 |
| |
|
| |
|
|
TCO
|
 |
Richmond, VA
Jan 1970
time: 00:28
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Tingkai
GP: You need to take your own advice. 
If you are saying x=environment and y=diet then I never said that a strong dependence on y proves x is not a factor. |
x is nature (genes). y is nurture (environment to include diet, and physical environment). You also need to differentiate between the time scale of an effect on a person and that on a population. There are different effects going on. (Watch out for Lamarkian fallacies.)
quote:
What I said was the Berzerker's hot cause tall/cold cause shortness hypothesis is incorrect in and of itself. |
I don't think Berzie would have a problem with refinements showing that things are more complicated when you take into account tree cover, etc. That doesn't do anything to eliminate the first factor though. (See the F=f(x,y) concept.
quote:
There is ample emphirical evidence showing the hypothesis is not valid. The average height of people in cold regions can be tall, and average height of people in hot regions can be short.
(Han Chinese stuff excised by mistake)
[QUOTE]
You are doing it again. If you show that two genetically identical populations of Han Chinese vary in diet, it does nothing to disprove the idea that genes may have an effect independantly. See the F=f(x,y) concept. What you have to do is hold diet constant and vary genes to make that argument.
[QUOTE] Yes, a change of diet will affect height. We have evidence that suggests this is true.
During the previous century, the average height of 17-year-old Japanese males increased by six inches. Most of that increase occurred during the post-WWII period.
The most accepted reason for this rapid increase in average height is the change in Japanese eating habits. They began to eat more western foods, and I'm not talking about McDonalds. I'm taking about eating/drinking more milk, cheese and wheat-based foods all of which were not traditionally part of the Japanese diet.
So as Japanese people began eating more western-style food, they began to grow taller.
However, the increase in average height might be a result of increase quantity of food consumed rather than just type of food eaten.
Still, it is clear that diet has a significant impact on height and it can overshadow genetic influences. Just because a Japanese father is short doesn't mean his son will be of similar height. The statistics show that Japanese sons are taller on average than their fathers. |
I didn't ask that question.* Stop and think for a second. F=f(x,y). Do you really think that there is not genetic component to stature? That if there is it does not vary by population? We would be the only animals that this holds true for, if that were the case. Lions, tigers, bears, deer, elephants, horses, dogs and such all vary in size depending on breed/location (in a genetic manner).
*You keep wanting to show me how F changes when cycling x and keeping y constant, when I asked you the reverse. Have you ever had multivariable calculus?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Japher
|
 |
Ook! Ook! Ack! Ack! Ack!
Jun 2002
time: 05:28
|
|
At the risk of being banned:
I do think that the abilities of all races (not just those traits that make a black person seem to run faster) are in some way genetic, or more like passed down through genetic code by breeding for dominant characteristics. Whether it had to do with sociological, environmental, or religious rites I am not sure, but it was probably more oriented to what area, time, and state of the economy of the world one was in, that would determine what they looked for in a spouse.
Also, since back in the day, arranged marriages were more the norm, breeding for such specific characteristic was more common. Why? Because those who were dubbed "royalty" were generally done so based on these characteristics; smarter, faster, stronger, could swim farther, etc... If one had these traits they were more likely to a) survive their rite of passage b) be recognized by their leaders, or even c) become royalty themselves.
I think in more recent times, however, these traits are still what we, as people, look for in other mates. Yet, it is disguised in the mess that is society, and takes forms of attraction to likes, instead of having your father, mother, or someone else, point, grunt, and tell you two to get married.
What does this have to do with African being better runners, at least in certain areas? Maybe it was a part of their rite of passage over the many generations, maybe it had to do with their society, environment, or economy... Whatever the case it is genetic. Yet, it is the same genes as others have, only that those others developed other genes through the years...
Side note: Anyone ever see Rapa Nui?
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Kramerman
|
 |
UT, Austin - The live music capital of the world
Jun 2002
time: 23:28
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by SlowwHand
I was just thinking that the blanket question of why Blacks are fast was as dumb as why are Irish all drunks?
Generalizations, are generally dumb. |
But it is a consistent generalization worth discussing to some. In my experience with Black athletes, which is great, I consistently see them do better with less training than their caucasian counterparts.
A local high school basketball team in a predominately black area went to state and won. Their skill and talent was tremendous. My brother went to one of their school period practices to see what type of workouts they did, expecting them to be training very hard like he and his almost entirely white team did. While my brother's team spent their practices doing hardcore sprints and drills, this team would lounge around and shoot a little bit, with a box of jelly doughnuts for all the players to help themselves to. Yet they wound up going to state... (my bros team went far in the playoffs, but didnt make it to statein the 4A category)
Does this prove Blacks are more athletic than whites? no, absolutely not, but it is one of many examples that support the generalization that athletic blacks are more so than athletic caucasions.
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:28.
Apolyton Time is 00:28. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
16-05-2003 19:08
). 
only one dodgy page out of 10, not bad!
But they aren't. They have the best endurance, but I'm sure they wouldn't fare well in a sprint (a test of 'fast').
|