Posted on 10/03/2008 11:45:01 AM PDT by SunkenCiv
Throughout human history, relatively few men seem to have had a greater input into the gene pool than the rest, suggests a study of variations in DNA.
Tens of thousands of years of polygamy has left a mark on our genomes that is a signature that small numbers of males must have mated with lots of females.
Over time, such a pattern will spawn more genetic differences on the X chromosome than other chromosomes. This is because women have two copies of the X, while men only one. In other words, the diversity arises because some men don't get to pass on their genes, while most women do.
(Excerpt) Read more at newscientist.com ...
Sex-Biased Evolutionary Forces Shape Genomic Patterns of Human Diversity...while sex-biased journalists try to shape public opinion, i.e. manufacture consent.
|
|
|||
Gods |
What the author or editor may have meant to say -- though I doubt it -- is that one of the 23 chromosome pairs determines gender, and the Y chromosome line is passed exclusively through the male line, while about half the time, one of the father's X chromosomes is passed to his daughter(s), just as the mother's are passed through about half the time. And just one of the mother's mom's X-chromosomes gets passed, and the other one came from the mother's father. |
||
|
· Mirabilis · Texas AM Anthropology News · Yahoo Anthro & Archaeo · · History or Science & Nature Podcasts · Excerpt, or Link only? · cgk's list of ping lists · |
|||
If the Alpha Male gets to sleep around a lot, then we call this "sleeping around a lot".
We do not make the leap that Alpha Males engaged in multiple marriage. People (*cough* Leftists *cough*) make such a leap when they wish to portray non-traditional forms of marriage as "old and established forms of marriage".
Adults marrying children -- wrong.
Men marrying Men -- wrong.
Incest -- wrong.
Bestiality -- wrong.
Polygamy -- wrong.
The Left is working it's way through this list, trying to normalize each individual item. Genetic evidence of multiple partners does not indicate an established history of "polygamy".
If it’s a PUBLISHED study it Must for True! /s
I would say that possibly rape might be another way the human genoic pattern was altered.
After conquering lands or area, invaders (Mongols, Huns, pirates, British, etc) from time immemorial used rape to not only “reward” their soldiers but to alter the “pure blood” of the conquered.
Ya think ethnic pride is important now, two millenium ago it was even more important.
That is, IMHO
” . . .women have two copies of the X, while men only one. In other words, the diversity arises because some men don’t get to pass on their genes, while most women do.”
Life isn’t fair. BTW, according to their definition only men can be polygamists. I am pretty sure some women have multiple partners/husbands. (Duh.)
The scientific term for that is polyandry.
INTREP!!!
Scientists can’t even explain why reproduction requires two parents...and how those two, in every species, “evolved” to the point of sufficient compatibility to produce any off-spring. And now this? i don’t think so!
You’re right. Rape probably has a lot to do with this. One tribe conquers another on the battlefield, slaughters all the males and rapes all the females and thus the conquerors get their y-chromosomes more concentrated into the future.
Just because a prehistoric behavior — polygamy, rape — was prevalent before civilization existed doesn’t mean it’s desirable in the civilized world.
Look what polygamy does to the Muslims. Makes slaves of women and creates a permanent underclass of hopeless men willing to blow themselves up at the slightest provocation.
Polygamy is part of our evolutionary past? Most likely. But then, so, probably, is murdering the male offspring of your competitors. Should we revive that one too?
We don’t organize society according to how the apes and Neanderthals and “Lucy’s” did things.
So here is a test, if evolution is correct this is a good thing, if the Bible is correct it isn’t.
Really? Wow...but, can scientists explain the species when two parents ARE required?
No they can’t...scientists have no clue how “evolution” led to two parents being required in most reproduction. Nor can they explain how two different creatures could “evolve” independently, and yet still be able to mate. It is still a mystery to them.
The things you think you know about what evolutionary biologists know, just aren't so.
Current documentation on this issue says that is one of the great puzzles of biology...your explanation is overly simplistic, and does not explain anything. Sorry.
Just like there is a “gay gene”.
Come on!
Polygamy is all about lack of SELF CONTROL.
http://content.karger.com/ProdukteDB/produkte.asp?Aktion=JournalHome&ProduktNr=231547
Sexual Development:
Aims and Scope
Recent experimental and clinical research have led to impressive advances in our knowledge of the genetic and environmental mechanisms governing sex determination and differentiation, their evolution, as well as the mutations or endocrine and metabolic abnormalities that interfere with normal gonadal development.
The new journal ‘Sexual Development’ aspires to provide a forum for this rapidly expanding field. Its broad scope will cover all aspects of genetics, molecular biology, embryology, endocrinology, evolution and pathology of sex determination and differentiation in humans and animals. It will publish high-quality original research manuscripts, review articles, short reports, case reports and commentaries. ‘Sexual Development’ is a modern journal managed by an internationally renowned and multidisciplinary editorial team of three chief editors and ten prominent scientists serving as section editors, supported by a distinguished panel of editorial board members. They are committed to ensuring fast and author-friendly editorial processing and peer reviewing. Contributions from the scientific community are invited to make ‘Sexual Development’ the long-awaited and viable forum for basic and medical research on sex determination and differentiation.
Where does the author prove polygamy?
Looking at my family tree I see several men who lost their first wives, often in childbirth, but they fathered fifteen or more children counting second or third marriages.
