Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Study: Men Caused Menopause by Selecting Younger Mates
UPI ^ | June 14, 2013 | Kristen Butler

Posted on 06/14/2013 11:10:52 AM PDT by nickcarraway

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-64 last
To: arthurus

Thanks for the informative answer.


51 posted on 06/14/2013 4:02:27 PM PDT by Rusty0604
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: StayAt HomeMother; Ernest_at_the_Beach; decimon; 1010RD; 21twelve; 24Karet; 2ndDivisionVet; ...

 GGG managers are SunkenCiv, StayAt HomeMother & Ernest_at_the_Beach
Thanks nickcarraway.

Menopause happens because we all live longer than 99% of our ancestors; we're not built to last. May as well look for the natural selection reason for our teeth falling out.

To all -- please ping me to other topics which are appropriate for the GGG list.


52 posted on 06/14/2013 7:58:09 PM PDT by SunkenCiv (McCain or Romney would have been worse, if you're a dumb ass.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: cuban leaf
"Correct me if I’m wrong, but I thought women exited puberty with a set number of eggs and when they are gone, they are gone. And they lose a few every month or so."

I have always thought that too until about a year ago.

Read this:

Ovary Stem Cells Can Produce New Human Eggs, Scientists Say

Although it has long been assumed that women are born with all the eggs they will ever have in a lifetime, recent research has hinted that that might not be the case. Now researchers report the strongest evidence yet that women may be able to replenish their supply of eggs after they are born — and perhaps after age or disease might have normally hindered their fertility.

53 posted on 06/14/2013 8:28:37 PM PDT by blam
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: nickcarraway
Menopause has bewildered evolutionary biologists

I've had the chance to speak with 'scientists' about their subjects and consistently the biologists seem dumb as rocks. They 'study' things, but if you ask them their procedure, baselines and how they test they clam up or get defensive. Why is that?

I suspect they are less than scientists and more like parrots. As long as they parrot the party line, which may be government or professor or institution driven, but is most certainly a political process, they get funding and gigs. Any real science would end all that.

When confronted by well informed amateurs who won't toe the party line, they get frustrated. It's why it's so great to be a conservitive in America's North Korea. You're constantly challenged to come up with solid, irrefutable evidence for your theories. Something few scientists face today.

54 posted on 06/15/2013 12:55:09 AM PDT by 1010RD (First, Do No Harm)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: vbmoneyspender
"How do you evolve infertility? It is contrary to the whole notion of natural selection. Natural selection selects for fertility, for reproduction -- not for stopping it," Singh said.

Or maybe Darwinism isn't tracking true. Today's scientist says, "If reality isn't tracking the model, go with the model that funds you."

He conflates natural selection with evolution. He can't be that smart to start with.

55 posted on 06/15/2013 1:02:36 AM PDT by 1010RD (First, Do No Harm)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Nervous Tick

** belching


56 posted on 06/15/2013 1:05:15 AM PDT by Lancey Howard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: 1010RD; vbmoneyspender; SunkenCiv
1010RD: "He conflates natural selection with evolution. He can't be that smart to start with."

By definition, evolution theory consists of two main elements: 1) descent with modifications and 2) natural selection.

"Descent with modifications" is normally just another way of expressing Murphy's Law that "anything which can go wrong eventually will".
So various forms of infertility are frequent "modifications".

"Natural selection" simply means such "modifications" don't get passed on to future generations, unless they somehow help individuals to survive and reproduce.

In the example of menopause, the old "grandma theory" seems perfectly reasonable to me, since even though it's highly exaggerated to say "it takes a village," it certainly does take a family to raise children, and traditionally, the bigger the family, with more support for youngsters, the better.

And nobody loves children more than grandparents, since once you're done playing with them, you get to give them back.
So, call it "natural selection" or call it "God's will", it's still just a little gift, to make grandma's life happier, and give children a better chance to grow up... ;-)

57 posted on 06/15/2013 4:06:51 AM PDT by BroJoeK (a little historical perspective....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: Rusty0604

You really don’t know, do you?


58 posted on 06/15/2013 4:27:20 AM PDT by arthurus (Read Hazlitt's Economiws In One Lesson ONLINE http://steshaw.org/econohttp://www.fee.org/library/det)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: nickcarraway; Lazamataz

"I'm still fertile! Come and get it boys!"

59 posted on 06/15/2013 5:34:40 AM PDT by DCBryan1 (No realli, moose bytes can be quite nasti!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DCBryan1

I don’t want to hit the little red x.


60 posted on 06/15/2013 5:37:42 AM PDT by Lazamataz ("AP" clearly stands for American Pravda. Our news media has become completely and proudly Soviet.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies]

To: BroJoeK

Thanks BroJoeK.


61 posted on 06/15/2013 8:44:11 AM PDT by SunkenCiv (McCain or Romney would have been worse, if you're a dumb ass.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: SunkenCiv

Thia hypothesis just does not make sense.


62 posted on 06/15/2013 3:40:02 PM PDT by Bigg Red (Restore us, O God of hosts; let your face shine, that we may be saved! -Ps80)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: Bigg Red

I agree.


63 posted on 06/15/2013 4:18:13 PM PDT by SunkenCiv (McCain or Romney would have been worse, if you're a dumb ass.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | View Replies]

To: BroJoeK; vbmoneyspender; SunkenCiv

You need to ping the ‘scientist’ Singh. He doesn’t understand the theory where ‘environment’ plays Deus ex Machina and not the other way around. If men prefer younger women then evolutionary theory would indicate that the environment gave men that urge, no? Men didn’t choose it, but were bred for it because having that trait, ‘going for the young gal’, meant better reproductive success across all generations.

His premise is stupid and sexist and most likely political as he doesn’t understand the Theory of Evolution, but does get feminism. Despite his misapplication, his theory that menopause is caused my men’s preference for younger women fits just as well as the grandma hypothesis. The progeny are served just as well under either one. That’s the inherent tautology of the Theory of Evolution: if we have it, it’s because we need it.


64 posted on 06/16/2013 10:56:24 AM PDT by 1010RD (First, Do No Harm)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-64 last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson