Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!network!ucsd!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!husc6!ogccse!littlei!omepd!mipos3!cadev4!ekwok
From: ekwok@cadev4.intel.com (Edward C. Kwok)
Newsgroups: ca.politics,sci.bio
Subject: Re: Hybrid vigor
Message-ID: <641@mipos3.intel.com>
Date: 7 Aug 89 20:35:28 GMT
References: <4869@drivax.UUCP>
Sender: news@mipos3.intel.com
Reply-To: ekwok@cadev4.UUCP (Edward C. Kwok)
Distribution: usa
Organization: The Daily Vatican
Lines: 50

In article <4869@drivax.UUCP> macleod@drivax.UUCP (MacLeod) writes:
>European and African gene pools were at least 20 generations apart when 
>they were merged in America, and the hybridized slaves were pruned further
>by clever owners, so it doesn't surprise me that professional sports is 
>dominated by black Americans and black-Native American-white hybrids.
>(Native to South America, that is, where they interbred with the European
>Spanish.)
>
>Of course, we're all supposed to pretend that none of this ever happened...

You are, of course, making the assumption that the genetic ability to produce
the melanin pigment has anything to do with the rest of the genetic makeup
of the individual; and that "black people" and "white people" are all alike.
Well, the news is that if you take two "black" people from different parts
of Africa, albeit 200 miles apart, they may be very different in every ability,
except for the ability to produce the pigment in their skin. To talk about
a result without knowing about the "starting" material is quite likely to
form erroneous conclusions.

Also, I will contest that athletic ability is not like the ability to produce
a pigment. Such high level characteristics are probably not manifestation
of just a few genes. They are probably a combinations of the effects of many
genes, as well as of environmental influence. When you have so many factors
operating all together, it's not at all clear that by concentrating the
dominant forms of certain phenotypes, one can at the same time avoid 
concentrating the recessive forms of other phenotypes. (i.e. we don't
know if and when we create the individual with potential to develop muscles
to run a 9.0 sec 100 meters, we don't also have at the same time an individual 
who cannot survive the attack of a common cold). Besides, the 
"dominant/recessive" terminology inadvertently make people associate the
ideas with good/bad. Natural does not make such associations. The same
genetic "defect" that creates the "sickle cell" anaemia, is also the
responsible for the survival in malaria swamps.

The points I am trying to make:

1. If the ability to produce pigment is independent of the ability to excel
   in athletics (itself a grossly general term: is bowling an athletic 
   endeavor?), one has no better luck creating a super-athelete imbreeding
   whites than imbreeding a mixture of "black" and "whites" and their 
   offsprings.

2. Even if we assume that athletic ability is controlled by a few genes
   that can be "purified" from the original "black" and the original "white"
   genetic makeup, it is not clear that the successful manifestation of the 
   atheletic ability may not be thwarted by the same process "purifying"
   some other genes unfavorable to the given environment. So that this 
   "purifying" process may create no better athletes than the randomly
   occuring events that occur within "blacks", "whites", or "in betweens".