Are blacks better athletes than EVERY OTHER RACE

[jack sommerset]

Fair question. I can't name a white running back in the NFL. Not one. I can't name a white wide reciever in the NFL. Not one. If you can that is a great trivia question. The last white dude that everyone said could play ball was Larry Bird. Golf.....Tiger Woods, this guy is up against history. He is far behind Jacks Championships and other folks records but he is known as the best in history. NHL is a white sport. Baseball has a fair mix of whites,blacks and illegals. Our President is black. What the fuck is going on when people talk race card. NFL whites can easily claim race cuz there are few whites. Baseball whites can call race card because the majority is from other countries. NBA whites................ITS A ALL BLACK LEAGUE. So on a national level how can anyone claim race.

[Cry Havoc]

http://i442.photobucket.com/albums/qq142/bigzeesh92/u-mad1.jpg

[jack sommerset]

http://i442.photobucket.com/albums/qq142/bigzeesh92/u-mad1.jpg

God you are gay! You are a cheap sound byte. Be more.

[jack sommerset]

Tell us why there are no white running backs in the NFL? Please I want ur opinion.

[MannyIsGod]

You think that the actions of slave owners had no effects? Let me see, they bread them like race horses so now we're seeing a more athletic population? I'm amazed.

:rolleyes.

[CuckingFunt]

/Jimmy the Greek

[jack sommerset]

You think that the actions of slave owners had no effects? Let me see, they bread them like race horses so now we're seeing a more athletic population? I'm amazed.

:rolleyes.

wow. :lol

[jack sommerset]

/Jimmy the Greek

Great fucking call

[MannyIsGod]

wow. :lol

Why are you wowed? The selective breeding of almost the entire African American population during those years is going to have obvious effects.


Fuck, don't listen to me - listen to it from a black man himself.

z2Wy_xRHJd4

[Galileo]

Tell us why there are no white running backs in the NFL? Please I want ur opinion.

blacks spent the last 600 years running from the evil White man.

:lmao

[jack sommerset]

Why are you wowed? The selective breeding of almost the entire African American population during those years is going to have obvious effects.


Fuck, don't listen to me - listen to it from a black man himself.

z2Wy_xRHJd4

Your take is blacks are do.:toast Perhaps, sticking to the tpoic, where as every American is do a fair shot they get a voice, a voice that is not heard fron 50 years ago. Your color, your religion, your sex should be treated equal. In sports in a America that voice is not heard equal.

[jack sommerset]

blacks spent the last 600 years running from the evil White man.

:lmao

I don't see too many whites in Africa. Most blacks are running from each other. USA ,black on black crime is the highest among race.Whats that about. I wish I knew.

[jack sommerset]

This thread is about throwing the race card back. Black athletes are giving more than whites? Why?

[jack sommerset]

I'm searching through college football rosters and I cant find a running back that is white or a wide reciever. What is that about?

[Galileo]

FACT

a white won the 100 meter gold at the 1980 Olympics.

Jeff Query and Bob Beebe are faster than hell.

[jack sommerset]

:lol 30 years ago.

[Vici]

It has less to do with race and more to do with economics.

[resistanze]

NFL whites can easily claim race cuz there are few whites. Baseball whites can call race card because the majority is from other countries. NBA whites................ITS A ALL BLACK LEAGUE. So on a national level how can anyone claim race.
It's funny because all these leagues at a time explicitly barred non-white people from participating, so your logic is retarded, at best.


Baseball has a fair mix of whites,blacks and illegals.
But wait, it's just a bigot on his soapbox.

[jman3000]

I can't wait for Jack's "Do blacks have the biggest penises in the world?" thread.

It seems like all he bitches about is gays and blacks, gays and blacks.

Interesting...

[ginobili's bald spot]

Shouldn't you be posting at the stormfront sports forum jack?

[exstatic]

Wes Welker, New England Patriots, 2007 and 2008 seasons 223 catches 2340 yards.

Another epic FAIL by jerk somethingsaid.

[CosmicCowboy]

You think that the actions of slave owners had no effects? Let me see, they bread them like race horses so now we're seeing a more athletic population? I'm amazed.

:rolleyes.

Jeezus. How fucking stupid can you be? Blacks were slaves in America for no more than 3 generations even assuming that they were all bred from the first generation/boatload. Way too few generations for an effective selective breeding program. There have been another 4-5 generations since slavery was abolished. Your knee jerk theory simply doesn't hold water.

[CosmicCowboy]

Hey Manny...are Mexicans in the US genetically superior to Mexicans in Mexico because they had to be able to run, jump, and swim to get here?

[exstatic]

Jeezus. How fucking stupid can you be? Blacks were slaves in America for no more than 3 generations even assuming that they were all bred from the first generation/boatload. Way too few generations for an effective selective breeding program. There have been another 4-5 generations since slavery was abolished. Your knee jerk theory simply doesn't hold water.

Twenty blacks were sold at Jamestown in 1619. 1619 to 1865 is like 10-15 generations, especially since they were probably bred young.

[CosmicCowboy]

How do you explain native Africans that are equally fit?

And what makes you think that the black slaves weren't for the most part allowed to choose their own mates?

[mookie2001]

texas has had the nigerian connection in recent years, FB chris ogbonnaya, DE brian orakpo in the nfl right now, freshman DE alex okafor, brothers LB emanual acho and DE sam acho are blowing up this season

all first generation americans, parents are nigerian


doesnt mean shit but its fun to point out

[CosmicCowboy]

The position that American whites intentionally bred a "super race" of blacks is inherently racist. Lets face it...ALL humans given the choice tend to hook up with someone equally fit/attractive. The quarterback bangs the cheerleader...it's just human nature. Discounting that blacks wouldn't do the same thing subliminally suggests a lack of intelligence/humanity.

[MannyIsGod]

Jeezus. How fucking stupid can you be? Blacks were slaves in America for no more than 3 generations even assuming that they were all bred from the first generation/boatload. Way too few generations for an effective selective breeding program. There have been another 4-5 generations since slavery was abolished. Your knee jerk theory simply doesn't hold water.

3 generations? 3 fucking generations? You ask me how fucking stupid I can be and then follow that up with 3 fucking generations?

Oh man, the irony.

[MannyIsGod]

The position that American whites intentionally bred a "super race" of blacks is inherently racist. Lets face it...ALL humans given the choice tend to hook up with someone equally fit/attractive. The quarterback bangs the cheerleader...it's just human nature. Discounting that blacks wouldn't do the same thing subliminally suggests a lack of intelligence/humanity.


:lmao NO shit its its inherently racist to hold people of a specific race in bondage and force them to marry and produce children. Its not about them CHOOSING to do anything, its about being FORCED into sexual relationships for the sole purpose of producing offspring.

Jesus fuck what do you think Slavery was?

[mouse]

Where are the Asian Quarterbacks?

[MannyIsGod]

How do you explain native Africans that are equally fit?

And what makes you think that the black slaves weren't for the most part allowed to choose their own mates?

Oh I don't know, the stories straight out of the mouths of slaves saying they weren't able to choose their own mates? Maybe that?

[balli]

Seriously. lol.

Since when did slavery mean having a multitude of personal choices? Ignorant ass cc.

[CosmicCowboy]

I am not advocating slavery you dumb asses. I'm saying that the slave owners were more concerned with getting their cotton picked and their beds made and their meals cooked than they were in 24 hour micro-management of who fucked who. I'm sure the slaves did a pretty good job of fucking and making kids without any owner involvement.

[MannyIsGod]

I am not advocating slavery you dumb asses. I'm saying that the slave owners were more concerned with getting their cotton picked and their beds made and their meals cooked than they were in 24 hour micro-management of who fucked who. I'm sure the slaves did a pretty good job of fucking and making kids without any owner involvement.


:lmao

I bet you think the slaves clocked in and out when their shifts were over?

What about plantations who's only product was slaves? Where the owners too busy to micro manage that?

[CosmicCowboy]

Are you saying that if your ancestors were slaves you wouldn't be short and fat?

[balli]

Unsurprisingly cc is ignorant of the correlation between getting cotton picked and having a strong body to pick it for you.

[mouse]

Manny does have a point your lifestyle over the years can cause you to developed certain genes over time.If you think about how physically developmental running while carrying a large watermelon in your arms might be....

http://www.chgs.umn.edu/histories/otherness/images/watermelonA.jpg

http://i125.photobucket.com/albums/p55/RackTheMouse/melon-run.jpg


http://i125.photobucket.com/albums/p55/RackTheMouse/run-melon.jpg

[CosmicCowboy]

Unsurprisingly balli and Manny blame the fact that blacks tend to be more athletic (lower body fat, better natural muscle definition, etc.) than other races on white slave owners.

[balli]

Unsurprisingly balli and Manny blame the fact that blacks tend to be more athletic than other races on white slave owners.
Yes, we all must strive to protect the reputations of the long dead white slave owners. How dare we choose to analyze such people. :rolleyes

And nobody's assigning "blame". Of course there are other factors involved, but to entirely write off slavery as having anything to do with the genetic state of African Americans, is just a pretty dumb thing to do.

[Winehole23]

Look, it's a love letter from:


Can someone please explain to me why their are so few whites playing In the nba/nfl. I feel affirmative action is necessary to even the playing field,
Whites make up 78 percent of the population but make up 9% of the nba and 30% nfl. To me if we are to have affirmative action, lets not pick and chose where.

http://www.city-data.com/forum/politics-other-controversies/42193-affirmative-action-nba-white.html#ixzz0StSjcJPR

[MannyIsGod]

Unsurprisingly balli and Manny blame the fact that blacks tend to be more athletic (lower body fat, better natural muscle definition, etc.) than other races on white slave owners.

Unsurprisingly CC seems to think that being a slave was like a day at the spa so instead of continuously posting stupid shit in the thread he resorts to this type of statement.

Well, I gotta admit at least this is a step up from "LOL THE SLAVES HAD CHOICES".

[mookie2001]

Unsurprisingly CC seems to think that being a slave was like a day at the spa so instead of continuously posting stupid shit in the thread he resorts to this type of statement.

Well, I gotta admit at least this is a step up from "LOL THE SLAVES HAD CHOICES".
rofl

when the slaves were freed, a lot of them stayed to work at the same place!

[mouse]

Darwin was right certain species have to adapt and evolve to their surroundings.

Perfect example some slaves did nothing but kiss whitey's ass all day so they developed larger lips.





















http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_aYJUxvz-L2o/SQoPEPgLhqI/AAAAAAAAGWw/89-jAMolPtg/s400/big-lips-934.jpg

[Winehole23]

i think the disparity in the nfl at skill posititions has alot to do with the fact that white players with similar physical attributes will choose to play baseball (much easier physically longterm)Interesting.

Is this a pet theory, or academic by now?




http://jakerake.files.wordpress.com/2009/02/p1_dunn-si-mangin.jpg

It made me think of Adam Dunn.

[mouse]

rofl

when the slaves were freed, a lot of them stayed to work at the same place!


You want to lose your vacation days?

[balli]

a lot of them stayed to work at the same place!
For money. And it's not like the Emancipation Proclamation instantly leveled the playing field. Sure, our moorish compatriots weren't slaves anymore, but it's not like they had much more in the way of economic choices until about another hundred years or so.

[MannyIsGod]

rofl

when the slaves were freed, a lot of them stayed to work at the same place!

Its because of the great benefits packages those places offered.

[balli]

:depressed

[Winehole23]

pure speculationWhat are message boards for?

[Galileo]

Twenty blacks were sold at Jamestown in 1619. 1619 to 1865 is like 10-15 generations, especially since they were probably bred young.

In the 1790, there were only about 700,000 slaves in the US. By 1860, there were 4,000,000. Very few slaves were imported after 1790, and none after 1808.

There was way too big of a population explosion.

