Matt, I'm afraid your phenotype may have exceeded your genome! I indeed
meant to reply in public to GH, but hit the wrong button.
I agree with others who have posted on this discussion that Hammond's
assertions are confusing at best. In trying to understand the importance he
attaches to the "auxology", which I translate to mean "an organism can grow
no larger than it can", he provides some incite in his reply to me:
<start GH quote>
As far as the question of "how does this Law prove God
exists"... that is a SEPARATE ISSUE, properly discussed on
a philosophy or Theology newsgroup. But, parenthetically,
let me explain that it is not complicated. To wit, if
there is a growth curve deficit as I have argued, then it
obviously must exist for every organ in the body including
the human BRAIN. Obviously according to this 15 or 20%
of the human brain is actually only "PARTIALLY GROWN" in
the average human being. The theory argues (and proves BTW)
that the average human being only sees "80% of reality"
because of this, and, not incredibly, refers to the other
20$ as "God". See my website for further details.
</end GH quote>
I have a problem with the notion that an organism with a stunted body also
has stunted brain size (_not the same as brain development_) and is somehow
less-able to view reality than another organism. There's too many
assumptions being made. Also, it's unclear how a plant with smaller leaves
is different than its genetically identical twin with slightly larger
leaves. It says nothing about the nature of the size difference. Does
etiolation account for the differences? Also, its been demonstrated that
the nuclei of different cells in a single leaf may be 1X or 3X, or show
other gross alterations from diploid...what does that say about the genomes
of identical plants when measuring something as non-specific as "growth"?