To more accurately frame and present the important context of the question/this thread:
DOES IT MATTER THE TIME OF PROCREATION? - and as it relates to physical development?? Does having children after a life of growth and physical/mental experience effect genetic changes more immediately?? Or even determine if Not at all? After all, how can one grow genetically as evolution predicts if their is no experience for biological CHANGE?
Does the exact moment of procreation could have significant value?
1.) Does reproducing at a very young age in fact more likely render an exact clone of the parents, and with NO or LIMITED CHANGES effected?
2.) Does reproducing at our current prime Age & capabilities transfer these specific conditions in the genetic code? Consider if one's brain is at it's active peak, and well studied beyond the parents and with a far larger knowledge base, and if one is peaking in their career of body building inclusive of the development of muscles that were not genetically intended - CAN THESE QUALITIES THEN BE READILY PASSED? ** Note that I use body building as the physical muscular example as clearly breaking rocks in prison and a high IQ do not corrolate - unless you are Hannibal Lechtor.
3.) If one waits untill they are older, too old, and all of the positive conditions from #2 (above) are lost (Male example), is the potential for genetic evolutionary change then lost too.? And not only but now the potential for envoronmental contamination through pollutants is now also involving to further worsen the odds of positively procreating.? As well as a potentially declining/negative evolutionary mental or physical condition is now harvested, and even less than natural genetic conditions as the same individual would have possessed at the raw age of 18....?
4.) So is the theory of evolution MORE realistically - CURRENT CONDITIONS, that can easily be timed to stand still with no advancement, or even move in a backward direction? In the big scheme of time - it would seem likely. Should the luxury of being able to live longer lives with higher qualities be transferring to faster evolutionary development? Does the dumbshit that cant keep his dick in his pants at a young age indeed breed another to do the same? Is this a test of intelligence that is within itself the prime determinant. The ultimate catch-22.?
5.) Consider that history repeats its self because of the short memory span of animals/humans. Are we simply so forgetfull, that we cant even track and/or ACKNOWLEDGE our own line of family development!!??!!!!!
Clearly, it would seem that animals can evolve, or DEvolve even.
DO we devolve by procreating too early, or at least not advance? If one were to have their DNA mapped, would it look different at the age of 18 vs. the age of 41? This is the million dollar question with regard to this thread I think. The question of - if one effects physical changes to their body - Does it then DIRECTLY & IMMEDIATELY transfer to their DNA, and thus the code carried in the sperm? IS the male the Key? I think it is said a woman is born with all her eggs.?! But what about the male. Could he in fact be the primary determination of childrens' WORKING genetics, and the womans code be of course present, but always take a back seat to some degree. Somehow I suspect that women are put here to prosper the males code PRIMARILY. You may look at peoples' children and on the surface say, "NO, that child looks like the mother", but what is the fundamental TRUE point of measure/qualification? What are the true operational guidline to measure who the child is genetically mimicing - LEARNING EXCLUDED. Clearly nothing is LEARNED, but DNA defines the capabilities, affinity, & path of learning.
Are prople indeed more likely to resemble their parents when they are conceived when the parents are under 20 years of age? Is this in fact the proof that we are limiting gentic evolutionary advancement if procreating at a young age. In that not only are the looks the same, but everything else is too? Is the "Chip off the old block" more true of that block, if chipped prior to changes? Did that young couple just set their family line back to square one? Is procreation at a young age limiting our genetic line of evolution.? Does having children TOO young limit evolution? Is that simply the SAFE PLAY. Meaning one is procreating when code is young and fresh, and not contaminated by envoromental factors. So is it truly a gamble the later we wait the harder it is to have children, AND the payoff is exponentially increased if one can direct their growth in a positive direction free of negative influence up to that moment while waiting as long as possible? Take mice for example. Is the fact that lab rats procreate at young ages influential on their evolutionary development.? When you consider that a family of mice can procreate 10,000 evolutions in ONE of our evolutionary periods - THEY SHOULD BE HAVING Tea & Stumpets over the morning paper by now. And on the other hand, I can tell you that these mice today (Hamsters my daugters have) are light years evolved in personality from the ones I had. They are almost like dogs in that respect, and with clear and distinct personalities - LOL. But, if you teach a group of mice a trick, and then breed them, will their children know that trick? It seems simple enough, but you have to wonder if the CONTROL Group, has ever even truly been used as a CONTROL to even see? After all, that paradigm would mean to take a CONTROL Group of Mice as genetic predicessors, and then waiting for the offspring to be born PRIOR to examining the STIMULUS GROUP. In short a team would be conglomerating a control and stimulus into one group all the same. With evolutionary periods this short, there is no need for separation of the two. You have to wonder if medical science has even short sighted themselves this badly with the failures of groupthink and hyperfocus as a negative...!
Does DNA even perhaps become altered based on the actual MOMENT in TIME with relation to the PHYSICAL CONDITIONS of the parents.? One can see that in older people who have children there are much greater risks for birth issues (learning disabilties, physical problems, general health defects, disease conditions). Is this because the DNA Code is representative of that moment? To some degree YES or else the problems would not exist. So how relevant is this to the man? What do the studies indicate when the sperm of a 70 year old man inpregnate the eggs from a 20 year old female? Is this again proof that the male is the PRIMARY driving force in the family line? Does the fact that a woman is born with all her eggs in fact indicate that she is a MOOT Carrier,and possible only passing on basic fundamentals and the majority recessed? They say reproductive factors are highly protected in animal biologics/bodies. While the woman's eggs are deeper inside physically, and most likely shielded in a manner even more protective that a blood/brain barrier, IS THE FACT THAT A MANS Sperm is constantly produced in fact his protection and evolutionary control of the family line.? After all, if I had to choose, I would want the sperm of the fittest and smartest condtions I ever reached to father my children - Right. If you were choosing fathers for artificial insemination, whould you choose the runt? And while it is still much weaker protection physically speaking as the testicles are outside the body and open to liability of hazzard, is this the trade off for the ability to CHANGE genetic compositional attributes passed? Is the fact that the man's sperm is constantly updated the PROOF that evolution is based on the current male physical conditions?
Perhaps even the REASON a males tesicles are outside the body is because this is an EMERGENCY ACCESS to procreation? And if the last man on earth were to die, a woman who was currently ovulating could simple cut them off and place them inside here vagina like Benwa Balls then giving herself an orgasm and squeezing the last drops out of them in order to continue the family line.?
In short, are we limiting our family line of evolution by procreating at an early age? Should the safety that our current society affords us (not walking out of our caves at the age of 25 to be killed by a younger male) be taken advantage of to further our genetic evolution. ARE WE DROPPING THE BALL ON THE 5? And just like the exponential increase in the population curve, should we not be able to exponentially increase our genetic rate of evolutionary development with this luxury of time, and burden of experience that we are currently afforded today.? Are these (2) concepts supposed to be INVERSLEY related as a CHECK POINT- Meaning the more generations that develop, we should be growing more intelligent more quickly, THUS offsetting the population growth rate via intelligence?
)] If I manage to put on muscle tissue beyond my naturally intended genetic composition (if I had never worked out). 
