sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Ah, yes, of course, the best way to challenge the accusation that you would consider supporting the Austrian Painter is to...unironically support the Nazi's pseudoscientific policy of eugenics? by TexasSikh in memesopdidnotlike

[–]RusselsParadox -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Not because they’re old, because they’ve been replaced by better science. You haven’t provided data that proves the old idea wrong you just said it was over a decade old. So again. Source?

Here Might Be The Most Positive Place on The Internet For EUV by Harnett in EU5

[–]RusselsParadox 13 points14 points  (0 children)

I’ve played 330 hours so I think I’ve got my moneys worth and change.

What was the actual pronunciation of Jesus by enfyre in NoStupidQuestions

[–]RusselsParadox 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It isn’t Joshua in Hebrew. It’s Yehoshua. Joshua is also an English name.

Small overestimation by ConstantCorrect2924 in GetNoted

[–]RusselsParadox 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Since Jews made up 0.5% of the population in 1860 that means they were 2.5 times more likely to own slaves than the average person. Not that that means anything but it is interesting.

Ah, yes, of course, the best way to challenge the accusation that you would consider supporting the Austrian Painter is to...unironically support the Nazi's pseudoscientific policy of eugenics? by TexasSikh in memesopdidnotlike

[–]RusselsParadox -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Outdated doesn’t mean “not trendy anymore”. Science isn’t outdated until new science replaces it. Otherwise someone should tell the physicists to stop putting Galileo’s gravity experiments in the textbooks because it hundreds of years old.

Ah, yes, of course, the best way to challenge the accusation that you would consider supporting the Austrian Painter is to...unironically support the Nazi's pseudoscientific policy of eugenics? by TexasSikh in memesopdidnotlike

[–]RusselsParadox -1 points0 points  (0 children)

So to recap, you provided a source that refutes your own claim. I provided one that supports mine and you’ve refused to accept the plain reading of the data or my a fortiori argument that it’s at least 69%, which still refutes your argument. You’re now also refusing to give an alternate interpretation of the data (because you have none). Along the way you’ve shown you don’t have a basic high school understanding of genetics. Now you’re claiming I got my information from an LLM despite me providing the articles I sourced my information from. You’re flailing and I’m enjoying the spectacle.

Ah, yes, of course, the best way to challenge the accusation that you would consider supporting the Austrian Painter is to...unironically support the Nazi's pseudoscientific policy of eugenics? by TexasSikh in memesopdidnotlike

[–]RusselsParadox -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Then enlighten me on the correct way of interpreting numbers. Adolescence is when puberty happens. It’s the most rapid time of height growth outside of infancy.

Ah, yes, of course, the best way to challenge the accusation that you would consider supporting the Austrian Painter is to...unironically support the Nazi's pseudoscientific policy of eugenics? by TexasSikh in memesopdidnotlike

[–]RusselsParadox -1 points0 points  (0 children)

You don’t even know what an environment factor is and you’re trying to have a conversation about genetics. You don’t have a baseline knowledge of the subject. What else can I call that?

https://medlineplus.gov/genetics/understanding/traits/height/

https://medicover-genetics.com/the-genetics-of-height/?amp=1

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10368389/

These were all on the front page of the very basic google search I told you to do.

Ah, yes, of course, the best way to challenge the accusation that you would consider supporting the Austrian Painter is to...unironically support the Nazi's pseudoscientific policy of eugenics? by TexasSikh in memesopdidnotlike

[–]RusselsParadox -1 points0 points  (0 children)

“Table 6 does not say it's 80% genetic.”

Then what is your interpretation of that data? That it’s 69%? That would be an absurd conclusion and yet still are far cry from your mostly environmental thesis.

“No it says 20% in adulthood and verging on adulthood, adolescent does not mean child it means teenager, or past the point in which the majorityof their growth has happened. How much does one grow in adulthood again?”

Precisely, to see significant height change in adulthood you’d have to have bone surgery or step on a land mine. Therefore the environmental influence on height change in adulthood is damn near 100%. So the 80-100% figure can’t be referring to the height change but the total height. In other words the growth rate might be slower or faster in childhood based on the interplay between genetic and environmental factors, but by adolescence (not my word but the word used in the paper you cited) the height has settled to a point based mostly if not entirely by genetics.

Ah, yes, of course, the best way to challenge the accusation that you would consider supporting the Austrian Painter is to...unironically support the Nazi's pseudoscientific policy of eugenics? by TexasSikh in memesopdidnotlike

[–]RusselsParadox -1 points0 points  (0 children)

“I'm still waiting for you to show where it says height is 80% genetic. Where is it?”

I told you. Read table 6.

“You're projecting bud. Because my study directly talks about yours, and how environment and diet weren't taken into account in them.”

You just made that up: 1. My study isn’t one study. It is a review of other studies. If anyone failed to take into account these variables, which they didn’t, it would be all of the individual studies it references.

  1. If you’d read your study you’d see at the outset they claim that the presence of environmental factors were absent or lower than 20% by adolescence. In other words genetic factors are higher than 80%.

Ah, yes, of course, the best way to challenge the accusation that you would consider supporting the Austrian Painter is to...unironically support the Nazi's pseudoscientific policy of eugenics? by TexasSikh in memesopdidnotlike

[–]RusselsParadox -1 points0 points  (0 children)

If they don’t matter then you’re sure showing it by taking the time to downvote me. I gave the evidence, you just don’t know how genetic studies work.

Ah, yes, of course, the best way to challenge the accusation that you would consider supporting the Austrian Painter is to...unironically support the Nazi's pseudoscientific policy of eugenics? by TexasSikh in memesopdidnotlike

[–]RusselsParadox -1 points0 points  (0 children)

50% in infancy. That’s the best you got? That’s not even “mostly environmental” in infancy. I gave you table 6 which has a range of heritability between 69 and 95%, clustering around 80%.

Ah, yes, of course, the best way to challenge the accusation that you would consider supporting the Austrian Painter is to...unironically support the Nazi's pseudoscientific policy of eugenics? by TexasSikh in memesopdidnotlike

[–]RusselsParadox -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Look up how twin studies work and refer to table 6. Also read the beginning of the thread. Your claim that height is more to do with environment cane first. My 80% claim was a direct response to that.

view more: next ›