Indigenous players - do they have the motor?

[Scotland]

Why are there no black sumo wrestlers? Why are there no Asian AFL players? Why are there no world class Australian soccer players?

1. Sumo is a Japanese tradition with very little participation outside that country. Japan also has minimal immigration. There are plenty of black fatties in the US who could give it a crack if they wanted to, but they are far more likely to play American football.

2. Ignoring the fact that Peter Bell was a dual AA and dual premiership player, I'd say it's largely cultural and partly physical. Asian migrants and first generation kids from traditional families often tend not to play footy or rugby, but I think that trend is changing over time as there become more 'Aussie Asians'.

3. Tim Cahill? Harry Kewell was no slouch a few years ago either. The lack of World class Aussie soccer players is purely cultural. If every Wayne Carey, Ricky Ponting, Andrew Johns, George Gregan etc. grew up playing soccer we'd be a powerhouse, the sport just doesn't have the same place in the landscape as it does in other parts of the World.

 

[barmy44]

Hmm.. let us ignore a whole host of cultural, environmental, economic and dietary factors that have effects on different individual's athletic ability and put it all down to the colour of one's skin pigmentation...

totally rational -

mate, two human populations - one in the hot plains of africa, the other mountainous, cold far north europe. the evolution of both takes < 100,000 years. you think the only differences will be skin pigmentation?

totally rational

EDIT: not many posts in here that i have read in this thread are 'putting it all down' to skin pigmentation.

 

[Malifice]

How come there is rarely a white guy in the final of the mens 100m sprint at the Olympics and there is never a black guy in the final of the mens 100m freestyle?

Well done - youve identified a phenomena.

Now what you are doing is making up a reason for this phenomena, and ignoring the science.

I suggest researching the topic.

 

[Malifice]

science also says that chimpanzees are between 96 - 98% genetically identical to humans, and that from person to person, there is a .5% variation at most.

And the Science also says that this minor genetic variation between human beings is greater within population groups than between them.

Im other words, you are as likely to be genetically 'different' to a member of the same 'race' as you are to be different from a member of a different 'race'.

And all that is before you get over the hurdle that (scienfically speaking) there is no such thing as biologically discreet 'races'.

Craig Venter and Francis Collins of the National Institute of Health jointly made the announcement of the mapping of the human genome in 2000. Upon examining the data from the genome mapping, Venter realized that although the genetic variation within the human species is on the order of 1–3% (instead of the previously assumed 1%), the types of variations do not support notion of genetically defined races. Venter said, "Race is a social concept. It's not a scientific one. There are no bright lines (that would stand out), if we could compare all the sequenced genomes of everyone on the planet." "When we try to apply science to try to sort out these social differences, it all falls apart."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_(classification_of_humans)

i think you are being a little too quick to label things as 'racist'. no one is saying (that i have read, anyway...) that black or indigenous australian athletes are inferior or lazy, merely they are trying to explain why certain results in certain sports are so heavily skewed towards one or the other. at least, that is what i am trying to do. i certainly do not believe, however, that one race is any less advanced or evolved than any other. that is racism. and of course environment and development play a part, as well.

Racism is NOT discrimination based on 'biological race'.

It IS holding the belief that 'biological race' is the primary determinant of human ability.

human beings today are identical genetically to human beings from 30,000 years ago, and all people are descended from the same stock. i am not stating that the genetic discrepancies are large, or skewed in favour of one race over another.

But you are saying that there are genetuc discrepancies that that they are skewed in favor of one race over another.

Youre clearly expressing the view that 'black africans' are genetically better at sprinting.

Despite the lack of any scientific evidence to establish this.

In fact, of the studies that have been done, the biological evidece actually suggests the opposite. There is not only a marked genetic diversity among 'african' runners - but there is also the absence of the overrepresentaion of any particular running 'gene'.

The studies find that environment plays a far larger role in the 'african running' phenomenon.

stating that black athletes dominate sports at the expense of intelligence, that is racism. stating that, due to results over a long period, white athletes might show more inclination to excelling in certain sports (swimming) while black athletes might have an inclination towards others (sprinting) is hardly a racist or bigoted statement.

