Evolutionary Biology and Resources. Mysteries that aren't.
The famous journal, The New Yorker notes:
So their conclusion?
Well, I don't know, as I couldn't get past the paywall. I think I know the answer, and I'll get to that in a moment.
Mostly I'm posting this, however, due to the stupid anti-scientific comments that followed the Twitter article.
Witness:
Nov 7
Replying to @NewYorker
Wonder how many were vaccinated- i think that's an honest and fair question no one is willing to ask
Mark Yerger@yerger224
Replying to @HoltonMusicMan and @NewYorker
its fair to ask anything. it is a fact that this all occurred during the Trump presidency! its fair to ask what his administrations involvement was in all this. yet he continues to evade this issue. I havent seen any denials or documents showing me otherwise.
Well played Yerger.
The same dipshittery appears in this comment:
BiancaD 🇺🇦🌻🤪❣🐷@rigbydan
Nov 8
Replying to @NewYorker
How many were vaccinated, since it was now confirmed that those of us who said the vaccine affected our cycles were proven correct?
Janice's Magic Wand@leighleighmw
Nov 8
Replying to @rigbydan and @NewYorker
There was no vaccine available to children under 12 in 2020.
Again, good, if obvious, comment there to the apparent memory impaired and scientifically bereft BiancaD.
And:
Nov 8
Replying to @NewYorker
One reason is the hormones in the milk. I always bought organic milk and my daughter did not have early puberty like some of her friends.
Lone Stranger@LoneStr06411351
Nov 9
Replying to @Persona49820853 and @NewYorker
You got taken for a ride, then. Pediatric associations have firmly established the actual reason in the vast majority of situations is abundant nutrition. Puberty is delayed in environments of food scarcity. Which predominated much of human history until the last 100 years.
And that is exactly it.
In reality, the onset of puberty ages for girls isn't getting depressed due to hormones in your GMO cheese or mystery chemicals in your Blue Bunny, it's because human beings, or at least girls (one poster raises the good point that these stories seem to omit boys) are genetically programmed for lower onset of puberty ages in times of:1) high nutrition and 2) low physical output.
What were people doing during the pandemic?
I submit to you, they were sitting at home, eating.
In a state of nature, if girls are sitting around eating, their genes think "wow, we're in a super abundant period right now. . . move her up on the reproduction scale".
Now, I'm not claiming that's a good thing, but I am claiming that it's obviously the opposite of this?
Nov 8
Replying to @NewYorker
Does that indicate our future ability to reproduce is questionable?
Lone Stranger @LoneStr06411351
Lone Stranger, did you skip biology class? Girls going to puberty earlier has the polar opposite effect.
Sheesh.
And that's why it's not a good thing.
What this is really evidence of is; 1) too much food, much of which is high calorie bad food, and 2) too little exercise.
Feed girls real food and get them involved in physical activity, the onset age will go up.
Better yet, get them out hunting and fishing, and learning how to produce their own food, and the onset age will go up, their health will improve, and the few who will be taken advantage of will decline in number.
Or, as noted:
Depends. In mammals at least the drift is to delay reproductive capability in times of stress or famine, so as to limit the population numbers straining already critical shortages.
When nutrition is abundant & ubiquitous is when sexual maturity manifests earlier.
Rage quitting this timeline@kesskessler401
