by tornapart 427 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
Lisa rose
you know my mind ?
How is it made up ? on what
You know, I went back through your posts, and I think I got your posts mixed up with someone else, so I apologize, I see that you were asking honest questions. It's been that kind of week for me, I don't think I've done one thing right all week. I think I should just go to bed and not get up until Monday.
Lisa thank you.
jgnat
1911
there were people born bred thriving and living in the British Isles who lived into healthy old age. 60,70,80,90.
also in other parts of society around the world.
are they just they exception to the rule, or are we focusing on one specific region in one specific country.
When the convicts were sent to Australia, they had harship for sure.
Pioneers went to america, same thing, hardship.
Living 100 yrs, 200 yrs ago, were very different to today. When you are forced to live a rural life, live off the land, start from scratch and make it into something, build it up from nothing, there is a lot of hardship.
Modern women would never be able to hold a candle to their ancestors. Life was physical, it was hard.
In 1911 the avg age was less than it is now. Yes, people lived to 80 sometimes. But not as often as now. And, 1,000 years ago people definitely lived shorter lives.
Prior to the 1900's, many people died before age five, of diseases that are easily treatable now. If you survived childhood, you had a good chance at living to 70 or 80, but those early deaths brought the average life expectancy down. In medieval Britain, if you made it to age 21, you would likely live to age 64, but the average life expectancy was 30, because two thirds of all children died before the age of four.
That is why the population was basically stable, deaths and births were roughly equal. It is only in the last 100 years that advances in public heath and improved nutrition allowed more people to reach child bearing age.
Hi Frankiespeakin,
Thanks for that BBC Horizon video! David Attenborough does a much better job of explaining population dynamics than I do. I also was struck by his point about family size and educating girls. I know Christopher Hitchens made a similar point how atheism can be helpful compared to the charity supported by religion. Atheist tend to speak up for education, whereas some aspects of organized religion make a virtue of ignorance. In the worse cases religion is used to block girls from getting an education. Yet when girls have equal opportunity to be educated and especially if it is valued within the culture, they tend to be older before getting married and then have fewer children. In the documentary David Attenborough highlighted an area in India where this true.
Cheers,
-Randy
Td,
Have you read the book Sperm Wars?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sperm_Wars
Sperm Wars is a nonfiction book by evolutionary biologist Robin Baker. [2] [3] Originally published in English in 1996, it has since appeared in 26 languages [4] and in 2006 a 10th anniversary edition [2] was published in the United States. Through a series of short stories and discussion following them, Baker proposes evolutionary functions for sexual habits, mostly on the principle of competition between sperm of different men for a prized egg. [2] The "sperm wars" include both literal battles between sperm inside a woman's reproductive tract, as well as figurative battles between men competing for the chance to mate. The book is controversial, [5] both because of its explanations of homosexuality, rape, and prostitution, and because some authors have claimed that several of the hypotheses in the book are not supported by scientific research.
Oral sex is explained as an opportunity for partners to judge each other's reproductive health, and for mates to detect recent infidelity(also proposed by Kohl & Francoeur, 1995 "The Scent of Eros"). The shape of the penis and the thrusting during intercourse serve to remove other men's semen. [6] Male masturbation is said to discard old, dying sperm, so that an ejaculate contains younger sperm that will stay active inside the cervix longer, with more of a chance of being present during the window of ovulation. Baker also proposes that men adjust the amount of sperm they ejaculate based on the time their mate has spent away from them. [7] Likewise, women are found to be more likely to engage in extra-pair copulation and retain larger amounts of sperm during their most fertile phase of the month, and more likely to have sex with their regular partner during the infertile phase. [8]
A major focus of the book is sperm heteromorphism in which not only are a variety of morphological types [9] of sperm apparent in every normal human ejaculate but also at any one time fewer than 1% seem capable of responding to and fertilizing an egg. [10] A similarly low proportion of fertile sperm is found in the ejaculates of mice. [11] Baker calls these fertile sperm "egg-getters", and claims that the rest of the sperm in the ejaculate are infertile "kamikaze sperm" or "blockers", whose primary purpose is to prevent other men's sperm from getting to the egg. [12] He cites data suggesting that in Britain at least 4% of children (but perhaps as many as 6-12%) are conceived via sperm competition, [13] and claims that this lower figure is consistent with the earlier finding that 10% of children have a biological father who is other than their supposed father. [14] Baker describes in detail how "killer sperm" actively seek out rival sperm and kill them with poison from acrosomes to prevent them from getting to the egg. This literal sperm warfare was not observed in a subsequent experiment, [15] but Baker criticizes the protocol in this latter experiment. [5]
comatose - asking questions and seeking facts and hard evidence where available is not a rant - or is that how you perceived it ?
lets not forget, we came out of a cult where we believed, as fact, things told to us by 'un-educated, unqualified men'.
so, I do not, generally, just 'trust' what people say, because they said so. If they come back with, i researched this, read this, got these facts from .. then it is totally different.
Of course our world has chnaged much in 100 yrs also, but aids is still killing people, along with many other diseases.
So we have to be specific and nail dowe 'which' era we are talking about when we present facts about 'society', 'history'.
There is a huge difference straight away in ' society that lives off the land, rural, society that lives in cities, urban.
Therefore the two have to be presented as such, is my thoughts.
Rawe - do we equate humans merely as evolved animals ?
but aids is still killing people, along with many other diseases
Yes there are still killer diseases, but far fewer than in past and because of advances in medical technology many diseases are no longer considered fatal but merely inconvenient. Modern medicine is less than 200 years old.
You scoffed at Cofty at the beginning of this thread when he mentioned impacted wisdom teeth as an example of something that would have killed our ancestors, but such an ailment would have most certainly resulted in a weakned individual who would have been weakned more susceptable to attack, disease and environmental changes.
Before medicine was developed a cut on foot would have killed someone, it would have made hunting difficult, it could have become septic and it could have resulted in easier predation. The mortality rate of infants and birthing mothers would have been extremely high. Life was tough, populations would have been been decimated during freezing weather, droughts and floods.