Why are those two statements any different?

Surely if 'race' can result in people being naturally stronger, or faster than other races, 'race' can result in certain 'races' being natually smarter or more violent or having higher willpower than other races.

Ethically the above is abhorent.

Lucky the science doesnt support such a thing.

finally, there are examples throughout nature of species which have evolved differently, in slightly different environments. they are almost indistinguishable, but for very slight differences in certain abilities. that is scientific fact. but it could not possibly apply to humans. that would be 'racist'

That evolution happens over millions of years of isolation. Homo Sapiens Sapiens havent had that long, nor have we been isolated biologically.

Your average British person has Roman, Angle, Pict, Celt, Norman, Saxon, Norse etc ancestry.

Please, if you have better science than this, point me in the direction of it, because i like to learn.

Start here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_(classification_of_humans)

 

[Scotland]

Thread well and truly Malificed.

 

[BigBroMike]

LOL Malifice argument= Environmental Factors

http://www.bigfooty.com/forum/showthread.php?p=23231018#post23231018

 

[barmy44]

That evolution happens over millions of years of isolation. Homo Sapiens Sapiens havent had that long, nor have we been isolated biologically.

Your average British person has Roman, Angle, Pict, Celt, Norman, Saxon, Norse etc ancestry.

Start here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_(classification_of_humans)

thanks for the link, i will check it out.

the black/white divide is probably a little broad. there is obviously also diversity within these groups, also. guess im wrong about the whole sprinting thing, though.

do you think indigenous australians are better adapted to cope with the harsh climate of australia, than the european settlers?

evolution does take millions of years, but it is also a never ending cycle. there would, without doubt, be genetic mutation over 10,000 generations of humans, which would be approximately 250,000 years. and that 10,000 level is being extremely generous.

of course, natural selection does not really play a part in human development any longer.

 

[Scotland]

Why isn't the NBA full of Filipinos?

There's 95 million of them, they love basketball...

Must be the diet. Yep, I'm going with the diet.

 

[barmy44]

Surely if 'race' can result in people being naturally stronger, or faster than other races, 'race' can result in certain 'races' being natually smarter or more violent or having higher willpower than other races.

Ethically the above is abhorent.

Lucky the science doesnt support such a thing.

well, i made the statement that evolutionary adaptation might give one 'group' certain physical characteristics (if they lived on flat land) over another 'group' (if they lived in mountainous terrain).

intelligence is used by all people, outside the bounds of geography, so it (maybe?) wouldnt be effected by geographical input. that is my laymans attempt at qualifying my statement.

i thought these adaptations might happen over hundreds of thousands of years, and maybe are still prevalent. the first statement doesnt even bring skin colour into it, so hopefully it remains outside the 'eithically abhorrent' area my last statement fell into.

i do not study biology, but have read a reasonable amount, particularly by attenborough on evolution of life on earth. never intended this to become a 'white against black' view, as i still believe that physical adaptations would happen to different groups of animals, including humans, regardless of skin colour.

 

[Herne Hill Hammer]

And the Science also says that this minor genetic variation between human beings is greater within population groups than between them.

Im other words, you are as likely to be genetically 'different' to a member of the same 'race' as you are to be different from a member of a different 'race'.

And all that is before you get over the hurdle that (scienfically speaking) there is no such thing as biologically discreet 'races'.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_(classification_of_humans)

Racism is NOT discrimination based on 'biological race'.

It IS holding the belief that 'biological race' is the primary determinant of human ability.

But you are saying that there are genetuc discrepancies that that they are skewed in favor of one race over another.

Youre clearly expressing the view that 'black africans' are genetically better at sprinting.

Despite the lack of any scientific evidence to establish this.

In fact, of the studies that have been done, the biological evidece actually suggests the opposite. There is not only a marked genetic diversity among 'african' runners - but there is also the absence of the overrepresentaion of any particular running 'gene'.

