Black pro riders?

Proton Soup said:

DZ said:

Genetic differences as studied in human population
genetics are measured from almost 100% neutral variations.
The extent of these differences and the between/within
population ratio is a simple reflection of effective
population sizes and history, and has almost nothing to do
with anything on the level of phenotype.

Races can well be social construct but you cannot argue
for or against it by appealing to the extent of neutral
variability ("neutral" as in Motoo Kimura). Cichlids is
one example of very unusual between/within species
variability distribution. One could argue that two
randomly chosen individuals from two different species are
more similar than two random individuals from the same
species.

I'm calling [censored] on this. Perhaps some "species" are
very close, but there's quite a bit of variability in
cichlids. Most are aggressive, but there are some that can
even be kept in a community tank.

It is *neutral* variability on the DNA level that is
similar. Of course even a single mutation can have drastic
effect on appearance. Nevertheless, genome variation
averaged across many polymorphisms (or as measured by a
bunch of randomly picked ones) is not changed by that.

Quoted message said:

Differences in physical characteristics can be striking as
well. I'm getting the impression that geneticists must
really be dropping the ball somewhere in how genetic %-
similarity is measured.

Not so. This variation is very useful for studying
population characteristics and history. You seem to have the
impression that all of the geneticists are those cute people
in white coats 😉

en.wikipedia.orgNeutral theory of molecularOpen ↗
_evolution

DZ

Luke <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:<270420040335536925%

Quoted message said:

True. I remember Steve Bauer and Olympic medallist Curt
Harnett. Their exploits were to inspire a generation of
budding Canadian Armstrongs. Well the seeds didn't
germinate.

The local fields were very large at that time (early 90s).
One might argue triathlon and mtn. bike split the sport.
At the time both of those were considered off-shoots of
road cycling.

Quoted message said:

A local fellow, Michael Barry Jr. (USPS), is now competing
in Europe and elsewhere but (if I read his history
correctly) his love of cycling - and the means to pursue
it - stemmed from the cultural and sporting sensibilities
of his father; a British emigrant that operated a
succession of bicycle shops in Toronto and now builds
custom frames <http://www.bikespecialties.com/>.

This year the participation numbers are up quite a bit in
Ontario. I don't know what the reason is. The profile of
Lance Armstrong ? the Worlds ? Stagnation in the mtn.
bike scene ?

Development at the top levels needs a talent pool. Mtn. bike
is still popular and a lot of the young road talent is
coming (and will come) from that scene. Plus, in cycling,
elites can develop at a later age. Wohlberg for example rode
Sr 3 (ie. not an elite junior).

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Why aren't there many fast black cyclists? Because there
aren't many cycling hotspots on the globe with
significant black populations. See also Cricketers,
South American.

Quoted message said:

Just a last observation. Frequently in Toronto I pass by
the housing project of "Regent Park." On it's southern
periphery is an outdoor ice rink. It's a winter sight in
Canada that's taken for granted: Kids playing hockey. But
in this case, the number of rosy cheeked white complexions
among those swinging lumber constitute a minority. Most of
the hackers trace their lineage to the Indian
subcontinent, the Caribbean and the middle east.

Except in Toronto there is a large west-indian cycling
community that brought over the sporting culture from the
islands. Many of them are the older generation though.

I think the biggest problem facing the growth of the sport
is the ability to put on accessible (cost, location) events.

-Amit

"Amit" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

I think the biggest problem facing the growth of the
sport is the ability to put on accessible (cost,
location) events.

I'd back it up one step further. I have noticed that biking
seems to exist in pockets where there is comfortable access
to the sport by novices. Areas with rail trails, bike lanes,
novice mtb trails always seem to have clubs where places
without those facilities do not.

Training is 90% of the sport. Take away a place to train and
the reason for owning a bike disappears for you whether
you're black, white, red or orange.

