Wars and clan structure may explain a strange biological event 7,000 years ago

May 29, 2018, Stanford University

Starting about 7,000 years ago, something weird seems to have happened to men: Over the next two millennia, recent studies suggest, their genetic diversity —specifically, the diversity of their Y chromosomes—collapsed. So extreme was that collapse that it was as if there was only one man left to mate for every 17 women.

Anthropologists and biologists were perplexed, but Stanford researchers now believe they've found a simple—if revealing—explanation. The collapse, they argue, was the result of generations of war between patrilineal clans, whose membership is determined by male ancestors.

The outlines of that idea came to Tian Chen Zeng, a Stanford undergraduate in sociology, after spending hours reading blog posts that speculated—unconvincingly, Zeng thought—on the origins of the "Neolithic Y-chromosome bottleneck," as the event is known. He soon shared his ideas with his high school classmate Alan Aw, also a Stanford undergraduate in mathematical and computational science.

"He was really waxing lyrical about it," Aw said, so the pair took their idea to Marcus Feldman, a professor of biology in Stanford's School of Humanities and Sciences. Zeng, Aw and Feldman published their results May 25 in Nature Communications.

A cultural culprit

It's not unprecedented for human to take a nosedive once in a while, but the Y-chromosome bottleneck, which was inferred from genetic patterns in modern humans, was an odd one. First, it was observed only in men—more precisely, it was detected only through genes on the Y chromosome, which fathers pass to their sons. Second, the bottleneck is much more recent than other biologically similar events, hinting that its origins might have something to do with changing social structures.

Certainly, the researchers point out, were changing. After the onset of farming and herding around 12,000 years ago, societies grew increasingly organized around extended kinship groups, many of them patrilineal clans—a cultural fact with potentially significant biological consequences. The key is how clan members are related to each other. While women may have married into a clan, men in such clans are all related through male ancestors and therefore tend to have the same Y chromosomes. From the point of view of those chromosomes at least, it's almost as if everyone in a clan has the same father.

That only applies within one clan, however, and there could still be considerable variation between clans. To explain why even between-clan variation might have declined during the bottleneck, the researchers hypothesized that wars, if they repeatedly wiped out entire clans over time, would also wipe out a good many male lineages and their unique Y chromosomes in the process.

Computing clans

To test their ideas, the researchers turned to mathematical models and computer simulations in which men fought—and died—for the resources their clans needed to survive. As the team expected, wars between patrilineal clans drastically reduced Y chromosome diversity over time, while conflict between non-patrilineal clans—groups where both men and women could move between clans—did not.

Zeng, Aw and Feldman's model also accounted for the observation that among the male lineages that survived the Y-chromosome bottleneck, a few lineages underwent dramatic expansions, consistent with the patrilineal clan model, but not others.

Now the researchers are looking at applying the framework in other areas—anywhere "historical and geographical patterns of cultural interactions could explain the patterns you see in genetics," said Feldman, who is also the Burnet C. and Mildred Finley Wohlford Professor.

Feldman said the work was a unusual example of undergraduates driving research that was broad both in terms of the academic disciplines spanned—in this case, sociology, mathematics and biology—and in terms of its potential implications for understanding the role of culture in shaping human evolution. And, he said, "Working with these talented guys is a lot of fun."

Explore further: Sperm whale clans found to change location in ways similar to humans

More information: Tian Chen Zeng et al, Cultural hitchhiking and competition between patrilineal kin groups explain the post-Neolithic Y-chromosome bottleneck, Nature Communications (2018). DOI: 10.1038/s41467-018-04375-6

Related Stories

Recommended for you

Putting a face on a cell surface

November 21, 2018

On the cell surface, anchored in the cell membrane, a wide array of proteins perform functions, which are vital for the cell. These proteins, collectively known as the surfaceome, are a cell's antennae to the outside world, ...

How do flying bees make perfect turns?

November 21, 2018

If you've ever lost your balance standing on a bus that takes a sharp turn at speed or felt your car skid when you drive around a corner too fast, you've experienced the effects of centrifugal force. Turning while simultaneously ...

61 comments

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

moranity
1.1 / 5 (7) May 29, 2018
Another possibility is that only the best male specimen was allowed to mate with the women in a totally woman controlled society, this would fit the same set of facts and matralinial inheritance of property and title is very common in earlier societies.
Bart_A
2.1 / 5 (12) May 29, 2018
It goes back to the age of polygamy, when some men had many wives, and all the others were left out.

Thankfully, almost everywhere to where Christianity has spread to in the last couple thousand years, polygamy has been nearly wiped out.
eachus
1.3 / 5 (4) May 29, 2018
There is another possibility as well. Assume that the male to female ratio was biased in favor of women. This way a tribe or really small clade of people where less than two children per female grow to maturity can survive and grow. Now the Ice Age ends, agriculture is invented, and every tribe has plenty of food. Now comes the Younger Dryas. Oops! Survival until the next time of plenty depends on your supply of warriors. This favors males who have a genetic makeup that favors male children. In the time of plenty, these tribes survived by marrying in women. Now with food scarce and being fought over (or the territory same thing) these tribes dominate.

We end up with the current birthrate, which favors but a shortage of patriarchs due to all those tribes that got wiped out.

Why is this at all likely? We have historical tales of Kings and Emperors who had trouble having male offspring. So this change may have still been working its way through the population.
rrwillsj
1.8 / 5 (9) May 29, 2018
So? Where are the mass graves & battlefield remnants from 7,000 years ago? Global warfare on a scale that encompassed every populated land? Oh really? I bet in their idle moments the researcher's sketch adorably cute uniforms for their fantasy league of cthonic warfare.

How was this arranged scheduled transported & conducted on a global basis?

