Genetics & the NFL

[ToughJ.Riggins]

Kind of a weird topic but having a bachelors in Biology I
have an interesting thought. My contention is
that there are only small differences
between the races It's been proved
that we've all shared a common Mother
within the last 150,000 yrs. by mitochondrial DNA passed on by mothers to their kids
probably within 80,000 by Y chromosomal DNA passed by a father of us all. However when
you look at the 100% Black RB
percentage and 95% WR it would lead you to believe that
their are huge differences in race. So therefore if blacks are
supposedly that far superior in the NFL than it would definitley be
possible to be greatly inferior in other areas like Math/Science IQ.

SO, I am wondering why so many blacks are willing to
proclaim there supposed huge superiority in sports (ie.Dickerson's
comments about white RB's). It seems to me that blacks are hurting
their own cause by supporting the Caste system because as we all know if genetically natural/sexual
selection chose out great disparity in physical athleticism in
prehistoric times then how could you be considered a dead wrong racist
for believing that whites have a large advantage in intelligence.
Personally I think their are only small differences. For instance
blacks have a "slight" advantage on average in speed and agility and
broadjump/longjumps, it's about dead even in vertical leaping and
quickness, but whites have a slight advantage in spacial cognition and
in tackle breaking and on feild awareness for instance.

I wanted to hear some thoughts on this. b/c I
believe the best way to fight the caste system is logically and being
levelheaded and learning to unite on simialites with other groups
instead of differences, b/c it's too late to separate.

By the way there are a few black athletes I cheer for Dwayne Wade(but not the Heat) and
Lebron in the NBA, and the Giant's TIki Barber who's a smart, goodnatured,
humble well spoken guy.














Edited by: ToughJ.Riggins

 

[KG2422]

I think there is a pretty large difference between races. If chimpanzees share 98.5% of our genetic code and Neanderthals 99.5%. then it doesn't take much genetic difference to make a HUGE difference. There is the argument that is often repeated "there is more variation within races than between races". Well, that's alot like saying the range of strength between the strongest woman and the weakest woman is larger than the difference between averages in strength for males and females. That does not mean these averages are insignificant.

 

[Ground Fighter]

  By the way there are a few black athletes I cheer for Dwayne Wade and
Lebron in the NBA and the Giant's TIki Barber who's a smart goodnatured
humble well spoken guy.

I share similar feelings towards Barber as well. But then again, who wants to make a friendly bet that he's not 100% black? Any takers? You can tell by his skin tone, facial features, voice pitch, and general overall good-naturedness that he's mixed. A similar comparason would be Franco Harris. In fact, I once overheard two black students having a discussion about Barber on my campus not too long ago. They referred to him as "Mr. McGoo." I guess they thought he wasn't stereotypically "black enough" for them.

Now T.O. on the other hand, well, thats another story altogether.


But as for the topic of genetics in the NFL, I will agree that blacks do have some limited advantages on their side, but only in the speed department. However, thats still no excuse for the fact that there are still zero White cornerbacks in the league. I'll even go as far as to say that entitles them to have a "majority" at certain positions, but no way should they have a "monopoly", like they do now.

Basically what the league is telling us, is that Jason Sehorn was the last White man on Earth with the ability to play corner in the NFL. In other words, our species of capable White corners are now extinct like the mighty dinosaur!

Sorry Mr. Tagliabue, but I have to call bulls**t on this one. Even if 80 or 90% of the league's starting corners were black, I wouldn't be bitching. But, come on now, 100%? Thats a bit out of control. Especially when one of the best corners in college ball, Dustin Fox, is now sitting at the bottom of some teams depth chart, with his thumbs up his a$$.

And let us not forget about Mr. Kaesviharn for the Bengals. He started his career at corner, but is now a safety. Why, you ask? Take a guess. Not only that, but he played for a tiny D-II school (St. Augustine), and made the NFL as a walk-on. Amazing.So essentially in the eyes of the recruiters he's not good enough to play D-I college ball, but he somehow grinds his way into the NFL on his own? When will the lunacy end?!

The only thing thats missing from OUR oppression in the NFL, is the police dogs and the firehoses. I have to stop typing, my head and all this aggrivation is brewing up a migraine.

 

[backrow]

i really like Barber brothers. class players...

and Kaesviharn is good enough to have 13 career interceptions in somewhat limited playing time.

