English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

No scientific study has been carried out to show or determine the true primary factor which affects human growth. 100 years ago the average height in the UK amongst both sexes was 2 inches shorter than currently.

Could the statement 'genetics is the primary factor, height is unavoidably determined and due to fate, with the exception of 1 or 2 inches with environmental factors, always used to dismiss the laziness in the scientific community to find and determine what really stimulates the pituritary gland throughout human life, and lengthy bone development be wrong. Could this be an excuse, a genetic excuse?

I believe that if height is already determined before birth, baseball pitchers shouldn't have 1 arm longer than the other. The scientific community realistically know very little about human height, and doctors tend to dismiss shorter people as victims of their genetics, when no real plausible evidence has been gathered or research. Historical statistics show the opposite.

2007-12-01 03:41:31 · 7 answers · asked by Anonymous in Science & Mathematics Biology

7 answers

It's true that environment plays a bigger role than previously thought. There was an article just the other day about how the Dutch are about eight inches taller on average than they were just 100 years ago. People were definitely smaller in the past. I suspect this is due to nutritional and hygiene habits, but there were tall people in history, so genetics has to have a very important role.

The pitcher's arm thing: most people's dominant arm is slightly longer than their other arm normally, and despite anecdotal evidence, the idea of a pitcher's arm lengthening because of the pitching motion has never been proven.

2007-12-01 03:54:57 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 1 0

There are a lot of factors that are "widely accepted". The height of some orientals has gradually been increasing, probably because of nutrition. We certainly can't rule out genetic, though. Napoleon reduced the height of the average Frenchmen by a couple of cm because he selected more tall men for the army than short ones. Selectively kill off the tall ones and the next generation will have, on the average, fewer tall people.

If the scientific community is so lazy and you have all the answers, there must be lots of grant money just waiting for you to prove that you are right ... once you get out of high school.

2007-12-01 06:25:22 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

If you are trying to disprove a straw man, you are on your best way.

I have not heard that height would be genetically determined and could not be altered. But I know a Mom who has a son with growth hormone deficiency. She knows all too well that height it essentially a function of growth hormones during adolescence.

And if you go to any cattle or pig farm, you will be able to learn from the farmer that how big his cattle and pigs are is a strong function of what he feeds and which chemicals he gives his animals.

And once you start eating estrogens, you will grow breasts. No big deal. Happens to a lot of guys and girls.

So obviously you must have made up your mind that everyone thinks that height is a genetic and unalterable trait while everyone who knows a little bit about biology and medicine knows that it is not. It strongly depends on food supply and chemical environment.

Congrats on successfully arguing with your own straw man.

2007-12-01 03:52:31 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 1 0

One thing for sure: If height has changed so much in 100 years, it is nutrition and environment, not genetic. Genetic changes don't happen that fast unless every short person was killed and had no offspring.

2007-12-01 05:02:33 · answer #4 · answered by Joan H 6 · 0 0

Those uttering Sentence A do not intend to convey that Jesus was *literally* in the living room. They probably prayed for guidance ... waited ... and felt an intuition as to which direction should be taken. This intuition was accepted as guidance from Jesus since this is to whom they prayed for guidance. Those uttering Sentence B were not likely praying to the aliens and therefore it is assumed they believed they saw aliens *literally*. That's my take on it. Of course, I would never utter either sentence, darling.

2016-04-07 01:43:03 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

Check it out

2007-12-01 03:58:25 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

No

2007-12-01 03:50:21 · answer #7 · answered by Wounded Duck 7 · 0 0

fedest.com, questions and answers