Age and Down Syndrome?

I've been snoopin' around on this forum, and it seems like no one is addressing the fact that, after a certain age, a woman's children have an increasingly high chance of down syndrome (about 50 is when it becomes significant). Do you think this has any bearing on the fact that many biblical woman lived hundreds of years? When would they have had all their children? It certainly couldn't be over 100 years old without having a down-syndrom-ed kid for sure. What do you think?

Honestly, a combination of the two. Do people think this strengthens the validity of the Bible, or detracts from it? Either way, how?

So what you are saying by "we developed new genetic diseases" is that we gained genetic material? Sounds like evolution. And the health of the mother is disregardable. My mom was perfectly healthy at age 40, but I still had a 30% (might be less or more, no idea, but around here) of having the big DS

Well that would imply people are currently living longer, which they are and it is causing big problems, but what I am addressing is the supposed "valley" of age. Apparently living hundreds of years, dropping to as low as 30 years, and now beginning to rise again.

I've never heard that before. I might do my highschool project on this...

*raises hand* "uh, is that why the Muslim Empire rediscovered the ancient Greeks first and was miles ahead of Europe technologically for centuries?"

Yeah, and I meant to emphasize how little that mattered in this conversation. And when you say degeneration, do you losing genetic information, having the current info damaged, or what?I also like how you contradict yourself by saying "it's not about the health of the mother". Well then why'd you bring that up!By your logic, DS isn't even a genetic problem, but God punishing us? What, like how AIDS was God's way to get rid of homosexuals?

By our standards, Jesus was an Easterner. What is your point?

There is no damage done by mutation, only change. And by no means were they healthier a long time ago! What? That is the biggest piece of BS I've heard in a long time. I mean, you can't even prove the fall, so how are you just assuming that it is true? I mean, if we inherited it from the fall, along with all other diseases, why do animals have many of our diseases (AIDS, etc.)?

No, no, you misread me (or I mispoke). There can definitely be damage done to the ANIMAL by means of a negative mutation, but I thought that Faith was talking about what physical damage to the genes themselves.

Not neccesarily. Sometimes, yes, but that can also be indirectly harming the animal physically. That isn't damage, that is change that is not good. I'm confused what you mean. It could also not even qualify as damage, because in some cases (e.g. a peacock's tail feather length), it isn't damaging the organism, simply reducing how likely it is to reproduce. This is a pointless argument, as it is not the subject at hand

I do. "Damage" implies something has been altered from how it should work. Genes are "supposed" to work one way or another. Genes can change for the worse, but I don't like using a word like "damaged"

Oh yes it is! Look up the definition of damaged. What you described was change.

It isn't the biggest deal, but to be clear, the "errors" that they commonly refer to are the errors in copying the DNA perfectly, not errors as in damaging the product.

That Google definition is worthless, because it says "inflict physical harm on [something] so as to impair its value, usefulness, or normal function". "Normal" is subjective, and genetic mutations are not physical "harm", because again, harm is subjective. Remind me about why we are arguing this again?