 

[Alpha Male]

Whatever supposed advantage blacks have in speed, whites will make up for in strength, power, and spacial cognition. And this advantage in speed, in my opinion, is more of enlarged myth than reality. How is it that the few whites guys who do get a chance to play have broken combine records; Kevin Kircus and Matt Jones for example. Remember, whites were competing well in sprints against blacks in the 1960's. Then they just mysteriously disappeared.Edited by: Alpha Male

 

[OC football]

Well the average white American has an IQ of 100. The average black
American (most blacks are part white) has an IQ of 85. Hispanics: 90.
Asians average IQ's of 103. Japaneese americans are at 105.

There are indeed great differences. Now an IQ score only reflects a certian
types of intelligence. I am sure that it is possible to develope a test where
blacks would score higher then everyone else. The same goes for
athletics; whites make better athletes by certian measurements (strenght)
and blacks according to others (speed).

The problem we encounter here is in that the NFL seems to hold white
athletic talent in low regards. The white straight-line power running back
has all but dissapeared even though such backs have always been very
effective.

 

[whiteCB]

ToughJ.Riggins, since you have credibility having a bachlor's in biology, please explain to people out there in the real world that blacks being "more athletic" than white people is not becuase of being slaves.(I heard this a couple times from idiots) Correct me if I'm wrong but gentetic evolution takes way more than the time period black people were slaves in America.

 

[ToughJ.Riggins]

Evolutiion as far as natural selection in nature would definitley take more than the 200 years (10 generations) or so of slavery in America to give a noticeable athletic advantage, but you would have to consider that there were some "rare" cruel owning families that worked or beat their slaves, who were weaker physically, to death. There is also sexual selection where slaves or owners may have selected sexual partners, who would have had a better chance surviving the hard labor physically. Slavery was an abomination, and in some ways we created our own racial problems. However, appeasing blacks and giving special rights to them has to end if we are going to become tolerant of each other and be treated equally. However, differences in racial DNA would almost entirely be due to the 80,000 years of separation of Europians from Africa.
Another note is that the largest difference found in two peoples DNA is less than 0.2%. and between us and Chimps I believe is 2%. Neanderthals were the same species as us but a different sub-species. They may have been a whole other Branch off of the Homo Erectus who, although being an ancester to us, were very primitive, There best invention was how to make fire... Also every African group they've tested so far has shown that they share Y chromosome markings to show proof of common ancestry with all Non African groups w/in the last 80,000 years. They have also found cases of Eastern Europeans sharing common ancestry with Native Americans w/in the last 30,000 years. Correct me if I'm wrong but I think it's been at least 500,000 years since common ancestry with Neanderthals and could be much more, if they were a whole other branch off of Homo-Erectus, which came in to existance as far back as2 to 1.5 million years ago. They were an earlier hominoid migration out of Africa.There was a great article in N. Geographic about it.
I would equate the large disparity in Black to white IQ to inner city poverty, absent fathers in black culture, drug and gang problems, and weaker school systems although I think that their may be small advantages to whites and asians in Math and Science over blacks but not hispanics. The Hispanic disparity could also be due to language problems. Many Hispanic's have some Native American ancestry. Native American culture was known to have vast knowledge of natural medicine and astronomy. Groups like the Mayan Indians built great pyramids w/ angles that lined up astrologically with the sun to have a serpent come down the pyramid every spring equinox which takes great mathmatical ability. The reason given for Native's of the America's having less farming was there were no good animals to domesticate and the Americas are a continent that is built vertically with very different climates which cut down on cultural exchange. Edited by: ToughJ.Riggins

 

[ToughJ.Riggins]

Well here's another thought on the topic
. I think if it were fair over 50% of WR's in
the NFL should be white, 30% of starting RB's
and about 20% of Corners should be
white. Also I would say that the
power FB of any race should be used more in
short yardage /goaline and also at the end of
games when the defenses are worn out.
This would also increase carries for whites if
the caste system was defeated!

 

[KG2422]

I would equate the larger disparity in Black to
white  IQ to inner city poverty, absent fathers in black culture,
drug and gang problems, and weaker school systems although I think that
their may be small advantages to whites and asians in Math and Science
over blacks but not hispanics.  The Hispanic disparity could also
be due to language problems. Many Hispanic's have some Native
American ancestry. Native American culture was known to have vast
knowledge of natural medicine and astronomy. Groups like the Mayan
Indians built great pyramids w/ angles  that lined up
astrologically with the sun to have a serpent come down the pyramid
every spring equinox which takes great mathmatical ability. The reason
given for Native's of the America's having less farming was there were
no good animals to domesticate and the Americas are a continent that is
built vertically with very different climates which cut down on
cultural exchange.

