Is Hayward a victim of reverse racism on this board?
- Thread starter Matthew Thomas Castleton
- Start date
Darkwing Duck
Well-Known Member
I'm assuming facetiousness here. Probably should have thought that more so a post earlier.
The Ghost of Blue Edwards
Member
Yea, I know. I'm not saying the entire population of black people's gene pool changed because of this. At least 98% of african-americans show no athletic superiority to their white counterparts. However, if you compare the top 5% of black athletes in the NBA (think Dwight, Amare, Lebron) to the top 5 % of white athletes (think Bird, Stockton, Nowitzki, Gasol), there are some very clear physical differences that I think are explained pretty well by this theory. However, it isn't hard science. It's basically based on word-of-mouth evidence and logical inferences, so I don't expect it to be widely accepted.
The Ghost of Blue Edwards
Member
Oh yea of course. I thought you picked up on that already.
Darkwing Duck
Well-Known Member
Well, yeah, but I didn't know if there was any seriousness behind it at all.
Slappfisk
Member
You really do have a cancerous personality.
You are right about one thing, the genetics talk is nonsense. Some garbage quotes from duplicitous historical figures are no substitute for a modern scientific study. Its the same sort of crap you hear being espoused by Nation of Islam nutters and hardcore Afrocentrists.
carolinajazz
Well-Known Member
...don't know about "random chance"....but "random basketball" is their preferred style of play!
The Thriller
Well-Known Member
I understand that the famous survival of the fittest wasn't the best example to use. However the point was:
A. All species have the potential to produce more offspring than their environment can support. This creates a struggle to exist. Those in the population with traits best suited for survival in their environment generally have more offspring that survive.
Now, as far as evolution taking much time to occur, that's not entirely accurate. See the case of Peter and Rosemary Grant:
https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/01/6/l_016_01.html
"Natural selection at its most powerful winnowed certain finches harshly during a severe drought in 1977. That year, the vegetation withered. Seeds of all kinds were scarce. The small, soft ones were quickly exhausted by the birds, leaving mainly large, tough seeds that the finches normally ignore. Under these drastically changing conditions, the struggle to survive favored the larger birds with deep, strong beaks for opening the hard seeds.
Smaller finches with less-powerful beaks perished.
So the birds that were the winners in the game of natural selection lived to reproduce. The big-beaked finches just happened to be the ones favored by the particular set of conditions Nature imposed that year.
Now the next step: evolution. The Grants found that the offspring of the birds that survived the 1977 drought tended to be larger, with bigger beaks. So the adaptation to a changed environment led to a larger-beaked finch population in the following generation.
Adaptation can go either way, of course. As the Grants later found, unusually rainy weather in 1984-85 resulted in more small, soft seeds on the menu and fewer of the large, tough ones. Sure enough, the birds best adapted to eat those seeds because of their smaller beaks were the ones that survived and produced the most offspring. "
Africans do in fact have more white muscle fibers and their muscles/tendons tend to grow differently than those of caucasian descent. Sorry, but the "only" difference you seem to be suggesting, being that our skin pigmentation is the only difference, just quite frankly isn't true.
https://run-down.com/guests/je_black_athletes_p2.php
"There are in fact two different types of fast-twitch fibers, one more metabolically efficient. Whites on average have a higher percentage of slow-twitch fibers than West African blacks who generally have more of both types of fast-twitch fibers.
Geneticist and exercise physiologist Claude Bouchard at Laval University in Quebec City, has run numerous experiments comparing two populations, French-Canadian and West African students. Using long needles inserted into the thighs of test subjects, Bouchard's team extracted tiny sections of fibers, which look to the naked eye like pieces of raw meat. They were chemically treated to reveal metabolic differences, put on a glass slide, and slipped under a high-power microscope, where they appeared as a collage of tiny red and white crocodile scales. The West Africans, by a ratio of approximately two to one, had more of the larger fast-twitch fibers. The researchers concluded that the force generating capacity of type-II muscle fibers at high velocity, the speed and tempo of movements, and the capacity of an individual to adapt to exercise training are all genetically influenced.
Although physical activity can improve fitness, it generally cannot alter a person's biological endowment by converting fast-twitch fibers to slow-twitch ones, or vice versa (although people do gradually and permanently lose fast-twitch muscles as a result of aging). It's estimated that 40 percent is due to environmental influences such as exercise, whereas 45 percent is associated with genetic factors (the remaining 15 percent is due to sampling error). At the far end of the performance bell curve in sprinting, where small differences can be crucial, genetics clearly circumscribes possibility."
The Thriller
Well-Known Member
To continue, the Scandinavian vs Kenyan runners:
"The Kenyans also showed little ammonia accumulation in their muscles from protein combustion, and less lactic-acid buildup. They have more of the muscle enzymes that burn fat, and their glycogen reserves are not burned as quickly, which improves endurance. Most impressively, they are able to take months off from regular training and then regain their old form quickly. When they do train, more than half of their total mileage occurs at heart rates of 90 percent of maximum, far higher than the rate for Europeans or Americans. In general, Saltin reported a 5 to 15 percent greater running economy at far less mileage, but at a higher intensity. Saltin has privately suggested that Kenyans appear to be innately efficient, durable, and fast - with the most perfect aerobic potential measured so far on earth.
