Comments on: Infertility Breakthrough – Evolutionary Battle Between The Sexes

By: Paladin

Paladin — Sat, 19 Sep 2009 07:19:33 +0000

It’s amazing how everyone will unquestioningly accept basic suppositions. Do we really know if the infertility rate is higher than it was 100 or 1000 years ago? Remember that for a couple to have a fertility problem, only one spouse has to be infertile; thus, 10 percent isn’t as bad as it sounds.

I should also point out that there are enough old stories about “barren” women and kings who couldn’t manage to sire an heir to give us good reason to believe that the scope of this problem is not unprecedented.

By: Linda B

Linda B — Tue, 15 Sep 2009 09:27:19 +0000

The “brief” moment of physical contact is irrelevant from an evolutionary standpoint. In fact, we accumulate many small changes in our DNA over our lifetime, and that includes changes to sperm, which are continually dividing and always at risk for slight DNA changes. A single change in a single base pair out of many millions could be the change that allows a sperm to be more successful (or fatal to the sperm). Changes like this happen all the time in nature. As an example, it is why we need different flu vaccines every year…a single small change in the DNA can have enormous consequences. As another example, it is why we were able to develop so many new species of dogs over the past few centuries.

By: Alex

Alex — Tue, 15 Sep 2009 09:09:31 +0000

L B, think of it this way…if you don’t have “super sperm” it is hard for you to impregnate your mate, which means the union results in a small number of offspring, or more likely, you adopt. If you do, you likely end up having several children, perhaps having some accidents early in life which are put up for adoption by none other than those who lack your “super sperm”…rinse and repeat for several thousand years..and you have evolution. A larger population of men possessing this super sperm.

By: Aine

Aine — Tue, 15 Sep 2009 01:19:11 +0000

To L.B.:
If men’s bodies didn’t evolve, the spieces would simply die out. Since that hasn’t happened …

Let me try again: It didn’t work, it didn’t work, it didn’t work, it didn’t work: oh, look, there’s only one type that works.

And it isn’t a moment of brief contact, it’s repeated exposure, barring oaths of celebacy. Often with the same mate. Unfortunately I’m neither a scientist, nor a pre-school teacher, so I’m not sure how to help you get it. Luckily, the odds of you ever looking back at the article and reading my response to you are quite low, so it probably doesn’t really matter.

It’s interesting. I’m emailing it to my boyfriend. Thank God I’m seeking the end of the gene pool who would “get it” without explaination.

By: L B

L B — Mon, 14 Sep 2009 18:41:13 +0000

This does not make sense. How do men’s and women’s bodies evolve based on a brief moment of contact, especially men’s bodies who have no way of knowing how the women’s body is reacting to sperm?