Science desk
< January 12	<< Dec \| January \| Feb >>	January 14 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Science Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is a transcluded archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

January 13[edit]

To what large is height hereditary?[edit]

To what extent is hereditary of height of a human body? 2A02:8071:60A0:92E0:1DF0:3298:75EF:4F08 (talk) 23:43, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

60-80%, according to molecular biologist Chao-Qiang Lai, "up to 80%", according to a "landmark" study. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:47, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is disputed, as these GWASes are inherently flawed, and with height there is maternal effects and even grandmaternal effects, which are nutrition-history-related. A better guess is 0%. Abductive (reasoning) 14:55, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

0% to 80% is a large ranche 2A02:8071:60A0:92E0:8F6:F3C6:49F3:5A10 (talk) 17:27, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Personal observations: Other than abnormalities, like giantism or dwarfism, for example, height seems often to be a function of when youngsters experience their "growth spurt" or achieve physical maturity. The later it comes, the taller the individual tends to be. I would think that could be a function of genetics. But as Abductive points out, nutrition could figure into it too. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:15, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

But how could it be that some persons get some investigation on their bones and get called how hight they will growth? I've heared about this from persons who are actually quite hight and they get call it before puberty. 2A02:8071:60A0:92E0:90D:EB9E:AAEF:6E30 (talk) 21:45, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Geneticists who estimate heritability are really not so naive as to be unaware of confounds such as maternal effects and of the effect of nutrition. One way to factor them out is to compare monozygotic and dizygotic twins: both sorts share the same environment if they grow up together, but monozygotic twins are 100% identical genetically, whereas dizygotic twins share only 50% of their genes. This and this are a couple of studies utilising this methodology. Another approach of disentangling genetics and environment relies on adoptions. The studies use large sample sizes and yield consistent results. Nobody should be claiming here that the heritability of human height is 0. JMCHutchinson (talk) 21:09, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

One of the main maternal effects is the size of the mother's uterus, which is affected by their height, their previous pregnancies, and their nutritional status at age 12 or so. One cannot use twins without thinking, as they share a uterus. Abductive (reasoning) 22:50, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You can compare monzypotic and dizygotic twins. 2A02:8071:60A0:92E0:90D:EB9E:AAEF:6E30 (talk) 00:21, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the shared uterus, like the shared socio-economic status, nutrition, etc., of twins is an advantage inherent in twin studies, not a problem with them. Twins largely share their environment, so what is left to explain inter-twin differences is noise (in the case of monozygotic twins) and noise + half their genes (in the case of dizygotic twins). JMCHutchinson (talk) 08:09, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The articles Twin study, Heritability, and GWAS set out a number of very serious concerns. Anyway, it really depends on what the IP is trying to do with their question. Do they want the current estimate to tell people at parties? Or are they going to write a paper on it? Are they going to breed cows and need a number? Abductive (reasoning) 13:50, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agree completely. You should follow what the scientific papers say instead of someone who is wrong on the internet unless you have a very good reason to know otherwise. NadVolum (talk) 21:36, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Basically, the 0% answer is what a graduate student's committee members will say to them if they propose relying on somebody else's GWAS for their thesis or for their career advancement. Abductive (reasoning) 22:50, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There are other ways than just GWAS, right? 2A02:8071:60A0:92E0:90D:EB9E:AAEF:6E30 (talk) 00:20, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am not understanding Abductive's arguments, but GWAS (Genome-wide association study) is a side issue. GWAS articles, such as the one cited above by Clarityfiend, treat the heritability estimates from twin studies as a gold-standard value. They are hoping that their own independent estimates of heritability, based on statistical comparison between gene sequences (from whole genome sequencing) and height, reach the same ball-park figures. So far these estimates tend to be lower. Hypotheses to explain the discrepancy are many genes having small effects, rare genes having big effects, and interactions between different genes (all of which are difficult to detect statistically). Indeed with larger sample sizes and more sophisticated analyses the gap is closing. This is a general issue with GWAS of other traits also, so raw GWAS estimates of heritabilities are not yet considered reliable. JMCHutchinson (talk) 08:29, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We're supposed to try and refer people to an appropriate Wikipedia aricle for questions like this, and there is one Human height. Not go in for pushing ones interpretation of how genetics works. Saying 0% is like saying anyone could have run as fast as Usain Bolt with the appropriate upbringing and training. Or at least coming towards that to except for some epigenetic, mitochondrial and prenatal effects. It's always the mothers fault they can't run that fast :-) NadVolum (talk) 14:43, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A glance at this thread will reveal that I have shaded my meaning correctly throughout, and nobody is misled. Abductive (reasoning) 17:57, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Shaded your meaning correctly? Pull the other one. NadVolum (talk) 18:17, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Height is 100% hereditary. If your parents are three-dimensional, you will be too. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:21, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

But then how can you explain that all children of two-dimensional parents are 5-dimensional?!? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 09:39, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Only three-dimensional? The spacetime continuum ain't what it used to be. Clarityfiend (talk) 13:28, 25 January 2024 (UTC) [reply]

What does the OP mean by "to what large...", as opposed to "to what extent" or "to what degree"? Is that some odd mistranslation from German? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:45, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Probably because 'to what depth is height heriditary' would just get the answer 100% ;-) NadVolum (talk) 21:50, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]