Although there is no one genetically consistent African population, the environment appears to have resulted in some characteristics shared across populations. Bouchard is persuaded that a large fraction of both West and East African blacks enjoy biological advantages for power or sprint events and endurance activities, respectively."
"The Kenyans also showed little ammonia accumulation in their muscles from protein combustion, and less lactic-acid buildup. They have more of the muscle enzymes that burn fat, and their glycogen reserves are not burned as quickly, which improves endurance. Most impressively, they are able to take months off from regular training and then regain their old form quickly. When they do train, more than half of their total mileage occurs at heart rates of 90 percent of maximum, far higher than the rate for Europeans or Americans. In general, Saltin reported a 5 to 15 percent greater running economy at far less mileage, but at a higher intensity. Saltin has privately suggested that Kenyans appear to be innately efficient, durable, and fast - with the most perfect aerobic potential measured so far on earth.
Although there is no one genetically consistent African population, the environment appears to have resulted in some characteristics shared across populations. Bouchard is persuaded that a large fraction of both West and East African blacks enjoy biological advantages for power or sprint events and endurance activities, respectively."
The Ghost of Blue Edwards
Member
Sounds like someone with a weak argument. A former slave and an african-american scholar are "duplicitous garbage" to you. That's pretty mean-spirited I must say.
The Thriller
Well-Known Member
I think that looks ok.
I'm pretty sure that the actual number of fibers is somewhat universal and doesn't really change. But the main thing is what type of fibers they have.
In general (I think) there are 3 types, one that hasn't decided yet, white (which is used for fast twitch), and red (slow twitch, endurance).
Commonly, Caucasians have more red twitch muscles for endurance while those of other races possess more white twitch. Training can make a difference in your overall health, I believe, but genetics ultimately decide on how "athletic" you're going to be.
Last edited:
The Thriller
Well-Known Member
good call. It was Gene Flow. But anyway, the point still stands. Africans were largely isolated for centuries without having much of their gene flow intermixed with the genes of those of other races. Especially European and Asian races.
Slappfisk
Member
I was actually talking about Thomas Jefferson.
I'll believe your nonsense when its embraced by mainstream science not people at the fringe.
With all the logic you guys think you're spouting, you continue to make one disgusting fallacy. EVEN IF African Americans are a standard deviation more athletic, there is still NO WAY you can look at an individual and make even the slightest guess at their athleticism using their skin color. That's just not how it works, and every time you try to make that connection with regards to individual you come off as ignorant. Smart people shy away from this topic when analyzing a player not because it's politically incorrect but because it's fallacious and downright dangerous.
This discussion is embarrassing on so many levels, but I'll pick one more: the irony of talking about the evils of slavery while simultaneously employing the mindset of a slave owner as you pick apart prospects based on wingspan, vertical leap, hand size, and even skin color. Just by bringing it up you've turned the NBA draft into something that carries the echoes of a slave auction. Really takes the fun out of the whole thing.
I wish we could just welcome our new player and look forward to cheering for him.
This discussion is embarrassing on so many levels, but I'll pick one more: the irony of talking about the evils of slavery while simultaneously employing the mindset of a slave owner as you pick apart prospects based on wingspan, vertical leap, hand size, and even skin color. Just by bringing it up you've turned the NBA draft into something that carries the echoes of a slave auction. Really takes the fun out of the whole thing.
I wish we could just welcome our new player and look forward to cheering for him.
I wanna play... oooh oooh pick me.
A couple of points here (although I could be wrong).
Look at the lifestyle difference between Africans and Scandinavian white people.
Equatorial Africans spent generation after generation of 12 months of hot humid weather, and they spent this time in the outdoors hunting, engaging in inter-tribal warfare, and various competitions within one's own tribe. In fact their dark skin, is not due to the mark of cain, it is due to a mutation in the gene code producing more melanin in the skin so that the skin and the dermis was better protected. In this lifestyle survival was contingent on factors which would lean towards athleticism... who was the better warrior, who could hunt the best, who performed this competition the best.
Scandinavian white people... essentially their life's goal was to not get sick. They lived in closely huddled populations, and cold climates and were also grouped together with lifestock in these huddle populations. And rather then getting 12 months a year of hot weather, most of the time they were living in absolutely dreadful cold weather, where the body's immune system is already weakened.
Living with livestock made them more prone to get sick, living in cold climate made weakened their immune systems, and living in dense population made them more likely to spread the violence. These people's evolutionary goal was to beat the germs.
This is why there is a sheer difference between the abilities of white people and black people in sports.
A couple of points here (although I could be wrong).
Look at the lifestyle difference between Africans and Scandinavian white people.
