nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Genetics - split from Rip critique thread

blackgold>>

Some simple things such as muscle insertion points, muscle fibre type and lever length.
Why are African Americans faster at sprinting? Genetics! Train as hard as you want and goodluck trying to beat them.
Bollocks to most of what you say on genetics. Of course they bloody matter don't be idiotic.
This is not about how hard you train etc etc.... Some things are out of your control.

And about squating lets see your expert squating videos . Show us how to do it then.

Find more posts tagged with

evolution

Quick Links

Comments

Pub07

Hanley wrote: »

I'm seriously confused now.... Look at all the big "African American" guys in the NFL. Those muscles weren't build by positive thought and push ups. They had to have access to a gym.

You don't have to buy the gear, in fact s lot of US high schools have pretty decent gyms that are free to use for students.

I'm sorry, but the argument "they don't have access to weights" falls flat on it's face.

Big "African American" muscles were built in the college that they got a scholarship to based on their exceptional talent.

You are far more likely to find good facilities in schools in more upmarket areas. The facilities you'll find in a school in the Bronx or your average New Orleans school, if they have any at all, are gonna be alot different than the ones you'll find in Beverly Hills. And school isn't college, most school gyms aren't open 16 hours a day where you get to come and go as you please, they get to use em during P.E. and thats it. The exception is if they are on basketball/football teams. And the amount of black teenagers who will have access to gyms outside schools will be way below the amount of white teenagers whose familys can afford a gym membership for them.

When the school ends and they no longer have free access to gyms your average African American who earns 60% of what an average white American earns has to face some serious issues if they want to continue weight training and are not getting use of free facilities through a football team. Especially to be competitive in PL/WL where so much of it is self-financed....tons of food, supplements, steroids?, gym membership, gear. Cost is gonna be a major issue, alot of black people do not have the luxury of being able to blow a big % of their income on this stuff when 24% them are below the poverty line and are struggling to put food on the table. It is precisely the same reason why there are less black people playing golf, it's too dear to get started or maintain when you can run or play football or basketball for free.

Who said they didn't?

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=59161050&postcount=142 for one

And you yourself basically said as much yourself with this line 'Once again we're back at the "you get good at what you train for" argument'.

Mikel

I googled "fast twitch" and "race" and the first result was
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_race_has_the_most_fast_twitch_fibres

Q. What race has the most fast twitch fibres?
*drum roll*.........

A. Sprints like 100- 400 meters use the most fast twitch fibers

blackgold>>

Do you think certain races are more GENETICALLY predispositioned to having a certain fibre make up?

Your argument seems to be "black" = more fast twitch/power dominant and "white" = more slow twitch? (assuming white is the opposite to black)

Nearly all the runners of West African descent win the sprint.They're west africans who happen to be black.
Muscle fiber types are heredity beleive it or not.
Blacks are better athletes than whites.And asian will never challenge blacks in sprinting,ever.
From glycolytic metabolic pathways to bone density to fat percentage blacks are genetically different.
And on average yes they have more fiberes than others.

Hanley

Pub07 wrote: »

Big "African American" muscles were built in the college that they got a scholarship to based on their exceptional talent.

And what about the big high school athletes?

When the school ends and they no longer have free access to gyms your average African American who earns 60% of what an average white American earns has to face some serious issues if they want to continue weight training and are not getting use of free facilities through a football team. Especially to be competitive in PL/WL where so much of it is self-financed....tons of food, supplements, steroids?, gym membership, gear. Cost is gonna be a major issue, alot of black people do not have the luxury of being able to blow a big % of their income on this stuff when 24% them are below the poverty line and are struggling to put food on the table. It is precisely the same reason why there are less black people playing golf, it's too dear to get started or maintain when you can run or play football or basketball for free.

Success in weightlifting happens waaaay before you hit college.

Are you arguing that societal factors are as important as genetic gifts when it comes to sport?

