I noticed the discussion in "non-genetics thread" about why different
populations do well in certain sports. WROWE mentioned my book, "TABOO: Why
Black Athletes Dominate Sports and Why We're Afraid to Talk About It."

I explain the history of this issue in both political and scientific context
in the  book, with hundreds of footnotes documenting that there is
overwhelming evidence of anatomical/physiological differences between
sub-populations rooted in the genotype.

In fact, I wrote an article on this most recently this past Sunday in the
Chicago Tribune, which can be found on my web page at (the Ray Lewis
controversy underpins this particular piece):

http://www.***.com/

There are dozens of other articles and reviews on the web site for those
interested in background on the issue. I would also refer people to the
excellent cover story in September's Scientific American on "Muscles and
Genes" by Bengt Saltin, head of the Copenhagen Muscle Research Institute,
making identical points (Bengt was one of a dozen or so top scientists and
geneticists and sociologists in writing Taboo).

If anyone was any particular questions about this issue, feel free to email
me personally.

--
Jon Entine
RuffRun
6178 Grey Rock Rd.
Agoura Hills, CA 91301
(818) 991-9803 [FAX] 991-9804
http://www.***.com/

Jon Entine heeft geschreven in bericht ...

How do you explain the sudden recent success of Black athletes in Golf and tennis?

Or the speight of Jewish boxing champions back in the twenties/thirties?

Alex

I don't believe there is a genetic/"racial" explanation for the success of
black athletes in tennis. The variety of skills necessary to be a great
tennis player are much more varied than for, say, a 100 meter runner. While
there are well proven "classic" body types for each distance (plotted after
dozens of anatomical studies, beginning with Tanner in 1960), we know that
certain rather distinct body types do better at particular distances. There
is no such "distinct body type" model for tennis or for many other sports
for that matter.

As for golf, if you mean Tiger Woods, he is more genetically of Asian
ancestry than of African ancestry. Your categorization of him as "black"
reflects a "folk" category, not one based on gene frequencies.

What genetics does is help explain the large trends we see; it says nothing
about any specific individuals, especially because of the large natural
variations within populations.

I address the social and cultural aspects that make elite athletes at great
length in my book. I even have a chapter on Jewish domination of basketball
in the 1930s, when the SPHAs of Philly (South Philly Hebrew Association
team) dominated basketball. I think you would find the chapter illuminating.
In an article that appeared in Philadelphia magazine in January  2000, I
compare black domination of the game today with Jewish domination 70 years
ago.

--
Jon Entine
RuffRun
6178 Grey Rock Rd.
Agoura Hills, CA 91301
(818) 991-9803 [FAX] 991-9804
http://www.jonentine.com

Well, when did you (or anyone else) sequence Tiger Woods' genes?

Love, Jim

"If a state is governed by the principles of reason,
poverty and misery are the subject of shame.
If a state is not governed by the principles of reason,
riches and honors are the subject of shame."
Confucius, as quoted by Thoreau in Civil Disobedience.

Well Jim, we'll play genetics 101:

If your mother is Asian, and your father is partly of African ancestry, then
it is certain that a majority of your genes are not typical of African
ancestry.

Moreover, this is a side issue. The point is that when significant gene
mixing has occurred, the predictive value of population genetics diminishes.
125 years ago, Ashkenazi Jews were among the most insular of populations,
leading to very high relative incidences of Tay Sachs, {*filter*} cancer, and
other diseases as the result of inbreeding. That is changing rapidly in the
last quarter century because this same subpopulation now has such a high
rate of inter-breeding.

"Jim Walsh" Jim Walsh2/1/01 11:47

--
Jon Entine
RuffRun
6178 Grey Rock Rd.
Agoura Hills, CA 91301
(818) 991-9803 [FAX] 991-9804
http://www.***.com/

Jon Entine heeft geschreven in bericht ...

There is a large section of the 'otherwise apparently educated' population
who can't/won't think statistically: when told that, across all human
races (sorry to use the taboo word), females are shorter than males; they
will present you with counter examples.

re. negroid recent golf, tennis stars, I speculate that they were previously
'artificially', socially, economically excluded.  Now (some of them) have
found their natural level.