I disagree with Diamond's "germs and steel" hypothesis. Rushton and Jensen seem to have a better handle on the nature/nurture argument. And we saw what happened when the Aztecs and the Incans met up with the Spaniards. How come "cultural exchange" never took in sub saharan Africa? Have you thought that maybe "inner city poverty and absent fathers" are caused by low IQs rather than low IQs being caused by poverty or absentee fathers?Edited by: KG2422

 

[ToughJ.Riggins]

Disease wiped out 90% of native's of the Americas and with the Spaniards guns they had little chance. Plus the Aztec's leader was a wimp who instead of fighting led his people to believe that this white man, Cortez, was a God because of an Aztec or Mayan legend about a white God arriving by sea. However your last point is something to think about, it could work both ways but their is definitley a cultural issue with African Americans and they have gotten stuck, and Gangs drugs and Rap music isn't helping as Bill Cosby, who is black, has had the guts to say. In my opinion It's certainly been enough time in the 140 years since the end of slavery and 40 years since the end of segregation in the south for them to better themselves more than they have. Edited by: ToughJ.Riggins

 

[White Shogun]

Plus the Inca's leader was a wimp who instead on fighting led his people to believe thatthis white man Cortez was a God because of an Incan legend about a white God arriving by sea.

Cortez conquered the Aztecs. Francisco Pizarro is the Spaniard who wiped out the Incas. Edited by: White Shogun

 

[ToughJ.Riggins]

Yeah you're right, the Inca's were from the Peru area, Mayans from the Yucatan and the Aztecs from just west of the Yucatan, my bad. Cortez was famous for his explorations/conquerings in Mexico. It's been a while since I've taken history and they don't emphasize it up here in Canada the way they do in the states...and I was ranting drunk. I meant the Aztecs.

An interesting note, since biased liberals like Michael Moore have tried to say American's are more ignorant than Europeans and Canadians. (ie. his quote "less Americans can locate Iraq on an unmarked map than Europeans" yet he ommited that the difference was only one percent.) My interesting fact is, according to an article in the Canadian Globe and Mail, that I think it was around 95% of Americans know that the first American President was George Washington. Only 60% of Canadians knew the first Prime Minister was John A. McDonald. There was an even larger gap in questions like when was your countries constitution established. America I think without looking it up is 1786. Canada's was 1868, yet only about 30% of Canadians knew this. Historical facts aren't really emphasized enough in Canada, our social sciences here are more politically and Sociologically oriented. Still, it's no excuse for my forgetfulness.



Edited by: ToughJ.Riggins

 

[KG2422]

Disease  wiped  out  90% of  native's of the  Americas  and  with  the  Spaniards  guns they  had  little  chance. Plus the  Inca's leader  was  a wimp  who  instead  of  fighting  led  his  people  to  believe  that   this  white  man,  Cortez , was  a  God because  of  an  Incan  legend  about  a  white  God  arriving  by  sea. 

The mass die off theory about American Indians didn't come about until the 1960s. There is little evidence to support it. It is still a subject of debate among even mainstream historians. There is evidence that individual tribes had high death rates due to smallpox. That is also true of some white settlements. Little attention is paid to European susceptibility to disease. One of the main obstacles of colonialism in Africa was malaria, and some historians believe syphilis was brought back to Europe from the New World. The legend you speak of started with the Mayans if I remember correctly. The origins of the Mayan civilization are quite mysterious. They were more advanced than the Aztecs, but they vanished. It is my understanding that they were the ones with the understanding of astronomy and had a calendar. Also, the guns of that day were not like the guns of today. They took a long time to reload. They had limited range and accuracy. The armor the Spanish wore was probably more important. The Spanish were so outnumbered neither should have mattered.Edited by: KG2422

 

[ToughJ.Riggins]