The studies find that environment plays a far larger role in the 'african running' phenomenon.

Why are those two statements any different?

Surely if 'race' can result in people being naturally stronger, or faster than other races, 'race' can result in certain 'races' being natually smarter or more violent or having higher willpower than other races.

Ethically the above is abhorent.

Lucky the science doesnt support such a thing.

That evolution happens over millions of years of isolation. Homo Sapiens Sapiens havent had that long, nor have we been isolated biologically.

Your average British person has Roman, Angle, Pict, Celt, Norman, Saxon, Norse etc ancestry.

Start here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_(classification_of_humans)

I'm sure in there somewhere that it explains why a lot of Abletts and Tucks are above average footballers.

Just highlight it, CBF reading through it. Ta.

 

[barmy44]

succinctly summed up what ive been trying to say...

take race out of it, and my argument is that genetics play a large part in determining abilities, as well as environmental factors, training etc, and that certain groups might have larger instances of said genetics due to natural selection over thousands of years.

 

[Malifice]

Why isn't the NBA full of Filipinos?

There's 95 million of them, they love basketball...

Must be the diet. Yep, I'm going with the diet.

Youre doing it again.

All youre doing is identifying a phenomena.

When it comes to your theory as to why this phenomena exists (biological race), there isnt any science that supports your theory.

In fact all available science actually refutes it.

 

[Malifice]

intelligence is used by all people, outside the bounds of geography, so it (maybe?) wouldnt be effected by geographical input. that is my laymans attempt at qualifying my statement.

Muscles are also used by all people outside the bounds of geography.

Why should the muscle be subject to 'biological race' but the brain not be?

i do not study biology, but have read a reasonable amount, particularly by attenborough on evolution of life on earth. never intended this to become a 'white against black' view, as i still believe that physical adaptations would happen to different groups of animals, including humans, regardless of skin colour.

The trick here is your starting point for the discussion is the concept of 'race'.

People in this thread are using the term as if there are objective discreet biological races, when the truth (supported by Science) is that 'race' is a subjective social construct - not an objective biological one.

In other words, 'race' is a muteable term, and one that has its meaning shift depending on whom exactly is using the term.

The accepted scientific position (and indeed accepted in the social sciences and at law) is that there are no discreet biological races, but 'ethnicities' - and those ethnicities are determined subjectively (i.e. self determination is the key factor).

See the old 'one drop rule' for the reasons why this approach is preferred. There is no such thing as 'half italian' or 1/4 Aboriginal etc. Youre either Italian or Aboriginal (or possibly both - or neither).

Once you move past the absurdity, subjectivity and scientific non existence of discreet biological 'races', you move into the actual tests that have been done on population groups.

None of which evidence any biological reason for (for example) the (percieved) African running phenomeon:

Here is an extract (a lengthy one but worth a read) that discusses one such test (conducted on elite Kenyan athletes):

Kenyan athletes have dominated international distance running in recent years. Explanations for their success include favourable physiological characteristics, which may include favourable genetic endowment and advantageous environmental conditions.

The purpose of this study was to analyse the genetic, nutritional and demographic characteristics of elite Kenyan endurance runners.

