Hammond's Law of Auxology

Tim Spahlinger txs at po.cwru.edu
Tue Dec 19 20:13:14 EST 2000


> Tim Spahlinger wrote:
> 
>> A "trend" is an observation, not a "proof". You, yourself in
>> earlier posts, sought empirical evidence to support your
>> "law". But, you haven't been able to secure empirical
>> evidence
> 
> GH Wrote:
> http://people.ne.mediaone.net/ghammond/Auxology.html
> 

Once again, a restatement of conjecture drawn from limited
observation (a "trend").

> 
> 
>> BTW, where does evolution fit in all that you propose?  Is
>> it of no consequence because you perceive it to be strictly
>> a phenomenon of genetics?
> 
> 
> GH:  Apparently, from the mountains of data on the
> Secular Trend, there is a "lead time" between
> genetic evolution and the Secular Trend whereby
> the phenotype is "catching up" to the genotype.

Doesn't answer my question.

> 
>> I looked at your web site and noticed a distinct lack of
>> citations to support your claims, 
> 
> 
> GH:  what kind of citations do you need to support the
> argument that:
> 
> 1.  The Secular Trend proves the phenotype is
> catching up to the genotype.
> 2.  The phenotype can never exceed the genotype.
> 3.  Therefore the phenotype must be currently smaller
> than the genotype.
> 
> This is PRIMA FACIE evident and 100% face valid.

Once again, the Secular Trend is a limited observation.
Please present the data from the experiment demonstrating
the conditions observed when the phenotype has met the
genotype (or very closely approached it), what happens if
the one attempts to push the phenotype beyond the genotype,
and how "God" has been made manifest (or demonstrated to
have been closely approached) by the experiment. Scientists
want to see citations from which the presented work was
developed.

> 
> 
> 
> other than generic
> 
>> references such as "Einstein, 1916". Maybe it's because
>> you're stretching the theories (Einstein) and mathematical
>> models (Schrodinger) of others to fit your attempt to link
>> psychology, physiology, physics and religion into some sort
>> of "unified" statement. IQ (intelligence) is the "time"
>> component of the brain? What would Steven Hawking say to
>> that?
> 
> 
> GH:  No, that's something YOU might do, not me.
> See the bibliography at the end of my published
> paper for 75 bibliographical citations, at:
> 
> http://people.ne.mediaone.net/ghammond/cart.html
> 
> 
>> I'm rather happy that my God is still in Heaven.  I think
>> your "fame" is still a ways off.
> 
> 
> GH:  Would you stick to facts... 

I've asked for facts ("proof"), not fancy ("trends"). I'm
still waiting to receive them.

>no one is interested in your trite line professional academic opinions.

You may be correct, but in your previous posts you did ask
for an academic discussion.  
I'm just trying to politely participate in one.






More information about the Bioforum mailing list