the differences in appearance has not contributed to any measurable differences in performing any tasks. Is there any unbiased statistical study showing certain race is better at certain task?
That's not the point. I didn't say that differences in appearance equaled superiority at different tasks. You said that superiority at these tasks is a result of complex multi-gene effects and those cannot be sustained in populations. I countered saying that appearances are also the result of complex multi-gene effects and have been sustained in the races.
You claim to be a geneticist. Show me some published studies to support your claim. Everything that you have said has been hypothetical with opening like "I heard...", "If I find..." As a classically trained scientist, you can do better than this.
This cannot be done. It's unethical to do experiments like this on humans. The closest there is to a study is when you see all black runners in the 100m, and all-black teams in the Olympics/worlds representing a country like the US, which is white-dominated even though there are many white sprinters on the US team. Same for swimming.
Sickle cell anaemia is a fact that occurs among the African population. Since a lot of what we discuss centers on Africans performance at sports, it is an important factor that must be included in all consideration.
Well, you can include it, but it creates a bi-modal distribution and you can only conclude that blacks with SSA do not, on average, perform as well as their peers while those who are unaffected can perform better.
My statistics show the heights among different races are equal.
No, they don't. Your statistics show that when athletes are cherry-picked out of tens of thousands of people, they tend to be the similar.
OK, I hope you don't discuss statistics like this in your own publications...
I've never had to because people didn't say stupid things to me like all races are exactly the same except for appearance.
We have a distribution range from as short as 144cm (gymnasts) to 210cm (basketball players). that is a gap of 66cm. With the mean located at 177-178cm, the standard deviation is about +/- 20% from the mean. And you believe a 6% difference means anything??
Ah, you have gymnasts, basketball players, etc... that are vastly different. I see. In that case, your statistics should be scrapped yet again because when dealing with data like that, height should be stratified by sport before being compared. BUT, once again, those statistics come from cherry picked athletes selected to do the same tasks by each side.
I will not attack your numbers, but I will attack your methods. Again, hypothetical examples. You challenged me to show you evidence. I have presented hardcore statistics to support my point. I show you the statistics of all athletes, which go through the same filtering process no matter which country they live. these athletes participate in similar events. So my statistics is a good way of comparing the demographics of athletes in different nations.
Your statistics are invalid because of how the participants were selected. Read again on my example of sport X Netherlands vs. China and how 2 completely different populations can field almost identical numbers when they do statistics your way.
To this point, you have not shown any hard evidence to support your point. Where is your statistics?
As I said, there are no published studies, but the statistics are there. In the past 2 years, what percent of swimming champions were white? What percent runner champs were black? OK, you can play the socio-economic card; it may have some effect, but it cannot skew it so badly that exactly 0 sprinting champs are white and 1 swimmer is black!
Yet, none of them show any significant advantages over others with different body types. All 3 body types have dominated the gymnastics. This is consistent with my hypothesis: mechanisms of human body movement, which consequentially lead to sports, is so complex that any single difference does not lead to changes in overall performance.
Dominated by different strategies. Did you even read the post?
Convergent evolution is a good comparison. Africans may have thicker muscle fibers, but Asians may hold other advantages, which could allow them to compete in 100M dash.
But it couldn't allow them to win LOL. Anyone can compete!
You insist on focusing on a single trait while ignoring other factors. My point has always been that you need to look at sports as a highly coordinated event, where many parts come together to generate the final outcome.
No one, I understand that all traits play a role, which is why I brought up the point about different strategies to win.
No, Jamaica is not rich. However, most Jamaican athletes train in the US.
So if China sent its athletes to train in the US, we'd suddenly be sprinting champs? OK, the US doesn't like us. Fine. How about Japan, South Korea, India? They can all just send some guys to the US to train. No? No winners? Or they didn't care to win? How come the white guys who already train in the US didn't make the cut but Jamaicans who train in the US get maximal benefits?
You do know that all human on this planet evolved from a few thousand common ancestors. Such detailed genetic analysis will give you the differences that you want, but to what end will you stop the genotyping. Chinese are different from Japanese and Koreans. There are also 56 different ethnic groups in China. Do you need to analyze the difference among all of them to conclude anything about Chinese?
Don't know what I'm being asked here or how it pertains to the discussion.
Again, hypothetic examples... Since you claim to be a geneticist, I will hold you to a professional standard. Show me unbiased statistics.
What exactly are you looking for? A full experiment with human babies raised exactly the same way like mice? You can't get that. I've said it before, if you want unbiased statistics, looking at Olympic, World champion records is as good as it gets.
there is an apparent segregation in the sports world in the US. But it is not because of genetics. It is mostly social. If you look at the NBA and NFL, it's predominantly African Americans. If you look at baseball, it's mostly hispanics. If you look at tennis, golf, swimming, etc, it's mostly Caucasians. Asians don't do a lot of sports and focus on chess, piano, etc. It's not because different races are better at different events. Short distance swimming requires same level of explosiveness and muscle mass as short distance dash. Long distance swimming needs similar endurance as long distance running. It is the same traits that allows swimmers to be good at swimming and runners to good at running. Football and rugby are very similar contact sports. In fact, American football evolved from rugby. Yet, you see football teams consisted of mostly black players, but rugby teams almost all whites. If an African American player can be good at football, he has all the necessary tools to be good at rugby.
No, they are not the same. Some people are better at some sports, as you pointed out. Swimming and running are wayyy different. They require different muscle density, different physiques (example: long arms, long trunk are ideal for swimming but long legs and short body are best for running), etc... Saying running and swimming are the same is like saying a boat and a car are the same. Yeah, they require the same engine power, but they require vastly different forms. Rugby and football are pretty much the same, I give you that.
So why the distinct differences? Mostly social segregation and tradition. Wealthy neighborhoods can afford more expensive facilities, such as swimming pools, golf courses, tennis courts. Schools in wealthier neighborhoods usually have rugby teams, instead of football teams. Not because they are better at the former, but because of traditions. Poor neighborhoods can only afford cheap sports, where less equipment is needed. Unfortunately, large % of African Americans live in poor neighborhoods. This is why you see many African Americans pick up basketball and football.
White people can't afford to run? Too rich? Not acceptable? LOL
If you want to dig a little deeper, there are differences as well. Most good college football teams are in the south. Why is that? Is there any genetic factors involved? Somehow Southerners are good at contact sports? It turns out that football is usually the only sport/entertainment in those small southern towns. People are obsessed with anything football, high school football, college football, NFL, etc. With such emphasis on football, it is obvious that they practice more and get better.
Oh, cultural factors are also very important, of course, just like genetic factors. India's got 1 gold in Olympic history and a population almost as large as China's; it can't be because they're unfit for everything!