[Alex Jones]

Its because of the great benefits packages those places offered.
:lmao

[CosmicCowboy]

You guys are funny. Can you not accept the fact that most black slaves came to America from central and southern Africa (where they were sold by other black tribes who had conquered them) which is not exactly a kind and gentle continent to evolve in? Where lions, rhinos, hippos, crocodiles etc. (not to mention other black tribes) killed the slow and the meek? Where they evolved in relative isolation? Where athleticism might be an asset and only the strong and fit survived to breed? Where over thousands of years they DID become genetically superior to soft Europeans?

Yeah, it's all the slave owners...LOL...:rolleyes

[Alex Jones]

There was way too big of a population explosion.

guess who helped?

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_-Oha_7alHJ8/R4PTrNSAJbI/AAAAAAAACPo/TnZbNfg-FVw/s400/Shawn_Kemp.jpg

http://i.tsn.com/archives/wilt/i/scrapmain.gif

[balli]

Of course there are other factors involved, but to entirely write off slavery as having anything to do with the genetic state of African Americans, is just a pretty dumb thing to do.

Yeah, it's all the slave owners...LOL...:rolleyes
Way to completely misrepresent the position. :tu Very thorough, astute and fair of you to do so. Stunning argumentation.

On behalf of slave owners.

[MannyIsGod]

You guys are funny. Can you not accept the fact that most black slaves came to America from central and southern Africa (where they were sold by other black tribes who had conquered them) which is not exactly a kind and gentle continent to evolve in? Where lions, rhinos, hippos, crocodiles etc. (not to mention other black tribes) killed the slow and the meek? Where they evolved in relative isolation? Where athleticism might be an asset and only the strong and fit survived to breed? Where over thousands of years they DID become genetically superior to soft Europeans?

Yeah, it's all the slave owners...LOL...:rolleyes

loooooooooooooooooooooooooooooool

So now your contention is that it was the Euro's who lived the Spa life and that it was harder to live in Africa because of lions.

LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOL

So what the fuck do you think, the only African children who survived to puberty where the ones who out ran lions?


Jesus christ your posts in this thread are fucking full of win.

[Winehole23]

Where lions, rhinos, hippos, crocodiles etc. killed the slow and the meek? Where they evolved in relative isolation? Where athleticism might be an asset and only the strong and fit survived to breed? Where over thousands of years they DID become genetically superior to soft Europeans?Africa's wildlife gets no credit for her superior athletes? :lmao

[MannyIsGod]

Also - can you paint me the picture of what the people in Europe did while the Africans were evolving in better ways? Perhaps they all sat around in caves discussing how easy they had it? Maybe they collected art? Ate sushi? Watched reality TV?

[MannyIsGod]

Africa's wildlife gets no credit for her superior athletes? :lmao

I literally LOLed when I read that man.

[Shastafarian]

Obviously the Europeans were more evolved and civilized at the time when African evolution started selecting for athletes. Duh!

[MannyIsGod]

Shhh, no one tell CC there were Lions in Europe until about 2000 years ago.

[CosmicCowboy]

loooooooooooooooooooooooooooooool

So now your contention is that it was the Euro's who lived the Spa life and that it was harder to live in Africa because of lions.

LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOL

So what the fuck do you think, the only African children who survived to puberty where the ones who out ran lions?


Jesus christ your posts in this thread are fucking full of win.

So Manny...are you saying that if your ancestors had been slaves for a couple of hundred years you would be ripped like David Robinson instead of short and fat?

[Shastafarian]

Kevin Walter must really be black. And I hear Kevin Curtis has a black mom. So he doesn't count either.

[Shastafarian]

Tight Ends aren't athletes. They're just out there to lighten up the field.

[Shastafarian]

Grady Sizemore is one of the most athletic center fielder's in baseball. He looks white but he can't be. Because that would mean the team chose a *gasp* white person over a black at position that requires significant athletic ability. Gasp.

[MannyIsGod]

So Manny...are you saying that if your ancestors had been slaves for a couple of hundred years you would be ripped like David Robinson instead of short and fat?

I'm ok with being short and fat but you're obviously butt hurt about being incredibly stupid which is why you're trying to attack me. Its cute CC. Its not the first time I've gotten under your skin and I love it everytime I do.

But the obvious answer to your question is no. I believe that the practices of slavery have given the African American population in America a higher percentage of high quality athletes. Of course when you read this all you see is WHITEY SUCKS for some reason. You must really think those slave owners were really nice people.

PS

Populations in Africa may actually posses genetics that produce a higher percentage of athletes in particular sports (Why do Kenyans dominate marathons etc) and I don't dismiss that. What I dismiss is your stupid "LOL LIONS AND SHIT PLUS EUROS ARE SOFT" ridiculousness.

[CosmicCowboy]

I'm ok with being short and fat but you're obviously butt hurt about being incredibly stupid which is why you're trying to attack me. Its cute CC. Its not the first time I've gotten under your skin and I love it everytime I do.

But the obvious answer to your question is no. I believe that the practices of slavery have given the African American population in America a higher percentage of high quality athletes. Of course when you read this all you see is WHITEY SUCKS for some reason. You must really think those slave owners were really nice people.

I do not, never did, and would not ever advocate slavery. I just think that your knee jerk reaction to attribute athleticism in the black population world wide to a couple hundred years of slavery in America to be naive and stupid.

In other words, a typical Manny post.

[Winehole23]

I can't keep track of who's Jimmy the Greek and who isn't anymore.

[Winehole23]

Tight Ends aren't athletes. They're just out there to lighten up the field.:lol

[exstatic]

You guys are funny. Can you not accept the fact that most black slaves came to America from central and southern Africa (where they were sold by other black tribes who had conquered them) which is not exactly a kind and gentle continent to evolve in? Where lions, rhinos, hippos, crocodiles etc. (not to mention other black tribes) killed the slow and the meek? Where they evolved in relative isolation? Where athleticism might be an asset and only the strong and fit survived to breed? Where over thousands of years they DID become genetically superior to soft Europeans?

Yeah, it's all the slave owners...LOL...:rolleyes

CC: while it's true that over time, the environment will exert evolutionary pressures to express certain traits, forced breeding for traits works much faster and is much more effective. Blacks were livestock, and were bred accordingly by their masters.

You need to read up on the works of Gregor Mendel.

[MannyIsGod]

I do not, never did, and would not ever advocate slavery. I just think that your knee jerk reaction to attribute athleticism in the black population world wide to a couple hundred years of slavery in America to be naive and stupid.

In other words, a typical Manny post.

My post was totally naive and stupid. Nothing like attributing it to Lions Hippos and shit.

No one said anything about you advocating slavery. Some are just at amazed at your...

wait for it...

naive and stupid view of slavery.

[Galileo]

Blacks are not better athletes than whites.

Hybrids are better athletes than whites or blacks.

That why American blacks are better athletes than African blacks (who don't do shit at the Olympics).

[CosmicCowboy]

Blacks are not better athletes than whites.

Hybrids are better athletes than whites or blacks.

That why American blacks are better athletes than African blacks (who don't do shit at the Olympics).

Personally I think that quality of training and financial support has a lot to do with that but you may have a valid point.

[CosmicCowboy]

And Manny, again, I am not defending slavery. That is an indelible stain on our country's legacy but I don't feel any particular ancestral guilt for being white.

[MannyIsGod]

According to CC Yao Ming is really tall because his ancestors worked on building the upper portions of the Great Wall - not because the Chinese Government pushed his parents toward marriage.

[MannyIsGod]

And Manny, again, I am not defending slavery. That is an indelible stain on our country's legacy but I don't feel any particular ancestral guilt for being white.


You keep coming back to this but not one single person has said that you should feel guilty for what anyone did or that you are saying slavery was good.

Jesus fuck for someone that doesn't feel any guilt you defend yourself a lot.

[CosmicCowboy]

According to CC Yao Ming is really tall because his ancestors worked on building the upper portions of the Great Wall - not because the Chinese Government pushed his parents toward marriage.

I have no opinion on Yao Ming except that his feet apparently can't support that big ass body.

Actually, on second thought if the Chinese find some bitch with big ass strong feet and a pair of balls they might be able to breed the perfect NBA center.

[MannyIsGod]

I have a love hate relationship with you CC. I'm not going to lie, its mostly hate, but there's a tiny bit of love in there too.

[Winehole23]

Blacks are not better athletes than whites.

Hybrids are better athletes than whites or blacks.

That why American blacks are better athletes than African blacks (who don't do shit at the Olympics).Oh God.

Thanks for all the wise teachers in this thread.







Please don't send us any more.

Amen.

[CosmicCowboy]

I have a love hate relationship with you CC. I'm not going to lie, its mostly hate, but there's a tiny bit of love in there too.

LOL I have strange affection for you too Manny...kind of like my relationship with my mentally challenged Nephew.

[NoOptionB]

Yes.

It is what it is.

[Jekka]

You guys are funny. Can you not accept the fact that most black slaves came to America from central and southern Africa (where they were sold by other black tribes who had conquered them) which is not exactly a kind and gentle continent to evolve in? Where lions, rhinos, hippos, crocodiles etc. (not to mention other black tribes) killed the slow and the meek? Where they evolved in relative isolation? Where athleticism might be an asset and only the strong and fit survived to breed? Where over thousands of years they DID become genetically superior to soft Europeans?

Yeah, it's all the slave owners...LOL...:rolleyes

ROFL hoooooooooooly shit. Do you think that Africans were fucking neanderthals? You do realize that the people who were kidnapped to be slaves weren't Mangbetu-speaking pygmies, right? The peoples of West Africa had empires, great kingdoms, and societies with complex religions and trades and - amazingly enough - had other things to do besides outrunning some fucking hippos.

I'll second some reading up on Mendel.

[Winehole23]

...in the swimming pool?

On skis or skates or bicycles?

[CosmicCowboy]

ROFL hoooooooooooly shit. Do you think that Africans were fucking neanderthals? You do realize that the people who were kidnapped to be slaves weren't Mangbetu-speaking pygmies, right? The peoples of West Africa had empires, great kingdoms, and societies with complex religions and trades and - amazingly enough - had other things to do besides outrunning some fucking hippos.

I'll second some reading up on Mendel.

Uhhh...I never said they were neanderthals but Central and Southern Africa did choose a radically different social structure than most of the rest of the world as they evolved into our current time frame. Laissez Faire survival of the fittest is still the rule rather than the exception. You can hardly refute that.

[E-1101]

If Slavery had an effect on Black poeple WTF happened to these three?

http://i125.photobucket.com/albums/p55/RackTheMouse/jimywalkerjpg3.jpg

http://i125.photobucket.com/albums/p55/RackTheMouse/jimywalkerjpg2.jpg

http://i125.photobucket.com/albums/p55/RackTheMouse/jimywalker.jpg

[Shastafarian]

Uhhh...I never said they were neanderthals but Central and Southern Africa did choose a radically different social structure than most of the rest of the world as they evolved into our current time frame. Laissez Faire survival of the fittest is still the rule rather than the exception. You can hardly refute that.

What social structure would that be?

[Winehole23]

At any rate, the banner comparison with all other races makes the scope of comparison unwieldy and good generalizations scanty. I'm very skeptical the answer to this is obvious.

[CosmicCowboy]

What social structure would that be?

As a GENERAL RULE Africa never got past the tribal structure. You still see it today in the genocide as power shifts. I realize there are a few exceptions. I intentionally did not say that other civilizations were more civilized but we can at least disagree politically without killing each other on a massive scale.

[Winehole23]

Laissez Faire survival of the fittest is still the rule rather than the exception. You can hardly refute that.One telos (http://books.google.com/books?id=RzTOO5rNMaUC&pg=PA78&lpg=PA78&dq=telos+definition+philosophy&source=bl&ots=jk-dNANvYR&sig=8zH7B4kFITTAjfytRRvYZT-vr9c&hl=en&ei=oPzISrf8GsuntgfTiMS5AQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=10#v=onepage&q=telos%20definition%20philosophy&f=false) of the theory is that the fittest survive.

