Wayne Parrott wrote:
>> George Hammond wrote:
>> > Rich Cooper wrote:
> > >
> > > [snip]
> > >
> > > The genetic expression curve could be measured by varying a selected
> > > set of environmental parameters, and the effect of combinations of these
> > > parameters could define the growth curve you're describing.
> > GH: Hey Rich.... you apparently understand what I'm talking
> > about. But can't this be easily ascertained from existing
> > data without doing any experiments? I mean, there must
> > be archives knee deep in "crop yield data" for asexual
> > clonal plants (potatoes, onions and floriculture). For
> > Pete's sake we don't have to launch any new experiments do we?
>> Archives aren't knee-deep. They go all the way to the ceiling, and then some.
> Check your agronomic and horticultural journals, going back at least half a
> century. And again, the crop does not need to be asexual for it to be
> genetically identical. The plants within a given field of most of our major
> crops would be identical- hybrid corn, wheat, soybean, pea, barley, tomato,
> etc. Likewise with any fruit tree which is grafted. The list goes on.
GH: OK, I know line professionals have a reputation for
being comfortable conservatives and nay sayers, but I
will expend some breath inviting you to belly up to the
bar for some theoretical talk anyway.
It is a dramatic result that for some species a
radically altered environment will trigger specific
gene expression producing spectacular results. In
higher and higher animals with vastly more complex
regulatory mechanisms, of course, this effect diminishes.
Anyway, I'm not here to debate that issue. My argument
is that there is something we may define as the
"standard of living" for any organism. Certainly this has
been defined for human beings. And the "Secular Trend"
shows that as this Standard of Living increases, the
human being generally increases in size, weight, strength
and Intelligence (the latter due to brain growth).
The Secular Trend for Human Beings is well documented
in the literature. Now, this is purely an ENVIRONMENTAL
effect, it is not GENETIC. (I.E., not due to genetic
What this points to is, at least for human beings, there
MUST BE a substantial "theoretical growth curve deficit"
whereby the actual size of a human being is substantially
less than his "theoretical genetic size" (else how could
we have a "Secular Trend"?).
What I am proposing is that there is such a thing as
a FUNDAMENTAL LAW OF AUXOLOGY:
12-17-2000 HAMMOND'S LAW OF AUXOLOGY
In general plants and animals have a predetermined
adult genetic size, this is referred to as their
NATURE. However, observation leads us to conclude
that in fact, the population MEAN adult size of any
species in the natural environment always manifests a
significant "asymptotic growth curve decrement" showing
that in effect, no living organism has yet been able to
achieve it's theoretical genetic size. This NURTURE
effect is referred to as a "Universal Growth Curve
In fact, in human beings, the long slow historical
reduction of this growth deficit is scientifically known
as the "Secular Trend". It is posited that there is
in fact, a Secular Trend for ALL living organisms, and
probably more rapid the higher the organism.
Finally, it is advanced that this growth deficit in
the case of the human brain, directly provides the
neuropsychological causation of the psychological
phenomena historically identified as "God".
Now, I don't expect you to have an opinion on the "Psychological"
aspects of this vis a vis Brain-Growth... that is certainly
outside your field. However, do you agree that there must be
a "Universal Growth Curve Deficit", perhaps more easily
detectable in the higher (larger) animals, but probably extant
in all living things... and that there is probably, likewise,
a "Secular Trend" therefore, for all living things?
Is that the way you would read the NATURE-NURTURE argument
in the large?
BE SURE TO VISIT MY WEBSITE, BELOW:
George Hammond, M.S. Physics
Email: ghammond at mediaone.net