Chockstone Forum

      Sponsored By
      ROCK
   HARDWARE

Chockstone Photography

Australian Landscape Prints

Chockstone Forum - General Discussion

General Climbing Discussion

Topic Date User

Sick of Stickmen 30-Oct-2005 At 12:34:06 AM kerroxapithecus

Message

On 29/10/2005 Duncan wrote:
>"Bone frame size and muscle size" as you describe them are not hereditary, your genes only govern their potential size. For example, if you have no calcium for the
>first 10 years of your life your bones will be crap (a technical term),
>but not because of your genes. If you do no exercise and eat fatty food
>you will be fat, but not because of your genes. See?

No, I still don't see how any of that means genes are secondary - whatever that really means anyway. They govern potential as you call it. In fact if you don't eat at all, you die no matter what genes you have but can you really deduce from that fact that genes are secondary in determining your weight? Maybe, if you are talking about extremes like in your example of not having calcium for the first 10 years or in cases of obesity but surely we're talking about normal people with the range of normal diets found in our society. Yes, it's true you don't see many overweight starving Ethiopians because they don't get much food but surely we're not talking about the extremes here. Within the range of diets that exist in our society genes play a big part, not secondary, in what size people are. Otherwise how do we get whole families with similar body types?

Could I also say that genes are secondary in determining how good your eyesight is because genes only determine potential eyesight and if you stick a knitting needle in both of your eyes you will be blind or at least have bad eyesight??

Anyway I really don't think the nature nurture debate has been resolved so I don't see how anyone can safely say either genes or amount or type of food intake are more or less determinitive of a particular person's size. As far as I know if it has been resolved it has been to the point of recognising that both genes are environment play significant roles in human differences. Also I think the importance of genes or environmental effects on various aspects of living things are likely to be different for each person, such is the nature of individual differences in genes and environments. I don't think there can be any rule of thumb for each person or for all genes for that matter because each gene surely must be studied separately to find out how the environment can change outcomes. I'm not a molecular biologist and i've been out, had a few wines and it's late. I could be talking crap (technical term) because I don't know a lot about genes. Maybe you can fill me in if you've done the research.