geneman

Alan,

You're wrong. Two main priniciples need be satisfied in order to fully debunk your logic. First, we need to establish that physical abilities are inhereted (even if partially) by genetic make up. This one is easy to prove. Here's an example;

--------------------
While I can never find the article, I remember reading in Science magazine several years ago about the star XC skier from the Lillehammer olympics (his name is Bjorn Dahlie I think). He appearently has a VO2max of 94 attributed to a genetic mutation in his copy of the hemoglobin gene. A Norwegian scientist studied his entire family and found that a few generations ago his relatives acquired this beneficial mutation that provided for increased oxygen carrying capacity.
--------------------

Second, we need to prove that different populations contain a subset of similar genetic information and that this phenomenon is not limited to very small populations, but can be applied to large groups of people. This one is also very easy to prove for one important reason; while individuals are indeed extremely heterogeneous with regard to genetic makeup, it is still possible for population geneticists to stratify large populations via genetic markers. For example, they can trace migrations patterns of groups of humans out of Africa or even trace language based on genetic markers (ref 1 ref 2 . This would be impossible if our genomic complement was radically different between each person.

Having satisfied that genetics contributes to phenotype and that distinct genetic populations exist that can be traced via genomic information, it is clear that distinct populations can be catagorized by genetic uniqueness which may in turn be characterized by phentypic difference, for example physical ability. While data is currently missing to explain one's ability to jump farther or run faster, if the above example of aerobic capacity is any indication, we will soon find correlation between gene alteration and capability.

-mark