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