According to Steve Jones, head of the biology department at the University College of London, he argues that we are not going to evolve any more due to less older fathers, hence reducing the chance of mutation in babies cells; our health system that allows for 98% of people to make it to 21 and finding partners that are not from our same home town, hence reducing genetic drift.
I kinda see these all as a good thing.
Guys having children younger reduces lots of complications with the baby, espically if the mother is also older. There is even a possible link between older fathers and schizophrenia in the child. But by definition the older the father the more chance that the offspring will have a mutation. I know that is the whole idea behind evolution, but I'm not sure what positive mutation we are looking for to help the child, have their been any documented yet? It seems pretty risky to hope for an unknow positive mutation when there are know risks with older fathers. Do the biology guys even talk to the medical guys?
It is also great that we live in an age where our health system can heal babies and children and increase their life expectany. Sure this doesn't weed out the weaker and less biological adaptive child, but they still are a child that has dignity, worth and value. That is kinda the whole idea behind a public medical system and it is a good thing.
This article about this story mentions some other people who disagree with Steve's ideas. Al Mohler also talked about this on his blog.
2016 in Review - Ampers apps has had some ebbs and flows in 2016 year. I started out keen by making a Twitter account (I now have 261 followers), doing some patching and re...
2 months ago