 Chris Glur.

Well done. :-)

However, do you think that the opposite also holds true?

For instance, that a lot of Black students who, if they had money, would
go straight to Harvard, for instance, go the route of using "athletic scholarships"
to do business courses, science courses, etc.?

Far too often, athletics in the US is a way for working class people to
step up becoming middle class, in exactly the same way that the police
force and the army have been for both black and white people for the past century.

Alex

By the way, nice to be talking to you...

Jon Entine heeft geschreven in bericht ...

So why believe in that very explanation for any other sport?

Maybe... (there is training, preparation, etc., as well as running a hundred yards.)

But, that raises the question of black athletes excelling at sports as varied
at track and field, Daley Thompson in the decathlon. Sprinting (athletes from
the Americas), marathon running (athletes from such diverse ethnic regions and
countries as Kenia, Tanzania, Ethiopia and the Atlas countries, or to throw in a leftie,
a white South African Boer like Zola Budd).

What makes them succeed at soccer? What made the West Indies succeed
at cricket (which requires both bowling and batting, two motorically very different
activities)? Or baseball, which has both batting and fielding?
What about American Football, which has very different skills for it's varying
positions/strategies?

It seems to me that there are _a lot_ of black athletes/sportsmen, with a lot
of very different body types, excelling at very many kinds of sports.

Which is where I think a simplistic genetic argument falls down.

The "perfect" build for baseball is different from that of a line backer, which
is very different from that of a sprinter, which is different from that of a bodybuilder
(like Lee Haney, who won the Mr. Olympia title a record 8 times - I think that at
any time 50% of bodybuilding champions are black), which is very different from
that of a marathon runner, etc.

There was a lot of speculation way back in the twenties and thirties that
black people couldn't make heavy weight boxing champions because they wouldn't
have the endurance to go 12 rounds (which sounds a lot like the fast-twitch/slow-twitch
fiber argument to explain black sprinters).
Anyway, needless to say, there have been preciously few none-black heavyweight
boxing champions that last half century (a fact very funnily highlighted in the movie
"The Great White Hype" starring Samuel L. Jackson).

Actually, it reflects the American definition of black, which is based on the
one-drop rule, as it is for all other black people/athletes in the US/Americas.

But on the other hand, how many 6 foot Thai golf champions have
there been recently? In fact, the Thai national sport isn't golf,
but Muay Thai/Kickboxing, and Takaraw, which is kind of all-in cross
between soccer and volley ball.

The question remains, that when black athletes are competing in these
formerly expensive and exclusive sports, why do the few of them that do,
surge to the top so dramatically?

One explanation is that they must have the right genes.

Another is that they are driven, that they have few alternative venues
in which to express themselves, but especially, most importantly, that they
have a self-belief (and a belief reinforced by parents, coaches, teachers and
the media) that they can succeed in that specific venue.

What I think is most important to remember, is that where white americans
are 20% working class, black americans are 45% working class, and that
consequently, there is a much larger pool of people who want better themselves by
dedicating their life to a specific sport and want to do so in order to make a living.
Breaking into the middle class has historically, both in Ameria and Europe, been
done by joining the police, the military, or in this instance, sports.
A true revolution (kind of underway in Europe, but not quite in the US) will be when
the accepted and pheasible revenue is education. But that requires a whole new
focus on the quality and goals of **public** education.

In my opinion, a huge number of people who should be going into business
and the sciences, are making a (sometimes outstanding) living doing professional sports.
Only last week, there was a segment on CNBC with Maria Bartiromo on a
money fund started by a black football player, investing the money of his fellow
athletes. A lot of these guys are and should be entrepreneurs, and have the
drive and inclination to be.

Alex

Well, that is certainly false. Let me be more explicit.

Some genes ensure that we will have two eyes. All humans have these
genes. Some genes ensure that we have ten toes. All humans have these
genes. And so on.

In other words, almost all of the genes are found in almost people.

If I were to compare a stereotypical African with a stereotypical
Asia, I would find that almost all of their genes were identical.