Some of the women in my tree also had second or third spouses, but rare is the woman who gave birth to more than half a dozen children who survived to adulthood.
:’) Nowhere. It’s another goofy genetic “study”. One of my great-great-grandfathers had three wives, in succession, five kids by the first, thirteen by my great-great-grandmother. Gee, with big families, I wonder what happens down the line? ;’) There’s a similar problem with jumping to conclusions about relative antiquity or geographic origins, based on current distribution of gene snips.
Human populations are tightly interwoven
Nature | September 29, 2004 | Michael Hopkin
Posted on 09/30/2004 2:17:34 PM EDT by AZLiberty
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/1231661/posts
[snip] “the mystery person, from whom everyone alive today is directly descended, probably lived around 1,500 BC in eastern Asia” [end]
Maori Men And Women From Different Homelands
ABC Science News ^ | 3-27-2003 | Adele Whyte
Posted on 09/06/2004 5:15:41 PM PDT by blam
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1208808/posts
Sheesh.
Nowhere was it advocated. Neither was polygamy.
It was just an observation of events that led to the changing of the gene p.
Marriages between cousins also could be a factor. Was real common a few generations ago.
...and today in the Moslem world (at least).
And Arkansas.
You have not answered the question, and so far, nothing has been demonstrated. Promises, promises.
These questions have not been answered. And saying you are going to answer them in a scientific journal doesn't answer the questions. Where and why did it all begin? That is the puzzle that has not been aswered.
I like the biomass bootstrap theory.
Everything alive today EATS something that WAS alive in the past.
Just WHERE did all this STUFF come from, if all there was available was a bunch of mixed up chemicals?
There is no “knowing” in evolution. Just genetic variation and differential survival rates. A bacteria selected for heat resistance doesn’t “Know” to develop heat tolerating mutations, it is just that any heat tolerating mutations that do arise are selected for.
This was my thought.
When spouse was working on his geneology, I noticed 3 cases in his direct linage where the man had 3 or more wives. Genetically this would LOOK like polygamy, but investigation shows many died in childbirth.
Another case where genetics do not “prove” sociology is children with the same mother but different fathers.
Such genetics might indicate polyandry - but in humans more likely there was (1) a widow/divorcee who remarried or (2) voluntary or involuntary infidelity.
You speak with such confidence, and yet there is absolutely no proof that your theory is correct. And where did the blueprint for hermaphrodite sexual organs come from? Pure story telling on your part...zero evidence.
And you still have not accounted for two separate individuals required for reproduction. Who decides which partner carries which parts? In a single organism, maybe...but it is a stretch. In two separate organisms, no way. And I am speaking of origins, not changes once the organs exist. Two very different questions!
Who said anything about randomness? Selection is not random.
You may say that "favorable" changes are retained...but pure matter, DNA, can not decide what is "favorable" and what is not. It has no way of "knowing" that. And then you have to ask the question, "favorable" for what? It has no way of knowing what the end state will be.
And still my original question goes unanswered: How does an organism divide functions into two different organisms which rely on each other? And which must keep pace with each other during the alleged "evolutionary" life of any given species. One organism is genetically independent from the other, yet totally dependent upon the other for reproduction. This amounts to an amazing amount of complexity. Each organism must "evolve" part, but not all, of the functionality. And to reproduce that functionality would have to be there from the beginning, or it would not be able to reproduce to respond to the "selective pressure" that is allegedly "applied by the environment."
It’s infuriating when liberals advance the idea that simply impregnating females is all that matters in human survival.
It ignores the most obvious difference between humans and the rest of creation: Our long, long period of helplessness. Animals can either move or defend themselves within days of being born, while humans are more or less helpless for a couple of years. What this means is that two-parent care is vitally important for humans—at least as important as impregnation itself. Animal fathers may impregnate and run, but if human fathers acted that way throughout history, the human race would not exist. We would all have been literally devoured by wolves.
Your insistence that they had to develop separately has no basis.
Do you honestly believe this...of every bisexual species on earth? Really? And where is the evidence for this absurd assertion?
In the journal I sourced, in hermaprhoditic species still extant upon the earth, and in our own DNA and development in that we start out as hermaphrodites.
You know nothing about the subject and yet insist sexual organs had to develop seperately, completely ignoring that the earliest sexually reproducing organisms we know of are all hermaphrodite.
And then you are incredulous about it.
Funny! ;)
What you acknowledge that...
2. ...in every instance of a species reproducing by means of heterosexual activity, there are two different individuals required: a male and a female?
2. ...if there are two different individuals, even if at some point there was only one (which I do not accept), at some further point, the one had to divide into two?
3. ...that there would need to be some change after the two divided: loss of at least part of the function being carried on by the other?
4. ...that in every instance of heterosexual reproduction, both individuals would have to be fully functional in order for any off spring to carry on the “evolution”?
5. ...that your journal has not explained how that happened, when it happened, or even that it actually happened?
You are wrong and now your just being silly about it.
Learn something.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/2098021/posts
Gender-Bending Barnacles Grow Huge Penises in Rough Waters
Apart from intervention by God we are destined to have greater and greater amounts of genetic mistakes and problems, eventually disappearing from existence. Thank God, this will not happen due to Christ's return, bringing the renewing of all things.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.