Equatorial Africans spent generation after generation of 12 months of hot humid weather, and they spent this time in the outdoors hunting, engaging in inter-tribal warfare, and various competitions within one's own tribe. In fact their dark skin, is not due to the mark of cain, it is due to a mutation in the gene code producing more melanin in the skin so that the skin and the dermis was better protected. In this lifestyle survival was contingent on factors which would lean towards athleticism... who was the better warrior, who could hunt the best, who performed this competition the best.
Scandinavian white people... essentially their life's goal was to not get sick. They lived in closely huddled populations, and cold climates and were also grouped together with lifestock in these huddle populations. And rather then getting 12 months a year of hot weather, most of the time they were living in absolutely dreadful cold weather, where the body's immune system is already weakened.
Living with livestock made them more prone to get sick, living in cold climate made weakened their immune systems, and living in dense population made them more likely to spread the violence. These people's evolutionary goal was to beat the germs.
This is why there is a sheer difference between the abilities of white people and black people in sports.
carolinajazz
Well-Known Member
.....but the finches always REMAINED finches!....they never "evolved" into rabbits or squirrels or alligators! They remained finches with bigger beaks! So, in regards to basketball "evolution"......hoppers remain hoppers......nerds remain nerds.....and white stiffs remain white stiffs???
Darkwing Duck
Well-Known Member
You've done well with your links, Thriller. Credit is due. What I will say is that we've gone off slightly tangentially to what earlier posts were claiming. The earlier posts were about selective breeding somehow strengthening the gene pool of African-Americans during the slavery period. We're now on the individual populations of ancestry and genetic "fitness" for certain activities.
I need to clarify something I mentioned earlier. I said the only main difference of Northern Europeans and Africans were build and melanin percentage. This is mostly true to the phenotype. Bringing in muscle fibers goes more into the genotype.
As it applies to Hayward, though, all the links that you provided would suggest that Hayward is incapable of being in the top 1% or so of quickness and speed, and thus how those two are used in the playing of basketball.
To fix a couple things:
First, heavy melanin content is believed to be the root of all human ancestry, meaning that lighter toned skin was the mutation, not the other way around. This was to better absorb the sun rays in climates that had less of it, namely the higher latitude areas.
Second, even European ancestor society was at one point at the tribal level. Chiefdom and State level societies are a more complex structure that is necessary because of higher populations and things like job specialization.
Third, and this will actually help your argument, is that hunting was different in tribal Europe and tribal Africa. I've read some suggestions, hypotheses, and even up to theories, that humans are genetically designed to be one of the best distance runners on Earth. Africans would hunt by chasing prey until the prey fatigued. In Europe, it's more about patience and quick strikes.
Fourth, both Europeans and Africans ran the gamut as far as people being nomadic, shepherds, or farmers. Animal and plant domestication just happened later in the Earth's timeline in Africa.
Fifth, both Africans and Europeans developed various immunities to diseases. Kind of obvious that those with immunities would be selected in.
Sixth, what a lot of people don't seem to realize is that it's not just the outside environment that affects the evolutionary process. Many traits that have no business existing in the environment that trait exists in. I believe sexual attractiveness is much more important to the passing of a trait overall than environmental affinity. Who cares if that trait survives if you can't pass that gene off because no one wants to do the dirty with you. Now these two thoughts often work together and coexist, but they're not mutually inclusive of each other.
I need to clarify something I mentioned earlier. I said the only main difference of Northern Europeans and Africans were build and melanin percentage. This is mostly true to the phenotype. Bringing in muscle fibers goes more into the genotype.
As it applies to Hayward, though, all the links that you provided would suggest that Hayward is incapable of being in the top 1% or so of quickness and speed, and thus how those two are used in the playing of basketball.
To fix a couple things:
First, heavy melanin content is believed to be the root of all human ancestry, meaning that lighter toned skin was the mutation, not the other way around. This was to better absorb the sun rays in climates that had less of it, namely the higher latitude areas.
Second, even European ancestor society was at one point at the tribal level. Chiefdom and State level societies are a more complex structure that is necessary because of higher populations and things like job specialization.
Third, and this will actually help your argument, is that hunting was different in tribal Europe and tribal Africa. I've read some suggestions, hypotheses, and even up to theories, that humans are genetically designed to be one of the best distance runners on Earth. Africans would hunt by chasing prey until the prey fatigued. In Europe, it's more about patience and quick strikes.
Fourth, both Europeans and Africans ran the gamut as far as people being nomadic, shepherds, or farmers. Animal and plant domestication just happened later in the Earth's timeline in Africa.
Fifth, both Africans and Europeans developed various immunities to diseases. Kind of obvious that those with immunities would be selected in.
Sixth, what a lot of people don't seem to realize is that it's not just the outside environment that affects the evolutionary process. Many traits that have no business existing in the environment that trait exists in. I believe sexual attractiveness is much more important to the passing of a trait overall than environmental affinity. Who cares if that trait survives if you can't pass that gene off because no one wants to do the dirty with you. Now these two thoughts often work together and coexist, but they're not mutually inclusive of each other.