I don't see cultures mentioned anywhere in the article or the comment you replied to.
If mean that there are no differences in the genes that determine height across populations, that is incorrect. For example, the average male height in Pygmy populations is 5 feet, or about 7 inches lower than Cameroon's Bantu populations who live alongside Pygmies. We know there are genetic differences between Pygmy and Bantu populations that are specifically associated with height, and that average Pygmy height increases along with the percentage of Bantu ancestry (https://journals.plos.org/plosgenetics/article/info%3Adoi%2F...). Similarly, differences in height across European populations have been demonstrated to be partly due to differences in the hundreds of genes associated with height (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3480734/).
Fair, Pygmy genetics are minorly distinct. No other group is, and unless you're suggesting the urban Pygmy population exploded to account for these changes, it's irrelevant.
> Pygmy genetics are minorly distinct. No other group is
One group in all of humanity happened to have measurable differences in genes affecting height?
How does that explain the many other distinct "Pygmy" groups entirely separate from those in West Africa, such as those in the Philippines, who have genetic differences in growth hormones that cause them to be shorter (https://doi.org/10.1515/JPEM.2002.15.3.269)? "Pygmy" simply refers to one of these many groups, they are genetically and geographically distinct.
Pygmy groups show how absurd the claim that there are no differences in height is, but the same kind of variation has been shown within European groups on a smaller scale (consistent with the greater genetic diversity in Africa than Europe). We know that similar differences in genes that influence height exist, to a less extreme degree, across all populations. For example, males in both the Tutsi and Dinka ethnic groups average nearly 6' tall, despite living in areas where malnutrition is/was widespread and alongside other groups that are much shorter on average.
I'm genuinely curious where you got the idea that there are no genetic differences affecting height between ethnic groups/countries. Researchers have identified genetic markers responsible for the majority of variation in human height among Europeans (https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/588020v1), and shown that those markers vary significantly across European groups just as they do in Africa (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3480734/).
Every single variation in "genetic trends" amongst cultures is negligible and otherwise entirely attributable to environmental factors.
The source of the ideas you're asserting as fact are very dark and extremely thoroughly debunked at this point. Honestly it's kind of shameful to present these 1920s ideas as modern.
Individually yes, genetics contribute to height, but the full range of height genetics exist in every culture.
>Individually yes, genetics contribute to height, but the full range of height genetics exist in every culture.
"The full range of incomes exist in every country, therefore differences in average incomes across countries must be negligible."
You've linked a long list of articles talking about race in America and Brazil, none of which I can see claim that there are no differences in genetic height by ethnic group. One is a book from 1944 that rightly rejects racially discriminatory policies and argues "that experience rather than inborn traits determines standards of social conduct." What part of that supports the idea that the 6' Tutsis or Croats are genetically predisposed to the same height as the Taron who average 4'3?
The MedlinePlus article you linked explicitly says "in some cases, ethnicity plays a role in adult height."
"Race" categories as described by all of your links that I saw ("black"/"white") are crude aggregations of hundreds of ethnic groups. Tutsis and Pygmies are both "African," but at the opposite extremes of human height. Framing the genetics of height in terms of American racial politics makes no sense.
>The source of the ideas you're asserting as fact are very dark and extremely thoroughly debunked at this point. Honestly it's kind of shameful to present these 1920s ideas as modern.
The "source of the ideas" are the peer-reviewed journals of PLoS Genet and Nature Genetics based on landmark genetic research published in 2012 and 2020. As in hundreds of other peer reviewed studies that have identified genetic markers responsible for height and how those markers vary across populations, including articles you yourself linked without apparently reading.
>Every single variation in "genetic trends" amongst cultures is negligible and otherwise entirely attributable to environmental factors.
Is the vastly higher rate of sickle cell anemia among people of West African descent is either "negligible and otherwise entirely attributable to environmental factors"? Is it simply Europeans' "environment" that causes them to go bald and get skin cancer at rates dozens of times higher than people of East Asian descent growing up in the same countries?
There are zero credible peer-reviewed journals that publish the idea that height or any other genetic traits are attributable to a single "racial group", as the biological concept of "race" does not exist.
So no, you have not linked any peer-reviewed study saying what you claim.
Without attempting to control for it you're not going to know, right? As an example of one isolated mechanism that might make a difference, fish is probably one of the only foods nutritionists almost all agree is healthy, is known to prevent stunting of growth in children, and fish consumption is higher in some cultures than others.
I have no idea what you're trying to say and don't think genetics as a factor in cultural diversity has anything to do with the point in question. If eating fish makes you taller, and there's a country called Hypotheticalia with a strong north/south cultural divide where North Hypotheticals eat more fish than South Hypotheticals despite being genetically identical, then controlling for culture may change your results.
If whatever you wanted to say agrees with this, I agree with it; if it disagrees, I disagree with it.
Anthropologists define culture as a set of learned behaviors, beliefs, values, customs, and artifacts that are shared by members of a particular group or society.
Or are you suggesting that non-genetic cultural factors could be at play here too? Possibly!