Questionnaires were administered to elite Kenyan runners specializing in distances ranging from the 800 m to the marathon and Kenyan control subjects (C)(n=87). The questionnaires sought information on place of birth, language, motivation for becoming athletes, distance and method of travel to school. Diet logbooks were used to assess the athletes' dietary habits during training. The training regime of the runners was monitored using a training diary. Athletes were separated into two groups according to athletic success: International level athletes (l)(n=97) and national level athletes (N)(n=307). DNA samples were collected from the subjects using buccal swabs. Both qualitative and quantitative research designs were used in this study. Data were presented in bar charts, pie charts, line graphs and tables. Chisquares were used to establish any significant differences within and between the groups. The level of significance was set at 0.05. Athletes differed from controls in regional distribution, language, and distance and method of travel to school; athletes also differed from each other with the exception of method of travel to school. Most national and international athletes came from the Rift Valley province (C: 20 %, N: 65 %, I: 82 %) (C: n=17: N: n=200: I: n=80), of those who belonged to the Kalenjin ethnic group (C: 8 %, N: 49 %, I: 76 %) (C: n=7: N: n=150:1: n=74) and Nandi sub-tribe (C: 5 %, N: 25 %, I: 45 %) (C: n=4: N: n=77:1: n=44) and who spoke languages of Nilotic origin (C: 20 %, N: 59 %, I: 80 %) (C: n=17: N: n=181: I: n=78). A higher proportion of all athletes ran to school each day (C: 22 %, N: 73 %, 1: 83 %) and covered greater distances. Kenyan runners are from a distinctive environmental background in terms of geographical distribution, ethnicity, and also having travelled further to school, mostly by running. Estimated energy intake (EI: 2987 ±293 kcal; mean ±standard deviation) was lower than energy expenditure (EE: 3605 ±119 kcal; p <0.001) and body mass (BM: 58.9 ±2.7 kg vs.58.3 ±2.6 kg; p <0.001) was reduced over the 7-d intense training period. Diet was high in carbohydrate (76.5%, 10.4 g/kg BM per day) and low in fat (13.4%). Protein intake (10.1%; 1.3 g/kg BM per day) matched recommendations for protein intake. Fluid intake was modest and mainly in the form of water (1113 ±269 mL;O. 34 ±0.16 ml/kcal) and tea (1243 ±348 ml). Although the diet met most recommendations for endurance athletes for macronutrient intake, it remains to be determined if modifying energy balance and fluid intake will enhance the performance of elite Kenyan runners. I/D genotype was not associated with elite endurance athlete status (df = 4, )?= 3.5, p = 0.47) with no over-representation of the I allele among N (0.42) or I (0.39) athletes relative to controls (0.38). The absence of an association between the I/D polymorphism with elite Kenyan athlete status suggests that the ACE gene does not contribute significantly to the phenomenal success of Kenyan endurance runners in international distance running.

These results do not support the hypothesis that ACE gene variation is associated with elite endurance

http://etd-library.ku.ac.ke/etd/handle/123456789/2010

See also:

A look at the medal podium in almost any international sporting competition reveals that some athletes and certain countries enjoy regular success in particular events. While environmental influences such as training and diet are important, it is likely that there is also some genetic component to elite athletic performance. One of the most compelling examples of athletic domination is that of east African runners in international distance running competition. This phenomenon has led to the suggestion that east Africans possess some inherent genetic advantage predisposing them to superior athletic performances. The concurrent success of athletes of west African ancestry in sprint events also appears to have augmented this belief given their similar skin colour. A growing body of evidence suggests that genetic variation does influence athletic performance, yet despite the speculation that African athletes have a genetic advantage for physical performance, there is no genetic evidence to suggest that this is the case. The only available genetic studies of elite African athletes do not find that these athletes possess a unique genetic makeup; rather, they serve to highlight the high degree of genetic diversity in east African populations and also among elite east African athletes.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17465625

The above (second) extract is from the International Centre for East African Running Science, Faculty of Biomedical and Life Sciences, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, UK.

I would assume they know what theyre talking about on the topic.

 

[Herne Hill Hammer]

I know we've got away from the essence of the OP but another query.

Isn't Buddy's sister a national league netballer? A fluke, environment or genetics? Two siblings, different sexes and both elite athletes.

 

[barmy44]

Muscles are also used by all people outside the bounds of geography.

Why should the muscle be subject to 'biological race' but the brain not be?

not really. you cannot sprint up a mountain.

it is the same reason gazelles are fast. the faster ones are better at outrunning their predators, meaning they are more likely to pass on their genes, meaning their offspring are faster, and so on.

or giraffes having long necks. think their necks would be long if they didnt eat leaves from tall trees? the longer the neck, the higher the survival rate, the longer necks their offspring have.

or with people, who live on plains, must be able to chase prey for a long time, so the genetic tendency to be able to will be passed on, as those people could catch more prey. therefore their kids inherit these traits... and so on, and so on.

i dont see how leg muscles etc are outside the bounds of geography? isnt it harder to walk uphill than along a flat road? its just as easy to think on a steep incline, however.