"Mark & Steven Bornfeld DDS" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Helgi Briem said:

Lyle McDonald said:

> "Race" is entirely a social construct, which has
> nothing to do with physiology whatsoever. Consider
> this: the dove and the pigeon are identical, the exact
> same species with the same biology, and they can
> produce fertile offspring. But they segregate
> themselves, just like we humans do, because they look
> different...
>
We're going to segregate you from the smart peopele b/c
you are a

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

[censored] and cram it up your socially constructed bung.

Well, I'm a biologist, formerly specialising in
population genetics and I tend to agree. 'Race' is an
entirely social construct because the boundaries of one
race or another are entirely arbitrary. Frequencies of
various genes vary all over the place, but do not follow
the boundaries of what people refer to as different
races. White Americans and Black Americans are closer
genetically than Black Americans and Black Africans.
Races are delineated mostly by skin colour, a pretty
meaningless biological variable and people are assigned
to one race or the other on arbitrary grounds.

Yes, people vary a lot genetically. They are probably the
most genetically heterogeneous species of animal.

Just recently heard that cheetahs showed (by contrast)
almost no genetic variation from individual to
individual. (I've heard speculation that extensive
inbreeding is one contributing factor in their
difficulties in the wild. OTOH, some of the designation
of taxonomy mystifies me; I thought that different
species if mated, produced offspring who are sterile
(eg. mules). OTOH, wolves and dogs produce fertile
offspring, so on what basis are they distinct species?
Also heard recently that naked mole rats are cold-blooded--
I thought being warm-blooded was a sine qua non of
mammalia.

Steve

They also raise their young on feces!

Cathar

Steven Bornfeld said:

Also heard recently that naked mole rats are cold-blooded--
I thought being warm-blooded was a sine qua non of
mammalia.

www-www-Open ↗
personal.umich.edu/~cberger/syllabusfolder/animaldiversity/-
Heterocephalus_glaber.html

TM said:

I'd back it up one step further. I have noticed that biking
seems to exist in pockets where there is comfortable access
to the sport by novices. Areas with rail trails, bike
lanes, novice mtb trails always seem to have clubs where
places without those facilities do not.

Training is 90% of the sport. Take away a place to train
and the reason for owning a bike disappears for you whether
you're black, white, red or orange.

Is your argument that the clubs don't exist without MUPs and
bike lanes, or that more people join the clubs to train and
eventually race because they can train on MUPs and in bike
lanes? Or simply that without MUPs and bikelanes, there
isn't enough bicyclists in an area to provide the incubation
base for a viable USCF type bike club?

Just curious. Don't think any of the above are true. You
can't train on many MUPs unless you are into short, high-
intensity, sub-15mph training, whatever that is (OK, what if
Lance had tried training with the brakes on?). I've watched
MUP and bike lane usage coexisting with ABLA/USCF clubs and
could never see a clear relationship. Same with the total
number of cyclists in an area.

There has to be some relationship to the last, but not one
strong enough that a poorly run club would survive as long
as the base existed or a well run club couldn't thrive with
a small general cycling base.

As for a place to train, I'm guessing that for road racing
that remains a good road.

Curtis L. Russell Odenton, MD (USA) Just someone on
two wheels...

"Curtis L. Russell" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

On Tue, 27 Apr 2004 19:33:07 GMT, "TM" <[email hidden]>
wrote: You can't train on many MUPs unless you are into
short, high-intensity, sub-15mph training, whatever
that is (OK, what if Lance had tried training with the
brakes on?).

We are clearly not discussing the same thing. I know several
rail trails that are over 30 miles long on which you can go
as fast as you want. You are going to argue that a facility
like that does not create more interest in cycling? You are
stating that having one in a community hasn't sold one bike
or club membership?

<snip>

Quoted message said:

As for a place to train, I'm guessing that for road racing
that remains a good road.

This all makes sense now. In your experience, people must
become road racers first. In my experience, people become
bike riders first, then a certain percent go on to race.
That is why I find that places to ride that make novices
comfortable increase the number of people who participate in
all aspects of cycling - including racing.