Killme00

spiral

http://scienceblogs.com/geneticfuture/2008/10/actn3_and_jamaican_olympic_success.php

interesting article

Mikel

Hanley

blackgold>> wrote:

fast twitch dominant sports

Sprinting
weight lifting
basketball players

Slow twitch dominant sports
long distance running
cyclists

Hanley wrote: »

So are one particular race of people more likely to have a certain fibre composition?

blackgold>> wrote: »

Nearly all the runners of West African descent win the sprint.They're west africans who happen to be black.
Muscle fiber types are heredity beleive it or not.
Blacks are better athletes than whites.And asian will never challenge blacks in sprinting,ever.
From glycolytic metabolic pathways to bone density to fat percentage blacks are genetically different.
And on average yes they have more fiberes than others.

Wow... I'm even more seriously confused now.

The list of "fast twitch" dominant sports you posted includes sports dominated by both white and black people.

The "slow twitch" list has sports dominated by white and black people.

How can that be???? :eek::eek::eek:

Pub07

Hanley wrote: »

Success in weightlifting happens waaaay before you hit college.

Are you arguing that societal factors are as important as genetic gifts when it comes to sport?

Ok, basically what Im saying is black people have a genetical edge over white people in sprinting. And Im also saying the reason you dont see them dominating in sports such as PL/WL is because of the entry barrier due to cost and then there is the cultural factor, young black guys aspire to play in the NFL or NBA, there are very few black PL/WL to aspire to. I wouldn't be at all surprised if they dominated PL/WL too if there were as many black people doing it as white people as they have already proved they have a genetic edge in the universal sport with no entry barriers, running.

Hanley

Pub07 wrote: »

Ok, basically what Im saying is black people have a genetical edge over white people in sprinting. And Im also saying the reason you dont see them dominating in sports such as PL/WL is because of the entry barrier due to cost and then there is the cultural factor, young black guys aspire to play in the NFL or NBA, there are very few black PL/WL to aspire to. I wouldn't be at all surprised if they dominated PL/WL too if there were as many black people doing it as white people as they have already proved they have a genetic edge in the universal sport with no entry barriers, running.

Well to use your own argument, who's to say the best and the brightest white sportsmen go into running?

Just because there's low barriers to entry doesn't mean that they'll do it. They might favour other sports, like gymnastics or weightlifting. There might be a societal aspect where track and field is seen as rougher and less desirable for "rich white folk". They might prefer "skill" sports...

Jamican's run. Bulgarian's lift.

Genetics dominate, but only if you're "black" in a "black" sport like sprinting/long distance running.

Nothingcompares

There seems to be a common assumption there are 3 races in the world, white, black and asian. I think this is way too overly simplistic. Are there genetic factors that increase your likelihood of winning a gold medal in sprinting? In my opinion there certainly is.

amazingemmet

blackgold>> wrote: »

True or false?

False, the amount of of white fibres can be changed with certain chemicals and regimes. Also slow twitch dominant muscles can be trained to replicated the results of an 80% fast twitch dominant group with the right training protocol (zatiorisky, science and practice of strength training)

g'em

First off, I've split the thread as this has gone waaaay beyond Rip's squatting technique (or lack thereof - I know, I know, cheap shot

)

Mikel wrote: »

Have to be careful this answer isn't too long.
I get the feeling some of us are arguing at cross purposes here

Isn't that often the way?? Ah long live intarweb arguments - I wonder what the Fitness equivalent of Godwin's Law is??

Mikel wrote:

Black people are genetically superior for boxing because their skin cuts less easily.

Are they? I've never heard that before and would need to see some literature before believing it - that's the crux of my argument in this thread tbh; I'm not arguing for or against either side, I'm simply saying that a LOT of what people are saying is sheer conjecture and "It's true because I said so and I can provide loose analogous examples to prove it!1!!!!11!" kind of stuff. Some of what's being said could be true, a lot of it isn't, but I'd like to see back-up to some of the claims getting made.

Mikel wrote:

So do you believe that genetics play a part or not?

I do, but I'm getting irked at the concept of it being a genetics according to race argument e.g.:

Pub07 wrote: »

Ok, basically what Im saying is black people have a genetical edge over white people in sprinting.

There simply isn't enough proof for me to believe that to be the case. But (and I mean this!) I'll be happy to be proven wrong - I'm just not subscribing to the "coz I say so" argument; besides, at this point I'm probably being a bit quite stubborn as I hate seeing the "genetics" factor being so lazily thrown out as a factor for success!

Mikel wrote:

Genetic in this context is a catch all term for 'things you are born with'.
It's probably a lot of small things, not necessarily a single gene you can point at.

