Juan_Bottom wrote:No one talks about it, ever... but I fugure that a guy named Juan could.
Since Evolution is legit; Certainly with the complexness of the human body, each race is different in more ways than just looks?
Like as in the negative way that blacks are more likely to have sickle-cell anemia?
And the way that Ethiopians/Jamacans/Kenyans can all run like a mother...
I remember reading a while back that Blacks were natural runners, with plenty of "white meat" in their bodies. And Whites were better swimmers, because of their feet.
Not to leave out Asians, Hispanics, or Indiginous peoples.
This isn't intended to be a thread about social, or cultural differences, FYI.
This is where the debate between non=evolutionist, social evolutionist and evolutionists gets mixed up.
The truth is you are talking about several completely different and almost unrelated issues.
The Ethiopian issue is similar to some families having a lot of basketball players or football players ... etc. If you have a relatively small group of folks that tend to marry and have kids with each other, certain traits will tend to "accumulate". Since people could not travel in years past the way they do now, you did find certain small "regional" traits.
Sickle Cell/Malaria is a more or less "clear cut" case of evolutionary adaptation. Before the age of sulfa drugs and then antibiotics, malaria killed millions. It still kills many, but not as much as previous. ONE sickle cell gene offered some protection against malaria. To get sickle cell, one has to have both genes. It is thought that since malaria killed far more people than sickle cell, the gene persisted. (this is essentially impossible to prove, but certainly fits the existing data/information).
Race is an entirely different matter. It has been thought that darker skinned folks evolved near the equator to provide them better natural protection from the sun. We take sunburns and such pretty lightly now, but a major sunburn is really nothing to fool with. It can be deadly. Even if it does not kill directly, it will weaken an individual and make them susceptible to disease. So the evolutionary idea "fits".
However, the problem comes when you try to draw any of these connections OR any others and connect them to race in an intelligent way. What you find then is all sorts of anomalies. You find black tribes that have blue eyes, straight haired dark skinned individuals, dark curly hair on fair-skinned people, etc. Although you certainly can find groups of individuals that match the stereotypes of "white", "black" etc., There are also many, many, MANY exceptions.
When you try to draw these connections out to, say sports prowess, you get even more difficulty.
Now, added to the complication is the issue of the American black. Many, but not all blacks are descended from folks who came over on the slave ships and then endured slavery. Harsh does not even begin to be a good description, of course. However, it is true that only the very hardiest of individuals survived. That hardiness took many forms, but usually physical was favored over mental hardiness. (though it certainly took smarts to survive as well as brawn). This is the fact that some white supremacists point to when they proclaim white superiority. They claim that some blacks were bred to be stronger and smarter OR that they were interbred with whites and they will say that is why certain blacks do well now in our society. In reality, they take a small truth ... that those who survived slavery were, in certain ways, "fitter" than those who did not survive ... and distort it to say what they want. I do not think the pronouncement that "Ethiopians are better runners" falls into quite the same category, but it is a close neighbor. Each is a distortion.
Why distortions? Several reasons. First, these trends are very small. We might look and see all kinds of Ethiopians and say "oh, the Ethiopians are better runners". BUT, the truth is there are good runners everywhere AND there are plenty of Ethiopians who are not good runners. I don't know if there even IS a real statistically valid difference. If there is, it will be very small AND will ONLY be true for very, very, very large groups of people. Also, it might be as much do to the competitive environment as due to genetics and evolution.
In other words, If you went to Tiger Woods neighborhood and compared it to any random neighborhood in the world, you would almost certainly conclude that Tiger's neighborhood produces better golfers than the random neighborhood. It is true because Tiger lives there. BUT, does it really mean that kids in that neighborhood have a better chance a succeeding in golf? Maybe, if he has taken time to coach them, and so forth. Maybe simply having Tiger around is better influence than having other around.
ON the other hand, if you went to a neighborhood where they have a very good golfing education program, you would find lots of kids that might not be at Tiger Woods' level, but that are, generally good. That neighborhood would also probably be better than other random neighborhoods. The average skill might be better than that of Tiger's neighborhood.
Now for those traits to be evolutionary, several things would have to happen. Their kids might end up being better golfers simply because those kids, who had great coaching, in turn teach their kids better skills. BUT, to be evolutionary, those skills have to be genetic. In humans, this gets very very very complicated. For example, if an area has an extraordinary program then parents with kids who have talent are more likely to want to move to that area. This, then could potentially have a genetic aspect. Those kids who grew up in this area then might have a greater tendency to stay there (??? maybe), at least into young adulthood. This could mean they are more likely to marry other locals who are, in turn, more likely to be good golfers as well. IN this way, it COULD be that a certain area will tend to evolve good golfers.
IN years past, when migrations were less ready, this did happen to a point. HOWEVER, with humans a lot of funny things happen. The first is that societies change. To take the golfing example, who is to say that golfing will even be popular 50 years from now? Or, to be more specific, who is to say that an ability to golf will somehow translate into more kids? In fact, there is a good chance the opposite might happen. Professional athletes tend to be busy and so are not generally known for having lots of kids (exceptions abound ...). Also, who is to say that the attributes that make for good golfing even have much of a genetic component?
I the case of malaria, death is pretty immediate and widespread. This is why evolutionist can be fairly certain that this was a true and real case of evolutionary adaption. In the case of the Ethiopians who run fast (presuming it even is statistically valid difference), there is not necessarily such a clear-cut advantage. Also, sickle cell involves one gene. Height involves many.
