|
|
Post by djoser-xyyman on Jan 21, 2015 16:03:37 GMT -5
Human paternal and maternal demographic histories: insights from high2 resolution Y chromosome and mtDNA sequences - 4 Sebastian Lippold1, Stoneking1
1.0 Abstract
To investigate in detail the paternal and maternal demographic histories of humans, we obtained ~500 kb of non-recombining Y chromosome (NRY) sequences and complete mtDNA genome sequences from 623 males from 51 populations in the CEPH Human Genome Diversity Panel (HGDP). Our results: confirm the controversial assertion that genetic differences between human populations on a global scale are bigger for the NRY than for mtDNA; suggest very small ancestral effective population sizes (<100) for the out-of-Africa migration as well as for many human populations; and indicate that the ratio of female effective population size to male effective population size (Nf/Nm) has been greater than one throughout the history of modern humans, and has recently increased due to faster growth in Nf. However, we also find substantial differences in patterns of mtDNA vs. NRY variation in different regional groups; thus, global patterns of variation are not necessarily representative of specific geographic regions.
Conclusion:
In conclusion, we have developed a rapid and cost-effective means of obtaining unbiased NRY sequence information at COMPARABLE RESOLUTION to that of complete mtDNA genome sequences. Application to the HGDP(ONLY) provides new insights into the comparative demographic history of males and females, including support for larger between-population differences for the NRY than for mtDNA (albeit with considerable regional variation), significant bottlenecks associated with the migration of modern humans out-of-Africa and with other migration events; and overall higher female than male effective population sizes. We anticipate that this approach should enable more detailed comparative analyses of the demographic history of males vs. females, and the influence of sex-specific processes during human evolution.
---------------------
Thoughts anyone? As I said. Forget about the BS “written” by Europeans. There was no long distance marriage, there was no killing off of males, There was no wars with males dying, there was child brides. The simple explanation is that women dominated in numbers.
|
|
|
|
Post by djoser-xyyman on Jan 21, 2015 16:26:22 GMT -5
Maybe there is something to a man having more than one woman. Is it an evolutionary need?
|
|
|
|
Post by kaskata on Jan 21, 2015 19:11:01 GMT -5
"Maybe there is something to a man having more than one woman. Is it an evolutionary need?"
Couldn't have said this better. Monogamy is rather a new behaviour of humans. Is it an evolutionary need? One could make the case, yes, the ones who could provide the most, could multiply the most i.e rulers, leaders and such. One could also say no, some communities, like the Batwa have no real leaders or rulers.
|
|
|
|
Post by djoser-xyyman on Jan 21, 2015 20:34:29 GMT -5
The more I investigate the more I realize that monogamy is a modern Western Phenomenon. In the above study the authors are stating that women always greatly outnumbered men during the pioneering movement OOA and even within Africa. That is why homosexuality (male) makes no sense. I always believe that the females are much more important to the existence to our species. "Maybe there is something to a man having more than one woman. Is it an evolutionary need?" Couldn't have said this better. Monogamy is rather a new behaviour of humans. Is it an evolutionary need? One could make the case, yes, the ones who could provide the most, could multiply the most i.e rulers, leaders and such. One could also say no, some communities, like the Batwa have no real leaders or rulers. |
|
|
|
Post by truthteacher2007 on Jan 22, 2015 16:14:07 GMT -5
I don't understand the title of the thread. How does such a question even enter the discussion? The more I investigate the more I realize that monogamy is a modern Western Phenomenon. Depends on the culture, depends on the era. Humans all over the globe have practiced both monogamy as well as ploygamy and even in certain cases polyandry. There are no clear cut rule and the concept of monogamy is hardly a European invention. In the above study the authors are stating that women always greatly outnumbered men during the pioneering movement OOA and even within Africa. There could be many explanations for this without the question of war being a factor. One possibility could have been greater number of male fatalities due to any number of reasons. Hunting could have resulted in higher numbers of fatalities due to accidents. Hunting wild game was not easy. Could have been due to disease of some sort. Could have been due to cultural restrictions on who was allowed to have access to potential mates. We don't know what the reasons may have been and most likely will never know. That is why homosexuality (male) makes no sense. As stated before in another thread, there is a major difference between what we recognize as a homosexual lifestyle today and homosexual activity. The existence of homosexual activity does not mean that a man who engages in such activity is not capable of being attracted to and mating with the opposite sex. The notion of exclusivity that we have today, Homsexual=not attracted to women, not capable of being aroused by women, is a 20th century idea created by the European psychiatric profession. A careful study of cultures around the globe and across time shows that the overwhelming majority of men who engaged in same sex activity also got married and produced offspring. They had a very different perception of sexuality than we do today. A careful examination of Ancient Greek, Chinese, and Japanese history alone shows this to be true. It was not uncommon for men who had multiple wives and concubines to also engage in sex with younger men. Nor