Posted on 12/20/2021 3:19:48 PM PST by SunkenCiv
An analysis of modern DNA uncovers a rough dating scene after the advent of agriculture.
Once upon a time, 4,000 to 8,000 years after humanity invented agriculture, something very strange happened to human reproduction. Across the globe, for every 17 women who were reproducing, passing on genes that are still around today—only one man did the same...
Another member of the research team, a biological anthropologist, hypothesizes that somehow, only a few men accumulated lots of wealth and power, leaving nothing for others. These men could then pass their wealth on to their sons, perpetuating this pattern of elitist reproductive success. Then, as more thousands of years passed, the numbers of men reproducing, compared to women, rose again...
The team uncovered this dip-and-rise in the male-to-female reproductive ratio by looking at DNA from more than 450 volunteers from seven world regions. Geneticists analyzed two parts of the DNA, Y-chromosome DNA and mitochondrial DNA. These don't make up a large portion of a person's genetics, but they're special because people inherit Y-chromosome DNA exclusively from their male ancestors and mitochondrial DNA exclusively from their female ancestors. By analyzing diversity in these parts, scientists are able to deduce the numbers of female and male ancestors a population has. It's always more female.
So much for what our DNA can tell us. This study, published last week in the journal Genome Research, can't directly account for why the dip occurred...
Nature is a harsh taskmaster, but so, it seems, is human culture. Although the popular notion is that farming and settlement cushioned people against "survival of the fittest," this study shows that's not true. Something cultural happened 8,000 years ago that's marked us even today.
(Excerpt) Read more at psmag.com ...
There’s a direct connection between murdering the unborn posterity of the citizens and open borders with population replacement.
Women were actually happier in the 50s and 60s than they are today according to survey data.
Maybe they were all Mormons
Very debatable. The cosmetic surgery, the body scarification, the self-destructive behaviors, etc. all point to very unhappy women.
Oh, they'll insist they're happy in public but in private they'll share that they're miserable. If they're older, they admit they rue not ignoring the Feminazis and instead having a family.
For the vast bulk of human history the only options for mates were reasonably closely related cousins. Most of human history as Hunter gatherers we traveled in family bands and all of the members of the band were related.
But were they all married?
As recently as two or three hundred years ago, people ventured only several miles from their place of birth, and only met a hundred people in their entire lives.
You do the math. If people only marry those in their small village, and this repeats for many generations - how could they not all be cousins?
So, if marrying cousins counts as inbreeding, we are all descended from inbreds.
There wasn’t even a stigma against marrying first cousins for most of our history. It is only very recently that families spread out across the country.
We send our children out of state to college, they take the best paying job wherever. Meet someone at college or where they relocated for work… that’s all very recent in the scheme of things.
It could be that there was one guy in every group that pretended to be injured and stayed home while the hunting party went out.
Simultaneous anomaly in widely scattered populations.
In first with ALIENS!
It’s called “Beachmaster.”
Also, I'm pretty sure God solved that problem in the first centuries after Adam, and again after Noah.
They say 100% of all people if European descent, which also includes black Americans too since probably all black Americans are part white (excluding recent immigrants). Also, at a certain point in the past, all people alive then who have descendants today, are the acestors of everyone alive today (if I said it correctly). https://www.theguardian.com/science/commentisfree/2015/may/24/business-genetic-ancestry-charlemagne-adam-rutherford
Sounds like a social structure organized like a pride of lions where only the top males are allowed to reproduce.
IIRC, today it’s about 2:1.
“As long as the kids married “half-siblings” and not full siblings, it should have been less of a problem.”
Marrying your kids off to nearby tribes is a good way to form alliances as well as avoiding inbreeding.
The wrinkle in this soup is anatomically correct humans go back 300,000 years according to other DNA studies, not 65,000 or so. Unless they can account for all those missing millennia, I would not put much stock in this study.
Today (in the US) our welfare system has a lot to do with a more equal reproductive balance. Good and bad consequences to that.
Many urbanite (and fewer rural) males are selling drugs and Getting welfare from either the government or through the baby momma. MANY women are getting welfare from the government, often these “strong single mothers” wouldn’t be as successful without AFDC. Take drugs and welfare away and many of these men would be dead or complete losers. The women then are going to be attracted to men who can actually produce and provide. Thugs usually just got their necks stretched 150 years ago and time forgotten before that, not much reproducing when your neck is stretched.
I actually also see this in an apparent drop of May-December romances. The older men in my family (most passed) often told stories about older guys getting young women as wives. Their own wives often dying young from childbirth, disease whatever. Now it’s rare and I think welfare explains a lot of that as well. Why do young women need an old guy with a farm or some kind of little business when all she has to do is take her brat to the welfare office and pick up a check? Young men back in the day (depression era say) often would travel for work or had little as they started as assistants etc. My grandpa talked about being a young man and working all day for a buck—sure a buck bought more than now but still young guys often struggled. Successful guys sometimes raised two complete families, one early and one later in life.
Also laugh if you like but there are more than a few women who do video cams, these women often just 30 years ago struggled and would have been more likely to seek the successful male either in marriage or otherwise.
Now don’t get me wrong, I realize there are some real disadvantages to having a harem-like reproductive system. Society doesn’t do well when many children have no close connection to a father (although often they don’t with the welfare system either), also it must be shockingly disheartening to be a low achieving male in such a society.
Sorry for the rambling length and yes I realize there are plenty of exceptions , leaving many factors out like education.
Now that ratio just happens in the hood.
Thou shalt not mess with the king’s deer or dears.
The good old days.
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.