[SunkenCiv]

These two graphs show the number of men (left) and women (right) who reproduced throughout human history.

Chart: Monika Karmin et al./Genome Research

[G Larry]

I just stopped by to see what Laz posts.....

[ProtectOurFreedom]

How did the guys have enough energy after hunting wooly mammoths all day? Or tilling the fields all day?

[humblegunner]

Sluts.
Next they’ll have blogs.

[momtothree]

So if one man had children with that many women... I assume most of these women were all living in a general area (i.e. near each other?) So we are all descendents of inbreds? Wouldn’t those children grow up and have children with each other?

[Lazamataz]

8,000 Years Ago, 17 Women Reproduced for Every One Man

And that one man, was my ancestor.

[Jim Noble]

We are kind of heading back in that direction.

Men serving 40 years in prison have more children than men working 40 hours a week.

[Rurudyne]

Those guys have got nothing on Genghis Kahn.

[BusterDog]

Working about the same here in my neighborhood.

[BenLurkin]

[Sacajaweau]

All these conclusions came from looking at the DNA from 450 people.

These genetic people work miracles.

And I'm sure there's more Grant Money on the way.

[Trumpet 1]

They were saying about 50 years ago that 25% of all white Europeans could trace their lineage back to Charlemagne. It does appear that the higher ups did have more rights than others.

[sit-rep]

i dont believe it...

[Veto!]

An exceedingly strange headline.

Does it mean that each guy had 8000 females?

Or?

[Verginius Rufus]

In theory you should have exactly equal proportions of male and female ancestors, but if some of your ancestors married people related to them, then you start getting some of the same individuals on more than one ancestral line. This obviously happened a lot when most people lived in small villages and usually married someone from the same village or a nearby village.

This study would indicate that 8000 years ago, your family tree would show the same male ancestor many more times than it would show a given female ancestor.

[Hillarys Gate Cult]

So when did women decide that “you’re not good enough?” Asking for a friend.

[Harmless Teddy Bear]

Two things were happening.

Low value males were not reproducing because women were not picking them. Given a choice women will pick a guy who is able to provide for the offspring.

The second is that a lot of men DID die trying to move up the ladder so the women would pick them.

They took chances, they died.

[amnestynone]

Maybe 16 of those 17 men figured it wasn’t worth it to support 16 nagging women.

[Buttons12]

Well...reproducing can kill a woman. Rarely kills a man. Of the women who died, their descendants aren’t around so much. Particularly if the woman dies on the first effort. For that matter, the babies born to very young females are less likely to survive and thrive, and the same goes for mothers if there’s no modern medical skill.

[AnotherUnixGeek]

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...

How is this very strange? This is the pattern for most animals - the most successful males pass their genes on via as many females as possible. The less successful males do not get an opportunity to breed at all.

[Stosh]

Maybe they were all Mormons