[Rivals.Yahoo] A tidibt about Budinger and racial stereotype

If everything is based on nutrition, then why is the majority of the league dominated by Blacks? Last time I checked, the majority of the whites in America have better health care, education etc. than the majority of blacks.

Nutritions play a factor, but genetics determine the limit. I don't know what your point is, but if you think height is determined solely by what you eat I'm not going to discuss with you anymore.

 

Eduardo Najera.

 

By that logic....somebody with more African DNA should be more athletic than somebody with less African DNA.

Why is Brandon Roy more athletic than me when I have more African ancestors than him?

 

Please read post #89.

Do you have a source for that? Because it's nonsense.

There are many factors, of which genetics is ONE (not having anything to do with a limit- which is meaningless... What does that even mean?). And by far the most significant is nutrition.

 

You bring these Native Africans to America, where as slaves they are basically bred like a science experiment to become bigger, stronger, and better slaves.


*Facepalm*

The slave "owners" tried to breed Africans like farm animals, however it is very hard to breed a "bad" gene out of a population. Even then it takes MANY generations for such an event to occur. Also, mutations within the population may cause the trait to pop back up.

The "breeding" of slaves has little to do with the athletic ability of descendants of African slaves.

 

Edit.

 

Height is genetics. Height is an inheritance. If you just told me height is mainly based on nutrition, then I'm done.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=how-much-of-human-height

Of course you can disregard the validity of the article, but you can always find a random biology teacher and ask them instead.

By your definition, anyone who has the right nutrition will grow up to be 6 ft 5.

 

Basic reading comprehension, please. The article you quoted is talking about differences among INDIVIDUALS, even the quote you pasted states this explicitly. It's not about populations at all.

When comparing populations, genetics plays a much smaller factor.

lol, at getting all on a high horse because you googled height and found an article you thought agrees with your point- unfortunately you miscomprehended the article completely.... :grin: :grin: :grin:

We're talking about populations here, not individuals.

 

I don't know what you are getting at. The article clearly states genetics play a major factor in determining a individual's height. Population = many individuals. Therefore, genetics play a major factor in determining many individual's height. Does that make more sense to you now?

If the average height of an individual in China is 5 ft 6, the average height of the population is 5 ft 6.

You do know what genetics are right?

So this is what I'm getting from you.

1. Anyone can be of any height, as long as they have the right nutrition. (I hope you know how stupid this sounds to anyone who studied biology)

2. Genetics only play a factor in determining heights of individuals, but when it's a population (genetics play a factor when there is one person, but not when there are many people. Once again, that is logically stupid).

Once again, by your definition. Anyone can be of any height with the right nutrition.

 

One thing I have noticed (from a Australian point of view) is that in America Black people seem to ball constantly. Whether this is due to culture or education or whatever is meaningless the constant is that they ball constantly and there is alot of them balling constantly.

I'm not saying white Americans don't but I think someone in this thread earlier mentioned white americans tend to do other things with their spare time. I spend alot of time balling but even as a kid i found it hard to ball all the time with computer games and the like. I've noticed that I have one mate who balls all the time and his awesome. So obviously the sample space of black kids balling will mean alot more proficient ballers then white kids.

Secondly it is up to genes. I will note that ALOT of people in China display the same type of behaviour as the black population, they will do nothing but ball. But as demonstrated by our own experience with Yao and recently with Yi and Sun Yue they simply aren't as physical as the people in the NBA.

Europeans seem to also ball alot more and concentrate on the basics then say a white american would. I'm not trying to be racist but thats the impression I get.

 

Bud being laidback is not the reason he fell to the 2nd round.

If that was the case Derrick Rose, Tracy McGrady, and a whole bunch of other laidback guys would not have gotten drafted as high as they did.

Not saying his talent level is like theirs but being laidback had nothing to do with his drop.

 

Bud is the most athletic wing on the team

 

I havn't seen enough out of him to decide, he is the only guy that comes close though.

 

There is treatment to assist with growth!

How else would I have reached such a great height?

 

Why is there not affirmative action in sports?