Reply With Quote
Could you be more specific?
Give us some names.
Well Miami, that is a excellent question. I am assuming we are talking about NFL and NBA, not sports in general. If that is the case I did answer it. TONS. As I said the chance at s om was killed long before these kids hit puberty because of racial sterotypes..
Could you be more specific?
Give us some names.
Um, we could tell.
Eh, he was a great botanist and he's still foundational for taxonomy. His theory of heredity was eventually superseded, but the kernel, that heredity proceeds according to natural laws, surely influenced Darwin.
I don't remember my biology teacher slagging Lamarck. On the contrary, she pointed out his important contributions to science.
If Lamarckian said that lifestyle can cause gene alteration which can potentially become hereditary, then the man was correct and modern science owes him an apology
You're too much, MH. You should post more in here.
The Indiana Pacers and hickey throw off your numbers...
What about the Utah Jazz?
Wrong again.
Can you name specific players that wanted to be in the NBA or NFL but were racially discriminated against for being white?
Is this about you, jack? Did you want to be a running back for the Cowboys?
Humans/scientists tend to love to give rules to everything.
"The speed of light is a constant, and nothing can go faster!"
Obviously, it's wrong. The speed of light is not a constant, it has changed over time, and there is no speed limit on the universe that says you cannot go faster. Universe is chaos. What we see today is where the marbles fell, but it's not rigid and static.
Evolution is not just a product of ONLY natural selection. I believe evolution is a mix of many different methods. Natural selection might be the majority, but not the rule. There are other factors involved, as well, even if they occur a smaller percentage of the time. They still contribute.
I think I made my self perfectly clear on this question. The white kids are not giving the chance. They have already been sterotyped and are not giving the same oppurtunity as black kids.
You mention Utah Jazz. They have more white people on their team but most are not from America.
Faith-based, I suspect. I'm unaware of any actual cases.
ive heard several takes on why blacks are "better athletes." i heard one interesting prospective that it has alot to do with evolution. the theory was that europeans and africans developed different styles of athleticism because of the geography of the continents. europeans were generally shorter and stouter because of the rugged terrain, ie lots of mountains, while africans were taller and leaner due to the flatness of the savannah.
if football fields and olympic tracks were on the side of mountains, there might be a different outcome.
personally i feel like its more of an economic matter. the irish were generally considered the best athletes in the early 20th century. most of them were fresh off the boat and were in the lower class. nowadays african americans are considered the best athletes in the nation - they arent doing so well in the economy. since poor people generally cant afford a playstation or tv, outside recreation is their best form of entertainment.
So there must be no white running backs in high school either, right?
The ratio of white Pop Warner and high school football players must be the same as that of the NFL, right?
Ok, so now I know some about Lamarckiasm (read last night and today)
How does this even make sense?
---------------------------------------
George Cuvier 1769-1832
Because of the weakness of Lamarck’s theory, it was relatively easy for the French scientist, Georges Cuvier, and other critics to discredit the idea of inheritance of acquired characteristics.
Critics were quick to point out that if Lamarckianism was correct, the children of cowboys who have developed bowed legs as a result of a lifetime of riding horses would be born with bowed legs as well and the children of professional weight lifters would be born with enlarged muscles. It is obvious that these things do not occur.
--------------------------------------------
What the F?
That doesn't even make any sense. That is one of the stupidest methods/reasoning of disproving an idea I have ever read.
The shape your legs rides on a horse has no effect on this.
The changes would be in muscle use and predisposition to muscle strength in certain areas of your legs. For instance, instead of looking for bow legged children, how about we look for stronger than "normal" muscles around the thigh areas (no, not at birth), you know, muscles that horse riders would develop and strengthen a lot more than your non-horse riding human being.
Then test the ability for the children to develop muscle mass there more quickly than other 'normal' children, etc..
Do you get what I am saying?
How the did this pass off as a method of disproving lamarck? What a load of horse .
As for the body builder thing, so they seriously believe the only way to prove it is if babies are born with enlarged muscles? oh my brain hurts from the stupidity.
Last edited by MiamiHeat; 10-04-2009 at 04:43 PM.
Let em have it, MH!
Seriously, it's scientific fact in 2009 that your lifestyle causes genetic alterations, from expression to modification, you may even force certain genes to become completely dormant.
and we also know for a fact that certain kinds of genetic alterations can be passed onto off-spring.
The question is, what are all the different types? Modern science doesn't know yet
Lamarck's theory has to be polished and tweaked, fixed, but he was correct.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georges_Cuvier
He repeatedly emphasized that his extensive experience with fossil material indicated that one fossil form does not, as a rule, gradually change into a succeeding, distinct fossil form. Instead, he said, the typical form makes an abrupt appearance in the fossil record, and persists unchanged to the time of its extinction (this is the well-do ented paleontological phenomenon now referred to as "punctuated equilibrium").[15] In other words, Cuvier was a saltationist. While, like other saltationists, he offered no explanation of how saltational evolution might occur, he was skeptical of the gradual mechanisms of change that Lamarck and Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire proposed. Moreover, his commitment to the principle of correlation of parts caused him to doubt that any mechanism could ever gradually modify any part of an animal in isolation from all the other parts (in the way Lamarck proposed), without rendering the animal unable to survive.[16]
I don't agree with Lamarck's theory by the way. He uses it as a way to explain evolution, phenotype variation and such
His theory has to be tweaked, to the micro level. Genetic alterations which help the organism survive in it's environment.
The organism won't grow a new tail, but instead, will have a stronger tail. The tail will be the same, a product of natural selection.
However, once a mutation occurs, through lifestyle of the organism, such as using the tail extensively in certain things, the muscles grow stronger in certain areas of the tail in DIRECT RELATION to the activities required for it's survival. This affects the genes and modifies/alters the expression and is thus passed onto off-spring
Tell us more O Sensei!
Will this development lead to a race of super-athletes, led forth by Chuck Norris to conquer evil?
ok, read what I wrote please and tell me where I am wrong or doesn't make sense.
I don't agree with Lamarck's theory by the way. He uses it as a way to explain evolution, phenotype variation and such
His theory has to be tweaked, to the micro level. Genetic alterations which help the organism survive in it's environment.
The organism won't grow a new tail, but instead, will have a stronger tail. The tail will be the same, the tail is a product of natural selection, not lamarck's theory.
However, once a mutation occurs (natural selection), and that organism becomes successful with it's mutation, through lifestyle of the organism, such as using the tail extensively in certain things, the muscles grow stronger in certain areas of the tail in DIRECT RELATION to the activities required for it's survival. This affects the genes and modifies/alters the expression and is thus passed onto off-spring, enabling the off-spring to use the tail much better, until gradually, the tail's strength reaches it's optimal level of muscle mass and strength required for successful survival.
Thus, lamarck's theory was only incorrect when trying to explain the driving force behind evolution. Modern evolutionary synthesis is the main cause of evolution, with lamarck's theory as the support system for the mutations.
Last edited by MiamiHeat; 10-04-2009 at 05:12 PM.
holy . i am a genius.
NOBEL PRIZE PLZ
Wouldn't you rather have a banana and a Darwin key chain?
A buddy of mine who has been in the racing business all his life told me Blacks make very bad race car drivers in todays NASCAR races he says they lack concentration, just one distraction and you can hit the wall or another driver that is why you don't see many black NASACR drivers, so there is a trade off.
remember, you read it here first.
you can show your gra ude, pictures of naked chicks accepted.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions