by Snilrch on Fri Jan 16, 2004 12:11 pm
We've heard reports that Earl Boykins can dunk at 5-5. Can you confirm this from your days with him on the Clippers?
Miles: "On a good day, I think he can. He can definitely grab the rim, I know that much. And on a good day, I'll bet he can turn it over and dunk it."
by Wall St. Peon on Fri Jan 16, 2004 3:15 pm
by alexboom on Fri Jan 16, 2004 6:35 pm
by BIG GREEN on Fri Jan 16, 2004 8:14 pm
by EGarrett on Sat Jan 17, 2004 12:07 am
by Wall St. Peon on Sat Jan 17, 2004 1:21 am
by flip_wun on Sat Jan 17, 2004 2:22 am
Mikki wrote:
by EGarrett on Sat Jan 17, 2004 3:02 am
Mr. Shane wrote:Actually, the muscle structure of African-Americans is generally slightly different; there are more fast-twitch muscles in most African-Americans, and, like you said, they're that way because of adapting to whatever.
A generalization, yes, but I don't think saying that 'most blacks jump higher than whites' is a harmful generalization
by Wall St. Peon on Sat Jan 17, 2004 4:03 am
EG wrote:That's not black people. That's any person who is athletic. Fast-twitch muscle fiber is a characteristic of an athletic human being...not of black people exclusively. I said a higher percentage of black people are athletic...which also means that a higher percentage have characteristics of an athletic person.
I wrote:the muscle structure of African-Americans is generally slightly different; there are more fast-twitch muscles in most African-Americans
EG wrote:no genetic difference between black people and white people at all.
I wrote:Actually, the muscle structure of African-Americans is generally slightly different; there are more fast-twitch muscles in most African-Americans, and, like you said, they're that way because of adapting to whatever.
EG wrote:By itself it isn't...but saying that is a few steps away from saying "most whites are smarter than blacks" which is very harmful. Thus it's better that we avoid generalizations as best we can in this case.
As a side note...let me reiterate that what geneticists have determined...and what is causing so much debate lately...is that there really is no such thing as "the races." There's no gene that makes you black or white. Over time...as people intermingle more...it's going to be as pointless as dividng cheetahs based on the number of spots they have.
So give me a bunch of sources for your so-called debate, and then I might believe you. Until then, I'm gonna go with the whole genes give people physical traits theory that is logical and proven...
I honestly cannot fathom how there are no "races;" of course, the human race is one thing, but we've subdivided (needlessly) the race into skin colors. In a perfect world, it wouldn't matter, but it isn't a perfect world. If we were in a utopia, I can almost bet that geneticists would say that genes cause the differences in humans that we see - regardless of race.by EGarrett on Sat Jan 17, 2004 5:48 am
So...me saying that blacks have more fast-twitch muscle fiber is different from what you just said how?
but apparently you think I'm being racist or something, even though I read this out of an anatomy textbook, and you said the same thing.
There is a gene that determines pigmentation. I'd like to see a source of this so-called debate that I've heard nothing about.
TEN THINGS EVERYONE SHOULD KNOW ABOUT RACE
Our eyes tell us that people look different. No one has trouble distinguishing a Czech from a Chinese. But what do those differences mean? Are they biological? Has race always been with us? How does race affect people today?
There's less - and more - to race than meets the eye:
1. Race is a modern idea.
Ancient societies, like the Greeks, did not divide people according to physical distinctions, but according to religion, status, class, even language. The English language didn't even have the word 'race' until it turns up in 1508 in a poem by William Dunbar referring to a line of kings.
2. Race has no genetic basis.
Not one characteristic, trait or even gene distinguishes all the members of one so-called race from all the members of another so-called race.
3. Human subspecies don't exist.
Unlike many animals, modern humans simply haven't been around long enough or isolated enough to evolve into separate subspecies or races. Despite surface appearances, we are one of the most similar of all species.
4. Skin color really is only skin deep.
Most traits are inherited independently from one another. The genes influencing skin color have nothing to do with the genes influencing hair form, eye shape, blood type, musical talent, athletic ability or forms of intelligence. Knowing someone's skin color doesn't necessarily tell you anything else about him or her.
5. Most variation is within, not between, "races."
Of the small amount of total human variation, 85% exists within any local population, be they Italians, Kurds, Koreans or Cherokees. About 94% can be found within any continent. That means two random Koreans may be as genetically different as a Korean and an Italian.
6. Slavery predates race.
Throughout much of human history, societies have enslaved others, often as a result of conquest or war, even debt, but not because of physical characteristics or a belief in natural inferiority. Due to a unique set of historical circumstances, ours was the first slave system where all the slaves shared similar physical characteristics.
