Friday night quiz

[yamin]

Thats impressive, especially with Golders Cottage

 

[Hatster]

John of Gaunt would certainly be very tall by any standards, but we shouldn't think of people in the past as being uniformly shorter than they are now. I think it's reasonable to say that certain people and classes of society would be consierably taller at any point than certain other classes (perhaps just as certain social classes today may tend to be more obese than other social classes). There's quite an interesting article here:

http://researchnews.osu.edu/archive/medimen.htm

Aargh, Friday morning pedantry!

 

[yamin]

Its like my pedantry about life expectancy - I often hear it said that in 'those days' you didn't expect to live beyond 45 or so. In fact of course, the average life expectancy was just made to look shorter by infant death. If you made it past your 11th birthday then your life expectancy was only 8-10 years less than it is now.

 

[JoceAndChris]

People talk a lot of carp about the olden days, don't even get me started on it.

 

[Moo]

the average life expectancy was just made to look shorter by infant death. If you made it past your 11th birthday then your life expectancy was only 8-10 years less than it is now.

Fascinating. My grandad (b. 1881 in the slums of London**) was hale and hearty and still repairing his garage roof when he was nudging ninety.

** Confirmed by Booth's maps.

 

[yamin]

Golly, I hope he's passed those hale and hearty genes on to you! I would imagine though, that if you could survive a childhood in the slums of london, with the risks of typhoid, dysentry, pneumonia, scarlet fever, TB, to name but a few, you were made of pretty tough stuff!

And yet another argument against any sort of sedentary retirement!

 

[Flyfisher]

Ah, averages. The vast majority of people have more than the average number of legs, or arms, or eyes . . .

As for 'hale and hearty genes', don't forget that we're all the result of an unbroken chain of descendents, none of whom succumbed to disease and pestilence and all of whom were fit and able enough to live by their wits and outrun their foes** - at least until they produced some offspring.

** other belief systems are available.

 

[yamin]

:lol: Or 2 and a half children! :lol:

 

[Penners]

People talk a lot of carp

Particularly in Japan, I believe, where it's regarded as a great delicacy.

 

[Moo]

Golly, I hope he's passed those hale and hearty genes on to you!

Oh, he has, in spades!

Fly, I must take issue with you about your "unbroken chain of descendents". What about the families where the average life expectancy, going back many generations, is still little more than fifty?

 

[Penners]

My family tree definitely shows an unbroken line of descendents. Even my great great great great grandfather had children.

:wink:

 

[Schoolmarm]

Moo, he means for you to exist, actually be here yourself, you must have an unbroken chain of descendants who lived long enough to give birth.

All the way back to the very first human being in fact. 8) Well done all of us. :lol: :lol: :lol:

 

[Penners]

All the way back to the very first human being in fact.

I made the self-same observation, the last time I passed the queue outside Macdonalds.

 

[yamin]

All the way back to the very first human being in fact.

I made the self-same observation, the last time I passed the queue outside Macdonalds.

:lol: :lol: Wish I'd said that!!!!

 

[JoceAndChris]

Let's hope Mr P's move doesn't dry up his remarks!

 

[Flyfisher]

Sorry for any confusion Moo. Schoolmarm's right; I meant we're all the result of a long chain of ancestors, all of which survived to produce offspring. Obvious at one level, of course, but quite intruiging at another - there must be countless millions of potential ancestors who didn't survive for all sorts of reasons and their genes are lost forever. But, for a multitude of reasons, every single one of our ancestors were successful at reproducing.

Your point about family frailties is a good one but can be explained by the fact that anything which leads to premature death after childbirth will not be weeded out by natural selection; the genes - frailties included - have already been passed on. This applies to any disease of 'old age'.

 

[worms]

their genes are lost forever...

Hmmm... I'm not convinced that is correct. In all probability the vast majority of the genes that Homo sapiens has ever are had are still with us (in population terms). It's the unique combination of genes that each of us has, interacting with particular environmental circumstances that dictate our chances of survival to childbearing age. The gene combinations which are disadvantageous in one set of circumstances, can lend a survival advantage in another. A single-gene mutation would surely need to be both prematurely lethal in all cases (regardless of environment) and also be completely dominant to have no chance of survival into successive generations.

 

[Flyfisher]

Correct. "Their genes" refers to the unique gene combinations in a particular person. A gene can actually exist in many different individuals and, indeed, different species.

 

[FamilyWiggs]

A single-gene mutation would surely need to be both prematurely lethal in all cases (regardless of environment) and also be completely dominant to have no chance of survival into successive generations.

And of course, we have no surviving examples of such genes to study. It's all a bit self fulfilling really.

On the topic of unbroken descendents, we males have the added pressure of having inherited an unbroken line of surname which could end with our generation. I am the single son of a single son with only distant cousins removed a bit. Fortunately I have 2 sons. I have a friend with a decidely Norman surname who is also the single son of a single son - and he's had 2 daughters and now his wife keeps showing him special offers from BUPA for cut-price (no pun intended) vasectomies :shock:

It may be an artificial and sexist "problem" (I fully understand my genetic inheritance comes equally from my maternal and paternal line and convention dictated that SWMBO lost her surname when we married) - nevertheless it is one many men feel keenly.

 

[yamin]

Surely a situation of little concern since you have 2 sons? One to carry the name and a 'spare' too? Our surname disappeared with my generation of 4 girls and a girl cousin too. Thats it, gone. Agree it has a certain pathos, but as you say, its purely a matter of 'form' that makes it descend down the male line.