3 ms·
*not an expert here, and generally prefer computers to biology, but my reasoning would be, yes you are selecting for fertility but also as the parent said: > T
by 1659447091 2y ago
*not an expert here, and generally prefer computers to biology, but my reasoning would be, yes you are selecting for fertility but also as the parent said:
> The tragic cost being that the human body has not yet had the chance to adapt to lifespans of 80 years and beyond.
> I think this problem will disappear as more and more women delay child birth to their late 30s and 40s.
Those who have adapted a human body with long age fertility and a body that can hold up to childbirth over a longer time, probably has other genes that allowed for the body to adapt to the longer lifespans, thus passing them on. Also adding on the mutation sibling comment
- yieldcrv 2y agoMy issue is that’s so much further of a stretch than other possible approaches Fertility is primarily a function of how many eggs the woman started with, and the interval of periods which shed an egg. Further down the rank are viable eggs remaining - if all weren't shed to begin with due to irregular periods at a faster frequency than a monthly cycle - and finally the ability to incubate without miscarriage which is the only unquantifiable part, which also involved the man’s sperm that was selected. Although since a different man can always be selected, I cant try to reframe this as an issue to include older men since its not much of an issue and younger men exist. You’re proposing to use this lowly ranked incubation aspect, all to assume some other genetics for longevity are passed on, while introducing mutations from gamete deterioration. Amusing to me, seems like too much energy to attempt this versus some other selective pressure or versus a remedy to a current generation’s mental deterioration.