Thu, Oct-13-11, 11:21
|
Senior Member
Posts: 6,498
|
|
Plan: VLC, mostly meat
Stats: 202/200/165
BF:
Progress: 5%
Location: Montreal, Quebec, Canada
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by sexym2
At least, I wont be alive then to tell my great-great grandchildren that I walked up hill both ways to get to school or how much of an idiot there mother was for picking her husband and having idiot children.
My oldest boy is pretty smart, the other two, havn't shown that trait . . . yet.
I've been thinking about genatics and babies lately. Ya, I want another one, but my BF has a serious jaw alignment issue. His chin is, um, not prominent and his front teeth come way farther forward and stick out alot. Im thinking his genetics maybe, shouldn't be passed into the gene pool? Do you really think they had braces to correct problems and if the kid had a problem eating they coddled him/her? True, he never had a problem eating, but left to natural selection, I don't know if this trait would have been passed on. If one of my dogs had this genetic problem, they wouldn't be considered breedable.
|
This assumes that your BF's morphology is solely the result of his genetic makeup. It's not. In fact, we could even say it's mostly due to his diet. The alternative is that we believe that humans are inherently defective. We're not. The very idea that millions of years of natural selection would ultimately give us defective humans is absurd. Weston Price, Nutrition And Physical Degeneration to illustrate:
http://journeytoforever.org/farm_li...e/pricetoc.html
The pictures are eloquent, to say the least. We could use this presentation by Andreas Eenfeldt to illustrate the same point. Note at 2:36 where he talks about evolution:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FSeS...player_embedded
His point is that it took millions of years to get to this point to become modern humans but only 30 years to go from lean and healthy, to obese and sick. It's not the genes.
So what does it all mean for your desire to make another kid? That's the question isn't it.
|