137
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 11:
Line 11: + + + +
Genetic degradation
:::That doesn't really make sense. The categories are defined along the lines of interfertility; whether or not that is a meaningful basis for making a distinction is a matter of opinion, not something for which you produce evidence. It is, in fact, similar (but not the same) as the distinction for species. Do you want to offer evidence that the species definition is a "meaningful distinction"? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:01, 4 April 2007 (EDT)
:::That doesn't really make sense. The categories are defined along the lines of interfertility; whether or not that is a meaningful basis for making a distinction is a matter of opinion, not something for which you produce evidence. It is, in fact, similar (but not the same) as the distinction for species. Do you want to offer evidence that the species definition is a "meaningful distinction"? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:01, 4 April 2007 (EDT)
==Genetic degradation ==
If Adam lived for 930 years, and humans have been around for about 6000 years, and now because of genetic degradation, the average human lifespan is (in the developed world) only between 77 and 81, you could plot some scary lines on a graph! (Top-of-my-head approx calculations: 90% decrease in 6000yrs, in another 6000yrs the average life expectancy would be about 8yrs) I'm sure that this would be to oversimplify things though, because the average lifespan of an ancient Greek was reportedly only 28 and many factors affect the figure, but presuming we're dealing with the upper-boundary of possible ages in Adam's age and current developed-world life expectancy, what is the principle or theory at work here behind the claim of the link between genetic degradation and life expectancy? [[User:Orgone|Orgone]] 09:38, 26 April 2007 (EDT)