Re:Duh... This is plain bullshit (Score 1)

You are probably right about the skewed distribution of the population (though I don't posess statistic data about the distribution at that age). I find it on the other hand hard to beleive that was common for thos people to get older than 40 before being killed by something. Even in the more modern medicine ages we live, our body still starts to show the first irreversible problems starting already at age of 30. Here in Germany isn't even easy to get a private healthinsurance after the age of 35 (prives go rocket high if you try to swith to a private healthinsurance after that age).I would rather expect that it would be more like a gaussian distribution, where the most "able" persons would be maybe somewhere between 20 and 35 years old and fewer kids and fewer that live over 35. It would be hard to remain alpha male after the age of 35. So in my opinion it still doesn't make a link between old/young pairing as the ground for our evolution. I wish I could get some accurate distribution data about the neanderthal ages (for example), just to get a better picture. I guess I would have agreed with the article if the scientist would have said that by pairing old with young we would push at least the mutation rate to a point which would compensate the other missing factors which would be needed to have a high evolution rate. Anyway, I also guess that it all depends what evolution means. I mean if we look at the bodyshape and IQ between the various timelines, I would agree that in means of body we are more like evolving backwards (the beerbelly and all:)), but in means of IQ and Knowledge I think our brain has evolved pretty well with even increasing rate in the recent past. But then again, not all. :)