Seriously, this I think I can help you with: he ejects at the end of the clip, probably fine but limping for a while after he touched down using an emergency chute.
Better "athletes" in general, no. Thats too generic and has to do as much with nutrition. But it could affect specific aspects like endurance, fat deposits, resistance to diseases. For example a woman who has better fat deposits would have better survavibillity against famine living in a subsaharan african tribe in the 1700s giving her more chances to procreate. Then she also would have more chance to survive the trip to the New World. But that would be the same for the africans who werent sold as slaves too. Also the environmental pressure in all of africa isnt the same and costant either. For example eastern africa around the horn doesnt have the same as western africa. Africans who werent sold to slavery didnt face any less environmental pressure to lead evolution than slaves. Being a member of a warring tribe in the Congo is even more pressuring , evolution wise than working in a new world plantation. Also thats the same for all humans not only africans.
I’ll discuss it... whatever. When I was about 10 I learned from the Jesuits about breeding of rabbits and other animals. One of the Jesuits bred rabbits and over about 20 years he selectively bred and doubled the size of his male studs. He was a biologist and extremely well educated and bright. By extension I asked him if we could do that with people. I noticed that attractive people tended to have attractive parents. He told me the short answer is yes, that any animal including humans can be selectively bred to have more desirable genes. I asked him about the Vikings and slaves. He essentially told me what I later learned in college and when I researched it myself. In the case of slavery from Africa, the reproduction rate is way to slow to make a difference. Further slave sex and birth was not as closely regulated as people think. White men that lacked the attributes desired would rape their slaves and have children. In many cases slaves would form their own sexual relationships and have children. So the deeper you look into it, the larger the myth becomes. History proves this as well. 125 years ago Jews were viewed as elite athletes... then African Americans... and now there are white Americans and Europeans running elite times, having elite physical attributes, etc.
There is a lot of selective breeding done in horse racing. The idea that mating two fast horses will produce another fast horse has been proven to work a lot of the time. The same theory would likely work for humans too. If two good athletes have a child the chances of that child being a good athlete would likely be higher than normal. There are many instances of sport stars having children who also become sports stars when they grow up. It has a lot to do with dominant and recessive genes.
I get what he's saying. It's a moronic argument though, and it's not true, as others have pointed out. It could help, though. If you want to go there, we could say that redlining and oppression of these people into poor ghettos within cities is just as responsible. Back in the day, they were in the fields doing the hard work that white folks didn't want to do. Held down by the man that way. Once they were freed, they were herded into the city and given next to nothing, which forced them to find alternative means for entertainment. This often is channeled through sports. For an inner city kid, sports are an outlet to get away from the oppression, the crime, the bad apples, whatever that surrounds you. When you live like that, you don't want to sit at home in your tablet. You don't even have a tablet. I'm a white kid, but I've lived on the poorest part of a smaller town (about 40k), and let me tell you, that ghetto house (which sold for $10k) was the last place I wanted to be. I was more prone to be outside playing football or basketball. So, while I see what he's trying to say, he's mostly wrong. A lot of it is that black people have a history of being oppressed, which has led them to be far more active and fit than white people. This has also led to them spending far more time outside, running, shooting hoops, playing football, etc., which leads to more pro athletes. The irony of it all is that this leads to more oppression when the owners and coaches are usually white, and certain groups of people start to see things through a business (i.e. slave/owner mentality) perspective. That's if we're going to generalize and paint everything black and white, which history and logic tell us, we shouldn't do, because it's incorrect in almost every situation.
To follow up what myself and other posters are saying is that there simply wasn't enough time in terms of multiple generations of human breeding and also not enough control in mating to have bred African Americans as a group to be superior physically. The Middle Passage represented a far greater selective pressure in terms of who survived to make it to the US than what any slave owner or group of slave owners. It is still unclear though what that pressure did in terms of African Americans as a group. It's possible that the survivors were more physically robust so they could survive the trip. Invisible Fan points out that stressing a population that way can also hinder development. Either way any genetic advantage or disadvantage that might've come out of the Middle Passage is probably heavily diluted by now. Genes that determine things like height, strength, muscle mass and etc.. aren't the same as the things that determine skin color. We define race as exterior appearance and while we have a lot of black athletes their skin tone certainly isn't the same. One of greatest current athletes is Ashton Eaton 2 time Olympic Decathlete. He's a black man but it's questionable how many African genes he has. In regard to selective breeding of traits yes a child is likely to inherent traits of the parents so Yao Ming likely benefits from that his parents are tall. That's only a handful of individuals and not a a whole race. If you wanted to create a whole group of of Yao Mings equivalent to the population of African Americans. That would take many many generations and severely limit their breeding while also selectively removing from the population individuals that didn't have the traits you were breeding for. There was no way slave owner could control the breeding of slaves in that manner.
Of course not. Since cattle were mentioned, a cow will hit puberty and can be bred at ~6 months old (in a controlled environment you'd let them reach ~14 months old), gestation is 9 months, and they can be bred again ~2 months after birth. So basically at 1 year of age they'll have a calf a year for the rest of their "reproductive" life, typically ~12 years in a controlled environment (barring injury during birth, STD, etc). This.
Thanks for that. That's what I would think as a layman and why I asked the question. As for the Jewish question. https://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=123368994
Yes. I think biologists would argue that hybrid vigor is an important part of understanding population genetics. In other news, and speaking of another Jim, there is an important 20th-century geneticist involved in the population inheritance story named... James Crow. (Come on, Mom. You had to pick "James." )
I was never talking about race wide because we all know traits do no pass down equally to every offspring, we also know that evry black person is not a great athlete. It does make sense that selective breeding was not tightly controlled to have much impact which is something I had not thought off, Jimmy the greek being a layman that most likely had a simple knowledge of horse racing probably extrapolated that.
another reason why animals that have more than one offspring (dogs) are easier to manipulate. Each generation not only takes a 1.5 years to get, you also have a selection to choose from for the strongest traits.
Great post. I think people really underestimate slaves being normal humans and being in relationships they wanted. I mean they weren't animals. That is what is insulting. Couldn't just put them in the same room to encourage sex
Didn't they make a law about this -- The Law of Population Inheritance of the Crow or something like that?
What? They had no choice over relationships and yes they were treated as animals. https://www.history.com/news/african-american-slavery-marriage-family-separation These leaps were necessary because, for nearly 250 years, the vast majority of African Americans were considered chattel property. Within this system, white slaveholders made all the decisions: They determined whether and when enslaved people could wed. They split them apart when finances dictated. They sometimes chose who would marry who. Or brazenly violated enslaved couples’ marriages by forcing the women to serve as their own concubines. And those in political power set laws that made it exceedingly difficult for freed black people to reside for long near their still-enslaved families without being sucked back into the harrowing state of bondage themselves. Since marriage was both a civil right and a religious rite afforded only to those with legal standing, enslaved people, who had no recognizable standing in society, could not make contracts of any kind. Their marriages were neither legally binding, nor sanctified by the Christian church, which routinely allowed one of its holiest rites to be tarnished by power, money and whim. Property owners were its leading constituents, and their rights prevailed over human rights. So enslaved people were forced to settle for conditional unions that could be torn asunder at any time. https://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/02/...bellum-myth-about-slave-families-to-rest.html
You both are right to an extent. There were cases of slaves being selectively bred but there were also situations where slaves had relationships between each other and developed their own attractions/attachments. For the purposes of this thread, the reality is sex was not controlled tight enough or long enough to make the changes claimed by Jimmy the Greek.
