Evolution

[wellwisher]

Jesus's alleged existence is much more recent. Considering that many of the deeds attributed to him were astounding, and considering that the Romans were noted for their recordkeeping, it's difficult to understand why there is only one reference to his existence in their records, by Josephus, a Jewish man who more-or-less assimilated to Rome because he was a scribe.

One way to explain that is, Jesus was not considered all that important to Rome, when he was alive. Christianity only gets attention from Rome, when there is a disturbance in the force, that leads to persecution of Christians.

Pontius Pilot, was a local Roman governor, who does not see anything worthy of death, when it came to Jesus and the charges of the Jewish clergy. Jesus was of little concern, at local level, never mind the Roman empire. It was not worth writing to Rome about this event, since all was under control, locally. It was a local matter.

Pilot did not anticipate that the death of Jesus would slowly catalyze something that would eventually stick like a thorn in the paw of Rome, yet someday become part of Rome.

Another way to explain this has to do with an analogy of modern approach of the democrats. We now have revisionist history taught in schools, where facts of the past are replaced with new cherry picked facts, to push an emotional agenda of diversity.

Another way is would be the point of preserving the history of an enemy of Rome, who brings so much turmoil to their political sphere? This would help your political enemies and make your POV appear to contradict the facts you present. The IRS E-mails were lost forever, on purpose, so they could alter the history of the event. The future will assume there was no proof but there is none to be seen.

 

[Walter L. Wagner]

Owls managed fine at night and are more thermodynamically efficient flyers. Why didn't God build bats using bird DNA - or better yet, just make more birds? Why do bats resemble mammals more than birds? Garbonzo claims that 'common descent is debunked' - so he's trying to push special creation. Utter nonsense.

Yes. Owls are great night birds. The exception to most other birds. But bats are masters of night navigation by using ultrasound echo location. If you ever watch a cave with the bats emerging at night, you'll be astonished at how thick the sky becomes with flying bats. Owls are very much more solitary.

Bats fly on their fingers, which are modified with skin stretched between to become wings. Birds fly on their arms, which are modified to have feathers broaden them to be a wing. The fingers are greatly reduced. Clear evidence of convergent evolution - wings formed from completely different parts of the body.

 

[wellwisher]

If you look at arms and fingers, these are sequenced, as terms of connected parts, in the minds of humans. They are expected in a certain order, with another order considered part of a carnival freak show. Wing from fingers or wings from arms could theoretically use the same parental wing DNA. It could become a freak, relative to the rest of the clan, who expects the proper way. They will be driven away and need to start another clan.

Only a small fraction of genes on the DNA code for protein. The majority are often called junk genes, mostly because biology put all it eggs in the smaller basket instead of the big basket. The junk genes define the context in which the coding genes interact. If we change the context, we can get wings in different places; freak show effect.

Multicellular differentiation shows that without changing any of the coding genes on the DNA, we can get a variety of cell differentiations. If these were all stable single cells they would appear to be different lifeforms not all with the same DNA. This ability to character/shape shift is all based on contextual. Contextual changes allows the bulk configuration of the DNA, to change in space, shifting the potential of all the coding genes. This is a bulk process based on water potential and not random changes.

 

[GeoffP]

Yes. Owls are great night birds. The exception to most other birds. But bats are masters of night navigation by using ultrasound echo location. If you ever watch a cave with the bats emerging at night, you'll be astonished at how thick the sky becomes with flying bats. Owls are very much more solitary.

Bats fly on their fingers, which are modified with skin stretched between to become wings. Birds fly on their arms, which are modified to have feathers broaden them to be a wing. The fingers are greatly reduced. Clear evidence of convergent evolution - wings formed from completely different parts of the body.

Yeeeeees....

Look. I think we're missing each other here a little.

I'm pointing out the fallacy of garbonzo's assertion that common ancestry, itself, as a fact, is somehow flawed or falsified because of morphological convergence: it's my inference that he feels convergence is impossible or somehow unjustifiable. I'm not providing unsolicited advice to a deity the existence of which I cannot empirically demonstrate and which does not actually enter into this discussion. Garbonzo is attempting to discredit evolution. I am illustrating that his challenges are ill-founded. Wellwisher is going off about the ecstatic neo-actualization of God in evolutionary theory and attempting to slide the possibilities around to either a) the metaphysical properties of water or b) the metaphysical potentialities of genes. Fraggle is correcting my possibly false historical impressions and also asking that God get off the thread. Paddoboy is addressing the parallels of creation myth and I, I am slowly going crazy.

