Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Nerdlass on October 3, 2011 at 7:51pm

I can't say I'm surprised. I went through early puberty myself. It was not easy being one of the first girls to undergo all those physical changes. Did manage not to get knocked up, though. ^^ v

Permalink Reply by The Secular One on October 4, 2011 at 3:15pm

Congrats on the not getting knocked up early!  In my family at least, that appears to be a serious achievement!

 

Permalink Reply by Chris Dodds on October 3, 2011 at 8:23pm

I heard on a YouTube video series denouncing creationism that some woman are beginning to gain the ability to see a bit into the ultraviolet spectrum as well.  The series is called "The Foundational Falsehoods of Creationism" and see if you can get a transcript of what the narraotr says if you watch it because he talks really, really fast.

Permalink Reply by Timothy Riches on October 4, 2011 at 12:48am

Yeah, that's AronRa. Not sure which episode that was in, but I probably watched it. His stuff is always fantastic and yes, he speaks too damned quickly! :)
http://www.youtube.com/user/AronRa#g/c/126AFB53A6F002CC

Permalink Reply by Susan Stanko on October 4, 2011 at 7:56am

I thought it was just a problem for me!

Permalink Reply by Timothy Riches on October 4, 2011 at 12:53am

I really don't see first child-bearing age and family size as a genetic predisposition. These things tend to rely on when you have sex and who you marry, don't they? We're also talking about Quebec at the height of Catholic influence. French-Canadian families had lots of children throughout that time for religious and later for economic reasons. (there were government incentives) At any rate, I don't think this indicates natural selection at work. I do not doubt for an instant that we are still evolving along with every other species on the planet though.

Permalink Reply by The Secular One on October 4, 2011 at 3:14pm

The study had controls for that, and found that about 30-50% of the variance associated with the difference was probably genetic.  Now that means culture and society still play a bigger role than genetics, but the genetic difference is obvious.

This is of course assuming the study was done correctly, and I haven't had time to read it to be sure. 

 

I don't see in the article if this is published work, but as science reporting is generally crappy that's not surprising.  If it hasn't been published, then it may not have been peer-reviewed yet, so the quality of the study is currently unknown.