Hammond's Law of Auxology

Tim Spahlinger 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:
>> GH
>> 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,
>> etc).
> 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:
> http://people.ne.mediaone.net/ghammond/growth5.JPG
>      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
>        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.
>> rlh

More information about the Bioforum mailing list