7. Race and freedom evolved together.
The U.S. was founded on the radical new principle that "All men are created equal." But our early economy was based largely on slavery. How could this anomaly be rationalized? The new idea of race helped explain why some people could be denied the rights and freedoms that others took for granted.
8. Race justified social inequalities as natural.
As the race idea evolved, white superiority became "common sense" in America. It justified not only slavery but also the extermination of Indians, exclusion of Asian immigrants, and the taking of Mexican lands by a nation that professed a belief in democracy. Racial practices were institutionalized within American government, laws, and society.
9. Race isn't biological, but racism is still real.
Race is a powerful social idea that gives people different access to opportunities and resources. Our government and social institutions have created advantages that disproportionately channel wealth, power, and resources to white people. This affects everyone, whether we are aware of it or not.
10. Colorblindness will not end racism.
Pretending race doesn't exist is not the same as creating equality. Race is more than stereotypes and individual prejudice. To combat racism, we need to identify and remedy social policies and institutional practices that advantage some groups at the expense of others.
by Wall St. Peon on Sat Jan 17, 2004 7:47 am
EG wrote:To me...it sounded like you were saying black people's muscles are different from white people's muscles. I wanted to clarify that they aren't. If you cut a slab of muscle from a black person and a slab of muscle from a white person and mixed them up...you couldn't tell what came from who. If you agree then great.
Do physical features reliably say anything informative about a person's genetic makeup beyond indicating that the individual has genes for blue eyes or curly hair?
Some groups do differ genetically from others,
you might fit into one group based on your skin-color genes but another based on a different characteristic.
In other words, individuals from different populations are, on average, just slightly more different from one another than are individuals from the same population. Human populations are very similar, but they often can be distinguished.
Over the past 100,000 years or so, anatomically modern humans have migrated from Africa to other parts of the world, and members of our species have increased dramatically in number. This spread has left a distinct signature in our DNA.
Some polymorphisms do occur in genes, however; these can contribute to individual variation in traits and to genetic diseases.
But the major human groups have separated from one another too recently and have mixed too much for such differences to exist.
We truly are all kin beneath the skin, many scientists are concluding.
"Race is a social concept, not a scientific one," said Dr. J. Craig Venter, head of the Celera Genomics Corp. in Rockville, Md.
"Science got us into this problem in the first place, with its measurements of skulls and its emphasis on racial differences and racial classifications," he said. "Scientists should now get us out of it."
Yet a few researchers continue to insist that among the three major races, there are fundamental differences that extend to the brain. Dr. J. Philippe Rushton, a psychologist at the University of Western Ontario and author of "Race, Evolution and Behavior," is perhaps the most tireless proponent of the belief that the three major races differ genetically in ways that affect average group IQ and a propensity toward criminal behavior. He asserts that his work reveals east Asians to have the largest average brain size and intelligence scores, those of African descent to have the smallest average brains and IQs, and those of European ancestry to fall in the middle.
Many scientists have objected to Rushton's methods and interpretations, arguing, among other things, that the link between total brain size and intelligence is far from clear. Women, for example, have smaller brains than men do, even when adjusted for their comparatively smaller body mass, yet average male and female IQ scores are the same. For that matter, fossil evidence suggests that Neanderthals had very sizable brains, and they did not even last long enough to invent standardized tests.
Dr. Eric Lander wrote:"There's no scientific evidence to support substantial differences between groups," he said, "and the tremendous burden of proof goes to anyone who wants to assert those differences."
by fgrep15 on Sat Jan 17, 2004 8:12 am
by EGarrett on Sat Jan 17, 2004 8:40 am
Think of how rats and mice are of the same race, but they're different species. They share many characteristics, and are essentially the same, but they differ. I'm probably goofing something up, but the idea is there.
3. Human subspecies don't exist.
Unlike many animals, modern humans simply haven't been around long enough or isolated enough to evolve into separate subspecies or races. Despite surface appearances, we are one of the most similar of all species.
by fgrep15 on Sat Jan 17, 2004 8:43 am
by Wall St. Peon on Sat Jan 17, 2004 8:47 am
That example is exactly the type of thinking I was trying to dispute. Mice and rats are different subspecies. They actually do carry common traits that are different. Just like alligators and crocodiles. But as was stated in the article I quoted...
Yup you are both right, EG is right that the phyiscal abilities come from the enviroment and the changes people from that enviroment's body's have gone through, and people of different races really aren't that different. Sean is also right that there are some genetic things, but atheleticism isn't really genetic component of human development.
by EGarrett on Sat Jan 17, 2004 9:01 am
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests
