Genome and Genetics Disccussions (Stay within SD Rules)
- Thread starter manqiangrexue
- Start date
It is a complicated topic indeed like you said, the end result is the mixed effects of both nature and nurture, and we can never be sure how much each one affect the end result. But we can not dismiss any one of the two either. If you agree that genetics have a substatial role, that is not to be neglected, then I agree with you.
This is true to both nature and nurture, isn't it? In another words, you can't deny nature's effect, right?
Because of your previous sentence, the same can be asked, what is the point of debating training?
Simple, you have provided the solution, by measuring the water. If you keep on pouring water into the bucket until it overflow, the max volume of water is the size of the bucket. Bigger bucket will hold more waters before overflow.
In academic achievement, you just do a statistic of the achievement of people in the same class, same school in the same domain, same study.
solarz
Brigadier
Training, and other environmental factors, can be measured and thus improved. Genetics, no so much. At least, not with current technological and ethical frameworks.
If you try to measure "the bucket" by measuring the "water", you are essentially committing circular reasoning. Remember, you have no evidence that this bucket exists, it is only a hypothesis. You cannot test that hypothesis by assuming the hypothesis is true!
There could be other reasons for children to hit their academic limit, you cannot just give them a test and assume any variations are due to genetics. You can try to control for class, age, field of study, etc, but what about family, culture, personality, study method, peer influence, etc.? You will never be able to find two kids with the exact same environmental influences so that you can say with confidence that any variation is due to genetics.
On the other hand, you *can* find two kids with the exact same genes and compare environmental factors. There are lots of twin studies that do this.
With our current technology and understanding, the influence of genetics on human behavior is a lot like dark matter: we know it exists (at least according to our understanding), but we have no idea what it is and how it interacts with the universe.
I am not sure what you are disagreeing here. All I was trying to say is "both genetics and after-birth training matters, neither of them can be dismissed".
Regarding the "bucket", I disagree with your assertion of it being circular reasoning. First of all, it is not what I proposed, I only made that statement because you brought it in for a practice of debate, so I continued with it to illustrate the other perspective.
Secondly, let's continue with the "bucket" hypothesis. If you take in statistically enough number of people, and push all of them to the limit in a determined competition, and you must assume all of them are doing their best, given the data collection long enough time, couldn't you make some conclusion from the statistical results? Remember, statistic is not about individual accuracy, it is about amassing enough data to make a directional hint or indication of probability. It is still scientifically reliable although not rejecting deviations and exceptions.
I agree with all your counter arguments being true within their contexts, but I only disagree of your seemingly denying genetics playing any role.
After all, that denying is at odds to human evolution which is my firm belief. Now I am back to sport specifically. Nature made all of us looks in a certain (different) way, how could it not be a fact that nature also make us walk and run in a certain (different) way? And how could that different way of walk and run not making a difference in sport?
In human evolution, our ancestors were white skinned in Africa before they shed off their long thick body hairs. They then acquired black skins under the torching equatorial sun light. Then some of them walked out of Africa and ended up in northern Europe and northern Asia and acquired lighter skin again. All the individuals with the "wrong" skin colors got killed by mother nature, not by racist. If one accept that assertion as scientific fact, one must also accept that the difference of our body shape and size, muscle fiber structure, blood cell capability etc. among different regional groups are determined by mother mature, so we function differently depending where our sub-ancestors eventually settled.
Pointing out these differences and their impacts is not to justify any evil idea and ill treatment of other brotherly human beings. But simply rejecting it for political correctness is not rational. I hope you are not basing your idea on political correctness, if you are not I don't mean to accuse you of being so.
Last edited:
solarz
Brigadier
You could, but why would that conclusion be genetics?
Correlation is not causation. In order to prove that gene X does Y, we would have to gather two randomly sampled groups, and manipulate the X gene in one group. We can do this with mice, but we can't do this with people.
Last edited:
No, I will not continue with this mind experiment. It was not my experiment after all.
Neither do I ask you to accept any certainty. I just ask for your acceptance of possibilities.
My last two paragraphs were meant to illustrate my thoughts by presenting some questions to you. They are better suited to represent my position than this "bucket" mind experiment.
At the end, I think we have to agree to disagree after so many exchanges.
manqiangrexue
Brigadier
Because genetics is the most obvious conclusion from observation. You can't simply ignore it and suggest everything else just because it doesn't sound inspirational or politically correct. But I never said that genetics is the only factor, of course. Socio-economic factors are very very leaky. There are plenty of rich black people, poor white people, rich/poor Asians everywhere. If that were the only cause, then the data should be leaky as well. But we are seeing 100% of the champions are black in sprinting, and 0.01% champions are black in swimming. That points to another, less leaky driving force. Now socio-economic factors surely are also a force but genetics is a big one too. Combined, they produce results that are very solid.
Now, I'll give you this: training methods, other factors do play a big role too. In 1956, Chen Jingkai was the first Chinese man to break a world record in weightlifting at the time (lightest weight category). Before that, it was also supposed that Asians were unsuitable for heavy sports like weightlifting. Then, suddenly, more and more Chinese weightlifters came onto the stage. The Europeans and Americans first scoffed and did not take them seriously but soon, they were stunned to see the Chinese calmly lift up weights in competition that they themselves have never even lifted in training. This change did not occur due to genetics, rather, it was because China began to seriously invest in training its weightlifters.
I don't know if there are m/any more of these revelations to be had, though, since China is now seriously invested in all sports and exploration of the possibilities to maximize gold medal haul. With the world so well-connected now (and many countries training foreign athletes in a friendly gesture), it's difficult to imagine that there are any groundbreakingly superior training secrets kept only to a specific group of people. Everyone has his little tricks, no doubt, but total domination by one group of people can't be explained by little tricks, especially if this group of people train with other groups who can't win.
Last edited:
, Sorry folks for intruding upon this fascinating discussionwith my OT contribution,but I would like to make a correction. That honour belongs to CK Yang of Taiwan who was also known as the Iron man of Asia
From wiki
“Yang's most memorable decathlon competition was a decathlon duel with, his friend and teammate at, during thein. Going into the final event of the decathlon, the, Yang trailed Johnson by just 67 points, but Johnson hung on to win the gold medal, with Yang placing second. Yang topped Johnson in all four track events and three jumping or vaulting events, but Johnson gained a large margin in the three throwing events (the, the, and the). Yang was the first Olympic medallist in his country's history.
In 1963, Yang set a world indoor record in theat 4.96 m (16 ft 31⁄4 in) in, just one day afterhad set the record at 4.93 m (16 ft 2 in) in.His record only lasted a week. Later that year he finally took thefrom Johnson at the. He was the first man to break the 9,000 barrier under the old scale. When the new tables were re-evaluated, this same score was the first to break 8,000 points under the new system. To date, he is the only athlete not from the United States or Europe to hold the decathlon world record.”
By the way Rafer johnson was a black American and theres terrific film footage floating around documenting that tussle.
Last edited:
Sorry if I look like chasing you around.
But isn't Japan a good example of competing hard in long distance running? But still can't beat people from Africa?
From memory, In his book “The way of the Runner” Adharanand Finn said that the Japanese love and a great participants in road running with a lot of very fast times posted in the half marathon. Their main objective is to participate as part of a corporate relay team in the “Ediken” which is run over 135 miles. After achieving this goal, continued interest in running starts to wane. I think that’s why we may never see the Japanese run as good as they might.