 

[barmy44]

I know we've got away from the essence of the OP but another query.

Isn't Buddy's sister a national league netballer? A fluke, environment or genetics? Two siblings, different sexes and both elite athletes.

or why wolfgang and nannerl mozart were both gun pianists by the age of 4. they won the genetic lottery, no doubt. two siblings, different sexes, both elite musicians.

of course environment plays a part in development, but no amount of musical nurturing could turn just any kid into a mozart-esque musical genius, without the genes.

 

[barmy44]

do you think indigenous australians are better adapted to cope with the harsh climate of australia, than the european settlers?

what do you think of that, malifice? agree, or disagree?

i think their adaptations are both physiological and behavioural.

 

[Malifice]

not really. you cannot sprint up a mountain.

it is the same reason gazelles are fast. the faster ones are better at outrunning their predators, meaning they are more likely to pass on their genes, meaning their offspring are faster, and so on.

or giraffes having long necks. think their necks would be long if they didnt eat leaves from tall trees? the longer the neck, the higher the survival rate, the longer necks their offspring have.

or with people, who live on plains, must be able to chase prey for a long time, so the genetic tendency to be able to will be passed on, as those people could catch more prey. therefore their kids inherit these traits... and so on, and so on.

i dont see how leg muscles etc are outside the bounds of geography? isnt it harder to walk uphill than along a flat road? its just as easy to think on a steep incline, however.

Youre misrepresenting evolutionary theory here.

Biological race (even if it were to exist as a discreet objective thing - which it doesnt) does not imply 'subspecies' (which is a discreet biological category:

Subspecies (commonly abbreviated subsp. or ssp.) in biological classification is either a taxonomic rank subordinate to species, or a taxonomic unit in that rank (plural: subspecies). A subspecies cannot be recognized in isolation: a species will either be recognized as having no subspecies at all or two or more, never just one. (However, all but one subspecies may be extinct, as in Homo sapiens sapiens.)

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

Dont confuse or conflate 'race' with 'subspecies' (which is what you are doing above).

what do you think of that, malifice? agree, or disagree?

On biological grounds, I disagree. And again, the science supports me.

Outback survivial is entirely environmental (i.e. its about skill and knowledge not biology).

Take a city boy and plonk him in the outback, and he'll be lucky to survive more than 24 hours.

Plonk Bear Grylls out there and its a different story.

 

[barmy44]

Youre misrepresenting evolutionary theory here.

Biological race (even if it were to exist as a discreet objective thing - which it doesnt) does not imply 'subspecies' (which is a discreet biological category:



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

Dont confuse or conflate 'race' with 'subspecies' (which is what you are doing above).

im well aware that different 'races' are not different subspecies of human.

if you read what i wrote, i actually gave three different species. gazelle, giraffe, and human. race did not come into it.

On biological grounds, I disagree. And again, the science supports me.

Outback survivial is entirely environmental (i.e. its about skill and knowledge not biology).

Take a city boy and plonk him in the outback, and he'll be lucky to survive more than 24 hours.

Plonk Bear Grylls out there and its a different story.

agree to an extent, but isnt the darker skin a physiological adaptation to the increased exposure to sunlight? there is one. i also know that indigenous people had behavioural ways of dealing with the heat, such as sleeping during the hottest parts of the day and hunting at dawn/dusk.

i believe i read somewhere that broader noses meant more blood circulating through the head could be cooled quicker... i dont have a source for this, though, so cannot vouch for how reputable that is.

it seems logical that one physiological change (darker skin reflects more sunlight, so therefore people in sun prone areas have darker skin. people in sun deprived areas have lighter skin to absorb more of the sunlight - less cases of sunburn in darker skinned people) would mean there have been others, however slight, in order to better cope with the surrounding environment.

as for bear grylls, he would definitely survive longer than most, but without constant protection above what his body is physiologically capable of, he would be riddled with melanoma.