For sure, and I also think it's being grossly over-stated. I'd still say that nurture has a bigger influence than nature.

Mikel wrote:

The sprinting is an interesting one, sure there are cultural factors, training, scouting etc etc etc.
But seemingly every final would be made up of all black athletes, probably most of the semis too. I saw seemingly because I'm too lazy to check.
That would suggest to me some kind of predisposition to see that kind of domination.

Causation or correlation? the dominance of black athletes at the top end of any sport simply doesn't prove anything. 'Evidence' can be misleading.

blackgold>> wrote: »

Nearly all the runners of West African descent win the sprint.

Sorry, but that genuinely doesn't 'prove' anything without being able to identifying some genetic distinction that confers advantage from one group over another.

blackgold>> wrote:

Muscle fiber types are heredity beleive it or not.

That's not being disputed - but it's not the sole reason for one person to be a better person than another ant any sport, and it's not a trait exclusive to one race.

blackgold>> wrote:

Blacks are better athletes than whites.

Say what? Are you sure you want to make such a blanket and rather ridiculous statement?

blackgold>> wrote:

From glycolytic metabolic pathways to bone density to fat percentage blacks are genetically different.
And on average yes they have more fiberes than others.

Show me. I won't take you on your word, prove it with literature as I've asked you to a number of times on this thread.

kevpants

Nothingcompares wrote: »

There seems to be a common assumption there are 3 races in the world, white, black and asian. I think this is way too overly simplistic. Are there genetic factors that increase your likelihood of winning a gold medal in sprinting? In my opinion there certainly is.

Precisely. See my Ben Johnson vs Usain Bolt post a few pages back. Very different genetically.

What about that Chinese 110m hurdler. Wasn't he the favourite in Beijing until he got injured? Explain him.

Blackgold (I understand your username now) by your logic he should have been standing on the sidelines handing out spring rolls, since we're generalising.

d'Oracle

Killme00 wrote: »

That is just awesome.
Sorry, not on topic.

TKD SC

Very quick post!

Re the boxers, look at Rocky Marciano (49/49 fights won), Vitali & Wladimir Klitschko (current world heavy weight title holders!), Steve Collins, Henry Cooper off top of my head, and:

http://www.google.ie/imgres?imgurl=http://www.boxerbuddies.org/Boxer%2520Info/oscar10.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.boxerbuddies.org/Boxer%2520Info/white_boxers.htm&h=440&w=605&sz=18&tbnid=HDaD2c-70piDzM::&tbnh=98&tbnw=135&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dwhite%2Bboxers&hl=en&usg=__ONJS4scUraJIw3GrXo1tVke_o0c=&ei=9SSlSaeXDuCGjAeljojCBQ&sa=X&oi=image_result&resnum=2&ct=image&cd=1

Blackgold, any chance you could list your credentials? Ie, what have you studied in relation to fitness / genetics etc? We know a lot of the background of some of the posters here and hence can put trust in them, eg., people like Gem, Hanley, Transform, Racing Flat, Amazingement, and a few more.

I'd love to actually see some scientific / genetic studies thrown up for any of the arguments being put fwd - it is all interesting, but tbh none of us are geneticists...

g'em

spiral wrote: »

http://scienceblogs.com/geneticfuture/2008/10/actn3_and_jamaican_olympic_success.php

interesting article

Mikel wrote: »

Similar one:

http://www.slate.com/id/2206088/pagenum/all/

I was wondering if these would come up

Both nice little articles; for those who are too lazy to read, a synopsis:

Each article is discussing the discovery of the ACTN3 gene which codes for the α-actinin-3 protein (that's all genes actually do - code for proteins) which is found in fast-twist muscle.

The protein comes in two forms: 577R, and a "defective" version called 577X. Everyone carries two copies of every gene (one from Mum, one from Dad). People who carry two copies of the defective 577X display gene lower muscle strength and reduced sprint performance.

So, people with a two bandy copies of the ACTN3 gene are at a disadvantage to people with one or two regular copies. In a study of 51 Olympic-level sprint/power athletes and a follow-up analysis in Greek athletes not a single individual two copies of the defective gene.

