twinblue{at}aol.com (TWINBLUE) wrote in
news:bk4hap$1equ$1{at}darwin.ediacara.org: 

>>I have little doubt that the trend towards living longer
>>will>continue.  We 
> may also see a few very-long-lived individuals.>
> 
> Sorry but there is no trend to living longer.
> The only reason humans are living longer
> in some cases is because of medical
> care and nutrition. Only if you are able to prove that longer lived
> people have more
> surviving children will you be able to show
> any evolutionary pressure towards longevity. Otherwise you only show
> faith in a perverted genitic drift theory of human
> "inprovement" over the generations. Humans WERE selecting for
> longevity untill writing and record keeping were invented.
> When the only source of information about
> the past was old people selection favored
> a group that was better informed and able
> to somewhat predict the future at least insofar as seasons, weather,
> food and other neat stuff was concerned then grand parents were a
> prime resource. 


Very true but the net result was selection for menopause, because the 
value  of the information resource was greater than the value of the 
reproductive resource (and there are indications that this is at least 
partly true for males, as witness the marked decline in testosterone 
levels in males after age 50). 

And there does seem to be selection for later-in-life child bearing among 
at least part of the female population. I think there is an obvious 
difference based on income, with lower income mothers favoring earlier 
childbirth (and if I remember my Dickens correctly I don't think this is 
a recent development). 

Yours,
Bill Morse
---
þ RIMEGate(tm)/RGXPost V1.14 at BBSWORLD * Info{at}bbsworld.com

---
 * RIMEGate(tm)V10.2áÿ* RelayNet(tm) NNTP Gateway * MoonDog BBS
 * RgateImp.MoonDog.BBS at 12/12/03 11:55:38 AM