All of your answers about procreation were wrong, heres the real reason?

Question

We have to have male and female reproduction in order to proliferate the strongest of the gene pool, hence the term, survival of the fittest. and EVOLUTION . I hate to break it to you Fireball, but it wasnt about FAMILY unity, where do you fabricate this crap at?

Answer 1

It would seem that you would make a great poster child for evoloution...

Answer 2

This seems to be mixing metaphors in my humble opinion. Of course you need a male and a female in order to procreate the species. But if Fireball is talking about "family unity," was he talking about the institution of marriage? If so...

Marriage as an institution was created in order to secure the identity of the "father." Everyone knows who the mother is; that's obvious. But the father could be anyone. Thus the creation of marriage. Consequently, this fact became the reason behind some cultures using a matrilineal construct rather than a patrilineal one. If the husband died, the mother and children would be supported by the mother's family, not the father's. The reason being, you are 100% sure who the mother is!

And yes. I agree with you regarding evolution. This is one of the reasons why it is illegal to marry your brother/sister or first cousin. The gene pool is too restricted, and over time, can create a load of problems. Hemophilia in the royals is a good example.

Answer 3

What do you know, the Black guy has got himself some wisdom from somewhere. You other answerers are officially served by me, your resident racist, with notice that Jibba Jabba is right.

Sexual reproduction's primary value is creating permutations of gene combinations within a breeding stock, which has the effect of creating diversity without involving another race.

In fact, genetic diversity is "good" only on the condition that only one race is involved. Races are biologically adapted to the conditions in which they evolved, and mixing races causes a class of birth defects called Mendellian mismatches, in which body parts in affected people aren't in proper relation to each other.

But within a single race, sexual reproduction gives nature a range of possibilities to test for adaptive fitness. In the state of nature, the best survive to reach adulthood and to produce children in their turn, whereas the lesser stock succumb to disease, to animal predators, or to human violence.

Man does himself no favors by meddling with nature's methods. His ability to do so involves the harnessing of limited energy supplies. The consequence of his doing so is propagating defective genes that really ought to be allowed to die out. When civilization falls, as civilizations from time to time do, the population that had been "shored up" with eyeglasses, drugs, corrective surgeries, etc., will suddenly have the props pulled from under them, and they will fall away... all the way down to extinction.

The answerer before me implied that incestuous mating is an unmitigated curse. I agree that it is distasteful, but from a scientific and historical point of view, incest is harmful only on the condition that it is not attended by the culling (by death or by irreversible sterilization) of defective offspring.

The reason hemophilia (the inability of blood to clot) ran in some strongly inbred European royal families was that their royal line was never properly culled to eliminate that hereditary defect. Had it been, hemophilia would have disappeared. By sacrificing a few defective babies once in a while, the whole family would have become healthier in its remaining scions, and ever-the-more-so as the generations went by.

But, alas, Europe did not appreciate the importance of eugenics until around 1920, and the country where it first began to be practiced was promptly attacked by the entire rest of the world and destroyed.

The common form of breeding involves choosing a mate within one's own race but outside of one's immediate relatives. This avoids (most) Mendellian mismatches, but trades the potential excellence that might come with intelligent (eugenic) inbreeding in favor of a the painless mediocrity that preserves all genetic flaws as hidden recessive genes.

Outbreeding gives a range of human quality that resembles a normal distribution, or a "bell curve." Inbreeding gives a bimodal range of human quality, one hump of which is inferior to the outbreeding average, while the other hump is superior to that average. The trick to making inbreeding work is this: you have to prevent all further reproduction by those whose births put them into the inferior hump. You must allow only those in the superior hump to breed the generation to follow.

Inbreeding produces defects in children because near-kin have many of the same defective genes. When recessive genes are paired, they become expressed in the physical form of the child, for all to see.

Outbreeding doesn't eliminate bad recessives: it only hides them by pairing the differing bad recessives in the parents (each of which is from a different family) with dominant genes that are OK or non-defective. The bad recessives, however, are STILL THERE, lurking in the gene pool and biding their time and going "heh heh heh, just you wait, you humans will slip up someday and I will pounce on one of your babies!"

Inbreeding forces the bad recessives to strike if they can. If they do, the baby is aborted or, as people in ancient times used to do, are killed. But the bad genes don't always appear. Once in a while, a baby is born from an incestuous mating without the ill effects of paired recessives. SUCH A CHILD HAS FEWER BAD RECESSIVE GENES THAN EITHER OF HIS PARENTS DO. That's important! It tells us that bad recessive genes can be progressively pruned away from the gene pool, if we are willing to pay the price for this improvement.

Answer 4

we have procreation in order to reproduce numskull, no other reason. evolution is just a bunch of lies made by scientists scared of the truth in the bible

Answer 5

No I do not agree God wonted children to have familes to learn from

Answer 6

just because you put a question mark after you statement does make it a question. if your question is "where do you fabricate this crap at?" the answer i believe you are looking for is "yo mamas house."

Answer 7

Right on!

Answer 8

How can you keep this angry diatribe up, day after day after day?!
I pity your conflicted brain, but commend your amazing stamina.

Answer 9

we're all just tryin to make a family pal.......

Answer 10

Ya !!!