However...

a) somewhere between one-sixth and one-quarter of the world's population are completely deficient in α-actinin-3. So having 'good' ACTN3 genes does not make you special.

b) the proportion of the variance in strength and sprint performance in the general population explained by the ACTN3 variant is around 2-3% i.e. genetics simply accounts for a tiny % of variance.

c) having 'good' copies of the ACTN3 gene does not make you good, it just makes you a lot less likely to be bad.

Oh and methinks blackgold>> has been reading too much Jon Entine... (or at least is paraphrasing his work).

Edit: Note there is no racial predisposition reported for having regular copies if the gene.

blackgold>>

Long post.
Please be nice it takes me a long time to answer you all in fairness.

Many people believe that having more fast and slow twitch muscle fibers may determine what sports athletes excel at and how they respond to training.

And I'm one of them.

han wrote: »

Wow... I'm even more seriously confused now.

The list of "fast twitch" dominant sports you posted includes sports dominated by both white and black people.

The "slow twitch" list has sports dominated by white and black people.

How can that be????

Well the laws of averages usually explain that.That and of course gifted hard working caucasians with 75%+fast twitch fibers. And if you really wanted to get adventurous, tv, ratings, equality and a host of other reasons.Only 12.4%
of people in the usa is african american.Now how many non african folks like watching sports?

amazingemmet wrote:

False, the amount of of white fibres can be changed with certain chemicals and regimes. Also slow twitch dominant muscles can be trained to replicated the results of an 80% fast twitch dominant group with the right training protocol (zatiorisky, science and practice of strength training)

Yes I know by a tiny percentage while killing yourself training.If your 50%fast and you do that regime how are you going to catch the 85%+ people? Electric shock therapy? I've read lots of studies by the likes of gollnick.He says you can change type 11b to type 11a but not type 1 to type 2.If you can show me i would gladly read it. I've a very open mind when it comes to educating myself. I'm always learning everyday.

gem wrote:

Sorry, but that genuinely doesn't 'prove' anything without being able to identifying some genetic distinction that confers advantage from one group over another.

Your not happy with them being the only race to go under 10 seconds so you want proof thats fine.
I'll do it in bullet points as it would take longer to write about it.

more fast-twitch muscle fibers in the thigh muscle
slender calves (ever wonder why they wear long socks)?
narrow hips
glycolytic metabolic pathways are wider(more fuel)1 litre versus 1.5 litre car)
higher key anaerobic enzymes
Less body fat
higher bone density

Now say there was a 8% physiological advantage to blacks how long is the 100 meters? 10 seconds and what do they usually win by? 10's or 100's of a second.See what I'm saying?
The fraction of a second is the difference between the gold medal and fourth place....

Look up athletic history and find me a fully blooded man or woman from west africa who has performed well from 1500meters onwards. Aerobic metabolism in them is terrible and the exact opposite to they long distance runners from say kenya(Nilotic).

That's not being disputed - but it's not the sole reason for one person to be a better person than another ant any sport, and it's not a trait exclusive to one race.

It is the main reason ask any reputable coach.

blackgold>> wrote:

Blacks are better athletes than whites.

Say what? Are you sure you want to make such a blanket and rather ridiculous statement?

Yes I do and have been for the last few pages.Whats wrong with it?

gem wrote:

Show me. I won't take you on your word, prove it with literature as I've asked you to a number of times on this thread.

If you want to discuss the bullet points above be my guest.

tkd sc wrote:

Very quick post!

Re the boxers, look at Rocky Marciano (49/49 fights won), Vitali & Wladimir Klitschko (current world heavy weight title holders!), Steve Collins, Henry Cooper off top of my head, and:

http://www.google.ie/imgres?imgurl=h...&ct=image&cd=1

Blackgold, any chance you could list your credentials? Ie, what have you studied in relation to fitness / genetics etc? We know a lot of the background of some of the posters here and hence can put trust in them, eg., people like Gem, Hanley, Transform, Racing Flat, Amazingement, and a few more.

I'd love to actually see some scientific / genetic studies thrown up for any of the arguments being put fwd - it is all interesting, but tbh none of us are geneticists...

I'm magically able to read english worded books.Don't ask me how, I'm thinking it's just a natural gift.

Why osteoperosis is less common amongst blacks?Why is it harder to knock out a black person? This is fairly common knowledge.They have denser bones.

