My fucking brother is under the impression that, ignoring the factor of air pollution, that Chinese people are generally smaller than normal people because the Chinese population is so large and densely-populated that they don't have as much oxygen to breathe collectively among themselves, and that this is the case of all highly-populated areas, such as New York or London.
How valid is his theory?
>Over time they grow taller because they reside in less densely populated or more densely oxygenated areas. Though their height in densely populated centers have also grown, this could be attributed to relocation from the previously mentioned areas.
Your brother is operating under the assumption that height correlates directly to oxygen levels with regards to evolution. This is laughably wrong. Note that the dinosaurs were huge but lived in a time when the Earth's oxygen levels were much lower.
If anything higher oxygen levels = higher cell efficiency = smaller size.
You should punch that retard in the mouth for spouting such retarded nonsense.
They're small since they lack the ability to see much above them, due to their elongated eyes, thus they couldn't see certain objects above them such as a shelf or a door. They kept hitting their heads on it, and it stunted their growth.
I would like to add that my brother is four years older than I am.
>That was my assumption. What studies or research have shown that higher oxygen levels leads to smaller size? I've also been under the assumption that there were higher concentrations of oxygen during the prehistoric era and that contributed to their massive growth.
Even if this did lead to higher cell efficiency I can't see how this would reduce the size of their offspring.
>They would be tall if they ate like white people.
Literally dumber than OP. Their height is optimal for their environment. If they ate like white people then they would just get fat. There's been published research on this phenomenon with groups like the Tarahumara (Mexican tribe known for running a lot), they had nutritionists work out affluent American-style diets for them based on how much physical activity they had daily. They expected the Tarahumara to become ubermen with the new diet since they spent all their time running. Instead, over the course of the experiment, they just got fat and developed fat-related health problems (heart stuff too).
Things that you consider optimal aren't necessarily optimal for all humans.
I am on my own computer now!
I just wanted to see where you had read it specifically.
First of all whenever you read any research it will always say that "the study suggests". Why does it do this you ask? Well as you surely know correlation doesn't equal causation.
Second, at the end of the article the one conducted the study was cited as saying, "we do not want to negate the influence of oxygen for the evolution of life in general with our study," Tappert said, "but the gigantism of dinosaurs cannot be explained by those theories." That alone says that the headline you so graciously pasted into your comment means jack squat.
Thirdly, the main point in this article is that the oxygen levels were likely lower because of volcanic activity. Then the oxygen levels increased rapidly increased during the ice ages suggesting volcanoes were far less active.
The data was collected from 538 fossil plant resins and this article specifically targeted the Cretaceous Period which was from 145-65 million B.C.. Depending on the carbon dating associated with the 538 specimens you can make a broad array of assumptions. These levels correlate with the end of this period, the beginning of this period, the entire period, or the scientists could have gotten wrong and it could be from 1000 years ago.
I think I was linked to this article from Facebook... It doesn't speak highly of the validity of your source ;).
Anyone have an actual source?
His 'theory' is based on the wrong assumptions and he is trying to account for them by any means. Real world examples show the exact opposite. The people in less densly populted areas are shorter, and taller in more densly poulated areas. Also, people are generally shorter in countries with lower standards of living and generally taller in countries with higher standards of living. Which would seem to imply that correct nutrition is what counts the most.
I will write this very slowly in the hopes that you may understand me. Are you just contradicting me for the sake of contradicting? Or are you too dimwitted to actually look up some real world example's in Google instead on basing your arguments on your limited, and quite frankly discriminatory, world-view, where all Chinese are small and all African men are tall?
>(If you didn't catch on, I am the brother on my own computer.)
Still haven't excluded the idea that you are deranged and suffering from dissociative identity disorder. But sure I'll humor you, 'brother'
Writing things slowly helps people read well? Or it helps you write more clearly? I hope you recognize that it is the later of the two...
I am contradicting you because you have no conclusive evidence to support your claims. My brother posted in this forum in hopes that someone might actually have an understanding of the subject at hand.
I asked you for the specific article that you were citing so we could have a discussion. Instead your less-than-basic understanding of argument has left me to beleaguer the obvious flaws in your statements.
Yes, because on the internet my dissociative identity disorder and myself have come onto this board to settle a debate we are having. But for the sake of argument it is just my curiosity getting the better of me.
So please do humor my "brother". Or not, whatev's.
>I asked you for the specific article that you were citing so we could have a discussion
You have, have you? Perhaps it was your other personality that did so, since I don't remember you saying it.
>What studies or research have shown that higher oxygen levels leads to smaller size?
I've got the fever. Too bad I tore your original article down and you haven't even attempted to refute my argument.
>This is a waste of my time. I win.
Welp my posts start from 760 so I don't remember you asking me for any article. The other anon gave up on arguing with you since he probably figures you for a nutcase.
But sure you win, if you want. I wouldn't wanna get on your bad side, or is it sides?