leeslover Posted January 29, 2014 Share Posted January 29, 2014 I was generally about the tallest kid in my year, now there's plenty of teenagers my size. Londoners are taller as well, I think vs everyone, not just Oldhamers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Scratch2000uk Posted January 29, 2014 Share Posted January 29, 2014 Heights have leveled off. I'm sure i was taught that evolution was in part due to natural selection, mutation, migration, and genetic drift.cant remember them saying pot-noodles make you taller, but it was a long time ago, Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leeslover Posted January 29, 2014 Share Posted January 29, 2014 Does smoking really stunt the growth? Not that explains Rosa vs Maddog Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Scratch2000uk Posted January 29, 2014 Share Posted January 29, 2014 Does smoking really stunt the growth? Not that explains Rosa vs Maddog Maybe they stayed clear of the Bombay BadBoy? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
welshgaz Posted January 29, 2014 Share Posted January 29, 2014 Is the waiting list for that as long as the "being a :censored: therapy" list you're on? Didn't expect you to rise to it rummy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlueInAus Posted January 30, 2014 Share Posted January 30, 2014 Lol@evolution. That would only be true if tall people had more kids, and passed on "tall" genes to their offspring. Which over many thousands of years would lead to an evolutionary trait of taller human beings. Unfortunately (I can say this as a tall person), there is no evidence to suggest tall people have more children. Also, as humans are essentially monogamous, and the ratio of males to female is close to 1:1, even if women did prefer taller men, short-arses would still get their fair share. Due to the human race trying to eradicate survival of the fittest, evolution of humans will be even slower than other mammals. Which in itself is already a hugely slow process. Indeed, many commentators (not Gord, Roy and Mike) believe our intelligence will devolve. "Stupid" people that cannot (won't) get a job tend to have 6 kids+ and pass their "stupid" genes on to lots of kids. The intelligent community are nerdy scientists stuck in labs, never procreation. The intelligent genes largely die out. We Are Doomed! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leeslover Posted January 30, 2014 Share Posted January 30, 2014 Lol@evolution. That would only be true if tall people had more kids, and passed on "tall" genes to their offspring. Which over many thousands of years would lead to an evolutionary trait of taller human beings. Unfortunately (I can say this as a tall person), there is no evidence to suggest tall people have more children. Also, as humans are essentially monogamous, and the ratio of males to female is close to 1:1, even if women did prefer taller men, short-arses would still get their fair share. Due to the human race trying to eradicate survival of the fittest, evolution of humans will be even slower than other mammals. Which in itself is already a hugely slow process. Indeed, many commentators (not Gord, Roy and Mike) believe our intelligence will devolve. "Stupid" people that cannot (won't) get a job tend to have 6 kids+ and pass their "stupid" genes on to lots of kids. The intelligent community are nerdy scientists stuck in labs, never procreation. The intelligent genes largely die out. We Are Doomed! Healthy full time births probably does a lot to increase average height. Diet also, the stereotype of the short Japanese is long gone since McDonalds and co upped their protein intake. You may be wrong on monogamy and recent trends though, there was a very high level of, "other fatherhood,"certainly in the decades after the war. What is certain is that we are preserving people who would have likely not reproduced and therefore carrying conditions but which we can treat, meaning that some conditions are more prevalent. The balance is clearly positive as we are bigger, stronger and live longer. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
opinions4u Posted January 30, 2014 Share Posted January 30, 2014 (edited) It is likely that there are more people alive on the planet today than have ever died. Difficult to get your head around. And probably wrong. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-16870579 Edited January 30, 2014 by opinions4u Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andy_b_100 Posted January 30, 2014 Author Share Posted January 30, 2014 :censored: ... this is deep man ....... where do I put my fover on Maddog ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leeslover Posted January 30, 2014 Share Posted January 30, 2014 :censored: ... this is deep man ....... where do I put my fover on Maddog ?Shaw Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt Posted January 30, 2014 Share Posted January 30, 2014 Indeed, many commentators (not Gord, Roy and Mike) believe our intelligence will devolve. "Stupid" people that cannot (won't) get a job tend to have 6 kids+ and pass their "stupid" genes on to lots of kids. The intelligent community are nerdy scientists stuck in labs, never procreation. The intelligent genes largely die out. There's a lot of guesswork and dictosim logical fallacies in all of that lot. By the same virtue couldn't stupid people will die out because they don't take vaccines, for instance? However, it's true that genes aren't that important for size, traits, intelligence etc - if it was, all Australians of European descent would be criminals. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Postman Matt Posted January 30, 2014 Share Posted January 30, 2014 I come to read about a trialist and the thread has descended into gene history, this forum is on its knees!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
youngen Posted January 30, 2014 Share Posted January 30, 2014 Napoleon wasn't actually that short, he was IIRC 5ft 7, which is equivalent in today's times of being about 6ft2. Does that mean in 200 years time, Im actually 7ftt2? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlueInAus Posted January 30, 2014 Share Posted January 30, 2014 rummytheowl, on 30 Jan 2014 - 7:05 PM, said: There's a lot of guesswork and dictosim logical fallacies in all of that lot. By the same virtue couldn't stupid people will die out because they don't take vaccines, for instance? However, it's true that genes aren't that important for size, traits, intelligence etc - if it was, all Australians of European descent would be criminals. I did say commentators and not experts Are you suggesting that being a criminal is in the genes? It would be an interesting line of defence, not guilty by reason of diminished responsibility. "I can no more stop being a criminal than I can stop being blue eyed" Is Matt annoyed because he didn't steer this thread off-topic? Anyway, it is on-topic! Discussing why we should have taller trialists since we did in Hitler's time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave_Og Posted January 30, 2014 Share Posted January 30, 2014 (edited) Indeed, many commentators (not Gord, Roy and Mike) believe our intelligence will devolve. " Is that somethig o do with Scottish independence...? Feck off and take your banks and your bagpipes with you Edited January 30, 2014 by Dave_Og Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beag_teeets Posted January 30, 2014 Share Posted January 30, 2014 Can't believe no one has asked when we are signing George and Ringo as well? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gaz_Oafc Posted January 30, 2014 Share Posted January 30, 2014 Signs till end of season Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
welshgaz Posted January 30, 2014 Share Posted January 30, 2014 Signs till end of season Sigh. However welcome to bp. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MaskedOwl Posted January 30, 2014 Share Posted January 30, 2014 seriously. wtf. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stoney Posted January 30, 2014 Share Posted January 30, 2014 Not sure what to say about this - is LJ going to try a 3-6-1 formation to include all the midfielders / wingers he seems to be getting in? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blueatheart Posted January 30, 2014 Share Posted January 30, 2014 Anton Rogers, BP's forgotten man? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
longtimeblue Posted January 30, 2014 Share Posted January 30, 2014 The second paragraph on his Wikipedia page makes an interesting read. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Latics_Fanatic Posted January 30, 2014 Share Posted January 30, 2014 Write a player off before he's had one minute on the pitch. Yawn. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
longtimeblue Posted January 30, 2014 Share Posted January 30, 2014 Write a player off before he's had one minute on the pitch. Yawn. Who did? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Latics_Fanatic Posted January 30, 2014 Share Posted January 30, 2014 Who did? A few have, on here and twitter. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.