In reality, only the survivors survive.

http://cache.g4tv.com/ImageDb3/61690_L/Pauly-Shore-is-Dead.jpg

[Winehole23]

They never got past the tribal structure. You still see it today in the genocide as power shifts.Lay it out for us, profe.


I intentionally did not say that other civilizations were more civilized but we can at least disagree politically without killing each other on a massive scaleLike in Iraq and Afghanistan?

[CosmicCowboy]

I would propose that Afghanistan is very similar to Africa as far as tribal loyalty taking precedence over state or nation loyalty. The tribes go with the flow and side with whoever happens to be "winning" at any given place and time. We will never get a positive outcome there no matter how many troops/resources we throw at it. It is what it is.

[Winehole23]

http://poolparty.typepad.com/poolparty/images/pauly_shore_is_dead.jpg

[Shastafarian]

As a GENERAL RULE Africa never got past the tribal structure. You still see it today in the genocide as power shifts. I realize there are a few exceptions. I intentionally did not say that other civilizations were more civilized but we can at least disagree politically without killing each other on a massive scale.

Are they chiefdoms or tribes? Maybe they're just bands. How would you classify them?

[Winehole23]

I would propose that Afghanistan is very similar to Africa as far as tribal loyalty taking precedence over state or nation loyalty.Sorry for the derail, all. This is totally OT.

Sounds reasonable. I really wouldn't know.

It's well known that Afghanistan does not describe a nation (in the ethnographic sense) but instead the political boundary that includes the tribal melange you refer to in your post. It is unclear on whose authority you rely for your certainty about the similarity with Africa, but again, according to legend and lore, in Africa colonial boundaries did not always reflect tribal realities either, so saying so much is merely prosaic.

The well-gnawed bone of contention here IMHO is the argument that tribal societies are ill-suited for multicultural, liberal democracy. To some this seems racist or uncompassionate; to others it looks more realistic. The cultures and the form of government don't seem to jibe, in Afganistan.


We will never get a positive outcome there no matter how many troops/resources we throw at it. It is what it is.We pretty much agree here. The first year or so was damned impressive really, but things would seem to have gone downhill.

[jack sommerset]

Wes Welker, New England Patriots, 2007 and 2008 seasons 223 catches 2340 yards.

Another epic FAIL by jerk somethingsaid.

Congrats? There are about 150 WR's in the NFL today. You found the one white dude and you think what? You think whites,asians,mexicans,etc have no soapbox to stand on? You really think blacks are the only ones that can play WR's? Come on son. Give me us a opinion. Do you really think Blacks are the only ones that can play that position or is the NFL,College,High School, Pop Warner racist? Are blacks better athletes than white or any other race? The numbers clearly say they are better? But are they?

[exstatic]

As a GENERAL RULE Africa never got past the tribal structure. You still see it today in the genocide as power shifts. I realize there are a few exceptions. I intentionally did not say that other civilizations were more civilized but we can at least disagree politically without killing each other on a massive scale.
Ladies and Gentlemen, I give you WWII, and somewhere between 50 million and 70 million dead, civilian and military. link (http://www.historyplace.com/worldwar2/timeline/statistics.htm)
http://sedulia.blogs.com/sedulias_quotations/images/2008/06/04/ruinen.jpghttp://static.open.salon.com/files/hiroshima1222245155.jpg

[Shastafarian]

Fair question. I can't name a white running back in the NFL. Not one. I can't name a white wide reciever in the NFL. Not one. If you can that is a great trivia question. The last white dude that everyone said could play ball was Larry Bird. Golf.....Tiger Woods, this guy is up against history. He is far behind Jacks Championships and other folks records but he is known as the best in history. NHL is a white sport. Baseball has a fair mix of whites,blacks and illegals. Our President is black. What the fuck is going on when people talk race card. NFL whites can easily claim race cuz there are few whites. Baseball whites can call race card because the majority is from other countries. NBA whites................ITS A ALL BLACK LEAGUE. So on a national level how can anyone claim race.


Congrats? There are about 150 WR's in the NFL today. You found the one white dude and you think what? You think whites,asians,mexicans,etc have no soapbox to stand on? You really think blacks are the only ones that can play WR's? Come on son. Give me us a opinion. Do you really think Blacks are the only ones that can play that position or is the NFL,College,High School, Pop Warner racist? Are blacks better athletes than white or any other race? The numbers clearly say they are better? But are they?

And Tiger Woods isn't "far" behind Nicklaus. It's 18-14 with 4 majors/year. He'll surpass Nicklaus. You fail at sports knowledge.

[Winehole23]

Ladies and Gentlemen, I give you WWII, and somewhere between 50 million and 70 million dead, civilian and military. link (http://www.historyplace.com/worldwar2/timeline/statistics.htm)
I almost went there too. I thought it was too obvious to point out, but you are impeccably correct.

Even excluding the 20th century, Europe's history is pretty bloody.

[jack sommerset]

And Tiger Woods isn't "far" behind Nicklaus. It's 20-14 with 4 majors/year. He'll surpass Nicklaus. You fail at sports knowledge.

:lol Tiger didn't win one last year. That's 0 for 4. Son, no doubt Tiger Woods is fucking great but Jack is right there,,,,sorry Jack is ahead of him. You told me I failed at sports knowledge. How bout you go look at some stats sports guy. Tiger is not better than Jack like so many people think. Jack is better!

[CosmicCowboy]

Ladies and Gentlemen, I give you WWII, and somewhere between 50 million and 70 million dead, civilian and military. link (http://www.historyplace.com/worldwar2/timeline/statistics.htm)
http://sedulia.blogs.com/sedulias_quotations/images/2008/06/04/ruinen.jpghttp://static.open.salon.com/files/hiroshima1222245155.jpg

Oh please. The difference is that after we kicked their ass in the war and they surrendered we went back in and "forgave and forgot" and rebuilt their governments and their economies. We didn't slit the guys throats and rape their women. There IS a difference.

[Shastafarian]

You had such a huge opening to call me on 20 major victories when it's really only 18.

Nicklaus didn't win his 14th major until he was 35. Tiger won his 14th when he was 32.

[Winehole23]

I wonder a little bit about commensurability. Equipment makes a difference.

I don't doubt Nicklaus would be as great today, or Woods in Nicklaus's day, on talent alone.

But did the two men really play the same game?



Experiment: Next time you play golf, go out with some persimmon woods, some stainless steel irons and an Acushnet Bullseye putter.


Is it much different?

[Winehole23]

Tennis, the same.

McEnroe was the last player to play good with a wood racket.

[MannyIsGod]

Oh please. The difference is that after we kicked their ass in the war and they surrendered we went back in and "forgave and forgot" and rebuilt their governments and their economies. We didn't slit the guys throats and rape their women. There IS a difference.

lol.

I'm too tired but CC is the gift that keeps on giving.

[Winehole23]

http://www.tennisone.com/club/lessons/azar/century/racquets.jpg

[Winehole23]

http://www.insidestl.com/Portals/0/Golf/ml/old_clubs/woods.jpg

[Galileo]

You had such a huge opening to call me on 20 major victories when it's really only 18.

Nicklaus didn't win his 14th major until he was 35. Tiger won his 14th when he was 32.

Golden Bear > Tiger

Performance in Majors, through age 33:

Made Cut

Bear 50
Tiger 52
Bear's career 131
Tiger to go 79
Year's needed 20 (Tiger age 53)

Top 10

Bear 37
Tiger 32
Bear's career 73
Tiger to go 41
Year's needed 11 (Tiger age 44)

Top 5

Bear 33
Tiger 26
Bear's career 56
Tiger to go 30
Year's needed 8 (Tiger age 41)

Top 3

Bear 28
Tiger 23
Bear's career 46
Tiger to go 23
Year's needed 6 (Tiger age 39)

Top 2

Bear 23
Tiger 20
Bear's career 37
Tiger to go 17
Year's needed 5 (Tiger 38)

Wins

Bear 12
Tiger 14
Bear's career 18
Tiger to go 4
Year's needed 1 (Tiger age 34)

The window is closing fast.

POINT FOR EXCELLENCE SYSTEM

Make Cut = 1 point
Top 10 = 3 points
Top 5 = 4 points
Top 3 = 6 points
Top 2 = 7 points
Win = 10 points

Points

Through Age 33

Bear = 272
Tiger = 250

Bear's career = 516
Tiger to go = 266
Year's needed = 7 (Tiger age 40)

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

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

Golden Bear > Tiger

:lmao

[MiamiHeat]

Listen, you should read up on it.

It's documented fact that blacks were bred to be bigger and stronger.

1) They would grab big black males and lock them in a room with big black females. They fed the black males meat, to make them stronger, before they did this.

By the time of american slavery, dog and horse breeding practices were well-established and commonly known. Slaves were nothing more than property, and they were treated the same way.

2) Generations of slaves working long hours of slave labor, intense physical labor, makes you strong. This also contributed to it.

There is a wealth of history about this issue, you really should get your facts straight before you deny that america practiced selective breeding with slaves.

[Alex Jones]

So if you and Darwin are correct about natural selection we should all be huge black men in only 25 million years from now?

[Winehole23]

Listen, you should read up on it.Maybe you could just tell us what you read.

It's customary to provide links, MH: if you despise the ignorance that reigns here, please correct it. We still need to find out if Jimmy the Greek was right or not. Can you help us resolve this one burning question at least?

Don't hoard the knowledge, dude. Not everybody reads the same thing. I for one would like to know who you are relying on.

If what we're talking here about is "breeding programs" for slaves in North America, that sounds a fairly specialized area of study to me. Perhaps you can find it in your heart, Miami Heat, to forgive this board for not being on the same page.

[Laker Lanny]

Winehole23 (http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/member.php?u=14613) 1

MimaiHeat 0

[MiamiHeat]

From the book, Slave Trading in the Old South, by Frederic Bancroft, Chapter IV. The Importance of Slave-Rearing, p. 68:

"But what did Southerners closely associated with slavery say about slave-rearing? It is their evidence that is decisive.

And advertisement in Charleston, South Carolina, in 1796, offereing fifty prime negroes for sale contained theses sentences: *** "they are not Negroes selected out of a larger gang for the purpose of a sale, but are prime, their present Owner, with great trouble and expense, selected them out of many for several years past. They were purchased for stock and breeding Negroes, and to any Planter who particularly wanted them for that purpose, they are a very choice and desirable gang." At all times "breeding slaves", "child bearing women", "breeding period", "too old to breed", etc. were familiar terms.

Slave-rearing early became the source of the largest and often the only regular profit of nearly all slaveholding farmers and of many planters in the upper South. Especially in Virginia, as Francis Corbin wrote in 1819, "miserabile dictur our principle profit depends" on the increase of our slaves. In a Virginia case in 1848, the Court said that "the scantiness of net profit from slave labor has become proverbial, and that nothing is more common than actual loss, or a benefit merely in the slow increase of capital from propagation."

(From pg. 75 of the same chapter)

The wife of a Georgia planter wrote that "many indirect inducements [are] held out to reckless propagation, which has a sort of premium offered to it in the consideration of less work and more food counterbalanced by none of the sacred responsibilities which hallow and ennoble the relation of parent and child; in short, as their lives are for the most those of mere animals, their increase is literally mere animal breeding, to which every encouragement is given, for it adds to the master's live-stock and the value of his estate."

The most careful planters everywhere considered slave-rearing of prime importance. One in Alabama, who was so liberal-minded, that he encouraged his negroes to read the Bible, described his own prosperity by saying that his slaves had been "generally healthy and very prolific, and their increase is no small matter in the item of profits." Another expressed the common opinion: "Well treated and cared for, and moderately worked, their natural increase becomes a source of great profit to their owner. Whatever therefore tends to promote their health and render them prolific, is worthy his attention." "With us the proprietor's largest source of prosperity is in the negroes he raises", said Secretary of the Treasury Howell Cobb, in 1858, when also president of the Georgia Cotton Planters' convention.