Here's a link for all the non believers.
http://www.merck.com/pubs/mmanual_ha/details/ad22_1.html

Gem seems you looked up genetics yesterday and are now able to discuss the topic fair play. I actuially never read the mans book is it any good?

Roper

This topic is great.

blackgold>>

Haha brilliant video. I enjoyed that.

TKD SC

blackgold>> wrote: »

I'm magically able to read english worded books.Don't ask me how, I'm thinking it's just a natural gift.

Thanks for that very helpful reply, much appreciated...

The way you type and state 'facts' it's as if you are an expert, hence my query on credentials. I believe Hanley has asked you a couple of times for your age which you have ignored (unless I missed a post). Obviously it's your right to ignore this, but he's probably coming at it from a similar perspective as me - wanting a bit of background on you and your 'expertise' in the genetics field. As you say, you read english books, so presumably that's where your expertise is coming from? I'm actually reading a fascinating book on genetics and evolution at the moment, so I think I'll go back to reading that than reading your posts here!

Roper

blackgold wrote:

1. more fast-twitch muscle fibers in the thigh muscle

I've heard this and yet I've just done a search on the academic journals and haven't found a reference. Do you have any?

2. slender calves (ever wonder why they wear long socks)?

Again reference? I have slender calves but I'm not a sprinter.

3. narrow hips

I also have narrow hips, and my friend from Nigeria has monstorous hips.

4. glycolytic metabolic pathways are wider(more fuel)1 litre versus 1.5 litre car)

I've never heard that before. DO you have a reference?

5. higher key anaerobic enzymes

Same. I'd love to read this information if you could cite the books.

6. Less body fat

That's not genetic. There might be genetic predisposition to store less fat but I've never heard anything like that.

7. higher bone density

Interesting. That's one I had read before regarding osteoperosis.

g'em

blackgold>> wrote: »

Gem seems you looked up genetics yesterday and are now able to discuss the topic fair play. I actuially never read the mans book is it any good?

No, my 10+ years studying, working & teaching in Biological Sciences has afforded me just a teeny bit of genetics knowledge. Just a wee scrap of info mind.

\sarcasm

blackgold>> wrote:

I'll do it in bullet points as it would take longer to write about it.

1. more fast-twitch muscle fibers in the thigh muscle
2. slender calves (ever wonder why they wear long socks)?
3. narrow hips
4. glycolytic metabolic pathways are wider(more fuel)1 litre versus 1.5 litre car)
5. higher key anaerobic enzymes
6. Less body fat
7. higher bone density

Quote me a book/ paper to back up each of these points. Any trainer/ educator/ coach worth their salt would have no issues with that request.

Khannie

blackgold>> wrote: »

Gem seems you looked up genetics yesterday and are now able to discuss the topic fair play.

That's really frickin' ignorant.

Mikel

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mikel
Black people are genetically superior for boxing because their skin cuts less easily.

g'em wrote: »

Are they? I've never heard that before and would need to see some literature before believing it - that's the crux of my argument in this thread tbh

tbh it's kind of a truism in boxing, but I did find this and it LOOKS scientific, with the disclaimer that if it was nonsense I wouldn't know.
Apparently skin thickness is similar, with a difference in the number of layers.
http://www.netwellness.org/question.cfm/31729.htm

g'em wrote:

I'm probably being a bit quite stubborn as I hate seeing the "genetics" factor being so lazily thrown out as a factor for success!

If you're getting that from what I'm saying then you're making the same misinterpretation that kevpants is, and it was me that brought up genetics in the first place

g'em wrote:

For sure, and I also think it's being grossly over-stated. I'd still say that nurture has a bigger influence than nature

Maybe it is overstated, but I'd wager it varies across sports, and probably across different competitors too.

g'em wrote:

Causation or correlation? the dominance of black athletes at the top end of any sport simply doesn't prove anything. 'Evidence' can be misleading.

Never said it does, it just gets me thinking.
Correlation or causation? Probably both, with a sh!t load of other factors too.
There's shades of grey in all of these things. It would be intellectually lazy to say x race is good at y event. But by the same token I don't think we should be afraid to notice a surface level phenomenon like success by one race or nationality and wonder if genetic factors are one input into it.

Also, picking out a counter example does not disprove the existence of a 'genetic advantage' for want of a better description.

