A strong marriage policy IS the key !!

[Incognito]

I take it you "sex is for having babies" crowd dont use contraception and dont partake of oral sex, masturbation or (god forbid) anal sex?

What you're trying to do there is attempt to explain reproductive organs being there purely for pleasure. I believe it is only Humans and Chimps that have sexual intercourse for pleasure alone. That does not refute the fact of why you have a penis dangling between your legs and your sister does not.

[expat]

Gay or Homosexual. There is a distinct difference in attitude and outlook.

Gay I believe to be the result of genetic make-up.

Homosexual can be by choice (many men become homosexual in prison, but remain hetero when free.

That's a good point, never thought of it. Neatly absorbed by the 2 different verbs "to be", that English fails to have: ser & estar.

BTW I am not gay: I take it that too is genetic. Who knows why the blood rushes out of my brain when I see an attractive woman, or indeed why she is "attractive"?

[Diver]

Oh Dear (TM). Still on the "Breeding = good; non-breeding = bad" treadmill.

All together, now: "Ein Volk, Ein Reich,..."

I did not say it was bad, I stated that by the laws of nature it is wrong and a genetic dead end. Please try to refute this, and stop wandering off the subject and using emotion as a valid factor.

Fill a planet with only men and visit it 200 years later. how many will be left?

Fill a planet with only women and visit it 200 years later. how many will be left?

Fill a planet with only gay men and gay women and visit it 200 years later. how many will be left? ----probably quite a few because the survival (nature) factor will have kicked in as well as reason.

[Bob Dalek]

I did not say it was bad, I stated that by the laws of nature it is wrong and a genetic dead end. Please try to refute this, and stop wandering off the subject and using emotion as a valid factor.

Fill a planet with only men and visit it 200 years later. how many will be left?

Fill a planet with only women and visit it 200 years later. how many will be left?

Fill a planet with only gay men and gay women and visit it 200 years later. how many will be left? ----probably quite a few because the survival (nature) factor will have kicked in as well as reason.

You are, again, trumpeting the same thing.

"... as well as reason." - yuck.

[Incognito]

Oh Dear (TM). Still on the "Breeding = good; non-breeding = bad" treadmill.

All together, now: "Ein Volk, Ein Reich,..."

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.

[Diver]

You are, again, trumpeting the same thing.

"... as well as reason." - yuck.

[expat]

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.

That is a fallacious assertion. The risk of Down's Syndrome increases with parents' ages but that is not the result of evolution. It is not inherited (i.e. a child does not get it as a result of genes from the parents carrying it). That means that it is not available for the process of natural selection, i.e. it is not the case that potential parents carrying the gene are less likely to reproduce (because less fit), so that the gene is selected against; simply because there is no such gene.

Older parents are more likely to have children with this and a number of defects, because their genetic material is damaged by age, not because it is intrinsically less fit. This is not evolution.

[expat]

Survival of the fittest is exactly that.

And a scientific theory of evolution is not exactly that. 2 parts are necessary:
1. genetic variation.
2. selection on the basis of inherited genetic characteristics.

[Diver]

That is a fallacious assertion. The risk of Down's Syndrome increases with parents' ages but that is not the result of evolution. It is not inherited (i.e. a child does not get it as a result of genes from the parents carrying it). That means that it is not available for the process of natural selection, i.e. it is not the case that potential parents carrying the gene are less likely to reproduce (because less fit), so the gene is selected agains; simply because there is no such gene.

Older parents are more likely to have children with this and a number of defects, because their genetic material is damaged by age, not because it is intrinsically less fit. This is not evolution.

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.

[Incognito]

Older parents are more likely to have children with this and a number of defects, because their genetic material is damaged by age, not because it is intrinsically less fit. This is not evolution.

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.