John C. Reed--also a Georgian, graduated from Princeton in 1854 and afterward a lawyer in his native State--had rare knowledge of social condition and was clear and frank in his convictions. He wrote: "Although the profits of slave-planting were considerable, the greates profit of all was what the master thought of and talked of all the day long,--the natural increase of his slaves, as he called it. His negroes were far more to him than his land." *** "Really the leading industry of the South was slave-rearing. The profit was in keeping the slaves healthy and rapidly multiplying. This could be done at little expense in agriculture where even the light workers were made to support themselves." Accordingly, he said, "many of these older sections turned, from being agricultural communities, into nurseries, rearing slaves for the younger States where virgin soil was abundant."

[Winehole23]

Slave rearing = selective breeding?

[Winehole23]

Do you have a citation about selective breeding?

This Jimmy the Greek thing is really beginning to gnaw at me.

[MiamiHeat]

Then there is also books by

Norde, G.S. (1985). From genesis to phoenix: The breed- ing of slaves during the domestic slave era

and many books that tell the first hand accounts of freed or runaway slaves.

[Winehole23]

It sounds like you've already done all the relevant homework, MH . Please cut to the chase.


Was Jimmy the Greek right, or not?

[mogrovejo]

The athletic prowess of Jamaicans (http://www.jamaica-gleaner.com/gleaner/20061122/health/health4.html)
published: Wednesday | November 22, 2006

William Aiken


The sprinting prowess of African-Americans and Afro-Caribbean people in general and Jamaicans in particular is legendary and is demanding of serious scientific enquiry and research.

It cannot be coincidence that over the years the fastest men and women in the world were born in Jamaica. Herb McKinley, Arthur Wint, Donald Quarrie, Linford Christie, Donovan Bailey, Ben Johnson, Bert Cameron, Michael Frater, Asafa Powell, Merlene Ottey, Sherone Simpson, Veronica Campbell, Deon Hemmings, Bridgette Foster-Hylton and Sanya Richards come readily to mind.



Neither is it a coincidence that in the 2005 World Championships 100-metre men's final, three of the eight finalists were Jamaicans - Michael Frater, Dwight Thomas, and Asafa Powell, while Kim Collins, the defending champion, was from St. Kitts and Nevis, while three others were African-Americans, the latter representing a country over 100 times the population of Jamaica.



Notable Caribbean sprinters include Kim Collins, Hasley Crawford, Ato Bolden and Darrel Brown from Trinidad and Tobago, Obadele Thompson from Barbados, while the sprinting prowess of the Bahamian women is well known. The great black (and beautiful) French female sprinters Marie-Jose Perec and Christine Arron are both from the Caribbean French Island, Guadeloupe, while Bruny Surin a great black Canadian sprinter was born in Haiti.



While it is clear that good sport administration, excellent coaching, proper nutrition and adequate funding and facilities are vital to achieving athletic greatness, in the absence of raw athletic sprinting ability this will not occur.



Responsive testosterone

I wish to propose a hypothesis that addresses not only the aspect of Jamaica's raw athletic talent, but also encompasses an explanation of seemingly diverse phenomena as our high incidence of prostate cancer (one study found it to be by far the highest in the world at 304 / 100,000 men / year), our high crime rate (murder capital of the world status earlier this year), our high road traffic accident and fatality rate, and our alleged high levels of promiscuity.



What do these seemingly disparate phenomena, characteristic of Jamaican life, have in common? On close examination these phenomena are manifestations of high levels of aggressiveness and drive, high libidos, highly efficient muscles from persons of lean body mass and black ethnicity. On closer scrutiny all of these phenomena are either related to high circulating levels of testosterone or alternatively to high levels of responsiveness of testosterone receptors to circulating testosterone.



It has already been shown that the testosterone receptors of blacks are different genetically to those of whites and this difference confers increased responsiveness to testosterone. I propose that Jamaicans of primarily African descent have even greater testosterone responsiveness than blacks anywhere else.



The middle passage


But why should this be? I believe the answer to this lies in the slave ship routes within the Caribbean and the New World.



First, let us assume that all Africans who survived the trek from the African interior to the West African coast and subsequently the middle passage would have been more or less subject to the same inhumane conditions which would have produced a severe selection pressure that enabled only the fittest slaves to survive the journey.



My hypothesis is that for each incremental increase in the journey travelled, once the slave ships entered the Caribbean, there was a corresponding selection pressure which ensured that only the fittest of the fit slaves survived and furthermore the traits which enabled survival were somehow dependent on high levels of responsiveness to testosterone.



Characteristics such as aggression, determination, drive, strong bones, lean body mass, high surface area to body mass ratio, highly efficient and responsive muscles were probably all important for survival and are testosterone-dependent.



Since Jamaica was one of the last stops to be made by the slave ships it ensured that only the most resilient and fittest of slaves were alive to disembark in Jamaica.



This hypothesis is supported by a number of observations. African-Americans and Afro-Caribbean people are represented far more frequently in sprinting events than persons from Africa. Even more interesting is that as one goes westward within the Caribbean, sprinting prowess becomes more prevalent and reaches its peak by the time Jamaica and Bahamas are reached.



This hypothesis in no way minimises the important contributions of good sport administration, excellent coaching and proper nutrition but rather looks at one aspect of the puzzle in attempting to explain the raw athletic talent that seems to be disproportionately high in Jamaicans.



Dr. William Aiken is the head of Urology at the University Hospital of the West Indies and president of the Jamaica Urological Society; email: [email protected].



I don't know peer-reviewed studies that test this hypothesis, but I've been hearing it for long. Not only this, but that the owners of sugar plantations in the Caribbean Islands, by having the first opportunity to pick slaves, would pick those more healthier and in better physical conditions, something that resulted in the superior athletic prowess of Caribbeans.

[Winehole23]

Oh, and thanks for the citations, MH. :tu

[MiamiHeat]

Good post, mogrovejo. Jamaica's blacks are in fact descendants of slaves from the caribbean slave routes.

600,000 (scholars estimate) africans were taken to Jamaica by the slave traders, and the plantation owners obviously chose the best of the stock.

It's been known for a long time. Slavery made these super athletes. It's genetics..

[Shastafarian]

Golden Bear > Tiger

Performance in Majors, through age 33:

Made Cut

Bear 50
Tiger 52
Bear's career 131
Tiger to go 79
Year's needed 20 (Tiger age 53)

Top 10

Bear 37
Tiger 32
Bear's career 73
Tiger to go 41
Year's needed 11 (Tiger age 44)

Top 5

Bear 33
Tiger 26
Bear's career 56
Tiger to go 30
Year's needed 8 (Tiger age 41)

Top 3

Bear 28
Tiger 23
Bear's career 46
Tiger to go 23
Year's needed 6 (Tiger age 39)

Top 2

Bear 23
Tiger 20
Bear's career 37
Tiger to go 17
Year's needed 5 (Tiger 38)

Wins

Bear 12
Tiger 14
Bear's career 18
Tiger to go 4
Year's needed 1 (Tiger age 34)

The window is closing fast.
No it isn't.

[Winehole23]

I don't know peer-reviewed studies that test this hypothesis, but I've been hearing it for long.Testosterone responsiveness?

[Winehole23]

I propose that Jamaicans of primarily African descent have even greater testosterone responsiveness than blacks anywhere else. This sounds testable. Did Doctor Aiken ever find out?

[Def Rowe]

I wonder a little bit about commensurability. Equipment makes a difference.

I don't doubt Nicklaus would be as great today, or Woods in Nicklaus's day, on talent alone.

But did the two men really play the same game?



Experiment: Next time you play golf, go out with some persimmon woods, some stainless steel irons and an Acushnet Bullseye putter.


Is it much different?

God damn dude. Not being facetious here... You know the word for fucking everything. Continually impressed by your command of the language.

You should get into radio or something. Carry on....

[MiamiHeat]

Winehole has a point about the golf issue

Tiger woods has a ton of high tech, new gadgets and gizmos

I wonder how much better Nicklaus would have been with them

[MiamiHeat]

As for the slave-athlete issue, it's quite obvious, and there is a lot of evidence about it. It's common sense.

Anyone denying it probably has an ulterior motive behind their rebuttals...

[Winehole23]

I wonder how much better Nicklaus would have been with themI think the point is more that bigger sweetspots equalize the whole field.

Nicklaus was a great target golfer, and a pretty damn good putter. In his physical prime, he'd do great now.

[mogrovejo]

Testosterone responsiveness?

I don't remember that. But about some biological or genetic traits, sure. Like the slavery hypothesis to explain that blacks have a disproportionately high rate of hypertension.


This sounds testable. Did Doctor Aiken ever find out?

I don't know but I doubt it.

[MiamiHeat]

These types of discussions and experiments are incredibly sensitive.

You can't even talk about genetic differences, such as physical traits, or differences in brain development, between whites/blacks/asians without people carrying pitchforks.

Even though it's completely rational, we can't talk about these things without people getting their politically correct hearts broken. It's perfectly OK to talk about brain development in apes, monkeys, birds, dogs, between breeds and such..

but when it comes to human, if you even THINK about trying to say "Whites have an increase in brain matter of at least 7% over blacks, enabling rational thinking and problem solving"

you would be hanged and labeled a racist.

[Winehole23]

Funny, I thought we were just talking about it. It's the topic.

Are you taking a break now?




Smoke em if you got em. :hat

[Galileo]

No it isn't.

Here is the year-by-year points analysis, by age:

age 18

Bear 1
Tiger 0

age 19

Bear 0
Tiger 2

career-to-date

Bear 1
Tiger 2

age 20

Bear 8
Tiger 2

career-to-date

Bear 9
Tiger 4

age 21

Bear 7
Tiger 13

career-to-date

Bear 16
Tiger 17

age 22

Bear 18
Tiger 13

career-to-date

Bear 34
Tiger 30

age 23

Bear 26
Tiger 20

career-to-date

Bear 60
Tiger 50

age 24

Bear 22
Tiger 34

career-to-date

Bear 82
Tiger 84

age 25

Bear 19
Tiger 13

career-to-date

Bear 101
Tiger 97

age 26

Bear 27
Tiger 28

career-to-date

Bear 128
Tiger 125

age 27

Bear 23
Tiger 7

career-to-date

Bear 151
Tiger 132

age 28

Bear 18
Tiger 6

career-to-date

Bear 169
Tiger 138

age 29

Bear 6
Tiger 31

career-to-date

Bear 175
Tiger 169

age 30

Bear 17
Tiger 26

career-to-date

Bear 192
Tiger 195

age 31

Bear 28
Tiger 25

career-to-date

Bear 220
Tiger 220

age 32

Bear 28
Tiger 17

career-to-date

Bear 248
Tiger 237

age 33

Bear 24
Tiger 13

career-to-date

Bear 272
Tiger 250

Tiger is falling behind.

Bear continues to go on a rampage:

age 34 = 20
age 35 = 29
age 36 = 18
37 = 23
38 = 16
39 = 15
40 = 25
41 = 15
42 = 12
43 = 9
44 = 4
45 = 4
46 = 15
47 = 6
48 = 2
49 = 4
50 = 5
51 = 4
52 = 1
53 = 2
54 = 1
55 = 3
56 = 3
57 = 3
58 = 4
59 = 0
60 = 1

never made cut again in major

[mogrovejo]

Yeah, you have a point about the sensitiveness thing. What happened with Charles Murray (the co-author of The Bell Curve) is a very good example of how can politically correctness completely disgrace the scientific and academic discussion.

