egafd.com

Obviously your comprehension of English Grammar is poor.

"Many of the great apes have very structured family groups where grandparents are involved in rearing grand children, even great grandchildren.

They also survive beyond their own child rearing days - as do some whales, most elephants, crocodiles, giant turtles......"

The first sentence referes to animals rearing grandchildren. The second sentence, which I paragraphed for greater clarity, deals with animals surviving beyond child rearing days. Two different points, two different thoughts, two different sentences and paragraphs. In your response you chose to string them together.

As for swans, again you confuse two issues. If you don't understand that the sentence "Try swans for life long partnerships even after fecundity." stands on its own, deals with longevity after child rearing and doesn't have anything to do with raising grandchildren, there's no point in discussing anything with you as you seem unable to understand the sense of simple English

Now Mysteryman, you seem to be a little confused, I'll help you along shall I?

You attacked my statement:

[quote]"Humans are probably the only animal where the parents don't die after their 'child rearing' years."[/quote]

I have already stated that in the context of the original topic, the statement wasn't to be taken so literally as you have. I have already stated that I used the word 'probably', and not, 'definately'. This was because I didn't spend time searching the web to back up this one statement because is was just a general feeling I had, and it wouldn't have mattered much anyway as I only used it to point out children will probably grow up perfectly normally without constant parental presence. I had a feeling we weren't the only animal, so I entered the word 'probably' into the sentence. Again 'It was just an example I used 'loosely' to put across my main point which was on another topic entirely. The word 'probably' always left the element of doubt, so your retort of 'Utter rubish' wasn't attacking a statement of fact was it? You made a mountain out of a mole hill, (which I'm doing right now !hmmm!).

and the statement:

[quote]We're the only animal where grand parents are just as caring to their grand children as they were their own children.[/quote]

Now in this sentence, I did infact word it as a statement of fact, and I still believe it's true. No one can really prove or disprove this statement really as I said "just as caring to their grandchildren, as they were their own children". I never said that we're the only species where grandparents help their offspring in the rearing of grandchildren. Some do, but not to the extent of most humans. You'd have to have an admition from a Gorilla/Chimpanzee/Bonobo/Orangutan whether they feel the same emotional bond for grandchildren as they did their own offspring. They may play with grandchildren, they may protect grandchildren from predetors, but I have doubts about 'direct descendant preference' when it comes to young. From parents yes, but grandparents, I couldn't confirm.

So these two statements were attacked by you. The first wasn't a statement of fact, and the second would be hard to disprove anyway. You then went on about other species, continually attacking the statement I had left the element of doubt in.

My grammar isn't perfect, but you seemed to have read my statements, without absorbing them properly, and replied without thinking.

I'll let you into a secret though....

During our discussion I did actually say, "Gorilla females live years after a menopause but don't help with daughters young", which was a statement of fact from me. In this I may be wrong as I'm unsure. Gorilla males dominate a group of females whereby he's pretty much the father of all young. I'm guessing that this means his sons & duaghters find other groups whereby he may never even see his future grandchildren. If the group is taken over by another male, then that male could impregnate a duaghter of the original male. The grandmother -who's still in the group- would then have the opportunity of helping to care for her daughters baby. Older female Apes are known to adopt babies though so maybe they would help care for any baby in the group rather than preferring specific 'descended' babies who belong to their daughters.

Whether it's true or not, you attacked the original posting of mine before I stated this. Maybe you're psychic as well as mysterious?

Whatever..........Swans, Crocs and Turtles may indeed live after fecundity, but I never stated as a 'fact', otherwise........ever.

Attacking my grammar & english was childish, as was attacking statements I'd already left open for 'elements of doubt' to come into play.

I won't attack your grammar though Mysteryman, but I will point out that you should read slower, and think before posting. I'll not even mention that you forgot your 'fullstop' at the end of a few of your paragraphs either. !wink!