Shayne Wissler said:

"Benjamin Weiner" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:408dcec2$1@darkstar...

Quoted message said:

Shayne Wissler said:

"Benjamin Weiner" <[email hidden]> wrote in
message
> Shayne Wissler <[email hidden]> wrote:
>> Whatever the case may be for cycling, that "population
>> geneticist" does not know everything about physiology
>> and genetics. And when he says that Americans of
>> African descent are closer genetically to Americans of
>> European descent than they are to Africans we have
>> good reason to question his understanding of genetics
>> and/or statistics.

Quoted message said:

> Why do we have reason to question it?

Quoted message said:

To point out what is painfully obvious to everyone
except you and this "population geneticist": Neither
geographical location nor citizenship is not a
determinant of genetic material.

English, please?

You don't look like your mommy and daddy because you grew
up in their house.

That you think this is the only pathway through which
Americans of African descent could be genetically closer to
Americans of European descent than to other Africans shows
that you lack both knowledge and imagination.

Curtis L. Russell said:

training, whatever that is (OK, what if Lance had tried
training with the brakes on?)

Specificity, specificity, specificity.

"Robert Chung" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Shayne Wissler said:

"Benjamin Weiner" <[email hidden]> wrote in
message news:408dcec2$1@darkstar...

Quoted message said:

Shayne Wissler <[email hidden]> wrote:
> "Benjamin Weiner" <[email hidden]> wrote in
> message
>> Shayne Wissler <[email hidden]> wrote:
>>> Whatever the case may be for cycling, that
>>> "population geneticist" does not know everything
>>> about physiology and genetics. And when he says that
>>> Americans of African descent are closer genetically
>>> to Americans of European descent than they are to
>>> Africans we have good reason to question his
>>> understanding of genetics and/or statistics.

>> Why do we have reason to question it?

> To point out what is painfully obvious to everyone
> except you and this "population geneticist": Neither
> geographical location nor citizenship is not a
> determinant of genetic material.

English, please?

You don't look like your mommy and daddy because you
grew up in their house.

That you think this is the only pathway through which
Americans of African descent could be genetically closer
to Americans of European descent than to other Africans
shows that you lack both knowledge and imagination.

This is pure hot air, since neither you nor that "population
geneticist" are forthcoming with a single fact, or even
hypothesis, to contradict me.

Shayne Wissler

Shayne Wissler said:

"Robert Chung" <[email hidden]> wrote in message

Quoted message said:

That you think this is the only pathway through which
Americans of African descent could be genetically closer
to Americans of European descent than to other Africans
shows that you lack both knowledge and imagination.

This is pure hot air, since neither you nor that
"population geneticist" are forthcoming with a single
fact, or even hypothesis, to contradict me.

So if I show you some references, will you admit you never
did the research? What, is research beneath you? Hint: do
what you you should have done first and google up the
phrases "human genetic variation" and "africa."

Africa has more genetic variability than any other
continent. The key to the original claim is that a large
portion of African-Americans come from a selected part of
Africa: they mostly have origins from West Africa, and West
Africans appear to be closer genetically to European-
Americans than to many other African groups even if those
groups were closer in a geographic distance sense.

TM said:

We are clearly not discussing the same thing. I know
several rail trails that are over 30 miles long on which
you can go as fast as you want. You are going to argue that
a facility like that does not create more interest in
cycling? You are stating that having one in a community
hasn't sold one bike or club membership?

Whatever. If road racing depends on the communities that
have 30 mile long MUPs open enough to train at speed, we may
as well close down USAC/USCF today. OTOH, most communities
have roads that you can do that on a regular basis.

Curtis L. Russell Odenton, MD (USA) Just someone on
two wheels...

"Robert Chung" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Shayne Wissler said:

"Robert Chung" <[email hidden]> wrote in message

Quoted message said:

That you think this is the only pathway through which
Americans of African descent could be genetically
closer to Americans of European descent than to other
Africans shows that you lack both knowledge and
imagination.