The notion that there might be ethnic differences in intelligence and physical abilities, explained by genetics or not, is not an inherently racist belief. It's an empirical hypothesis, which can be examined.

[Winehole23]

Maybe that.deserves its own thread, mogro.

I'm still trying to find the bottom of the this Jimmy the Greek thing. A couple of posters hung their hats on it, kinda.

[Winehole23]

Any clew?

[Galileo]

Tiger vs Arnold Palmer

To show how far ahead Tiger is ahead on Arnold Palmer, here are some stats for performance in majors:

Made Cut

Arnold 90 (27 by age 33)
Tiger 52

Top 10

Arnold 38 (18 by age 33)
Tiger 32

Top 5

Arnold 26 (13 by age 33)
Tiger 26

Top 3

Arnold 19 (11 by age 33)
Tiger 23

Top 2

Arnold 17 (10 by age 33)
Tiger 20

Wins

Arnold 7 (6 by age 33)
Tiger 14

POINTS

Tiger 250
Arnold 268 (126 by age 33)

[exstatic]

Oh please. The difference is that after we kicked their ass in the war and they surrendered we went back in and "forgave and forgot" and rebuilt their governments and their economies. We didn't slit the guys throats and rape their women. There IS a difference.

Not to the dead people, there isn't.

Other than Japan, this was a war of "Western" nations. Removing Japan from the equation, there were still plenty of throat slitting and rapes taking place. You need to brush up on your Eastern front battles.

You have this idealized version of Western Man that just doesn't exist, CC.

[Winehole23]

The notion that there might be ethnic differences in intelligence and physical abilities, explained by genetics or not, is not an inherently racist belief. It's an empirical hypothesis, which can be examined.Would you say it is well established or not that racial differences between "cognitive traits" are genomically discrete and well-identified by geneticists?

No. It's just a hypothesis, as you say.

[Winehole23]

Was Murray a geneticist? What authorized him to generalize about human heredity?

[mogrovejo]

Was Murray a geneticist? What authorized him to generalize about human heredity?

Has he done that? I'm not sure what "generalize about human heredity" means. And what is the meaning of "authorized"? I wasn't aware that entrance in the arena of scientific discussion requires any kinds of "authorizations".

[Shastafarian]

So basing it on your own point system Tiger would only need to play until he was 41 to surpass Nicklaus. The fail is strong with you.

[Galileo]

So basing it on your own point system Tiger would only need to play until he was 41 to surpass Nicklaus. The fail is strong with you.

If he wins every major until he is 41, then he will pass up the Golden Bear.

[Winehole23]

Has he done that? I'm not sure what "generalize about human heredity" means. And what is the meaning of "authorized"? I wasn't aware that entrance in the arena of scientific discussion requires any kinds of "authorizations".It doesn't. I was just wondering if he had any scientific experience germane to his putative subject.

[Winehole23]

Charles Murray is a long time potted plant (http://www.aei.org/scholar/43) at the AEI.

[Shastafarian]

If he wins every major until he is 41, then he will pass up the Golden Bear.

:lol Based on your silly point system. I guess making the cut but finishing 25th is better than not playing in a given major. Your point system is flawed because any time a player doesn't play at all in a major, they are handicapped. Tiger will surpass Nicklaus in major wins. What else should we use to compare them?

[Shastafarian]

7 x 4 = 28

Basically you're saying that if Tiger wins 28 more majors he's still just on par with Nicklaus. Point system = flawed.

[Winehole23]

Charles Murray is a long time potted plant (http://www.aei.org/scholar/43) at the AEI.A well-known bastion of science.

[MiamiHeat]

It doesn't. I was just wondering if he had any scientific experience germane to his putative subject.

I doubt any scientist wants to risk their career by studying this. People get upset. It's going to take a rebel to do it.

[Winehole23]

For Charles Murray, being a rebel led more or less directly to culture wars potted-plantdom.

[Galileo]

7 x 4 = 28

Basically you're saying that if Tiger wins 28 more majors he's still just on par with Nicklaus. Point system = flawed.

And he also missed the cut 41 times in the same time span.

[MiamiHeat]

For Charles Murray, being a rebel led to culture wars potted-plantdom.

He didn't really study it to the depths required. Where are all of the results? Mostly hypothesizing, sounds like.

[Shastafarian]

And he also missed the cut 41 times in the same time span.

Woods missed the cut 41 times in what span?

[mogrovejo]

It doesn't. I was just wondering if he had any scientific experience germane to his putative subject.

What is his putative subject? He's a "social scientist", pretty much everything is a subject for him. But why does it matter? In a scientific discussion it doesn't matter who makes a claim; it's solely the claim that ought to be discussed. I'm not aware that Murray has produced work on genetics though.


Charles Murray is a long time potted plant (http://www.aei.org/scholar/43) at the AEI.

So?

[Winehole23]

He didn't really study it to the depths required. Where are all of the results? Mostly hypothesizing, sounds like.So you throw a hypothesis out there.

Just for fun, let's say the hereditary differences between races for certain measurable "cognitive" traits are perhaps reflected truely in questionnaires, the results of which may suggest that certain races are not as mentally robust as others.

Some people think it's a valid hypothesis.

There's not much more to say about it.

In fact, that's really about all you can say about it, unless you think Murray's preliminary evidence is clinching.

[Galileo]

7 x 4 = 28

Basically you're saying that if Tiger wins 28 more majors he's still just on par with Nicklaus. Point system = flawed.

Nicklaus only missed 5 cuts out of 40 majors during his 40's, age 40 to 49.

Nicklaus made 22 cuts in his 50's, out of 40 more majors. He made 22 cuts out of his first 34 majors in his 50's, then he got injured.

He made one more cut when he was 60.

Nicklaus in his 30's made 39 cuts, and had 35 out of 40 top 10's in majors.

In a stretch of 33 majors, between 1970 and 1979, his WORST finish in a major was 13th place.

Tiger, in his first 4 years in his 30's (presumably the best ones), he has already missed 4 cuts, and had only 11 top 10's in 16 majors.

In 1998, Tiger was the defending champ at the Master's. Jack Nicklaus BEAT Tiger in the 1998 Masters, even though Jack was 58 years old.

Jack made the cut at the US Open when he was 18 years old.

When he was a 20 year old amatuer, he got 2nd in the US Open.

He won the US Open when he was 22.

[Winehole23]

Besides calling it racist, I mean.

[Shastafarian]

Nicklaus only missed 5 cuts out of 40 majors during his 40's, age 40 to 49.Tiger isn't 40 yet


Nicklaus made 22 cuts in his 50's, out of 40 more majors. He made 22 cuts out of his first 34 majors in his 50's, then he got injured.Tiger isn't 50 yet.


He made one more cut when he was 60.Tiger isn't 60 yet.


Nicklaus in his 30's made 39 cuts, and had 35 out of 40 top 10's in majors.Tiger isn't done with his 30's yet.


In a stretch of 33 majors, between 1970 and 1979, his WORST finish in a major was 13th place.Because the competition was just as good.


Tiger, in his first 4 years in his 30's (presumably the best ones), he has already missed 4 cuts, and had only 11 top 10's in 16 majors.Presuming is like assuming. Only you're just making an ass out of yourself.


In 1998, Tiger was the defending champ at the Master's. Jack Nicklaus BEAT Tiger in the 1998 Masters, even though Jack was 58 years old.He beat him by 2 shots.


Jack made the cut at the US Open when he was 18 years old.An excellent achievement.


When he was a 20 year old amatuer, he got 2nd in the US Open.I'm happy for him.


He won the US Open when he was 22.
"The following April, Woods won his first major with a score of 18 under par, The Masters, by a record margin of 12 strokes, becoming the youngest Masters winner...

He set a total of 20 Masters records and tied 6 others. He won another three PGA Tour events that year, and on June 15, 1997, in only his 42nd week as a professional, rose to number one in the Official World Golf Rankings, the fastest-ever ascent to world No. 1.[51] He was named PGA Player of the Year, the first golfer to win the award the year following his rookie season."

They're both great golfers. Tiger will pass Nicklaus in major wins. Sorry you're so butthurt about it.

[MiamiHeat]

Nicklaus >>>>> Woods

accept it

[MannyIsGod]

WH, was Jimmy The Greek right? Specifically about thighs I have no idea but the notion that selective breeding brings bout desired traits through reproduction in a very small number of generations has been proven time and time again.

So then we have to question if the specific traits that are desirable for hard labor are those that would benefit an athlete and if that selective breeding occurred. There are plenty of accounts of it occurring and I think the first point is obvious.

[Winehole23]

What is his putative subject? He's a "social scientist", pretty much everything is a subject for him. But why does it matter? In a scientific discussion it doesn't matter who makes a claim; it's solely the claim that ought to be discussed. I'm not aware that Murray has produced work on genetics though.



So?Just to make it clear we're dealing with sociological discourse here, not human biology.

[Winehole23]

Or even genetics.

[Shastafarian]

Nicklaus >>>>> Woods

accept it

How can you compare careers of two players when one of them isn't even halfway through his?

[Winehole23]

Prejudice? :lol

[MannyIsGod]

Just to make it clear we're dealing with sociological discourse here, not biology.


Or even genetics.

The idea of inheritable traits is not exactly groundbreaking genetics or biology. I think your mistake is acting as though there is anything up in the air on that front. If selective breeding occurred one would expect those traits to be present at a higher than natural rate in the subsequent population.

There is no biologic discussion to be had here, there is a sociological or anthropological debate if any.

[MiamiHeat]

How can you compare careers of two players when one of them isn't even halfway through his?

You said it yourself. Woods career has many years to go. He hasn't surpassed Jack yet.

So, until then, Nicklaus is still the best golfer to ever play.


When Woods is done, then you can bother us.

[Shastafarian]

You said it yourself. Woods career has many years to go. He hasn't surpassed Jack yet.Correct. But all signs point to Woods surpassing Nicklaus.


So, until then, Nicklaus is still the best golfer to ever play.He does have the most majors.



When Woods is done, then you can bother us.
I'm bothering you? :lol Butthurtedness for golf? Really?

[Winehole23]

The idea of inheritable traits is not exactly groundbreaking genetics or biology. I think your mistake is acting as though there is anything up in the air on that front.What may be clear to you may not to me. In college I placed out of all the biology I was capable of understanding, and took no more.

Can you amplify, please?

[MannyIsGod]

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

[Winehole23]

There is no biologic discussion to be had here, there is a sociological or anthropological debate if any.Liberal arts logomachy.

Same old family goatfuck.

[Winehole23]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HeredityWe were talking about The Bell Curve. Did you agree with it?

[MannyIsGod]

I've never read it so I can't comment on it but perhaps I simply missed the transgression from the OP to the Bell Curve.

[doobs]

If I were selectively breeding slaves, I would try to breed for strength, endurance, and resistance to illness. I would also try to breed for emotional weakness, stupidity, and timid boot-licking.

So yeah, I think there are some serious problems with that theory.

[MiamiHeat]

Even if we ignore the selective breeding practices that happened in the South,

you have the lifestyle of hard physical labor. Slave diets were about 4,000 calories per day. They ate meat, about 1 ounce less than the free, and lots of peas and sweet potato.

Back breaking work, every day, tends to make you pretty damn strong. A few generations of this, and you can see how the american black super athlete was born.



It's sad, but it's a reminder of american history.

[mogrovejo]

Just to make it clear we're dealing with sociological discourse here, not human biology.

It doesn't matter. Murray needs as much authority to discourse on human biology as you or me: exactly none. There's no such thing as personal authority in the scientific discussion.

[MannyIsGod]

Even if we ignore the selective breeding practices that happened in the South,

you have the lifestyle of hard physical labor. Slave diets were about 4,000 calories per day. They ate meat, about 1 ounce less than the free, and lots of peas and sweet potato.

Back breaking work, every day, tends to make you pretty damn strong. A few generations of this, and you can see how the american black super athlete was born.



