Posted on 06/20/2018 12:59:12 PM PDT by SunkenCiv
Modern men's genes suggest that something peculiar happened 5,000 to 7,000 years ago: Most of the male population across Asia, Europe and Africa seems to have died off, leaving behind just one man for every 17 women.
This so-called population "bottleneck" was first proposed in 2015, and since then, researchers have been trying to figure out what could've caused it. One hypothesis held that the drop-off in the male population occurred due to ecological or climatic factors that mainly affected male offspring, while another idea suggested that the die-off happened because some males had more power in society, and thus produced more children.
Now, a new paper, published May 25 in the journal Nature Communications, offers yet another explanation: People living in patrilineal clans (consisting of males from the same descent) might have fought with each other, wiping out entire male lineages at a time.
That ratio of 17 females for every one male "struck us as being very extreme, and there must be another explanation," said senior study author Marcus Feldman, a population geneticist at Stanford University in California. According to their new explanation, the male population didn't take a nosedive, but rather the diversity of the Y chromosome decreased due to the way people lived and fought with each other. In other words, there weren't actually fewer males, just less diversity among the males.
(Excerpt) Read more at livescience.com ...
That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose.
Genesis 6:2
Wars...................lots of wars...............
What’s the population of female lions to male lions in the wild? Approximately 3:1. What’s the population of female deer to male deer in the wild? Approximately 5:1.
Why wouldn’t the same hold true with nomadic humans?
“World War I pretty much wiped out the men of native families in Great Britain. Entire towns lost all their men.”
Lincoln’s war didn’t help the states either.
Something to think about -- since this took place a thousand years before the Earth existed.
“There must be another explanation”
So give me a bazillion $$$$$$$ grant and I will find the explanation. Even if I have to make one up.
“Modern men’s genes suggest that something peculiar happened 5,000 to 7,000 years ago”
That’s when they first invented marriage.
Not very exact, and irrelevant, since this is about someting that happened 7000 years ago.
Why did they die? Because they wanted to.
General "Buck" Turgidson:
"Doctor, you mentioned the ratio of ten women to each man. Now, wouldn't that necessitate the abandonment of the so-called monogamous sexual relationship, I mean, as far as men were concerned?"
Dr. Strangelove:
" Regrettably, yes. But it is, you know, a sacrifice required for the future of the human race. I hasten to add that since each man will be required to do prodigious... service along these lines, the women will have to be selected for their sexual characteristics which will have to be of a highly stimulating nature."
Ambassador de Sadesky:
" I must confess, you have an astonishingly good idea there, Doctor. "
Hah, I remember seeing this a few weeks ago. The scientist thought it was due to a large scale, long term war... but this time period men were not thought to have learned to ride horses yet. How could a non-riding, non-seafaring Asia/Africa/Middle East population wage any kind of effective war?
I would say its more likely that this was the result of the great flood. Here we have 1 father and 3 sons with a few women of different families as wives. That sure would cause a bottle neck and could explain such a vast die off of males.
...and heart attacks. Why did all the men die off? Because they wanted to.
“One man for every 17 women is every man’s dream... or every man’s nightmare if their menstrual cycles are aligned.”
Like a barracks of female recruits?
City-states had large standing armies precisely because they had agricultural surplus. As is usual and understandable, the real estate was owned by older men. The women were traded like baseball cards to keep the landowners tied to each other and to some extent to the ruling regime, but there were no other marriage prospectes without that. Sons who survived and/or distinguished themselves in battle disproportionately acquired the inheritance. They continued the pattern, and everyone was on board. Not all got served.
I consider myself an avid reader of science and historical subjects. And in all my years I have never come across this story.
So in 3,000 BC to 5,000 BC there was a mass “killing off” of men?
Astonishing!
Now if you back out geeks, democrats, homosexuals (some overlap here), snowflakes, draft dodgers etc, there is one GOOD man per 17 females.
General "Buck" Turgidson: Doctor, you mentioned the ratio of ten women to each man. Now, wouldn't that necessitate the abandonment of the so-called monogamous sexual relationship, I mean, as far as men were concerned?
Dr. Strangelove: Regrettably, yes. But it is, you know, a sacrifice required for the future of the human race. I hasten to add that since each man will be required to do prodigious... service along these lines, the women will have to be selected for their sexual characteristics which will have to be of a highly stimulating nature.
That is also right after people started farming. Being a hunter-gatherer likely means that you don’t have to stay in one place, you can move on when you encounter a-holes. Being a farmer means that you have to sit long winters in a house with your extended family for company and you have to navigate setting up rules for where people get to poop, which is a fraught and contentious issue to this day in many families.
Created a vicious self-reinforcing feedback loop:
http://news.ubc.ca/2012/01/23/monogamy-reduces-major-social-problems-of-polygamist-cultures/
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.