Back to the watery depths from whence you came.

 

[river]

Evolution

Is evolution not evident by the things we engineer and build ...?

Could primative man or even men 75 yrs. Ago produce the space shuttle ? No of course not

And not just about computers but more about the materials used

Evolution of thought is obvious

 

[Fraggle Rocker]

Is evolution not evident by the things we engineer and build ...? Could primitive man or even men 75 yrs. Ago produce the space shuttle ? No of course not. And not just about computers but more about the materials used.

The DNA of today's humans is no different from that of the first Homo sapiens 150,000 years ago.

Evolution does not explain the advances in our technology. What does explain them is a long series of inventions.

• The technology of spoken language was probably invented around 70,000 years ago. This is when archeologists and anthropologists see an explosion of complicated, coordinated activities that could not possibly have been performed by people who, at the same time, were using their hands to communicate.
• The twin technologies of farming and animal husbandry, which together comprise agriculture, were discovered/invented about 12,000 years ago. This both permitted and required people to cease their nomadic lifestyle and settle down in permanent villages. This created the first food surplus in history, so it was no longer necessary for neighboring tribes to fight over scarce resources during years of low rainfall. So villages got larger, allowing division of labor and economies of scale to increase their productivity.
• There were many incremental discoveries over the millennia that permitted people to specialize in particular trades and skills, greatly accelerating the rate of advancement. Metallurgy, written language, the exploitation of fossil fuels, electricity, and lately information technology.

This has nothing to do with biological evolution.

Evolution of thought is obvious

Yeah, okay, but this has nothing whatsoever to do with DNA and biological evolution.

We are still cavemen deep down inside. If you don't believe that, just pick up a newspaper.

 

[wellwisher]

The

We are still cavemen deep down inside. If you don't believe that, just pick up a newspaper.

So much of what modern humans are, is propped up by culture, to create an illusion that exists beyond genetic self, into the imagination. Any child can use a cell phone, but most of the children, would have no idea how to make one from scratch. This superficial behavior looks advanced, but only appears because culture provides the props. This is not self sustainable in the sense of the self reliance of animals; from scratch. This is the cavemen in the tuxedo effect; appears superficially sophisticated due to props and imagination.

The DNA and caveman aspect of the brain, is connected to the inner self and the collective unconscious. These define our human nature common to all humans. This is not cultural or prop dependent. This is very conservative and more in touch with natural human instincts; caveman. The propping up with the social tuxedo effect, allows a way for the ego go beyond the natural instincts of the inner self, via the collective and personal imagination, in both progressive and regressive ways.

For example, I can eat healthy foods from around the world, to go beyond anything a caveman would be able to have all year. Culture makes this possible not nature. Or I can eat rocks, as long as I have doctors and hospitals to prop me up. The former, because it adds to the body, more than nature alone, it makes the ego less of a drag on the inner self, allowing the inner self set point to rise. This may increase life expectancy; the DNA is more optimized.

The latter example of eating rocks in a sustainable way, but with props, by adding more drag or a higher potential with the inner self; due to being unnatural, can cause the inner self set point to lower. This has the impact of reverting behavior backwards; changes phase, to an earlier historical time, when the set point was lower. This can be disguised with external propping; sick caveman in the tuxedo still looks rich.

An interesting observation, is the poor tend to reproduce the most. According to evolutionary theory this points to natural selection; selected to reproduce by nature. The more well off, with social props, tend to want fewer children. This has to due with the props of culture, deviating the inner self set point, so it is not selected naturally, unconsciously. The selection process is done, by the ego, not the inner self and is based on props.

Modern human evolution began with the formation of the secondary center or the modern ego. This conscious center gives us will power and choice. These choices can place a drag on the inner self, due to subjective choices apart from natural instinct. The ego was possible because the inner self had become more than the sum of its genetic parts, and could support a secondary center, beyond the DNA; free choice apart from natural. Further evolution, using this secondary center or ego, was about increasing the inner self set point back to where it has been before the ego, but now with the ego; return to paradise. This would be natural humans for the inner self, and healthy cultural choices for the ego.

 

[spidergoat]

Evolution

Is evolution not evident by the things we engineer and build ...?

Could primative man or even men 75 yrs. Ago produce the space shuttle ? No of course not

And not just about computers but more about the materials used

Evolution of thought is obvious

That has nothing to do with biological evolution.