It's sad, but it's a reminder of american history.

You're wrong. Physical fitness is not an inheritable trait, it is a state your body is in.

[MiamiHeat]

If I were selectively breeding slaves, I would try to breed for strength, endurance, and resistance to illness. I would also try to breed for emotional weakness, stupidity, and timid boot-licking.

So yeah, I think there are some serious problems with that theory.

It's not a theory.

It's fact.

Read up on your american history. It happened.

[mogrovejo]

There's no consensus if the disparity between blacks and whites in psychometric intelligence can be partially explained by genetics. This debate remains unsolved (and The Bell Curve states precisely that, btw).

[Winehole23]

I've never read it so I can't comment on it but perhaps I simply missed the transgression from the OP to the Bell Curve.Trangression? It was easy to miss. It was a 1994 kulturkampf highlight.

This thread is all over the place, too.

[MannyIsGod]

If I were selectively breeding slaves, I would try to breed for strength, endurance, and resistance to illness. I would also try to breed for emotional weakness, stupidity, and timid boot-licking.

So yeah, I think there are some serious problems with that theory.

Where are the problems again?

[MannyIsGod]

This thread is all over the place, too.

That it is

[MiamiHeat]

You're wrong. Physical fitness is not an inheritable trait, it is a state your body is in.

Are you really trying to argue that an animal that has to run a lot to hunt it's food, over generations, it's offspring will not become faster and better at it?

Really? You are going against hereditary adaptation. I believe you just made a mistake in telling me I am wrong.

[MannyIsGod]

Are you really trying to argue that an animal that has to run a lot to hunt it's food, over generations, it's offspring will not become faster and better at it?

Really? I believe you just made a mistake in telling me I am wrong.

An animal cannot improve its genes as it lives. They are what they were at the time of conception. It is those genes that will go on to determine what genes its offspring will have whether it breaks its legs, starves for several months, or lives a perfectly healthy life.

I made no mistake in telling you that you were wrong.

[doobs]

Where are the problems again?

In order for there to be substantial differences today, the selective breeding would have had to have been coordinated, systematic, and done for several generations. It would seem so, at least.

It's simply something that cannot be proven conclusively, in the same way that proving IQ differences among races is limited to unproven theories. I could make a case, which should be persuasive to you and others, that selective breeding led to lower IQs today among black people.

I don't buy it. I haven't seen any compelling evidence that selective breeding was that pervasive, nor have I seen anything to suggest that such traits could remain with a race 150 years after the alleged selective breeding ended.

[Winehole23]

There's no consensus if the disparity between blacks and whites in psychometric intelligence can be partially explained by genetics. This debate remains unsolved (and The Bell Curve states precisely that, btw).How prim and proper.

The talk it inspired on the West Mall at the University of Texas (before the free speech area was demarcated) was not so restrained. There was open boasting of white superiority and minority inferiority. People kinda puffed up.

They were all shrilly denounced as racists by screaming hordes of bohemians, neophyte sophisticates and dirty hippies on the West Mall, to be sure, but they kinda put themselves out there for that. Screaming and shouting were common on the West Mall in my day. I think people on both sides liked it.

I think they still do.

[Winehole23]

It doesn't matter. Murray needs as much authority to discourse on human biology as you or me: exactly none. There's no such thing as personal authority in the scientific discussion.I never suggested there was. I only wanted to point out that we are talking liberal arts level bullshit here.

[MiamiHeat]

An animal cannot improve its genes as it lives. They are what they were at the time of conception. It is those genes that will go on to determine what genes its offspring will have whether it breaks its legs, starves for several months, or lives a perfectly healthy life.



How do you explain instinct then? A spider is born and intuitively knows exactly how to build a web. It is not taught, and there is no mimicry.

So, by reason, a spider somewhere along started this behavior even if it was small and primitive, and through instinct, was improved until we get the spider webs we see today.

Is this not hereditary adaptation? It happened in the life of a spider. This is instinct, behavior, and it is passed on to the off-spring.

Why then is it hard for you to understand that, something much simpler, such as physiological changes can also be passed onto the off-spring?

[MannyIsGod]

In order for there to be substantial differences today, the selective breeding would have had to have been coordinated, systematic, and done for several generations. It would seem so, at least.


Why would it have to be coordinated? The desired traits were the same across the board. They wanted bigger, stronger slaves. I agree it would have been done for several generations and the accounts are that it happened. Systematic? From the accounts I've read and seen this wasn't an infrequent occurrence but common practice.



It's simply something that cannot be proven conclusively, in the same way that proving IQ differences among races is limited to unproven theories. I could make a case, which should be persuasive to you and others, that selective breeding led to lower IQs today among black people.


You just contradicted yourself but I think its irrelevant anyway. The history is there. Whether or not people want to believe it or accept it has to do with many other factors including political correctness but has no bearing on what happened.



I don't buy it. I haven't seen any compelling evidence that selective breeding was that pervasive, nor have I seen anything to suggest that such traits could remain with a race 150 years after the alleged selective breeding ended.

The evidence is there. There are numerous fist hand slave accounts. There have been a great deal of books written on the subject for quite some time.

As for the traits remaining, where exactly would they go? If you breed a population to a point where a larger percentage of that population displays a certain trait then that higher percentage would persist unless that trait proved negative towards reproductive. I'm not sure being more athletic is exactly something that makes you less suited to reproduce as a human.

[Winehole23]

Fist hand slave accounts.

[mogrovejo]

I never suggested there was. I only wanted to point out that we are talking liberal arts level bullshit here.


How prim and proper.

The talk it inspired on the West Mall at the University of Texas (before the free speech area was demarcated) was not so restrained. There was open boasting of white superiority and minority inferiority. People kinda puffed up.

They were all shrilly denounced as racists by screaming hordes of bohemians, neophyte sophisticates and dirty hippies on the West Mall, to be sure, but they kinda put themselves out there for that. Screaming and shouting were common on the West Mall in my day. I think people on both sides liked it.

I think they still do.

This isn't liberal arts bullshit or kulturekampft double-speak:

http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0191886999001221

http://www.gifted.uconn.edu/siegle/research/Correlation/Intelligence.pdf

The fact that claims about ethnic differences have been used in the past to rationalize racism has nothing to do with the scientific discussion.

[MannyIsGod]

How do you explain instinct then? A spider is born and intuitively knows exactly how to build a web. It is not taught, and there is no mimicry.

So, by reason, a spider somewhere along started this behavior, and through instinct, was improved until we get the spider webs we see today.

Is this not hereditary adaptation? This is instinct, behavior, and it is passed on to the off-spring.

Why then is it hard for you to understand that, something much simpler, such as physiological changes can also be passed onto the off-spring?

You've moved onto a completely different subject here and have tired to make it analogous. Just to be clear, you were saying that a specimens level of health can be transferred to its offspring via heredity and there is absolutely no proof of that. If you can provide me with some then please do so.

Instinct is an entirely different subject all together and I do not see how it bears any attention here. You cannot make the jump from the physical to the behavioral and call it the same nor can you make the claim that this happens over the course of a limited number of generations without some proof.

[MannyIsGod]

Fist hand slave accounts.

Freudian slip?

[Winehole23]

The fact that claims about ethnic differences have been used in the past to rationalize racism has nothing to do with the scientific discussion.I wasn't aware we were having one.



This isn't liberal arts bullshit or kulturekampft double-speak:

http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retri...91886999001221 (http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0191886999001221)

http://www.gifted.uconn.edu/siegle/r...telligence.pdf (http://www.gifted.uconn.edu/siegle/research/Correlation/Intelligence.pdf)What is the Psychology department? :rollin

[Winehole23]

@Manny: Probably just a typo.

[MannyIsGod]

Lets hope so.

[mogrovejo]

I wasn't aware we were having one


I don't know. The relation of genes, intelligence and race is, or can be, a scientific discussion.


What is the Psychology department? :rollin

Meh, once again, who cares? It's irrelevant the name of the department a guy works for. Either his claims have scientific acumen or they don't. They can't be summary dismissed because of who produced them.

Here's a guy who sustains that genetic factors account for the differential in intelligence tests and comes out of a Medicine School:

http://cat.inist.fr/?aModele=afficheN&cpsidt=17460719

[Winehole23]

Maybe not, but provenance does count. Psychology is the classic instance of a psuedo-science being institutionalized. C'mon.

You're gonna rely on the social scientist and the psychologist to measure racial differences?

Or were you just stressing that "it's still a valid hypothesis"?

[Winehole23]

I don't know. The relation of genes, intelligence and race is, or can be, a scientific discussion. Not in my experience. I've never known it it to proceed that way. Never.

I guess I don't hang out with too many scientists, not being one myself.

[Galileo]

Tiger's reputation as a fearsome, dominating golfer were earned in his 20's, when he was at the peak of his career. His number shvae dropped since he turned 30.

Let's compare Tiger and the Golden Bear in their 20's in majors:

(note - Tiger turned pro at 21, the Bear at 22)

40 Majors

Events Played

Bear 36
Tiger 39

Made cut

Bear 33
Tiger 38

Top 10

Bear 23
Tiger 21

Top 5

Bear 21
Tiger 17

Top 3

Bear 19
Tiger 14

Top 2

Bear 15
Tiger 12

Won

Bear 7
Tiger 10

So both won alot, Tiger won more, but Jack Nicklaus has more consistent, first-class excellence.

POINT SYSTEM

Tiger

10 wins = 100 points
2 2nds = 14 points
2 3rds = 12 points
3 other top 5s = 15 points
4 other top 19s = 12 points
17 other cuts made = 17 points

TOTAL = 170

Bear

7 wins = 70 points
8 2nds = 56 points
4 3rds = 24 points
2 other top 5s = 8 points
2 other top 10s = 6 points
10 other cuts made = 10 points

TOTAL = 174

The fact is, Tiger is not going to come close to matching Jack in his 30s. Jack was better in his 30 than in his 20s. Tiger has dropped off.

AGE 30 to 33

Made Cut

Bear 16
Tiger 12

Top 10

Bear 14
Tiger 11

Top 5

Bear 12
Tiger 9

Top 3

Bear 9
Tiger 9

Top 2

Bear 8
Tiger 8

Wins

Bear 5
Tiger 4

POINTS

Bear = 97
Tiger = 81

[MannyIsGod]

:lmao @ the stupid golfing discussion.

Seriously - fucking lame.

[MiamiHeat]

DNA can be changed during 1 life cycle. If you didn't know that, now you do.

Yes, genes can be modified during your life, to improve or deteriorate. It can be done in many different ways.

For instance, your GRANDFATHER's nutritional habits can lead to an increased risk of diabetes-associated mortality in their grandkids.

This also goes for significant muscular changes.

Here is a quote :

They suggest a way that environmental factors—what we eat or how active we are—may perhaps influence our genes, for better or for worse.
http://www.labspaces.net/99442/Dynamic_changes_in_DNA_linked_to_human_diabetes

[Winehole23]

The fact is, Tiger is not going to come close to matching Jack in his 30s. Jack was better in his 30 than in his 20s. Tiger has dropped off.Into the time capsule.

[Winehole23]

http://www.labspaces.net/99442/Dynam...human_diabetes *Epigenetic modification*

[MiamiHeat]

Here is more

Marathon running alters the DNA base excision repair in human skeletal muscle

link here (http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6T99-47RH99X-6&_user=10&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_searchStrId=1033722343&_rerunOrigin=google&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=6ed43e055adc5e4b576096c05e208b54)

------------------------


here's another

Physical activity can offset obesity-related gene effect

link here (http://www.thaindian.com/newsportal/india-news/physical-activity-can-offset-obesity-related-gene-effect_10093937.html)

[MannyIsGod]

DNA can be changed during 1 life cycle. If you didn't know that, now you do.

Yes, genes can be modified during your life, to improve or deteriorate. It can be done in many different ways.

