By definition, evolution theory consists of two main elements: 1) descent with modifications and 2) natural selection.
"Descent with modifications" is normally just another way of expressing Murphy's Law that "anything which can go wrong eventually will".
So various forms of infertility are frequent "modifications".
"Natural selection" simply means such "modifications" don't get passed on to future generations, unless they somehow help individuals to survive and reproduce.
In the example of menopause, the old "grandma theory" seems perfectly reasonable to me, since even though it's highly exaggerated to say "it takes a village," it certainly does take a family to raise children, and traditionally, the bigger the family, with more support for youngsters, the better.
And nobody loves children more than grandparents, since once you're done playing with them, you get to give them back.
So, call it "natural selection" or call it "God's will", it's still just a little gift, to make grandma's life happier, and give children a better chance to grow up... ;-)
Thanks BroJoeK.
You need to ping the ‘scientist’ Singh. He doesn’t understand the theory where ‘environment’ plays Deus ex Machina and not the other way around. If men prefer younger women then evolutionary theory would indicate that the environment gave men that urge, no? Men didn’t choose it, but were bred for it because having that trait, ‘going for the young gal’, meant better reproductive success across all generations.
His premise is stupid and sexist and most likely political as he doesn’t understand the Theory of Evolution, but does get feminism. Despite his misapplication, his theory that menopause is caused my men’s preference for younger women fits just as well as the grandma hypothesis. The progeny are served just as well under either one. That’s the inherent tautology of the Theory of Evolution: if we have it, it’s because we need it.