effects would be more from culling the weak than trying for excessive size. There could well have been a culling effect from the circumstances of enslavement - there could also, in the US proper, be a hybrid vigor effect from crossing with Northern Europeans.

    There are height and weight records from the slave markets of the American South - black people were not bigger than white people of the time and place.

    The tallest people of the time - the tallest people in the world, by record - were the Northern Cheyenne, the horse nomads of the Great Plains. It is possible that the Scotch-Irish of the pioneer stock were taller still, but the records mix them up with other whites.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. kmguru Staff Member

    Messages:
    11,757
    Scientists say it is random because, they do not believe or can prove that the brain has the capacity to optimize a given outcome, yet they know that the eyes can resolve better than any camera out there or the bat's sonar is better than any navy sonar system etc. These scientists do not understand the neural network well to get it.
     
  8. Roman Banned Banned

    Messages:
    11,560
    You guys shouldn't compare unlike groups, unless you can control for difference in diet. Comparing starving Ethiopians with well fed American football players, say. The Japanese are getting taller because their diet has changed. Americans are getting really, really fat.

    So, um, mind your out groups of anecdotal evidence and your armchair sociobiology.

    I've been to Europe. Germans are fucking gargantuan. So are the Dutch. The Norwegians I've met tend to be thick, if not always really tall.
     
  9. sOopahvi Registered Member

    Messages:
    67
    oh, dr. lou natic





    hello, dr. lou natic.

    i signed up for this godforsaken forum (just kidding) with the sole purpose of sending you this message (not kidding).

    whereas i may have been willing to listen to your arguments -- which you state as fact -- previously, i no longer consider any of your points to be very valid. you base your "facts" on strongest man competitions. that would be okay, if you stated them as opinions, but you state them as FACT... without even so much as a disclaimer of something like, "i think...," or, "i have observed from strong man competitions that...," unless someone challenges you (in this case, deepthought). those observations, sir, require much more research.

    you also mention that there aren't really africans represented in strongman competitions. to me, that seems like it isn't just purely a physical thing (although that plays a role as well, see later). it is a social thing as well. perhaps it is not a coincidence of physical size that most of the champions of the competitions hail from scandanavia, lithuania, or russia (which, i have discovered through my research, is not true either). don't you suppose it may be cultural or regional? has it ever occurred to you that the reason there are more strongmen from northern european countries is similar to the reason that mostly americans play american football? because of proximity. how about the fact that it was previously run by two london-based companies which have since split, but they both still run separate strongman related competitions?

    view these statistics of strongman winners. you'll note that it was sold from cbs to the bbc in 1983, and for the next couple of years, it was british people who were winning all of a sudden, not americans. there is a suggestion there that proximity does play a role, as perhaps different methods of advertising and outreach make a difference.

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World's_Strongest_Man

    as far as i have witnessed, bodybuilding of any kind is primarily a westernized thing, largely limited to north america and europe.

    you also mentioned nutrition -- is it perhaps possible that there are not as many africans represented in the world of bodybuilding and strongest man because they are not overflowing with extra nutrition to feed to hungry muscles? to say that a difference in nutrition is pretty negligible between west africans and african-americans is kind of ridiculous too. the nutrition difference is HUGE. particularly over generations and generations. just like how you'll notice americans are getting fatter and fatter, as are people in other industrialized countries (although not as drastic). yet, people in poorly-developed countries are not really overflowing with so much fat that they don't know what to do with it. is the difference in nutrition negligible? i think not.

    anyway, i don't have an opinion or enough factual information to support either side in this african american genetics debate, but i just needed to say that you really need to do better research and not base any facts off of strongman competitions. i mean, come on.
     
  10. kmguru Staff Member

    Messages:
    11,757
    sOopahvi has a point. BTW, welcome to Sciforums and hope you will post or otherwise engage here from time to time. We need quality members here...proximity not withstanding...

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  11. DeepThought Banned Banned

    Messages:
    1,461
    Aren't pygmies human?

    Why don't they just eat better - and do some stretching exercises - then they'd be like the rest of us.

    Their difference is so annoying. And it's all their fault.
     
  12. sniffy Banned Banned

    Messages:
    2,945
  13. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    24,460
    Good example of what a genetic difference in height looks like, in contrast to the major demographic groups.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Komlos

    One of his discoveries is that there seems to be a correlation between economic inequality and height - the less egalitarian the society, the shorter its people, on average. Disease plays a role - childhood diseases stunt growth,on average - and nutrition. Also environmental toxins, stress and noise, etc. The US was the tallest country on the planet for a while - it's been surpassed by several European countries since WWII.
     
  14. sOopahvi Registered Member

    Messages:
    67

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    haha thanks, we shall see. forums are evilllll! they suck up time like whoa.

    just look at me, looking at it at work right now! :[
     
  15. sly1 Heartless Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    692
    with 16 posts? lol
     
  16. sOopahvi Registered Member

    Messages:
    67
    hey! i can't instantly have 400!
     
  17. zarlok Banned Banned

    Messages:
    116
    Did they breed them... to eat them? Stats don't lie, but people do. According to the medical literture, about 40% of "black" americans are obese compared to 28% of whites.

    I find it questionable where you see all these "athletic" black men, because it's not in the real world, more likely your preverted version of reality granted to you by your TV set.
     
  18. Vinyard Banned Banned

    Messages:
    27
    Probably because they are not as evolved yet as whites, They're naturally stronger because they are still more closely related to apes.
     
  19. Bells Staff Member

    Messages:
    22,214
    And you have scientific proof of that of course?

    Scientific journals? Scientific studies? Anything at all?

    Or is this another case of a racist pulling stuff out of their backsides because of a superiority complex?
     
  20. Vinyard Banned Banned

    Messages:
    27
    Well considering that humans have been evolving for hundreds of thousands of years and black people are still killing each other like a pack of apes, I think that is evidence enough.
     
  21. skaught The field its covered in blood Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,100
    Yeah but this is a scientific community. Can you even prove that African Americans are more violent than whites to begin with?
     
  22. skaught The field its covered in blood Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,100
    Are you prejudice man?
     
  23. Vinyard Banned Banned

    Messages:
    27
    * According to the latest US Department of Justice survey of crime victims, more than 6.6 million violent crimes
    (murder, rape, assault and robbery) are committed in the US each year, of which about 20 per cent, or 1.3 million, are
    inter-racial crimes.


    * Most victims of race crime—about 90 per cent—are white, according to the survey "Highlights from 20 Years of
    Surveying Crime Victims", published in 1993.


    * Almost 1 million white Americans were murdered, robbed, assaulted or raped by black Americans in 1992, compared
    with about 132,000 blacks who were murdered, robbed, assaulted or raped by whites, according to the same survey.


    * Blacks thus committed 7.5 times more violent inter-racial crimes than whites even though the black population is
    only one-seventh the size of the white population. When these figures are adjusted on a per capita basis, they reveal an
    extraordinary disparity: blacks are committing more than 50 times the number of violent racial crimes of whites.


    * According to the latest annual report on murder by the Federal Bureau of Investigation, most inter-racial murders
    involve black assailants and white victims, with blacks murdering whites at 18 times the rate that whites murder blacks.
     

Share This Page