I tend to believe it though, because they lacked the built inimmunity to diseases like influenza. Although influenza changes every year, so we can catch it again, European's still had some built-ingenetic immunity in their immune systemto it in recognizing it as an attacker faster, (although I haven't really studied this subject in much depth, in how it realates to T-cells and antibodies).Influenza came about from living in close quarters with animals through domestication and farming in the Euro-Asian continent. If I remember correctly, it jumped from chickens to humans. And also, you're right that small pox had ahigh death rate inEurope too.However the statistics I'veheard from the history channel, (I don't really read about history) although maybe not100% proven, show thatthe death rate among Native American's wasvery close to100%.
I think the Native American's civilization was advanced in their own way. Advanced as far as natural medicine and astrology with certian groups. Each area had tribes with their own ways of living the Suix were plains people. The Iriquis from the north East. The pueblo were in the dry southwest and still found ways to farm. They were happy living the way they did and probably didn't feel the same need for progress as Europe and Asia did . Many inventions used by Europeans before 1500 came from China like Gun powder for instance. I think the compass also. Europeans also had larger populations and therefore had more specialization of labor that came with civilization. With civilization came large armies and the need to quickly develop technology to defend ones civilization from another.
Europe only had an explosion of technolgy since around 1500 and through the Renassaince for various reasons. Obviously the Greeks and Romans were very advanced in their day but so were the Egyptians, even before the Greeks, and they are Middle Eastern peoples. In truth the non farming Native Americans had more free time with their lifestyle than us modern Americans. They also had to remember things for oral translation of history which takes intelligence.
Edited by: ToughJ.Riggins

 

[KG2422]

I tend to believe it though  because 
they  lacked  the built in  immunity 
to   diseases  like  influenza. Influenza 
came  about  from  living  in  close 
quarters  with  animals  through 
domestication  and  farming  and  pastoralism 
in  the  Euro-Asian  continent.
I  think  the  Native 
American's  civilization  was  advanced  in 
their  own  way. Advanced as  far as natural medicine
and astrology with certian groups. Each area had tribes with their own
ways of living the Suix were plains people. The Iriquis from the north
East. The pueblo were in the dry southwest and still found ways to
farm. They  were  happy  living the  way 
they  did  and  probably  didn't  feel 
the  same  need  for  progress  as 
Europe and  Asia  did . Many  inventions 
used  by  Europeans before 1500 came  from  China
like  Gun  powder for instance.  I  think 
the  compass  also.   Europeans also 
had   larger  populations  and 
therefore  had  more specialization  of 
labor  that  came  with civilization.  With 
civilization  came  large  armies  and 
the  need  to quickly  develop  technology  to
defend  ones  civilization  from  another.
Europe only had an explosion of technolgy since
around 1500 and through the Renassaince for various reasons. Obviously
the Greeks and Romans were very advanced in their day but so were the
Egyptions even before the Greeks and they are Middle Eastern peoples.
In truth the non farming Native Americans had more free time with their
lifestyle than us modern Americans they also had to remember things for
oral transition of history which takes intelligence.

Well, I think population estimates for American Indians have been inflated since the 1960s. They were hunter-gatherers for the most part (especially in North America). Those types of societies don't support large populations. Look at how Arab populations are booming now that they're not mostly goat herders.

So you think Native Americans are as intelligent as European Americans?

No disrespect, but these arguments of yours are straight out of liberal college textbooks. Europeans were not doing badly in comparison with the rest of the world before 1500. Look at the Crusades, Gothic architecture, etc. In 1492, Columbus.... The Norse were in Newfoundland hundreds of years before that. There have even been new discoveries of ancient structures in Europe that have been covered with sod over the millenia. That's what happens in moist climates. The desert(Egypt and oldest human fossils) preserves everything. What we know about ancient history is limited. And as for the Greeks and Romans. Who was more advanced than them until the Renaissance?
Don't beilieve the "noble savage" garbage about American Indians. They conquered and enslaved each other just like everyone else. They also canibalised and exercised total warfare against men, women, children, the elderly; They didn't care. Many of our massacres of them were in response to their raids of white settlements. Many indigenous populations tried to kill Euros as soon as they stepped off the boat. That's probably what happened in Newfoundland, Roanoke Island, and that's what did happen in New Zealand. That's a heck of an immigration policy.

Edited by: KG2422

 

[Deus Vult]

KG2422 wrote:

"Many indigenous populations tried to kill Euros as soon as they stepped off the boat. That's probably what happened in Newfoundland, Roanoke Island, and that's what did happen in New Zealand. That's a heck of an immigration policy."
********************

Kennewick Man had a spearpoint in his hip bone. Maybe it was from the welcoming party? I wonder what K-Man's Thanksgiving experience was like?

 

[ToughJ.Riggins]

The guns of that day were not like the guns of today. They took a long time to reload. They had limited range and accuracy. The armor the Spanish wore was probably more important. The Spanish were so outnumbered neither should have mattered.