was it unusual for the young men who were the passive partners of men to assume the role of the active partner and have wives and concubines when they reached maturity, in fact, it was expected that upon reaching the appropriate age, they would assume the role of husband and father. An adult man who continued to engage in passive homosexual activity was shunned and treated as an outcast. What we consider the gay lifestyle did not really exist untill the mid to late 20th century. Before that, all men, regardless of their sexual preference HAD to get married and produce offspring. That's the way it was and the way it still is in the majority of the world, including the West. I always believe that the females are much more important to the existence to our species. Within the context of traditional African societies, (or at least the ones I know of, Yoruba, Igbo, Congo, Akan), there is no concept of domination. Or to put it a better way, those societies whose culture and spiritual practice is based on the princioles of nature do not see things that way. In order for there to be life and harmony, there has to be balance between good and bad, life and death, male and female. Therefore, man cannot dominate woman, nor visa versa if there is to be a stable society. "Maybe there is something to a man having more than one woman. Is it an evolutionary need?" Couldn't have said this better. Monogamy is rather a new behaviour of humans. Is it an evolutionary need? One could make the case, yes, the ones who could provide the most, could multiply the most i.e rulers, leaders and such. One could also say no, some communities, like the Batwa have no real leaders or rulers. |
|
|
|
Post by djoser-xyyman on Jan 26, 2015 10:45:10 GMT -5
It is a matter of simple statistics……. ONE man can father a child with a hundred women in 100days(I am being conservative lol!)….but with a ratio of 100men to ONE woman it will take at least 9months for ONE child to be born. In the other scenario 100 babies will be born in 9mths. We are not pigs making piglets(ie litter) Nature had this figured out a loooong time ago. No war and diseases is needed. I was shocked when I looked at the stats on the CIA website. More female babies are born than male globally but in certain societies more male reach maturity….an intelligent man will ask..why? When I looked at the countries with more male reaching maturity it was….you guessed it. “middle eastern” and hindu countries. Can you believe in the modern age, these wierdos kill their female babies!!! Talk about pre-historic. SMH. I don't understand the title of the thread. How does such a question even enter the discussion? The more I investigate the more I realize that monogamy is a modern Western Phenomenon. Depends on the culture, depends on the era. Humans all over the globe have practiced both monogamy as well as ploygamy and even in certain cases polyandry. There are no clear cut rule and the concept of monogamy is hardly a European invention. In the above study the authors are stating that women always greatly outnumbered men during the pioneering movement OOA and even within Africa. There could be many explanations for this without the question of war being a factor. One possibility could have been greater number of male fatalities due to any number of reasons. Hunting could have resulted in higher numbers of fatalities due to accidents. Hunting wild game was not easy. Could have been due to disease of some sort. Could have been due to cultural restrictions on who was allowed to have access to potential mates. We don't know what the reasons may have been and most likely will never know. That is why homosexuality (male) makes no sense. As stated before in another thread, there is a major difference between what we recognize as a homosexual lifestyle today and homosexual activity. The existence of homosexual activity does not mean that a man who engages in such activity is not capable of being attracted to and mating with the opposite sex. The notion of exclusivity that we have today, Homsexual=not attracted to women, not capable of being aroused by women, is a 20th century idea created by the European psychiatric profession. A careful study of cultures around the globe and across time shows that the overwhelming majority of men who engaged in same sex activity also got married and produced offspring. They had a very different perception of sexuality than we do today. A careful examination of Ancient Greek, Chinese, and Japanese history alone shows this to be true. It was not uncommon for men who had multiple wives and concubines to also engage in sex with younger men. Nor was it unusual for the young men who were the passive partners of men to assume the role of the active partner and have wives and concubines when they reached maturity, in fact, it was expected that upon reaching the appropriate age, they would assume the role of husband and father. An adult man who continued to engage in passive homosexual activity was shunned and treated as an outcast. What we consider the gay lifestyle did not really exist untill the mid to late 20th century. Before that, all men, regardless of their sexual preference HAD to get married and produce offspring. That's the way it was and the way it still is in the majority of the world, including the West. I always believe that the females are much more important to the existence to our species. Within the context of traditional African societies, (or at least the ones I know of, Yoruba, Igbo, Congo, Akan), there is no concept of domination. Or to put it a better way, those societies whose culture and spiritual practice is based on the princioles of nature do not see things that way. In order for there to be life and harmony, there has to be balance between good and bad, life and death, male and female. Therefore, man cannot dominate woman, nor visa versa if there is to be a stable society. |
|
