If not, how were more offspring produced?
210995
They didnt exist so the answer is no because they needed to exist first in order for the analysis to begin.\n\nWe know they didnt exist because science has demonstrated that we evolved to "humans" we were simply plopped on earth. We know the earth is billions of years old. We have found the remains of hominid life forms and we have shown the process of evolution. \n\nDividing this into macro and micro is silly and the uptiome of rationlization. Sorry, I too wish I was made in God's image.
544430
Yeah, more mitochondria for energy and more ribosomes (rough ER) to produce proteins necessary for contraction (actin + myosin).\n\nRegards,\nRyan
237761
No, the sperm contains only half of the genetic information that is needed to make a baby, so when the sperm (50%) and the ovum (50%) merge, you get all the genetic information needed to make a baby. Cloning means when the baby's information is not taken from the sperm+ovum, but from another cell in the body (which has 100% of genetic info, like all cells in the body, except the sperm and the ovum). \nBut a human baby has not yet been cloned, only sheep and other animals - it is dangerous to clone because a process called recombination does not occur - that's like mixing. When the sperm and ovum gets together, the DNA gets "mixed" and often the "best" DNA gets selected to give you strong and healthy babies. From a single body cell, the DNA cannot get "mixed" and have to be used the way it is, so the sheep born from this process, for instance, ended up getting all kinds of weird diseases. \n\nPS: the more info part of your question does not make any sense
160554
Potency and a possibility for creating children.\n\nBTW, when you ask an open-ended question, don't provide the answers in advance!  You'll get more honest, creative responses that way.
237508
If this were possible which it is not then what you would have is spontaneous cloning.  The offspring would not only be female it would be an exact duplicate of the mother.  There is no genetic material available in human females to reproduce anything other than a clone without fertilization.
280423
I've also heard of studies similar to those you're referring to; I agree 100% w/ you that high population density is a pretty feasible reason for homosexuality and violence, these may well be nature's "control mechanisms" for avoiding LOCAL overpopulation. As far as the whole world being overpopulated, I don't agree w/ you.... food production nowadays, for example, could feed more than 100% of the world's population adequately if equally spread among all human beings; furthermore, global birth rates are rapidly declining, which could actually lead to global UNDERpopulation just a few centuries from now.
437534
Yes, of course it does. Breeding within a limited population always increases the incidence of recessive gene expression. Interestingly, a lot of these societies practice consanguineous marriage, which further amplifies the risk.
328232
The simple answer is no, they don't produce more sperm & just because they're bigger than average, doesn't mean that they are any less fertile.
184608
hmm always thought there were more girls than guys in this world, never really thought about it, but according the the current theories behind genes, there should be an equal chance between recieving the chromosomes for a boy as a girl.
94197
No, I don't think there would be as many people.  There would still be those that would have sex to procreate, because they do want a family.  \n\nBut it's such a large group that wouldn't have children that I feel it would affect the number of people on earth. There are those that have "surprises" due to having sex because it's an enjoyable experience.  They may have wanted children anyway, but it's possible they wouldn't have had as many.  Or for those of us that don't want children at all, there may have been a few surprises that definitely wouldn't occur if we didn't have sex.\n\nGood question.  :)
492844
No that is not true.  Men produce new sperm everyday for the rest of their lives.
163238
Yes, they discovered the gene that causes it. That should help in finding a treatment and who is at risk of having an affected child.
12573
well it realy is hard to say how many sets of twins or triplets how about that one lady who gave birth to eight babys now she could go to a lab and make test tube babys so she could have more so it realy depends on a lot of varibles and i would not care to even take a guess at how many babies are possable but she could have hundreds with todays tecnolagy and fertility drugs.
632638
I can assure you that this is absolutely not biologically possible.  Members of different species cannot reproduce and produce viable offpsring together, according to the classical definition of a species.
151366
Overpopulation is a very serious problem. Populations grow exponentially and any environment eventually reaches its carrying capacity, the limit at which the available resources can sustain a population.  An artificially imposed limit is probably not the answer, as it can have destabilizing cultural affects, such as those seen in China where those limits have been tried.  Actually the best answer might be addressing poverty.  Wealthier populations actually tend to reproduce less.  There are many reason for this, including education and access to birth control methods.  Mostly, it is because children cease to be seen as an economic resource.  In agrarian cultures, children are basically cheap labor and so there is an economic incentive to procreate more.
573985
Danged interesting.  I will look into this.  I have said myself that the future belongs to the best breeders of any species.  Why are the pandas and white tigers endangered and the racoon and rat thriving? Adaptability and reproduction.  It's like WHO do you think are going to inherit the earth? The little WASP couple in the gated community with one or two perfect little lily white children or the Mexican couple with eight kids who will live anywhere and do anything to survive?  Whose kids are going to be the most capable of adapting and thriving? The robust little peasants or the little hot house plants?
616749
no birth control and a lot of sex. yeah and they are probably more fertile too.