A strong marriage policy IS the key !!

[Diver]

Italian geneticists may have explained how genes apparently linked to male homosexuality survive, despite gay men seldom having children. Their findings also undermine the theory of a single “gay gene”.

The researchers discovered that women tend to have more children when they inherit the same - as yet unidentified - genetic factors linked to homosexuality in men. This fertility boost more than compensates for the lack of offspring fathered by gay men, and keeps the “gay” genetic factors in circulation.

The findings represent the best explanation yet for the Darwinian paradox presented by homosexuality: it is a genetic dead-end, yet the trait persists generation after generation.

http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn6519

[Bob Dalek]

No he's not, he's being a realist. Why do you think that the statistics of having a child with Downs Syndrome increases the older the parents? It is down to good old Mother Nature realising that when we were scrabbling about in the bush eking out a living whilst living in caves, then over 40's weren't too adept at looking after their young in the traditional hunter gatherer way of life.

Survival of the fittest is exactly that. Don't forget, Homo Sapien has been about for hundreds of thousands of years and the way we are today has been shaped by evolution over that period. Just because we've learnt to pasteurise milk and double glaze our caves in the last 100 years doesn't rewrite the Human genome.

I am not sure that your understanding of the process of evolution is as sharp as you think. Nature "engineered" Downs Syndrome to teach us not to have children late on in life?

[Incognito]

I am not sure that your understanding of the process of evolution is as sharp as you think. Nature "engineered" Downs Syndrome to teach us not to have children late on in life?

Older parents were not able to provide protection or food for their offspring as successfully as their younger rivals; Mother Nature ensured they wouldn’t have to by ensuring the Human body’s reproductive facilities deteriorate with age.

How would you explain it then?

[Diver]

I am not sure that your understanding of the process of evolution is as sharp as you think. Nature "engineered" Downs Syndrome to teach us not to have children late on in life?

and Aids to teach us not to covet thy neighbours ass (it's in the bible )

[Incognito]

and Aids to teach us not to covet thy neighbours ass (it's in the bible )

[expat]

Actually I think you'll find you're actually supporting my argument here. The ageing process and deterioration of genetic material is evolution and does come down to survival of the fittest.

Natural selection is not just about genetic perfection. Any exploitable weakness was eradicated through evolution, whether that is someone naturally being born with one foot or someone injuring their foot whilst on a hunt. The survivability factor was the same.

Older parents were not able to provide protection or food for their offspring as successfully as their younger rivals; Mother Nature ensured they wouldn’t have to by ensuring the Human body’s reproductive facilities deteriorate with age.

"Mother Nature"? Doesn't sound like a firm grasp of the same theory of evolution that I know.

Like I said:
1. genetic variation arises.
2. selection operates on that genetic variation, to ensure that individual

Someone injuring their foot on a hunt is not a genetic variation to be selected against. Sure, the individual may have a shorter life, and if there is an inheritable cause of the injury (like stupidity or myopia) then it will be selected against; but even in that case, the injury is the selection, not the variation.

It is meaningless to say that every example of reduced survival in individuals is an example of evolution at work; and farcical to describe it as Mother Nature ensuring something.

I shouldn't, but as a simple example:

Older parents were not able to provide protection or food for their offspring as successfully as their younger rivals; Mother Nature ensured they wouldn’t have to by ensuring the Human body’s reproductive facilities deteriorate with age

"Mother Nature" has no need to go to such trouble. If older parents are not able to provide protection or food for their offspring as successfully, there is no need to tweak the reproductive system to prevent that from happening; the offspring themselves will simply be less likely to survive, and there is an end of that story. "Mother Nature" is not interested in tidying up loose ends.

[BrilloPad]

I think the Tories are on a winner here as I believe that marriage is the cornerstone to a society and children within marriage are more likely to be confident and successful as adults. 60% of black children have one parent families and surely this is real evidence of the crux of the problem with knife crime etc, with the inherent lack of family discipline and father figure.

There is no history of divorce in my wide sphere of relatives and when I consider the apparent happiness and stability of all of these people, approx 50individuals of all ages, I see evidence in my eyes of why our society is riddled with crime and violence.

The Tories are going to implement a tax policy that promotes marriage. Other types of relationships of course are acceptable, but should not rank at the same level of marriage.

I am optimistic for the future because of this. I just only wish that the current government could also see the obvious benefits of this policy and introduce it ASAP.

Of course labelling fathers as feckless is a sure fire way to win votes.

[expat]

I am not sure that your understanding of the process of evolution is as sharp as you think. Nature "engineered" Downs Syndrome to teach us not to have children late on in life?

Thanks mate. Spot-on in a few words.

[expat]

Older parents were not able to provide protection or food for their offspring as successfully as their younger rivals; Mother Nature ensured they wouldn’t have to by ensuring the Human body’s reproductive facilities deteriorate with age.

How would you explain it then?

Age > 30-35 or so is itself unnatural. Over most of the life of homo sapiens, this didn't happen. So natural selection has played no part in it: it hasn't had a chance to evolve a long-lived reproductive system, or indeed, eyesight, hearing, or teeth, because on an evolutionay timescale this part of life did not exist to be evolved.

Or do you think that Mother Nature makes us need glasses after age 45 as a gentle reminder that it's time to get the affairs in order?

[expat]

Natural selection, breed young carry on the gene pool.
In nature, the older; the less chance of a mate accepting you. Why?
Because there is less chance of producing a viable offspring to carry the genes = natural selection at work.

That is just not true. A chimpanzee, for example, will come on heat regularly until the end of her life. And when she's on heat, she's the hottest thing around however old she is, the guys can't keep their paws off her.