You're just being pedantic on my wording now... Just add "tend to be" to my black people are better at running. The reason not ALL black people are better is because not all train for it. This doesn't stop the fact that west Africans have muscles in their legs better suited for running.!

How do you define a human, Ronin? Is there something every single human has that actually makes us human?

:cool:

Um... Who says West African's have muscles in their legs better suited to running?

It seems you're not paying attention to anything I've said...

As for what makes us human? I'm sure it's our DNA sequence... am a bit fuzzy on that though. Why?

... didn't you read anything I said? I gave an example earlier... West Africans have fast twitch muscle fibres. These are better for running. It's a pretty known fact.

I was just asking about humans to see where you draw the line for catogorizing.

Um... fast twitch muscle fibres occur in all races.

Well I draw the line according to biology when it comes to being human. Does that satisfy you?

Yes, they do occur in all races, but from studies done, they've said that ALL West Africans and their decendents have fast twitch muscle fibres unless they don't train in which case, they become slow twitch muscle fibres. The oposite is impossible btw (as far as they know).

:rolleyes: :cool: Sure, whatever!

ALL West Africans? I dispute that off the bat. I can accept that a much higher concentration of people predisposed to the gene are of West African descent but you'll have to give me a link or something for me to believe that ALL of them and their descendants have it (100% not 90% or 80%.. but 100%). I mean I tried to find a link myself... but I couldn't (admittedly I just used google)

But even if it's true, how could you define West Africans as a race biologically when people of other races contain these genes... Your posts are all beside the point I'm making. I've already accepted that regional tendencies exist. Not to mention that I've never heard of "West African" as a racial group.

Probably has something to do with you not being in the field of science :rolleyes: (hence the differences in definition) As far as I can tell, the only opinions you ever have on this forum are the ones of an average modern Social science student.

Weak... If you define West Africans along the lines that they have a higher concentration of fast twitch muscles... then are the presence of fast twitch muscles the definition of race?

The only reasonable definition of race I can see in science would be the observation of such regional differences. But then again I don't understand why they would use the term at all? I mean they have their own terms when dealing with genes and traits and referring to populations.

Where the heck did I say that the presence of twitch muscles is the definition of race? Do you really think that I would say that there are ONLY two races in the world? After all, there are only two types of twitch muscle. :rolleyes:

Uhh, same reason they use the word "breed" for dogs... They also have scientific terms for different breeds, but the overall study of these different traits is the study of breeds...:cool:

What makes West Africans a race then? Biologically speaking. Because as I've said... I've never even heard of West Africans as a race even politically speaking.

What reason is that?

What are the scientific human categorizations? (And if you say Caucasoid, Negroid, Mongoloid then you deserve to be beaten about with the 19th century textbook you took that out of)