 

[Fraggle Rocker]

An interesting observation, is the poor tend to reproduce the most. According to evolutionary theory this points to natural selection; selected to reproduce by nature. The more well off, with social props, tend to want fewer children. This has to due with the props of culture, deviating the inner self set point, so it is not selected naturally, unconsciously. The selection process is done, by the ego, not the inner self and is based on props.

I think you've missed the point. It's only in the last couple of generations that the poor have larger families. From the Stone Age, right up until the end of the 19th century, infant mortality ("infant" meaning too young to reproduce yet) was 80%. Every family had to have as many children as possible, to ensure the survival of the community. Only since science (vaccines, antibiotics), civil engineering (covered sewers, running water) and businessmen (wrapped food, clean streets due to the replacement of horses by cars) reduced infant mortality to below one percent that it was no longer necessary for every woman to have eight or twelve children so at least two would survive.

The reasons for poor people having more children are many: limited access to health care such as contraception, lack of education, broken families that can't instill a sense of responsibility, a crying need for love that sometimes can only come from a baby, and (especially in the Afro-American community) males locked up in prison for doing exactly the same things that Euro-Americans get away with every day, leaving a dearth of male role models... need I go on?

In the Third World, the reason is simpler. It's only a couple of generations from the time when every family had to have eight children so ensure that two will simply survive. For them, eight surviving children is a godsend, since they don't have the education and cultural overlays to understand the down-side of this phenomenon.

Modern human evolution began with the formation of the secondary center or the modern ego. This conscious center gives us will power and choice. These choices can place a drag on the inner self, due to subjective choices apart from natural instinct. The ego was possible because the inner self had become more than the sum of its genetic parts, and could support a secondary center, beyond the DNA; free choice apart from natural. Further evolution, using this secondary center or ego, was about increasing the inner self set point back to where it has been before the ego, but now with the ego; return to paradise. This would be natural humans for the inner self, and healthy cultural choices for the ego.

I'm not sure what you mean by "modern" human evolution. We're only a few thousand generations away from our Paleolithic ancestors. That's not enough time for any major genetic changes. Inside our heads, we're absolutely no different from the nomadic hunter-gatherers.

 

[garbonzo]

You demand a great change to theory. Great changes require great evidence.

No, you are entirely incorrect. Einstein said that; 'No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong.'

Now, that's twice you became unscientific when defending Evolution.

Once, you claimed that a theory can only be replaced if one can provide an explanation to be put in its place, denying that sometimes it is simply better to admit we don't know and start anew.

Now, you claim that a theory can only be changed by great evidence, but any scientist will tell you that the flimsiest counter-evidence can completely wreck a theory.

Twice, you have been unscientific when defending Evolution. Keep in mind that the argument you are using are not yours. I know that they are not yours because I have been discussing Evolution for the good part of the last 10 years of my life. I have seen all those arguments before, so they are not yours.

Think about what it means about the people you are learning them from.

Do you suppose that all organisms that share any feature must have a closer relationship than those that do not?

Let me remind you of your own question: "Which features do we have that we could not possibly share with a common ancestor of something else in the Mammalia? Call your examples."

The examples are called. Those are features we do have that we could not possibly share with a common ancestor of something else in the Mammalia.

Now address them properly.

However, since we have now entered the realm of fairy tales, allow me a selective quote that I think should be addressed:

Humans and birds certainly shared a reptilian answer long ago

Prove.

special creation should be special.

It is special. Why would it not be special?

In the case of creationism, why would an almighty deity be recycling materials?

Already answered that. Anything, be it a god or an alien species, that have figured out the spark of life will have figured out engineering long before. Recycling, replaceable parts, those are basic engineering principles. It is the smart thing to do.

I did not fail to notice that you did not reply that it was not the smart thing to do. You made a theological argument that it would make the creation less 'special'. That's because we both know that the mystery of life is hard to crack. It would take someone smart to do it. And we expect someone smart to do it the smart way, and the smart way is the way it was done.

You are now left grasping at straws in a theological argument that is clearly out of your depth. You sure you wanna go down this road?

Are things not so special? Why is the deity letting species interbreed? Doesn't he want to keep each kind to itself? Why is the deity using materials that might allow his creations to get busy with each other? Doesn't that kind of run counter to special creation?

Since your argument is essentially theological, allow me a theological answer to it. Isaiah 55:8-9. That you believe yourself to be apt to judge God's behavior as if He was a simple human like you is not merely ridiculous. It is actually beyond contempt.