So, it is false that "a majority" of my genes would not be typical of
African ancestry in your hypothetical.

The above is correct.

I don't know whether the AJs were "among the most insular of
populations". It is possible, but I simply haven't seen the proof.

Love, Jim

"If a state is governed by the principles of reason,
poverty and misery are the subject of shame.
If a state is not governed by the principles of reason,
riches and honors are the subject of shame."
Confucius, as quoted by Thoreau in Civil Disobedience.

Jon Entine, casting pearls before swine, writes

Jim Walsh, determined to make his ignorance of genetics obvious to the largest
possible audience, responds:

Jon, I've an idea for your next book. Why not write a history of how complex
scientific issues are reduced to a travesty by popular journalists and
appropriated by under-educated laymen who then think they can pronounce with
finality on any matter to which the issue relates? You might call it "The
Bastardization of Science". In addition to the effectively universal
misunderstanding of genetics in the popular mind, of which Walsh's response is
a good example, one might also cite the reduction of Freudian theory and
Evoltionary adaptationism to parlor games.

EK

In other word my clear exposition contained facts and logic you cannot
refute.

Love, Jim

"If a state is governed by the principles of reason,
poverty and misery are the subject of shame.
If a state is not governed by the principles of reason,
riches and honors are the subject of shame."
Confucius, as quoted by Thoreau in Civil Disobedience.

And all fruit flies and all frogs and...

And all monkeys and all tree shrews...

One would hope that all of *these* genes are found in all people! Other
than those preserved in formaldehyde in glass jars...

You also have 98% of your genes in common with a chimpanzee and about
40% of your genes in common with a wormy-looking spineless fish.

According to your argument, you are therefore 98% an ape and also half
a spineless fish to boot. This is, in your case I believe, conclusive
proof that genetics is on the right track!

For the last time, how about learning to use words like "alleles" (the
variable state of a gene). After that you can graduate to "Single
Nucleotide Polymorphisms", which differ absolutely between ancestral
human populations (or races). You cannot debate genetics without
actually engaging the discipline. And in order to do so, you need to
know what you are talking about.

Clearly you do not.

Skeptical1

Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/

And our hopes would be fulfilled. The vast majority of genes of all of
us are identical, more or less.

Sure. So?

I appreciate that you will not be recycling this.
Love, Jim

"If a state is governed by the principles of reason,
poverty and misery are the subject of shame.
If a state is not governed by the principles of reason,
riches and honors are the subject of shame."
Confucius, as quoted by Thoreau in Civil Disobedience.

True, there is a spectrum of competences, for different sports, but perhaps
one attribe is very important - say hand eye coordination ?  I've seen
pikininis who couldn't yet say their name, skillfully throw stones to get
mangoes.  BTW do you think the Palestinians are evolving as great pitchers ?

Indeed, the US-pc-motivated term 'black', is meant to imply that without
sight, you wouldn't know the difference.  As per children are the same as
{*filter*}s, except for size. ie. 'little people'.

!! Slowly !!  Do the arithmentic: total 'black' vs, total 'non-black' ?

A previous thread discussed 'drive/motivation' (not taking the comfortable
route), eg. re. climbing mount Everest.  That is NOT a negroid characteristic.
'Be happy, don't worry' is.

Chris Glur.

? "GO TO Harvard ?!"  I'll give you the money to BUY Harvard, but that
still won't change your genetic limitations.
? "DO science courses". You think it's like throwing a ball ?

This kind of thinking led to repeated disaster throughout 'decolonisted
Africa': Ghana ...Mocambique, Zimbabwe, S.Africa.  They also thought
they just had to sieze the resources created over decades/centuries
(go to Harvard) by the colonialist, then they could be first worlders (do
the courses and have the results).

Get real !!

Actually, I'm working on an article on the "politics of the contemporary
debate over race science" for NATURE.

"EKurtz99" EKurtz992/3/01 10:27

--
Jon Entine
RuffRun
6178 Grey Rock Rd.
Agoura Hills, CA 91301
(818) 991-9803 [FAX] 991-9804
http://www.jonentine.com