For instance, your GRANDFATHER's nutritional habits can lead to an increased risk of diabetes-associated mortality in their grandkids.

This also goes for significant muscular changes.

Here is a quote :

They suggest a way that environmental factors—what we eat or how active we are—may perhaps influence our genes, for better or for worse.
http://www.labspaces.net/99442/Dynamic_changes_in_DNA_linked_to_human_diabetes

You seem to misunderstand what the article is stating. At no point does it say the DNA changes or that any changes are inheritable.

[MiamiHeat]

That's fine, but your lifestyle can alter your genes sometimes.

and thus can be passed on to off-spring. and there are other articles that show DNA altering in a life cycle.

[MannyIsGod]

MH, none of those articles address the point of contention.

[MiamiHeat]

Bad Eating Habits Can Alter DNA

http://www.newsmax.com/health/eating_habits_alter_DNA/2009/01/19/172911.html

[Winehole23]

...

[MannyIsGod]

That's fine, but your lifestyle can alter your genes sometimes.

and thus can be passed on to off-spring. and there are other articles that show DNA altering in a life cycle.

Show me proof. Nothing you've linked has addressed this issues. Mutations have always happened and that's nothing new. But mutations are random and it is extremely rate for them to be beneficial or even shown to have an effect. You're alleging that physical fitness can alter the genetics of an individual to a beneficial point and that those changes can then be passed on to offspring.

Show me proof of that.

[MiamiHeat]

You said


An animal cannot improve its genes as it lives. They are what they were at the time of conception. It is those genes that will go on to determine what genes its offspring will have whether it breaks its legs

I have shown that you are incorrect. An animal's genes will not always be the same and will not always go on to determine what genes it's offspring will have.

I have also shown that an animal CAN improve or deteriorate it's genes in it's lifetime and pass it to it's offspring.

[MiamiHeat]

so you admit that a human can alter it's genes by it's own lifestyle?

If you admit that, then you have now agreed with my initial point that black slaves lifestyle created stronger off-spring

[MannyIsGod]

You said



I have shown that you are incorrect. An animal's genes will not always be the same and will not always go on to determine what genes it's offspring will have.

I have also shown that an animal CAN improve or deteriorate it's genes in it's lifetime and pass it to it's offspring.

I don't know how else to tell you this, but you've done no such thing.

[Winehole23]

I had half an intuition this conversation would lead to Lamarckian inheritance.

lol

[MannyIsGod]

so you admit that a human can alter it's genes by it's own lifestyle?


No.



If you admit that, then you have now agreed with my initial point that black slaves lifestyle created stronger off-spring

Even if I had admitted the above point, it wouldnt' validate your 2nd - much different point. Do you see why?

[MiamiHeat]

*Epigenetic modification*

Epigenetic modification adds on to or modifies genetic behavior.

Your lifestyle can influence these changes.

2+2

(i'm not talking about DNA alteration when it pertains to epigenetic modification, use other links if you want DNA alteration)

[MannyIsGod]

I had half an intuition this conversation would lead to Lamarckian inheritance.

lol

MH just asserted those articles prove Lamarckism as actually correct.

[MiamiHeat]

No.


Lifestyle can alter gene activity, lead to insulin resistance (http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2008-06/aps-lca061808.php)

Your lifestyle can alter gene activity, gene expression. This means that the way your genes WORK, are now CHANGED, because of your lifestyle.


I have provided enough links to show LIFESTYLE can affect gene expression/activity and even cause epigenetic modification.


Do you realize what this means?

Inherited Variation in Gene Expression (http://arjournals.annualreviews.org/doi/abs/10.1146/annurev-genom-082908-150121)


Variation in gene expression constitutes an important source of biological variability within and between populations that is likely to contribute significantly to phenotypic diversity.

"We conclude by discussing the evolution of gene expression levels..."

[Winehole23]

(i'm not talking about DNA alteration when it pertains to epigenetic modification, use other links if you want DNA alteration)See, when you said:


DNA can be changed during 1 life cycle. If you didn't know that, now you do. I thought you were talking about DNA.

And when you said:


I have also shown that an animal CAN improve or deteriorate it's genes in it's lifetime and pass it to it's offspring.I thought you were talking about DNA and the heritability of acquired characteristics.

[MannyIsGod]

Keyword here: Expression. Gene Expression and whether or not something is inheritable are two completely different things.

I don't think the subject of whether or not lifestyle can change gene expression was ever brought up here as a point of contention.

[Winehole23]

n/m

[MiamiHeat]

See, when you said:

I thought you were talking about DNA.

And when you said:

I thought you were talking about DNA and the heritability of acquired characteristics.

don't be a smart ass. we were doing fine being civil.

I specifically said

(i'm not talking about DNA alteration when it pertains to epigenetic modification, use other links if you want DNA alteration)

If you want DNA alteration, USE THE OTHER LINKS I PROVIDED. Don't point to epigenetic modification and claim there is no DNA alteration there. I wasn't using that link for DNA alteration. I provided other links for that purpose.

[MiamiHeat]

ok, you guys are making me search the internet too much.

If you don't agree, that's fine with me. We will agree to disagree then. I already told you what I believe.

[MannyIsGod]

DNA alteration is fairly unimportant in this discussion unless it can be proven to be inheritable. If skeletal DNA is modified, it isn't inheritable.

[MannyIsGod]

ok, you guys are making me search the internet too much.

If you don't agree, that's fine with me. We will agree to disagree then. I already told you what I believe.

You're absolutely entitled to believe what you'd like. No one can stop you from believing that. But when you make assertions you should be able to prove them. The reason you're having to search to hard is because the assertion you made is based on incorrect information.

[MiamiHeat]

No, it's correct. I've provided enough evidence that genetic alteration/modification can be triggered by lifestyle, and that it can be passed onto off-spring.

You're entitled to disagree, obviously.

and winehole will disagree with the slave breeding.

[MannyIsGod]

No, it's correct. You just don't put 2+2 together.

Apparently neither does the entirety of the genetics community since Lamarckism isn't an accepted theory and hasn't been for quite some time.

Don't really know what else to tell you.

[MannyIsGod]

No, it's correct. I've provided enough evidence that genetic alteration/modification can be triggered by lifestyle, and that it can be passed onto off-spring.

You're entitled to disagree, obviously.

and winehole will disagree with the slave breeding.

You've provided zero evidence that anything can be passed onto offspring. That is the point.

[MiamiHeat]

I did

Evidence that dietary factors might influence epigenetic gene control in diabetes had been suggested previously by a generational study in humans, which showed that the nutritional status of the grandparent is closely linked to an increased risk of diabetes-associated mortality in their grandkids. In mice, researchers have demonstrated the crossgenerational effects of nutrition on DNA methylation status directly.

[MannyIsGod]

I did

Evidence that dietary factors might influence epigenetic gene control in diabetes had been suggested previously by a generational study in humans, which showed that the nutritional status of the grandparent is closely linked to an increased risk of diabetes-associated mortality in their grandkids. In mice, researchers have demonstrated the crossgenerational effects of nutrition on DNA methylation status directly.

link to said generational study and what exactly it states?

[MiamiHeat]

I already posted the link.

[MannyIsGod]

No - you posted the link to a news story about a study that then talks about THIS different study. I'm assuming that since you're basing your opinion on this one study you've read it and have a link available or at least some information on what is says.

[Winehole23]

and winehole will disagree with the slave breeding.Not necessarily. I'm skeptical of accounts given in this thread. But i might be open to some other presentation.

[Winehole23]

What will we be breeding slaves for, in your scheme?

[MiamiHeat]

link (http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0006405)

Inheritance of Acquired Behaviour Adaptations and Brain Gene Expression in Chickens

Our findings suggest that unpredictable food access caused seemingly adaptive responses in feeding behavior, which may have been transmitted to the offspring by means of epigenetic mechanisms, including regulation of immune genes. This may have prepared the offspring for coping with an unpredictable environment.

[Winehole23]

I don't think...


by means of epigenetic mechanisms including regulation of immune genes...means what you seem to think it does.

But it is kinda interesting.

[MiamiHeat]

Furthermore, adult offspring of UL birds performed more food pecks in a dominance test, showed a higher preference for high energy food, survived better, and were heavier than offspring of PL parents. Using cDNA microarrays, we found that the differential brain gene expression caused by the challenge was mirrored in the offspring. In particular, several immunoglobulin genes seemed to be affected similarly in both UL parents and their offspring.
----------------------------



that's it for tonight. i am going to play a game of chess before i go to bed

your life can alter your genes, either through addition and modification, or activity and expression, and it can be passed on to your offspring. goodnight.

[MiamiHeat]

double post, lag

[mogrovejo]

A Comeback for Lamarckian Evolution? Two new studies show that the effects of a mother's early environment can be passed on to the next generation.



The effects of an animal's environment during adolescence can be passed down to future offspring, according to two new studies. If applicable to humans, the research, done on rodents, suggests that the impact of both childhood education and early abuse could span generations. The findings provide support for a 200-year-old theory of evolution that has been largely dismissed: Lamarckian evolution, which states that acquired characteristics can be passed on to offspring.


"The results are extremely surprising and unexpected," says Li-Huei Tsai, a neuroscientist at MIT who was not involved in the research. Indeed, one of the studies found that a boost in the brain's ability to rewire itself and a corresponding improvement in memory could be passed on. "This study is probably the first study to show there are transgenerational effects not only on behavior but on brain plasticity."

In recent years, scientists have discovered that epigenetic changes--heritable changes that do not alter the sequence of DNA itself--play a major role in development, allowing genetically identical cells to develop different characteristics; epigenetic changes also play a role in cancer and other diseases. (The definition of epigenetics is somewhat variable, with some scientists limiting the term to refer to specific molecular mechanisms that alter gene expression.) Most epigenetic studies have been limited to a cellular context or have looked at the epigenetic effects of drugs or diet in utero. These two new studies are unique in that the environmental change that triggers the effect--enrichment or early abuse--occurs before pregnancy. "Give mothers chemicals, and it can affect offspring and the next generation," says Larry Feig (http://www.tufts.edu/med/biochemistry/faculty/feig/feig.html), a neuroscientist at Tufts University School of Medicine, in Boston, who oversaw part of the research. "In this case, [the environmental change] happened way before the mice were even fertile."


In Feig's study, mice genetically engineered to have memory problems were raised in an enriched environment--given toys, exercise, and social interaction--for two weeks during adolescence. The animals' memory improved--an unsurprising finding, given that enrichment has been previously shown to boost brain function. The mice were then returned to normal conditions, where they grew up and had offspring. This next generation of mice also had better memory, despite having the genetic defect and never having been exposed to the enriched environment.
The researchers also looked at a molecular correlate of memory called long-term potentiation, or LTP, a mechanism that strengthens connections between neurons. Environmental enrichment fixed faulty LTP in mice with the genetic defect; the fixed LTP was then passed on to their offspring. The findings held true even when pups were raised by memory-deficient mice that had never had the benefits of toys and social interaction. "When you look at offspring, they still have the defect in the protein, but they also have normal LTP," says Feig. The findings were published today in the Journal of Neuroscience (http://www.jneurosci.org/).http://www.technologyreview.com/biomedicine/22061/

[MiamiHeat]

i should tell you guys I have no idea who lamarckian is.

[mogrovejo]

Charles Darwin with a bad press.

[mogrovejo]

So you throw a hypothesis out there.

Just for fun, let's say the hereditary differences between races for certain measurable "cognitive" traits are perhaps reflected truely in questionnaires, the results of which may suggest that certain races are not as mentally robust as others.

Some people think it's a valid hypothesis.

There's not much more to say about it.

In fact, that's really about all you can say about it, unless you think Murray's preliminary evidence is clinching.




