Is it true that most men through out history didn’t get a chance to breed.
Is it true that most men through out history didnt get a chance to breed.
Falling into your wing while paragliding is called 'gift wrapping' and turns you into a dirt torpedo pic.twitter.com/oQFKsVISkI— Mental Videos (@MentalVids) March 15, 2023
Roughly 30% as a median did not if you use statistical analysis of accurate population counts. We covered this in college but do not remember the paper or authors.
Keep in mind that is a broad analysis of many cultures lumped together.
nah that's bullshit
attrition that high every generation would mean that in 4 generations every man in a city would be descended from less than ten men
much less a millenia, for a statistician you don't have a great deal of projective intuition
>accurate population counts
you mean using exceptional documents like the domesday book, or wiki battle boxes?
It is a median of census analysis throughout history. A very loose amalgamation. Factor in infant mortality rate, war, famine, natural disaster, disease, ect.
oh if you include infant mortality that does make sense, at the same time folks were having more kids to counter that, war will have that effect not to mention the high number of executions
but that's assuming men who are executes or die in battle didn't have children before hand
I'll bet the old parish records could clear things up, I wonder if there's any kind of database the info is systematized.
This was from when I was in college 15 years ago, so it is probably wrong now, but i don't know.
That's what I think happened. Lots of guys died and or their kids died before having kids. Thst makes much more sense than 30 percent just somehow never got laid.
Nah, it's not like every person had 1 male child. Sometimes one brother was able to produce offspring but the others didn't.
well having a daughter means you reproduced too
are you confusing natural Y-DNA turnover and drift over time due to the biomechanical nature of sexual reproduction with total reproductive failure?
What I'm saying is that most families were able to continue their lines, it's not like one male child failing to reproduce ended them, they had other male children to continue the line. So if you have 3 male children, one of them is a NEET schizo obsessed with some autistic hobby, one becomes a fag who takes it up the ass, and the third becomes a family man, your line still continues.
yeah but you could say the same thing for daughters
like if you had only daughters you would still have descendants
why even bother referring to gender of offspring? It's not relevant to the subject.
Because it's the topic of the thread, mong. We're talking about male descent.
not patrilinial descent through firstborn son, just whether or not a man has any children at all
That completely 100% happens. Male diversity is constantly being lost, women take 50% of their DNA from their fathers so they also become less diverse. Eventually the whole population becomes uniform.
that's still an exaggeration in magnitude of a trend determined by nature, and attributed to behavior
I'd wager there was never a point where 30 percent of men in a society had zero children at all each generation, as inbreeding would quickly take grip.
>women take 50% of their DNA from their fathers so they also become less diverse
no, sexual reproduction increases genetic diversity
their mtDNA lineage is unaffected, but a woman only having sons does marginally effect the mtDNA diversity of a population
>sexual reproduction increases genetic diversity
Ridiculous notion, genetic exchange does not create new genes, sex is always a filter.
sex is literally a recombination event rife for mutation
increased genetic diversity is one advantage sexual reproduction has over the asexual kind
>sex is literally a recombination event rife for mutation
Sex is literally a filter, 50% of genes dont propagate and thats not including natural and sexual selection. Recombination doesnt break apart genes, except as when it malfunctions but thats just a malfunction. You are like those that call deformed fetuses new genders because they came up screwed up.
>50% of genes dont propagate
yeah, each new generation is a combination of their parents genotypes
which is why genetic diversity increases, and we aren't all clones or single celled organisms
this is incredibly basic, are you in college or something, a sophomore maybe?
>each new generation is a combination of their parents genotypes
New combinations of genes dont increase the actual diversity of genes. Instead genes get filtered because only 50% of them are passed.
Doing more combinations of less diverse genes is not increased genetic diversity
yeah, you're a sophomore
some 200 level courses under your belt, suddenly you think you know how sex works
to you, a clone is the most diverse genetic specimen imaginable
protip haplogroups are determined by the extent of mutational load caused by sex, its how we can trace ancestry because a father passes his particular Y-DNA mutations onto his son
he's not sophomore
>I'd wager there was never a point where 30 percent of men in a society had zero children at all each generation, as inbreeding would quickly take grip.
I'm not sure what even motivated this conclusion but I feel like you're forgetting that having 6-10 kids was the norm for the most of the world until the last couple of centuries.
no, I'm not forgetting
it doesn't matter how many kids an inbred couple has, they're still all going to be inbred
if 30% of a population's males don't reproduce at all every generation, the entire population will quickly become hopelessly related consanguineously to one another
sum did sum didn't
it is what it is bro, focus on the present
> tfw she went for the NPC instead of me
the meme is usually based on the Y-chromosomal bottleneck that occurred in the neolithic era, but that bottleneck was probably not caused by a disparate reproductive success due to 'hypergamy'.
it was more likely caused by kin groups organizing patrilineally in the neolithic era which concentrated their Y-DNA, meaning when a tribe was eliminated by another, the paternal lineage would be wiped out along with them. this allowed there to be a drastic reduction in male genetic diversity without an equivalently drastic culling or reproductive inequality.
women more often practiced exogamy, or were raped by the conquering tribe or taken as concubines, meaning their genetic diversity would be retained.
it's especially unlikely that hypergamy was the caused of the bottleneck since inequality between men actually rose with the emergence of states and chiefdoms which is when the bottleneck was lifted as they would be effective in suppressing warfare between tribes.
another factor is that wealthy/powerful polygamous men's offspring would be more likely to survive and continue their lineage due to their privileged positions in society, which could lead their Y-DNA to be more overrepresented.
if there was disparate reproductive success across genders which is likely it wouldn't be as drastic as the meme implies and would mostly be a result of men dying earlier. today the rate of polygamy is extremely low in MENA countries, about 1% on average, maybe less, and is highest in places with high levels of violent conflict, but more so as a result of the conflict as for instance the polygamy rate in syria skyrocketed following the civil war which left many women in need of provision. this was likely the main impetus for polygamy historically.
Why did God make me an ugly incel loser? fuck I hate myself
Quit being a whiny homosexual. What do you think will happen, if you complain enough then a genie will come grant you a wish? Fuck off. Go do the shit you're supposed to do to improve yourself and quit moping.
Find a ugly female to breed with
The meme is that humanity has twice as much female genetic material as male, and if that confuses you it just means that most women had babies throughout history but only half of all men did.
"Sexual reproduction provides genetic diversity because the sperm and egg that are produced contain different combinations of genes than the parent organisms. Asexual reproduction, on the other hand, does not need sperm and eggs since one organism splits into two organisms that have the same combination of genes. Sexual reproduction involves meiosis, which is the process of a cell doubling its DNA, shuffling its genes, and then dividing the shuffled DNA among four cells. Each resulting cell, or gamete, resulting from meiosis has only half the amount of DNA as the parent cell. So in order to form a new organism, two gametes -- the sex cells, sperm and egg -- must fuse, further mixing the genes to produce more genetic diversity. Asexual reproduction is one organism dividing into two organisms without shuffling its genes, so the offspring has the same version of genes as did the parent."
David H. Nguyen, Ph.D.