This is pure hot air, since neither you nor that
"population geneticist" are forthcoming with a single
fact, or even hypothesis, to contradict me.

So if I show you some references, will you admit you never
did the research? What, is research beneath you? Hint: do
what you you should have done first and google up the
phrases "human genetic variation" and "africa."

Hint: You should not be so open-minded that your brain
falls out.

Quoted message said:

Africa has more genetic variability than any other
continent. The key to the original claim is that a large
portion of African-Americans come from a selected part of
Africa: they mostly have origins from West Africa, and
West Africans appear to be closer genetically to European-
Americans than to many other African groups even if those
groups were closer in a geographic distance sense.

This is context dropping. The original conversation was not
specific about what area of Africa black Americans were
being compared with. Clearly it's possible for some African
group to be even more genetically removed from West Africans
than West Africans are removed from Europeans. At least in
theory. But again this has nothing at all to do with the
subject that was being discussed.

Shayne Wissler

Shayne Wissler said:

This is context dropping. The original conversation was
not specific about what area of Africa black Americans
were being compared with. Clearly it's possible for some
African group to be even more genetically removed from
West Africans than West Africans are removed from
Europeans. At least in theory. But again this has nothing
at all to do with the subject that was being discussed.

Oh really? To provide context, here is the original
statement to which you objected:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Frequencies of various genes vary all over the place,
but do not follow the boundaries of what people refer
to as different races. White Americans and Black
Americans are closer genetically than Black Americans
and Black Africans. Races are delineated mostly by skin
colour, a pretty meaningless biological variable and
people are assigned to one race or the other on
arbitrary grounds.

Yes, people vary a lot genetically. They are probably
the most genetically heterogeneous species of animal.
They can not be divided into 'races' in any non-
subjective way because the variation is continuous and
not discrete. About 85% of the variation is within
Africa anyway, since humans originated there and only
small sub-groups migrated out of Africa.

You said his claim was such [censored] that there was no
hypothesis or fact that could possibly contradict you. I
have now presented both a fact and a hypothesis.

"Robert Chung" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Shayne Wissler said:

This is context dropping. The original conversation was
not specific about what area of Africa black Americans
were being compared with. Clearly it's possible for some
African group to be even more genetically removed from
West Africans than West Africans are removed from
Europeans. At least in theory. But again this has
nothing at all to do with the subject that was being
discussed.

Oh really? To provide context, here is the original
statement to which you objected:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> Frequencies of various genes vary all over the place,
> but do not follow the boundaries of what people refer
> to as different races. White Americans and Black
> Americans are closer genetically than Black Americans
> and Black Africans. Races are delineated mostly by
> skin colour, a pretty meaningless biological variable
> and people are assigned to one race or the other on
> arbitrary grounds.
>
> Yes, people vary a lot genetically. They are probably
> the most genetically heterogeneous species of animal.
> They can not be divided into 'races' in any non-
> subjective way because the variation is continuous and
> not discrete. About 85% of the variation is within
> Africa anyway, since humans originated there and only
> small sub-groups migrated out of Africa.

You said his claim was such [censored] that there was no
hypothesis or fact that could possibly contradict you. I
have now presented both a fact and a hypothesis.

No, all you've done is demonstrate stubbornness and poor
reading comprehension.

Shayne Wissler

Donovan Rebbechi said:

In article
<[email hidden]>,

Proton Soup said:

Didn't the Arabs do quite a bit of slave trading in East
Africa a few centuries back? Maybe east Africans aren't
entirely "African". And

Not sure where the Kalenjin acquired their endurance
ability, but I'm pretty sure they didn't get it from
the Arabs.

Quoted message said:

then you've also got those black Ethiopian Jews. Anyhow,
there's quite a bit of racial diversity in Africa I
suppose.

Yep. "Black" is a very broad generalisation that covers a
lot of different ethnic groups.