 

[Malifice]

if you read what i wrote, i actually gave three different species. gazelle, giraffe, and human. race did not come into it.

You were using giraffes etc as an analogy to human race (homo sapiens sapien).

agree to an extent, but isnt the darker skin a physiological adaptation to the increased exposure to sunlight? there is one. i also know that indigenous people had behavioural ways of dealing with the heat, such as sleeping during the hottest parts of the day and hunting at dawn/dusk.

i believe i read somewhere that broader noses meant more blood circulating through the head could be cooled quicker... i dont have a source for this, though, so cannot vouch for how reputable that is.

it seems logical that one physiological change (darker skin reflects more sunlight, so therefore people in sun prone areas have darker skin. people in sun deprived areas have lighter skin to absorb more of the sunlight - less cases of sunburn in darker skinned people) would mean there have been others, however slight, in order to better cope with the surrounding environment.

Im not suggesting that there havent been slight changes among certain population groups over time (due to environmental isolation).

I am saying that the Science does not support the existence of discreet biological races, nor does it support the theory that 'race' is the primary (or even a significant) determinant of human ability.

In fact in every study ever done on the topic, environment accounts for the percieved differences.

If you want to know (for example) why there is an overrepesentation of Aboriginal football players, head to a remote community and watch the vastly greater levels of participation by Indigenous kids. Also note the efforts by the AFL to increase funding and promote Indigenous culture and people (the indigenous round, Auskick funding, indigenous scholarships and grants etc).

Its environment, not biology.

Aside from being Aboriginal and footballers, what do Franklin, Betts, Goodes, McLeod, Garlett, Wirrapanda have in common? Vastly different body types, vastly different players, vastly different physical attributes.

 

[Herne Hill Hammer]

You were using giraffes etc as an analogy to human race (homo sapiens sapien).



Im not suggesting that there havent been slight changes among certain population groups over time (due to environmental isolation).

I am saying that the Science does not support the existence of discreet biological races, nor does it support the theory that 'race' is the primary (or even a significant) determinant of human ability.

In fact in every study ever done on the topic, environment accounts for the percieved differences.

If you want to know (for example) why there is an overrepesentation of Aboriginal football players, head to a remote community and watch the vastly greater levels of participation by Indigenous kids. Also note the efforts by the AFL to increase funding and promote Indigenous culture and people (the indigenous round, Auskick funding, indigenous scholarships and grants etc).

Its environment, not biology.

Aside from being Aboriginal and footballers, what do Franklin, Betts, Goodes, McLeod, Garlett, Wirrapanda have in common? Vastly different body types, vastly different players, vastly different physical attributes.

What are their bloodlines?

Why don't racehorse owners pay millions for foals by Mr Ed out of Francis the Talking Mule? The whole breeding industry is about bloodlines and which of those bloodlines is more likely to produce a good horse. Are you asserting that they've all been wasting their time for a century or so?

 

[barmy44]

You were using giraffes etc as an analogy to human race (homo sapiens sapien).

so evolution through natural selection effects giraffes, but not humans?

Im not suggesting that there havent been slight changes among certain population groups over time (due to environmental isolation).

I am saying that the Science does not support the existence of discreet biological races, nor does it support the theory that 'race' is the primary (or even a significant) determinant of human ability.

In fact in every study ever done on the topic, environment accounts for the percieved differences.

If you want to know (for example) why there is an overrepesentation of Aboriginal football players, head to a remote community and watch the vastly greater levels of participation by Indigenous kids. Also note the efforts by the AFL to increase funding and promote Indigenous culture and people (the indigenous round, Auskick funding, indigenous scholarships and grants etc).

Its environment, not biology.