Yeah, the Spaniard's were outnumbered by the Aztec's around 10 to one. Cortez had some help from competing tribes men who wanted revenge on the Aztec's also. I could be wrong but I still think the Spaniards guns although primative gave them a fair advantage in accuracy. In addition if you want to look at a famous battle between two white groups of a victory by a sheer outnumbered army, there was a big one in the War of 1812. Inthe famous battle in Quebec the French Canadians defended a hill even though out numbered by American's 10 to 1.This proves thatposition and strategy are most important. The Aztec's leader being foolish, thinking Cortez was a God, put them at a great disadvantage. There were supposedly many in the tribe who thought he was wrong in thinking this but followed him due to loyalty.


Lastly, Iam also of the belief that the disappearence of Roanoke, the pre James town settlement, was due to an assault by Native American's. However, not all were violent towards the English settlers there are examples of the Native's trying to work to live in harmony with the new settlers. They were also in America first remember, and had the right to feel threatened by the new arrivals. There are several examples of barbarianism against Native American's by famous American's. Andrew Jackson and his breaking the stay East of the Appalachain deal and then the trail of tears with the Cherokee's. Custard was also brutal to the Natives. So it works both ways. I for one am a naturalist who is facinated by Native American culture.

 

[KG2422]

In addition if you want to look at a famous battle between two white groups of a victory by a sheer outnumbered army, there was a big one in the War of 1812. In the famous battle in Quebec the French Canadians defended a hill even though out numbered by American's 10 to 1.  However, not all were violent towards the English settlers there are examples of the Native's trying to work to live in harmony with the new settlers. They were also in America first remember, and had the right to feel threatened by the new arrivals. There are several examples of barbarianism against Native American's by famous American's. Andrew Jackson and his breaking the stay East of the Appalachain deal and then the trail of tears with the Cherokee's. Custard was also brutal to the Natives. So it works both ways. 

Andrew Jackson witnessed the savage raids by the Creeks from Spanish Florida. After seeing little kids mutilated by those savages, I would have taken them out too. But speaking of great batlles, the Battle of New Orleans, where the Americans where commanded by Andy Jackson was one of the most lopsided victories in American history.
British: 700 dead, 1400 wounded, 500 prisoners
U.S.8 dead,13 woundedEdited by: KG2422

 

[White Shogun]

Custard was also brutal to the Natives.

I know! Those evil white men were always introducing pernicious substances to the Red Man. First tobacco, then alcohol, now custard! I can't see how anyone can eat that stuff myself. Gives me diarrhea. I much prefer banana pudding, with lots and lots of wafers!

Good thing your degree is in biology, bro.

First Cortez and the Incas and now custard and the Dinner at Little Bighorn Diner.

 

[ToughJ.Riggins]

Andrew Jackson witnessed the savage raids by the Creeks from
Spanish Florida. After seeing little kids mutilated by those savages, I
would have taken them out too. But speaking of great batlles, the
Battle of New Orleans, where the Americans where commanded by Andy
Jackson was one of the most lopsided victories in American history.

British: 700 dead, 1400 wounded, 500 prisoners

U.S.8 dead,13 wounded

Damn, did you look those numbers up, b/c if not, you definitley know your
history. You'de never be hired as a history teacher though b/c you're far
from liberal enough.

Edited by: ToughJ.Riggins

 

[Matt_Bowen_Fan]

Too bad New orleans meant squat regarding the actual war. It did help to ensure Old Hickory's rep though, so its a plus in that regard.

 

[JD074]

Custard was also brutal to the Natives.

I know! Those evil white men were always introducing pernicious substances to the Red Man. First tobacco, then alcohol, now custard! I can't see how anyone can eat that stuff myself. Gives me diarrhea. I much prefer banana pudding, with lots and lots of wafers!

Good thing your degree is in biology, bro.

First Cortez and the Incas and now custard and the Dinner at Little Bighorn Diner.

 

[White Shogun]

Here I am poking fun at TJRiggins and I'm making the same kind of mistakes. The tobacco plant is native to the Americas; it was not introduced to the redman by the white. They were alread chewing, smoking, and ingesting the stuff long before we got here.

Maybe I should have said smallpox, alcohol, and Custard?

 

[ToughJ.Riggins]

I'd have to say though, that that mistake isn't as bad as the Inca blooper which I was definitley kicking myself for. Another mistake people often make is saying tomatoes are European. Tomatoes came from the Americas and were only introduced into the European diet after explorers and colonists came to the new world. If I recall correctly the potatoe is also from the Americas. can you imagine pasta without tomato sauce, or St. Patricks day without potatoes. The potatoe was actually originally mildlypoisonous but was selectively bred by the Native American's to where it was eatable. Edited by: ToughJ.Riggins