Regardless, the top 100 sprinters in the world are black. As
Whit pointed out a lot time ago, there are literally
thousands of white and asian sprinters trying to run as fast
as they can, with superior coaching. Yet they are still
completely dominated by black sprinters.

But don't say that we're all equal regardless of minor
genetic differences because that'll make you a racist.

--
Scott Johnson / scottjohnson at kc dot rr dot com

"Curtis L. Russell" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

If road racing depends on the communities that have 30
mile long MUPs open enough to train at speed, we may as
well close down USAC/USCF today.

Agreed. I think we have a dispute in degree and not kind. I
was talking about growing the sport, not it existing as it
is. My observation was that *more* pariticipation occurs
when *more* people are comfortable biking in general. The
post that I responded to said, words to the effect, that not
having enough low cost events was preventing cycling from
becoming more mainstream. I just felt that that was putting
the cart in front of the horse and that, instead, I'd
noticed that more people on bikes equals more racers equals
more events.

Quoted message said:

OTOH, most communities have roads that you can do that on a
regular basis.

I can see how you could take exception to my post if you
read it as saying you need a rail trail, etc to train in
general. We both know that is not true. I think, however,
you can see my point if you realize I was directing that
comment towards the people who are missing from cycling
today, but would enjoy it if they were exposed to it.
Another example would be ice rinks. Sure people will drive 2
hrs to play hockey if they really want, but build a rink in
that town and the number of players increases.

You know, I was confused about the Lance part of your post.
Did I rub you the wrong way (I couldn't resist) when I
posted earlier about his brake incident? I just ask because
I did not think my post was all that controversial which led
me to believe that I either botched writing it or I'd
crossed you on another topic some where along the line.

Top Sirloin said:

Quoted message said:

Yep. "Black" is a very broad generalisation that covers a
lot of different ethnic groups.

Regardless, the top 100 sprinters in the world are black.

Not quite, but close.

Quoted message said:

As Whit pointed out a lot time ago, there are literally
thousands of white and asian sprinters trying to run as
fast as they can, with superior coaching. Yet they are
still completely dominated by black sprinters.

Mankind originated in Africa. 85% of the genetic diversity
of humans is still to be found in Africa. In Africa you will
find the shortest people in the world and the tallest.
Probably most extremes of human physiology, biochemistry and
anatomy will be found in Africa. The most efficient long
distance runners in the world are East Africans or people
descended from them. The fastest sprinters in the world are
West Africans or people descended from them. With changing
social climates and increased opportunity it would not
surprise me if the best gymnasts, mathematicians, painters
or swimmers of the future were to be found in Africa.

--
Helgi Briem hbriem AT simnet DOT is

Never worry about anything that you see on the news.
To get on the news it must be sufficiently rare
that your chances of being involved are negligible!

TM said:

You know, I was confused about the Lance part of your post.
Did I rub you the wrong way (I couldn't resist) when I
posted earlier about his brake incident?

Nope. Just an aside - probably the only bike racer in recent
memory that could have used trainig in that mode.

I came close once - completely cooked on a training ride
using the backup/commuter and found at the end of the 60
miles that the under-bracket generator was rolling on the
tire the whole way, with about a quarter inch of tar picked
up off of hot roads 'helping'. Evidently left it flipped
open from the last late night ride home and never, ever
noticed it. Hell of a workout, but I should have bit the
bullet and fixed the tire on the other bike.

Or maybe the lesson is never use an under bracket generator,
where you can't see the damn thing flipped open.

Curtis L. Russell Odenton, MD (USA) Just someone on
two wheels...

Shayne Wissler said:

No, all you've done is demonstrate stubbornness and poor
reading comprehension.

It's absolutely true that I am stubborn, and almost
absolutely true that I have poor reading skills, but they
are irrelevant to this: I cited a demonstrable fact (that
there is more genetic diversity in Africa than elsewhere)
and provided a hypothesis (that black Americans were non-
randomly selected from the African genetic pool) that could
explain a particular claim. You have yet to provide any
evidence to support your position.