There has been plenty of evidence of common ancestry. Nothing we have discovered disproves it.

Pay attention to the argument, if you will. Nobody is ever saying that there isn't evidence for common ancestry. As I said myself, DNA itself fits equally well in any creation narrative, including Evolution. However, Science does not run on 'for' evidence. Science runs on lack of counter-evidence, and every single instance of 'convergent evolution' is a counter-evidence for common ancestry.

There is nothing in the second law of thermodynamics that rules out life, evolution, or indeed processes that produce greater physical order from lesser physical order. In fact, the Second Law clearly allows for spatially and/or temporally local reversals of entropy.

Ah, yes, the good old bait and switch. The statement is partially true, but I make a point of reading every word. It is true, the 2nd law does not rule out life, as if it did, we would not exist. But it does rule out evolution. A local reduction in entropy requires a greater increase in entropy of the external environment.

Care to explain how that happened?

 

[billvon]

No, you are entirely incorrect. Einstein said that; 'No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong.'

Good quote. And no experiment, ever, has proven evolution wrong. Thus it is a strong theory.

Now, you claim that a theory can only be changed by great evidence, but any scientist will tell you that the flimsiest counter-evidence can completely wreck a theory.

That, of course, is complete bullshit. As an example, Theorist-Constant12345 recently posted all sorts of nonsense about how light didn't exist. As evidence he posted videos of himself shining a laser pointer through a glass of water. That is the flimsiest evidence you can imagine; indeed, it was wholly and completely insufficient to prove that the theory that "light exists" was incorrect.

Already answered that. Anything, be it a god or an alien species, that have figured out the spark of life will have figured out engineering long before. Recycling, replaceable parts, those are basic engineering principles. It is the smart thing to do.

Once again the example fails, because it requires a god or an alien species to be both brilliant and moronic. A theory that requires a simultaneously brilliant and moronic creator is not supportable.

Pay attention to the argument, if you will. Nobody is ever saying that there isn't evidence for common ancestry. As I said myself, DNA itself fits equally well in any creation narrative, including Evolution. However, Science does not run on 'for' evidence. Science runs on lack of counter-evidence, and every single instance of 'convergent evolution' is a counter-evidence for common ancestry.

No, there has never been an example of convergent evolution that runs counter to the theory of common ancestry. Indeed, even in organisms that use completely different structures for their eyes, you can trace the tissue used back to a common ancestor.

A local reduction in entropy requires a greater increase in entropy of the external environment.
Care to explain how that happened?

Google "crystallization." Unless you claim that God or aliens cause it, you have an example of a local reduction in entropy.

 

[garbonzo]

Going through the pages again. I'll get caught up after the next set of replies:

Darwinian evolution (descent with modification) is not known to be incorrect. If you wish to falsify it feel free to do so.

Of course it is known to be incorrect. That's why they keep 'fixing' it. Something that is correct does not need to be adapted to every new piece of evidence that appears every other month.

Embryos for humans and other animals are similar at the early stages of life after conception.

Embryology was demonstrated to be a hoax.

Never - which is why even today we continue to do research on all branches of science.

Then your previous point is moot. I am not obligated to provide a better explanation than Evolutionary Theory. I can simply say I don't know the right answer, but I know that Evolution is wrong. And then science can actually progress rather than being hindered in a senseless quest to prove the 19th Century's Atheist Creation Myth.

By the way, did you know that Evolution is not new? That the idea is over 2000 years old?

Watch National Geographic's video on how, and the many different times, the evolution has created the eye.

No. Explain it to me yourself like I am five. If you do not do it yourself, you will not be forced to examine the argument thoroughly and therefore will not be forced to acknowledge its problems.

SUMMARY: The Theory of Evolution, ToE, is very much supported by these facts about prevalence of pleiotropy.
I don't comment on your other items as that would make post too long- but they are equally false suggestions that they refute the ToE.
I just took one from your list that is a little bit harder than the others to smash to shreds.
You must have also considered it to be hardest to smash - you listed it twice!

Your reply shows that, as I said, you do not understand Pleiotropy, nor its relevance to the discussion.

It is simple, really. There isn't a one gene does one thing in your body like most people think. The truth is that all genes take part into multiple processes, and any alteration on any gene whatsoever will affect multiple processes. Thevast majority of those alterations will be detrimental. Beneficial mutations are so rare that a true beneficial mutation has never been documented.