I'll have a proper read of those articles and your comments on them

My google journey brought me to the website of the American Anthropological Association, they have a section on race and assumptions in sport:
http://www.understandingrace.org/lived/sports/index.html

There is no conclusive research that documents the theory that blacks can jump higher than whites. However, among elite athletes, particularly professional basketball players and high jumpers, their vertical leaping ability is significantly greater relative to their height.

Blacks are better sprinters because they are born with “fast-twitch” muscles, which account for their short bursts of speed and quick acceleration.
to the extent that most sprinters possess a greater percentage of fast-twitch muscles, and most of the elite sprinters are of West African descent, that statement is arguably truthful. Most physiologists describe two basic types of muscle fibers: slow-twitch muscle, and fast-twitch muscle fiber.....

Also mentions Kenyan distance runners but I can't follow if it says the assumption is true or not.
I don't see any references though

cardio,shoot me

im not sure if its true, but ive heard that black people dont make as good swimmers as they have denser muscles which slows them through the water

Roper

STOOOOOOOPPPPPPP!!!!

If we're going to start spouting random things we've heard about black/white/asian people this thread could easily descend into an offensive mess.

I know I'm not a mod but if people are going to make an assertion, you need ot back it up with some proof. Link, journal or book please.

blackgold>>

blackgold>> wrote:

1. more fast-twitch muscle fibers in the thigh muscle

roper wrote:

I've heard this and yet I've just done a search on the academic journals and haven't found a reference. Do you have any?

Claude Bouchard did a study on it.I read his paper before but cannot find his one so here is another one,it actually mentions his name and his study.
http://caribbean.scielo.org/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0043-31442006000300015&lng=en&nrm=iso
One of hundreds by the way.Very interesting reading.

blackgold>> wrote:

2. slender calves (ever wonder why they wear long socks)?

roper wrote:

Again reference? I have slender calves but I'm not a sprinter.

http://www.la84foundation.org/SportsLibrary/JSH/JSH1989/JSH1602/jsh1602d.pdf

page 167

If you need more just ask.

roper wrote:

3. narrow hips

see above

blackgold>> wrote:

4. glycolytic metabolic pathways are wider(more fuel)1 litre versus 1.5 litre car)

roper wrote:

I've never heard that before. DO you have a reference

Alot of things are new I learn new things everyday.
See first link. They're is a whopping 40% difference in caucasian and west africans. I'd call that a head start wouldn't you? Ofcourse you would.

blackgold>> wrote:

6. Less body fat

roper wrote:

That's not genetic.There might be genetic predisposition to store less fat but I've never heard anything like that.

http://books.google.ie/books?id=9-4SyUl3NG4C&pg=PA56&lpg=PA56&dq=african+black++caucasian+less+body+fat&source=bl&ots=NlT4t7YArl&sig=BQSTOUAyK3MK5R4aMUKv4zZgYQw&hl=en&ei=ewSmSfnXL4LO-AaK0diYBQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=10&ct=result

Quote:

blackgold>> wrote:

7. higher bone density

blackgold>> wrote:

Interesting. That's one I had read before regarding osteoperosis.

Ya thats a fairly well known one compared to what i have said,

Pub07

g'em wrote:

Causation or correlation? the dominance of black athletes at the top end of any sport simply doesn't prove anything. 'Evidence' can be misleading.

'Evidence' - no white man has ever broken the 10sec mark for the 100m sprint and the top 200 times recorded were all ran by black men.

So what's your theory on the above fact then? You do know that the odds of that happening (no white guy featuring in the top 200) by chance alone are similar to winning the lottery several times in a row. Id say the guys on the maths forum could give an actual number.

If you said "The dominance of white athletes at the top end of golfing, skiing and yachting simply doesn't prove anything. 'Evidence' can be misleading.", you would have a point but when it comes to running which is the universal sport with zero barriers to entry the evidence is not misleading at all.

g'em

Pub07 wrote: »

So what's your theory on the above fact then?

I don't have one. I haven't once said that it's not simply coincidence but I have yet to see any definite genetic reasoning for either side of the argument. I'm asking for someone to show me proof either way to convince me and so far none has been forthcoming.

Edit: I've yet to read the links blackgold>> posted so I'll come back to this after I've digested those