Post: #26

^^^Samseau

Yes, if there were no mutations no advanced lifeforms would exist. We'd have got about as far as Amoeba's, if that. For the reasons you state. No variation = nothing for natural selection to work with. I've been thinking about this a lot lately. Not only with respect to biological development and evolution, but human culture as well. This is also the reason that any attempts to compress cultural and material "outcomes" through government edict are comical and doomed to failure. Nature not only abhors a vacuum, it also abhors compression (of outcomes). Because universal Darwinism demands variation, so that it can do it's thing.

This is also a good lens to view one's own personal misfortune through. As tough as it seems it cannot be otherwise. Everyone must have their share of misfortune, because if nature "allowed" individuals to choose their own best outcomes all outcomes would be compressed into a tiny zone. Again, leading to stagnation on account of nature not having anything to work with.

Post: #27

(05-28-2015 10:17 AM)Samseau Wrote:  In this article they claim to know that mutations are not caused by the mother, yet they do not explain how they arrived at the conclusion. They say, "see supplementary tables, which are included in the online version of the paper," which means you need to pay.

That's exactly the weak point.

What we do know is that age of mothers does have a tremendous influence on the health and birth of a child. We know it from massive studies on animals in the 1970s.

One of the leading researchers back then was Dr. Joel Wallach who later studied human medicine and became an orthomolecular doctor. Back then he was young brilliant vet who conducted the largest study on animals ever undertaken in order to assess how much nutrition and nutrients influences general health, birth defects etc.


(They actually provide cows with higher supplement doses per pound than humans. But a down syndrome cow would cost them money, for humans no such concerns are apparent. More children like that being born decrease the population which is in line with top-down plans.)

They found without a doubt that supplementation of high dosage of nutrients during the pregnancy decreases the likelihood of birth defects by a whopping 98%. But the problem is that supplementation for the female has to begin several months before conception to improve the quality of the egg and has to go all through the entire pregnancy period. For humans that would mean pure living and high dosage supplements 2 months before conception. Currently modern medicine starts with ridiculous numbers of supplements about 2-3 months after conception.

In contrast - for the fathers they found that since sperm regenerates itself constantly men should have a more healthy lifestyle and some supplements just one month prior to attempting impregnation. So essentially if the guy laid off binge-drinking, did some daily juicing and took some minor supplements for ONE MONTH, then he would be able to produce grade A jizz.

The woman however is a completely different story. We know for example that certain drugs and alcohol permeate all the cells in the body. For a man that is of little importance, since we recreate our boys. For the woman that is highly problematic, since she has eggs that are there already. If a woman does a lot of drinking and taking drugs before pregnancy, then there is a higher likelihood that all eggs are already slightly damaged. Older mothers essentially damage their eggs if they live a party lifestyle for 20 years before getting pregnant the first time.

Also a woman has to create life keeping that baby fed and supplied with a massive amount of nutrients.

So TL;DR:

Woman: Massive investment of lifestyle, nutrient dense food, for an entirety of 11 months - 2 months before conception and 9 months pregnancy, all kinds of things can impact the process, also fertility of women drops massively past 30

Man: Lay off booze and toxins & take some supplements for 1 months before conception, fertility of men drops maybe past 50, currently sperm donors are being accepted to age 45 (!)

Compare those 2 necessary steps that both genders have to take to create top-notch genetic material and now tell me who is the most likely to fuck up. Nature has designed women to get pregnant when they are young and their bodies can supply the child with the best environment.

Post: #28

Knock up a girl of reproductive age repeatedly. Abort the defects in the womb. Problem solved.

Post: #29

My thought is this: tough shit.

She's going to have to live with the possibility of my genes being defective, or whatever.

Kid's going to have to live with it, too. Suck it up, dorks.

Any price paid on the genetics side of the equation is more than compensated for by the fact that an older man is more stable, financially capable, and seasoned than a 19 year old prong warrior.

Price you pay. Deal with it.

Post: #30

I just recently came upon a brutal statistic put forward at the National Down Syndrome Society:

http://www.ndss.org/Down-Syndrome/What-I...-Syndrome/



While those mothers have older fathers as we have assessed before - sperm donors are accepted to age 45, while most families who are willing to buy eggs won't be doing so with a donating woman who sets them aside at the maximum allowed age - 35. Usually post 30 women freeze their own eggs, but don't buy them from 33 year olds.

Seriously that statistic is truly mind-boggling. Of course in addition to DS you have plenty of other birth defects in addition to sub-optimal levels of development that is not quickly apparent - lower IQ, weaker immune system, shorter height etc.

Of course you can counter some effects and still have healthy strong babies, but the odds are certainly not in the favor of older mothers. I wonder how many would decide to be a happy-go-lucky carousel riding career woman after seeing stats like that?

Post: #31

And of course, feminists will never admit the differences between a mutation (which can be good or bad) and down syndrome, which is always bad.

Post: #32

(06-07-2015 05:37 AM)Zelcorpion Wrote:  I just recently came upon a brutal statistic put forward at the National Down Syndrome Society:

http://www.ndss.org/Down-Syndrome/What-I...-Syndrome/



While those mothers have older fathers as we have assessed before - sperm donors are accepted to age 45, while most families who are willing to buy eggs won't be doing so with a donating woman who sets them aside at the maximum allowed age - 35. Usually post 30 women freeze their own eggs, but don't buy them from 33 year olds.

Seriously that statistic is truly mind-boggling. Of course in addition to DS you have plenty of other birth defects in addition to sub-optimal levels of development that is not quickly apparent - lower IQ, weaker immune system, shorter height etc.

Of course you can counter some effects and still have healthy strong babies, but the odds are certainly not in the favor of older mothers. I wonder how many would decide to be a happy-go-lucky carousel riding career woman after seeing stats like that?

This is why women with money should freeze their eggs when young. I don't think the harvesting process is all that dangerous. Of course it would be best for them to have their children when in their 20's, but modern life is what it is.

But why is it that couples, as far as I can tell both men and women, think that the life sequence must be:

20's: party and career
30's: marriage (maybe), birth of children, career
40's: divorce

Why can't couples who are married party, or rather have a good time in general?
Why if they have children do they feel they have to live in a overpriced McMansion and never do anything exciting again (or so it seems)?

For young men and women who intend to marry and have a family they should really do these much earlier, but still try to do the things that they would have done anyway. Travel, for example, but there are all sorts of desires.

Post: #33

International study links parental age with higher rates of Autism

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/parents-age-...tism-risk/

Post: #34

Damn that statistic makes me feel lucky. Mom popped me out at 40,smoked cigarettes heavy, and I was premature by some months.

No serious health issues to complain about today.

Good find though scorpion. You figure age will have some effect,but I never would have guessed it was that dramatic.