I will say it again. A true beneficial mutation has never been documented. Circumstantial beneficial mutations do occur (sickle-cell) but they are circumstantial (it is pointless to be resistant to malaria in a place where the disease does not exist) and are accompanied by a host of deleterious mutations (The life expectancy of persons with sickle cell anemia is reduced. Some (...) do not survive infancy or early childhood. (...) Most patients suffer intermittent pain crises, fatigue, bacterial infections, and progressive tissue and organ damage. Impaired growth and development is the end result of the physical and emotional trauma that is endured by children with sickle cell anemia. source ). On the other hand, entirely deleterious mutations abound.

Now, if Evolution is true, and organisms which possess circumstantial beneficial mutations are selected for due to the benefit they provide, it also selects for the detrimental effects such mutation produces. Multiply it by a million mutations and explain to me how is it that we are not retarded piles of green goo right now.

How were they countered? I'm not sure what you're referring to here. If you can give specific details, we can talk about it.

Because they already happened. We found microbes in asteroids. Stuff that survives in the depths of volcanoes. A bacteria that thrives on arsenic. Everything that appear that goes against Evolution does no disprove it, rather, Evolutionists merely claim that Evolution is capable of more than we thought of before. You did not deny when I said this, because we both know it is true.

If we dug up an alien or a demon, it would be proof that Evolution is capable of more than Evolutionists thought before, not that it is false. It is unfalsifiable because the capabilities of Evolution have never been fully defined. They are left intentionally vague so they can stretch for as much as needed in order to never be falsified.

If during a certain period there were great change of species and lots of mutations, Evolution can do it. If during a certain period there were few change of species and few mutations, Evolution can do it. If a species underwent a lot of changes, Evolution can do it. If it underwent very few changes over a long time span, Evolution can do it. If it underwent a lot of changes during a period, and then remained stable for another period, and then underwent a lot of changes again, Evolution can do it too, no problem.

It. Cannot. Be. Ever. Falsified. No matter what you present as evidence, it will simply be redefined to encompass it too.

 

[billvon]

Of course it is known to be incorrect. That's why they keep 'fixing' it. Something that is correct does not need to be adapted to every new piece of evidence that appears every other month.

That statement is as foolish as saying as "Light as an EM phenomena is known to be incorrect; that's why they can't decide if it's a particle or a wave."

Embryology was demonstrated to be a hoax.

So you consider the science of embryology to be a hoax? Or were you referring to the "ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny" argument, which was something completely different?

Now, if Evolution is true, and organisms which possess circumstantial beneficial mutations are selected for due to the benefit they provide, it also selects for the detrimental effects such mutation produces.

OK. Sounds like you do not understand what "selection" means. Which means your entire argument hinges on the classic "argument from ignorance" - "I cannot understand evolution; therefore, rather than me accepting that I might be wrong, I will claim that evolution is wrong."

Because they already happened. We found microbes in asteroids.

No, we didn't.

It. Cannot. Be. Ever. Falsified. No matter what you present as evidence, it will simply be redefined to encompass it too.

Of course it can. You merely lack the understanding of how that could happen.

 

[garbonzo]

So you consider the science of embryology to be a hoax? Or were you referring to the "ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny" argument, which was something completely different?

Did you click the link? Waiting on GeoffP before I reply.

 

[iceaura]

From the Stone Age, right up until the end of the 19th century, infant mortality ("infant" meaning too young to reproduce yet) was 80%.

That ridiculous assertion needs to be dropped from your repertoire. It damages the credibility of everything connected to it.

Embryology was demonstrated to be a hoax. - - - - We found microbes in asteroids. Stuff that survives in the depths of volcanoes - - - - - A true beneficial mutation has never been documented. - - - Something that is correct does not need to be adapted to every new piece of evidence that appears every other month - - - -

They always go spla, eventually.

If during a certain period there were great change of species and lots of mutations, Evolution can do it. If during a certain period there were few change of species and few mutations, Evolution can do it. If a species underwent a lot of changes, Evolution can do it. If it underwent very few changes over a long time span, Evolution can do it. If it underwent a lot of changes during a period, and then remained stable for another period, and then underwent a lot of changes again, Evolution can do it too, no problem.

Since those are all observed aspects of reality, that any scientific theory of the matter would have to agree with and explain, your comment there is mysterious.

Are you arguing against the possibility of scientific theory in this field, altogether?

 

[Fraggle Rocker]

From the Stone Age, right up until the end of the 19th century, infant mortality ("infant" meaning too young to reproduce yet) was 80%.