Aside from being Aboriginal and footballers, what do Franklin, Betts, Goodes, McLeod, Garlett, Wirrapanda have in common? Vastly different body types, vastly different players, vastly different physical attributes.

never once suggested that all members of a 'race' are identical, and all share the same traits and physical characteristics.

thats like saying 'how come every kid born in germany cannot compose music as brilliant as beethovens, even while deaf?'

im well aware that aboriginal development involved thousands of different and distinct groups, and hundreds of different and distinct languages. just as in africa, or europe, or north america...

dont put words into my mouth like that.

im also aware that biologically discreet races are a fallacy, but individual pockets of people have likely developed very slightly differently, over the thousands of years of their development, in relative isolation.

i doubt any africans 10,000 years ago hopped onto a QANTAS flight in order to mix their traits with those of the native americans...

 

[Malifice]

What are their bloodlines?

Why don't racehorse owners pay millions for foals by Mr Ed out of Francis the Talking Mule? The whole breeding industry is about bloodlines and which of those bloodlines is more likely to produce a good horse. Are you asserting that they've all been wasting their time for a century or so?

And if humans were subject to a program of eugenics (like for example horses and dogs) for thousands of years, you would almost certainly see the kinds of variations you suggest exist in homo sapiens sapien.

But we havent engaged in eugenics, and we dont see the variations you suggest exist.

Look, go read the actual science on the topic. Human Geonome project for a start.

Rather than regurgitate subjective assumptions that are unsupported by the science.

Its not like we havent been looking for the existence of 'biological race'.

Its just that it doesnt exist in the way you (and others) are using the term.

 

[Herne Hill Hammer]

And if humans were subject to a program of eugenics (like for example horses and dogs) for thousands of years, you would almost certainly see the kinds of variations you suggest exist in homo sapiens sapien.

But we havent engaged in eugenics, and we dont see the variations you suggest exist.

Look, go read the actual science on the topic. Human Geonome project for a start.

Rather than regurgitate subjective assumptions that are unsupported by the science.

Its not like we havent been looking for the existence of 'biological race'.

Its just that it doesnt exist in the way you (and others) are using the term.

You still haven't answered if Gary Ablett Snr marrying Faye Tuck and producing Gary Jnr and Nathan was just an absolute fluke.

 

[Malifice]

so evolution through natural selection effects giraffes, but not humans?

Of course it does! Homo Sapiens Sapiens evolved from Homo Erectus 1.3 million years ago. Thats how long evolution takes mate - and thats just evolution from one subsepcies to another subspecies (not an entirely different species).

FWIW, the most genetically isolated peoples on the planet are the Aboriginal Australians, and even theyve only had some 40,000 years of isolation.

Now have a look at Giraffes from 40,000 years ago and see if you can spot the difference.

never once suggested that all members of a 'race' are identical, and all share the same traits and physical characteristics.

No but you are suggesting that 'biological race' (that doesnt exist) is behind percieved differences in human ability (which it isnt).

im also aware that biologically discreet races are a fallacy, but individual pockets of people have likely developed very slightly differently, over the thousands of years of their development, in relative isolation.

Even if a population group were to be isolated for a 1000 years, that simply isnt enough time for a genetic variation to occur.

Evolution takes millions of years to occur.

There are some intresting exceptions however in particularly small and isolated population groups. I recall a particualar group in PNG (IIRC) that have a high level of hermaphrodites. Something like 20% of all girls become hermaphrodites at puberty. Also, the pygmies display clear and marked physcial traits (theyre little buggers!)

Neither of these are evolutionary traits by the way. They are a result of the population groups (and gene pool) being small to start with, and total isolation within the group.

Hereditary traits are not always caused by evolution you need to remember. Pygmies didnt evolve to become small - they were an isolated ethnic goup that diplayed high levels of dwarfism to begin with. With limited mate selection, this became a dominant trait. Often exceptions like this are the result of pre-existing gentic quirks shared by virtue of isolation and small population groups, not as the by product of the evolutionary process.

i doubt any africans 10,000 years ago hopped onto a QANTAS flight in order to mix their traits with those of the native americans...

Native Americans are actually Mongolians that crossed from Alaska and Siberia not all that long ago. Certainly less than 10,000 years ago.

But anyway.