Last month, James Watson, the legendary biologist, was condemned and forced into retirement (http://www.cshl.edu/public/releases/07_watson_retires.html) after claiming that African intelligence wasn't "the same as ours (http://entertainment.timesonline.co.uk/tol/arts_and_entertainment/books/article2630748.ece)." "Racist, vicious and unsupported by science (http://fas.org/main/content.jsp?formAction=297&contentId=572)," said the Federation of American Scientists. "Utterly unsupported by scientific evidence (http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-sci-watson26oct26,1,7818665.story)," declared the U.S. government's supervisor of genetic research. The New York Times told readers that when Watson implied "that black Africans are less intelligent than whites, he hadn't a scientific leg to stand on (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/28/weekinreview/28johnson.html)."




I wish these assurances were true. They aren't (http://www.gnxp.com/blog/2007/10/james-watson-tells-inconvenient-truth_296.php). Tests do show an IQ deficit, not just for Africans relative to Europeans, but for Europeans relative to Asians. Economic and cultural theories have failed to explain most of the pattern, and there's strong preliminary evidence that part of it is genetic. It's time to prepare for the possibility that equality of intelligence, in the sense of racial averages on tests, will turn out not to be true.



If this suggestion makes you angry—if you find the idea of genetic racial advantages outrageous, socially corrosive, and unthinkable—you're not the first to feel that way. Many Christians are going through a similar struggle over evolution. Their faith in human dignity rests on a literal belief in Genesis. To them, evolution isn't just another fact; it's a threat to their whole value system. As William Jennings Bryan put it (http://www.csudh.edu/oliver/smt310-handouts/wjb-last/wjb-last.htm) during the Scopes trial, evolution meant elevating "supposedly superior intellects," "eliminating the weak," "paralyzing the hope of reform," jeopardizing "the doctrine of brotherhood," and undermining "the sympathetic activities of a civilized society."


The same values—equality, hope, and brotherhood—are under scientific threat today. But this time, the threat is racial genetics, and the people struggling with it are liberals.


Evolution forced Christians to bend or break. They could insist on the Bible's literal truth and deny the facts, as Bryan did. Or they could seek a subtler account of creation and human dignity. Today, the dilemma is yours. You can try to reconcile evidence of racial differences with a more sophisticated understanding of equality and opportunity. Or you can fight the evidence and hope it doesn't break your faith.


I'm for reconciliation. Later this week, I'll make that case. But if you choose to fight the evidence, here's what you're up against (http://psychology.uwo.ca/faculty/rushtonpdfs/PPPL1.pdf). Among white Americans, the average IQ, as of a decade or so ago, was 103. Among Asian-Americans, it was 106. Among Jewish Americans, it was 113. Among Latino Americans, it was 89. Among African-Americans, it was 85. Around the world, studies find the same general pattern: whites 100, East Asians 106, sub-Sarahan Africans 70. One IQ table shows 113 in Hong Kong, 110 in Japan, and 100 in Britain. White populations in Australia, Canada, Europe, New Zealand, South Africa, and the United States score closer to one another than to the worldwide black average. It's been that way for at least a century.


Remember, these are averages, and all groups overlap. You can't deduce an individual's intelligence from her ethnicity. The only thing you can reasonably infer is that anyone who presumes to rate your IQ based on the color of your skin is probably dumber than you are.


So, what should we make of the difference in averages?


We don't like to think IQ is mostly inherited. But we've all known families who are smarter than others. Twin and sibling studies, which can sort genetic from environmental factors, suggest more than half the variation in IQ scores is genetic. A task force report from the American Psychological Association (http://www.gifted.uconn.edu/siegle/research/Correlation/Intelligence.pdf) indicates it might be even higher. The report doesn't conclude that genes explain racial gaps in IQ. But the tests on which racial gaps are biggest happen to be the tests on which genes, as measured by comparative sibling performance, exert the biggest influence.

How could genes cause an IQ advantage? The simplest pathway is head size. I thought head measurement had been discredited as Eurocentric pseudoscience. I was wrong. In fact, it's been bolstered by MRI (http://psychology.uwo.ca/faculty/rushtonpdfs/PPPL1.pdf). On average, Asian-American kids have bigger brains than white American kids, who in turn have bigger brains than black American kids. This is true even though the order of body size and weight runs in the other direction. The pattern holds true throughout the world and persists at death, as measured by brain weight.


According to twin studies, 50 percent to 90 percent of variation in head size and brain volume is genetic. And when it comes to IQ, size matters. The old science of head measurements found a 20 percent correlation of head size with IQ. The new science of MRI finds at least a 40 percent correlation of brain size with IQ. One analysis calculates that brain size could easily account for five points of the black-white IQ gap.

I know, it sounds crazy. But if you approach the data from other directions, you get the same results. The more black and white scores differ on a test, the more performance on that test correlates with head size and "g," a measure of the test's emphasis on general intelligence. You can debate the reality of g, but you can't debate the reality of head size. And when you compare black and white kids who score the same on IQ tests, their average difference in head circumference is zero.


Scientists have already identified genes (http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/309/5741/1717) that influence brain size and vary by continent. Whether these play a role in racial IQ gaps, nobody knows (http://www.nytimes.com/2005/09/09/science/09brain.html). But we should welcome (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB115040765329081636.html) this research, because any genetic hypothesis about intelligence ought to be clarified and tested.


Critics think IQ tests are relative—i.e., they measure fitness for success in our society, not in other societies. "In a hunter-gatherer society, IQ will still be important, but if a hunter cannot shoot straight, IQ will not bring food to the table," argues (http://www.udel.edu/educ/gottfredson/30years/Sternberg-commentary-on-30years.pdf) psychologist Robert Sternberg (http://as.tufts.edu/1161609857815/Arts_Sciences-Page-Arts_Sciences_Level2_Template_New_Wide_With_Sideba r_1161609857819.html). "In a warrior society … physical prowess may be equally necessary to stay alive." It's a good point, but it bolsters the case for a genetic theory. Nature isn't stupid. If Africans, Asians, and Europeans evolved different genes, the reason is that their respective genes were suited to their respective environments.


In fact, there's a mountain of evidence that differential evolution has left each population with a balance of traits that could be advantageous or disadvantageous, depending on circumstances. The list of differences (http://psychology.uwo.ca/faculty/rushtonpdfs/PPPL1.pdf) is long and intricate. On average, compared with whites, blacks mature more quickly in the womb, are born earlier, and develop teeth, strength, and dexterity earlier. They sit, crawl, walk, and dress themselves earlier. They reach sexual maturity faster, and they have better eyesight. On each of these measures, East Asians lag whites and blacks. In exchange, East Asians get longer lives and bigger brains.


How this happened isn't clear. Everyone agrees that the three populations separated 40,000 to 100,000 years ago. Even critics (http://www.otago.ac.nz/politicalstudies/jim_flynn.html) of racial IQ genetics accept the idea that through natural selection, environmental differences may have caused abilities such as distance running to become more common in some populations than in others. Possibly, genes for cognitive complexity became so crucial in some places that nature favored them over genes for developmental speed and vision. If so, fitness for today's world is mostly dumb luck. If we lived in a savannah, kids programmed to mature slowly and grow big brains would be toast. Instead, we live in a world of zoos, supermarkets, pediatricians, pharmaceuticals, and information technology. Genetic advantages, in other words, are culturally created.


http://www.slate.com/id/2178122/entry/2178123/

[mogrovejo]

Not in my experience. I've never known it it to proceed that way. Never.

I guess I don't hang out with too many scientists, not being one myself.

There are dozens of scientists doing research on this field.


Maybe not, but provenance does count. Psychology is the classic instance of a psuedo-science being institutionalized. C'mon.

You're gonna rely on the social scientist and the psychologist to measure racial differences?

Or were you just stressing that "it's still a valid hypothesis"?

Sure, why wouldn't I rely? Not all psychologists are created equal; we aren't talking about Freudian psychoanalysts here. Most of the research on this field is paid by psychology departments, but there are geneticists and biologists working on the field as well. They peer-review each others works very often and they're published in the same scientific journals. The frontiers are more fluid that you make them sound.

Arthur Jensen, the most notable and well-known supporter of these views, is a post-doctorate of the Institute of Psychiatry from the London University. Why is he a liberal arts bullshit producer or a pseudo-scientist and not a scientist? A guy who's good enough to the Kistler Prize jury is good enough for me.

http://www.futurefoundation.org/awards/kpr_2003_jensen.htm

Would you be more comfortable if we call them socio-biologists or psychiatrists?

[nuclearfm]

Jack should be banned for making this thread

[jack sommerset]

Jack should be banned for making this thread

:sleep

Obama wants us to discuss race. Grow up.

[Clandestino]

Manny does have a point your lifestyle over the years can cause you to developed certain genes over time.If you think about how physically developmental running while carrying a large watermelon in your arms might be....

http://www.chgs.umn.edu/histories/otherness/images/watermelonA.jpg

http://i125.photobucket.com/albums/p55/RackTheMouse/melon-run.jpg


http://i125.photobucket.com/albums/p55/RackTheMouse/run-melon.jpg

One of the funniest motherfuckers I know!!!:lmao

Lazy as fuck, but goddamm funny as hell always!

[Clandestino]

Just look at your own families or those of your friends. They generally look the same and generally are about as smart(or dumb) or maybe a little smarter(dumber) than the previous generation.

Slaves were bred to work like motherfuckers from dusk til dawn. They didn't breed them for brains or to run 50 miles a day. If you don't think their breeding had anything to do with it then you probably don't believe in the holocaust either.

[Clandestino]

If Slavery had an effect on Black poeple WTF happened to these three?

http://i125.photobucket.com/albums/p55/RackTheMouse/jimywalkerjpg3.jpg

http://i125.photobucket.com/albums/p55/RackTheMouse/jimywalkerjpg2.jpg

http://i125.photobucket.com/albums/p55/RackTheMouse/jimywalker.jpg

Exactly! That's why these three NEVER got any pussy! No breeding for these!:nope

[Winehole23]

Would you be more comfortable if we call them socio-biologists or psychiatrists?Not really. I'd be more comfortable if you called them witch doctors. I don't think of psychology as really being a science, though no doubt it dabbles in science.

[Clandestino]

So if you and Darwin are correct about natural selection we should all be huge black men in only 25 million years from now?

No, because the strong doesn't always mean physically strong. Strong minded beats physicality as well. Otherwise we'd all be fucking lions and tigers and bears!

[Winehole23]

Frankly, I'd be shocked if heritable traits for intelligence -- whatever those are -- were distributed in an equalitarian way. And I have little problem with the idea science could someday produce credible generalizations showing this.

I'm skeptical of the people who are so keen to know the results right now,and a bit mystified about why the research is so important.

After all, differences of intelligence within racial groups is going to be much greater then the mean differences between them.

[nuclearfm]

:sleep

Obama wants us to discuss race. Grow up.

Obama wants to discuss race intellectually. Not by encouraging more bullshit stereotypes.

[jack sommerset]

Obama wants to discuss race intellectually. Not by encouraging more bullshit stereotypes.

Then weigh in assfuck. Do you think blacks are better athletes? I don't. I think America is racist especially in sports. Starts at a young age. The coaches,leagues and schools have a color chart in their head to which position these kids can play. I certainly don't think whites are smarter and better leaders then blacks thus is why we have MUCH more white qbs in the league as some would say. It's all part of the color chart.

Look at basketball. White players are growing in the NBA. It's not white Americans though. In America "whites can't jump" How fair is that? The NFL has to interveiw a black man for the head coach. It's the league rules. Why doesn't the league mandate a white running back on every team?

You say I am encouraging bullshit sterotypes. That is BULLSHIT. I should be able to ask this question. It does not make me a racist. The numbers are crazy in American sports.

[jman3000]

So blacks are racist for being the majority in regards to certain skill positions... but there is no racism the other way in regards to whites holding the majority of leadership positions? (QB's, coaches)