That ridiculous assertion needs to be dropped from your repertoire. It damages the credibility of everything connected to it.

I've seen it reiterated a dozen times by everyone from paleontologists to anthropologists to historians. This was the reason that women had so many children: so that enough would survive to keep the tribe (or the species) from dying out. And this is the reason for the population crisis in the Third World: we gifted them with vaccines and antibiotics so that eight of their ten children would survive instead of two of ten, before they could grasp the consequences of this gift. There was no "population problem" in places like Africa 200, 500 or two thousand years ago, even though their birth rate was the same as today.

The infant mortality rate in the United States in its early decades was not quite so dire, because its population density was low so that it had clean water naturally--water purification and indoor plumbing were two of the civil engineering technologies that eventually lowered the infant mortality rate in the rest of the world. Vaccines in the late 19th century also played a major role, but sheer cleanliness was also a factor.

Medieval European Christians believed that immersion in water was a sin, so they rarely bathed, if ever. This was one of the reasons that the plague took such a large toll, while the Jews among them seemed to be "protected by Satan," when in fact they simply bathed regularly.

 

[spidergoat]

I think you've missed the point. It's only in the last couple of generations that the poor have larger families. From the Stone Age, right up until the end of the 19th century, infant mortality ("infant" meaning too young to reproduce yet) was 80%. Every family had to have as many children as possible, to ensure the survival of the community. Only since science (vaccines, antibiotics), civil engineering (covered sewers, running water) and businessmen (wrapped food, clean streets due to the replacement of horses by cars) reduced infant mortality to below one percent that it was no longer necessary for every woman to have eight or twelve children so at least two would survive.

The reasons for poor people having more children are many: limited access to health care such as contraception, lack of education, broken families that can't instill a sense of responsibility, a crying need for love that sometimes can only come from a baby, and (especially in the Afro-American community) males locked up in prison for doing exactly the same things that Euro-Americans get away with every day, leaving a dearth of male role models... need I go on?

In the Third World, the reason is simpler. It's only a couple of generations from the time when every family had to have eight children so ensure that two will simply survive. For them, eight surviving children is a godsend, since they don't have the education and cultural overlays to understand the down-side of this phenomenon.I'm not sure what you mean by "modern" human evolution. We're only a few thousand generations away from our Paleolithic ancestors. That's not enough time for any major genetic changes. Inside our heads, we're absolutely no different from the nomadic hunter-gatherers.

Infant mortality was never 80%, I researched this some time ago. Historical rates were around 30-40%. Still high, but nowhere near 80%.

 

[Billy T]

Infant mortality was never 80%, I researched this some time ago. Historical rates were around 30-40%. Still high, but nowhere near 80%.

At what age could a child die and not be counted in the "infant mortality" data you cite? Fraggle probably should have said "pre-sexual maturity mortality." It was high - much higher than what most call "infant mortality" as it includes infant mortality as most define that term.

Lactation is a moderately effective form of birth control - many died after the next younger one was getting Mother's milk instead of them, perhaps at age 3 or 4. Also near starvation, delays fertility in girls. Some dying at age 14 would be in Fraggle's defined total.

 

[spidergoat]

First year of life.

 

[Fraggle Rocker]

At what age could a child die and not be counted in the "infant mortality" data you cite? Fraggle probably should have said "pre-sexual maturity mortality."

As I said earlier (or perhaps in another discussion, if so then please excuse me), anthropologists and historians count "infant mortality" as the death of a human before puberty. These children are (to put it rudely) "wasted" because they don't contribute to the perpetuation of the species.

Of course, the age of pubescence was a few years younger in the Paleolithic, as was menopause--I don't have the precise figures.

It was high - much higher than what most call "infant mortality" as it includes infant mortality as most define that term.

Indeed. In today's prosperous nations with professional medical care available to virtually the entire population, we've redefined the term to refer only to the people we regard as "infants." Some would only include children who can't talk, others perhaps those who can't walk, and others those who are still nursing. Obviously these figures cannot be compared to the "infant mortality" figures calculated by scientists for previous eras.

Still, in modern America, the infant mortality rate is astoundingly low by historical standards, any way you measure it. It is, indeed, only after puberty that the death rate begins to increase and, sadly, it has nothing to do with health and disease. I can't remember the entire list, but three of the five leading causes of death of American teenagers are gunshots, road accidents, and overdoses on legal drugs they purloin from their parents' medicine cabinets.

I'm fairly sure that drowning is the #1 killer of toddlers.