Hammond's Law of Auxology
txs at po.cwru.edu
Mon Dec 18 14:40:49 EST 2000
Please define "auxology". It seems that the Oxford English
Dictionary, the most definitive source I know, fails to list
the word. Also, how does the "Law of Auxology" qualify as a
"Fundamental" law, in regards to physics or any other subject?
George Hammond wrote:
> Richard L. Hall wrote:
>> In all likelyhood you are too late to get the credit since most folks
>> already recognize the difference between genotypic expression and the
>> resultant phenotype. Moreover, your "Law" is more of a "Postulate"
>> and it does not consider the following:
> GH: I don't mind you airing your opinions on this thread
> I have initiated, but please try to contain you writ
> of fellous jage over it and refrain from deliberately
> defacing the header.
> Thank you.
>> Organisms have a genetically predetermined potential that most fail
>> to realize, but is some rare instances exceed (hyperpituitary
>> giantism, hyperadrenal virilization, body builders, etiolated plants,
> GH: Giganticism (giant vegetables) are the result of
> altered genotype, not environmental advantage.
> Body building is an environmental effect and I
> might add that it takes a lot of Porter House
> beefsteak dinners in addition to exercise to
> achieve it. Zen Meditation or higher mathematics
> study will do the same thing for the brain.
> Ultimately, bodybuilding does effect brain
> growth, which is the real reason anybody would
> engage in such an activity. In fact, all career
> vocational choices are negotiated towards a
> pathway of maximum brain growth... since
> minimizing the brain-growth-deficit is the
> direct biological means of nearing oneself to God.
>> There are also emergent properties and hybrid vigor where slightly
>> different combinations of gene alleles result is spectacular
>> phenotypic expression under some circumstances but normal or below
>> normal expression under other circumstances (a variation of nurture).
>> And to add another red herring, flamingos are only pink when they eat
>> the right food. So what does that do in terms of natural selection?
> GH: All of these arguments are futile against the LAW OF AUXOLOGY
> that I have discovered. Irregardless of natural, phenomenological,
> or even freak occurrences of unnatural gene expression, there
> remains an overall "Secular Trend" in total growth which will
> remain until the organism, somehow, manages to find a "perfect
> world". The Secular trend in MAN is well known, highly researched,
> and fabulously documented by WHO, UNICEF, UN, etc. in bazillions
> of costly studies. The result of all this tells us the following:
> In this graph you see the documented effect of the SECULAR TREND
> on human growth variation. All this regardless of Midgets,
> Dwarfs, Giants, Geniuses and Musclemen. I maintain that the
> same curve holds true for ALL ANIMALS and in fact for PLANTS
> as well. There is a UNIVERSAL asympotic-adult-growth-deficit
> for every living thing on Earth, and it is subject to a
> UNIVERSAL SECULAR TREND.
> Now, this is an obvious biological fact. However, the importance
> of it is perhaps less relevant for Biology than it is for half a
> dozen other fields, including Psychology, Theology, Brain Science,
> Political Science, Sociology, Medicine etc. etc.
> Most notably, according to modern Psychometric results, the
> FUNDAMENTAL LAW OF AUXOLOGY is the scientific foundation stone
> for the (psychological) explanation and proof of "God".
> So... I would advise you to take a more informed look before
> you rush to judgement. This isn't an amateur proposition
> that was dreamed up yesterday.
More information about the Bioforum