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

To: Atlas Sneezed

Maybe older women had such a high probability of giving birth to babies that had a low probability of surviving that evolution selected for women whose ability to get pregnant cutoff at a certain time.


26 posted on 06/14/2013 11:39:55 AM PDT by vbmoneyspender
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies ]


To: vbmoneyspender

And older women had a low probability of living long enough to raise their children to an age at which they could fend for themselves.


28 posted on 06/14/2013 11:43:14 AM PDT by DuncanWaring (The Lord uses the good ones; the bad ones use the Lord.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | 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 ]

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