Hammond's Law of Auxology

Tim Spahlinger txs at po.cwru.edu
Mon Dec 18 15:19:19 EST 2000


It seems to me that, because you present no empirical proof 
(i.e., by your previous posts, you're looking for it), to 
"postulate" (i.e., "to assume without proof to be true . . 
.") is most appropriate for what you present. "Law" (i.e., " 
a sequence of events in nature or in human activities that 
has been observed to occur with unvarying uniformity under 
the same conditions") doesn't fit because you have not 
demonstrated any uniformity under "the same conditions". A 
"theorem", likewise, requires "proof".  Even the 
"theoretical limits" that you've been seeking have no 
"proofs" to back them up (i.e., like you'll find for 
"absolute zero" as well as numerous others) - what you'll 
get, for what you're seeking, are only "guesstimates".

BTW, pituitary gigantism is the result of excessive 
pituitary growth hormone production.  That excess may be the 
result of a number of causes, including tumor growth on the 
gland, and certainly not exclusively to genetic causes. 
This is another "environmental" (i.e., external = not 
endogenous) effect upon the subject.  If you wish to 
demonstrate uniformity under tightly controlled conditions, 
the earlier post that suggested a laboratory environment 
where all of the variables can be controlled and measured 
would be the most appropriate way to go. But you'll still 
end up comparing your observed results with a baseless 
"guesstimate" of what "should have been" (i.e., a guess with 
no supporting proof).  Then where are you?

Tim Spahlinger wrote:

> 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
>>      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.
>> 
>>     
>> 
>>> rlh
>> 






More information about the Bioforum mailing list