Quoted excerpt out of The Seven Daughters Of Eve [as by Bryan Sykes] Science That Reveals Our Genetic Ancestry (pg 190)...
“Most mutations that occur in genes which do have important functions interfere with their proper working and are soon eliminated by natural selection. It was certainly a puzzle to find that there were so few mutations on the Y-chromosome. The most popular theory advanced to account for this lack of variation was that it had to do with the fact that, under the right circumstances, men can have a lot more children than women. If, in the past, only a few men had lots of children, and therefore lots of sons, their Y-chromosomes would spread around quickly at the expense of their unfortunate male contemporaries who had few children or none at all. If this had happened a lot, the theory went, there would be far fewer different Y-chromosomes around today than if all men had roughly the same number of children.”
I was curiously browsing some pages with adoption statistics but was not greatly persuaded. There seems to be a large pool of minorities represented in the total amount; that are longingly expecting to find new homes. Thusly, one might allude that this collective populace can be somewhat vulnerable in the grand hope they've placed on an open slot. I'm not very aware of the political concerns implicit, yet may count upon standard routines when one is establishing favorable households. In a lot of impending dilemmas it may be best for the aspiring guardian(s) to be at the birth, and to meet the biological progenitor(s) after having finalized the main details of this event. It's also most likely preferred that the developing children be in the know about their adopted status and in what ways it can beneficially position them in the present stage, and the upcoming future. In the higher interest of our conjoined society it may be best to propagate awareness on this, so that others are more eager to willingly commit to infant care on the whole. It'd be culturally advantageous to take more notice of the diverse variety waiting and the budding promises they have in store for all of us. In the past, some vile profiteering businessman could have tried to wrongly exploit them in a way that they became dependent consumers of an abominable marketing scheme (see wire mesh chimp studies). We have to be alert of the psychological considerations and the many forms they take on when being protectively observant in such fragile matters. As I've said before, I am not intensely familiar with the safety precautions nor the legal mandates already put into effect for the sake of a controlled adoptive environment.
Note: I've posted this in the health related field despite being a bit scientifically motivated.
“Most mutations that occur in genes which do have important functions interfere with their proper working and are soon eliminated by natural selection. It was certainly a puzzle to find that there were so few mutations on the Y-chromosome. The most popular theory advanced to account for this lack of variation was that it had to do with the fact that, under the right circumstances, men can have a lot more children than women. If, in the past, only a few men had lots of children, and therefore lots of sons, their Y-chromosomes would spread around quickly at the expense of their unfortunate male contemporaries who had few children or none at all. If this had happened a lot, the theory went, there would be far fewer different Y-chromosomes around today than if all men had roughly the same number of children.”
I was curiously browsing some pages with adoption statistics but was not greatly persuaded. There seems to be a large pool of minorities represented in the total amount; that are longingly expecting to find new homes. Thusly, one might allude that this collective populace can be somewhat vulnerable in the grand hope they've placed on an open slot. I'm not very aware of the political concerns implicit, yet may count upon standard routines when one is establishing favorable households. In a lot of impending dilemmas it may be best for the aspiring guardian(s) to be at the birth, and to meet the biological progenitor(s) after having finalized the main details of this event. It's also most likely preferred that the developing children be in the know about their adopted status and in what ways it can beneficially position them in the present stage, and the upcoming future. In the higher interest of our conjoined society it may be best to propagate awareness on this, so that others are more eager to willingly commit to infant care on the whole. It'd be culturally advantageous to take more notice of the diverse variety waiting and the budding promises they have in store for all of us. In the past, some vile profiteering businessman could have tried to wrongly exploit them in a way that they became dependent consumers of an abominable marketing scheme (see wire mesh chimp studies). We have to be alert of the psychological considerations and the many forms they take on when being protectively observant in such fragile matters. As I've said before, I am not intensely familiar with the safety precautions nor the legal mandates already put into effect for the sake of a controlled adoptive environment.
Note: I've posted this in the health related field despite being a bit scientifically motivated.