Wasn't this rime period during the advances in neolithic technology? If there is fossil evidence, confirmed & verified? I'm betting that the improving weaponry gave a temporary advantage to whoever was smart enough to take advantage.

Now you got that pesky, petty detail of proving it. Globally.

We actually see a better example of these imagined conans running amuck today.
When the US Constitution added te Bill of Rights, with the 2nd Amendment. Most weapons were made of crap potmetal. Using piss-poor quality gunpowder. It's a race between the DuPonts and Nobel, who is more responsible for making possible so many deaths.
TheGhostofOtto1923
5 / 5 (8) May 29, 2018
uh where are all the 7000yo mass graves?
Well heres one willis after only 2 mins of looking

"Mass grave reveals prehistoric warfare in ancient European farming community
Shattered skulls and shin bones of 7000-year-old skeletons may point to torture and mutilation not previously observed in early Neolithic Linear Pottery culture"

-Hey did you know that it is widely believed that 10% of asians can trace their lineage directly back to genghis khan? Hows that for drastically reduced Y chromosome diversity? Conquest has its benefits-
Mark Thomas
3.3 / 5 (7) May 29, 2018
"it is widely believed that 10% of asians can trace their lineage directly back to genghis khan"

Khan!!!!
TrollBane
3 / 5 (2) May 29, 2018
How does this explain Larry, Darryl and the other brother Darryl?
Shootist
1.3 / 5 (3) May 30, 2018
oh hell people! SLAVERY. the men were forced to worked. the slave-owners didn't share the women.
Gigel
3 / 5 (2) May 30, 2018
Another possibility is that only the best male specimen was allowed to mate with the women in a totally woman controlled society, this would fit the same set of facts and matralinial inheritance of property and title is very common in earlier societies.

I don't think that would have led to the same effect. The best males are probably unrelated.
Anonym642864
4 / 5 (1) May 30, 2018
At about 40 thousand years ago the roaming period of human stopped and houses came into the form. At about 20 thousand years ago people started building houses in clusters called as village. Due to scarcity of water for cooking and washing wells were dug. At about 10 thousand years ago they started settling near rivers and cultivation started. As the population of group increased to capture the land war started. In normal practice no women was killed and men are wiped out of one clan by the other thus a certain clan might have only one male left and women were more.
dirk_bruere
5 / 5 (5) May 30, 2018
A social event 7000 years ago that was global? From the tip of Africa to Australia to Europe to Asia to the Americas? Seems implausible
Alenano
1.7 / 5 (3) May 30, 2018
There isn't a single example of a significant society that was matriarchal in the same way they were patriarchal (males are overwhelmingly the ones with higher status). As can be seen today where even after decades of feminism the majority of CEOs, rulers, billionaires, etc. are males.
Alenano
1 / 5 (4) May 30, 2018
rrwillsj

>Where are the mass graves & battlefield remnants from 7,000 years ago?

Tell us where the mass graves and battlefield remnats from the Mongols are. Considering how their empire killed proportionately more of the global population than the Nazi regime did.

Then again, you wouldn't be the first Leftie to advocate Pots Not People and the Noble Savage.

How's Cuba working out by the way? Stopped being a shithole?
humy
5 / 5 (4) May 30, 2018

Thankfully, almost everywhere to where Christianity has spread to in the last couple thousand years, polygamy has been nearly wiped out.

I am personally neither for or against polygamy.
But I don't understand why you imply polygamy is a bad thing.
It is usually only labelled as 'bad' in some societies because of cultural or religious reasons, neither of which makes it objectively a 'bad' thing. I don't see how such views on polygamy, whether for or against, are rationally based.
Alenano
1.3 / 5 (3) May 30, 2018
Polygamy leads to more dysfunction than enforced mongamy.
humy
5 / 5 (2) May 30, 2018
Polygamy leads to more dysfunction than enforced mongamy.

'dysfunction' of what?
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.7 / 5 (3) May 30, 2018
Polygamy is the natural state of human reproduction. It satisfies both men and women and benefits the tribe as well.

Males and females have conflicting reproductive strategies. Males of most species want to impregnate as many females as possible to ensure that their genes make it to the next generation.

Females prefer quality over quantity. As they have much more invested in a pregnancy they want to select the best possible donor for each and every one they choose to have. And the best method of ensuring relative quality in potential suitors is to compel them to compete for repro rights.

These behaviors are entirely natural but obviously anathema to tribal harmony and cohesion.
Cont>
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.7 / 5 (3) May 30, 2018
The harem is the natural state of human reproduction. As oscar wilde said, a woman would rather have a tenth of a champion than all of an ordinary man. Proven champions in battle and outstanding leaders were often given preference in mate selection, and women were happy to bear the children of winners. This is true incidentally whether those winners were the men of their tribe, or the ones who lost in battle and proved incapable of defending their own repro rights.

Polygamy is also a quick way of replacing warriors lost in battle. Conflict always resulted in excess females, and cultures who embraced polygamy had an advantage.

Religionists knew this full well, and exploited it as another tool for maximizing growth. This includes the xian religion, despite what julian says. Many examples in the bible and in history. Take Warren Jeffs and the FLDS for instance.
Cont>
Captain Stumpy
2.3 / 5 (3) May 30, 2018
Thankfully, almost everywhere to where Christianity has spread to in the last couple thousand years, polygamy has been nearly wiped out
erm.... what?
ROTFLMFAO

TheGhostofOtto1923
3.4 / 5 (5) May 30, 2018
Allowing women their prerogative to select for quality, to choose the best possible mate for each and every child they wish to bear, is the best way of reducing growth and improving society as a whole. And the need to achieve these things is so great that the world has instituted ABORTION to the tune of ONE BILLION since Roe v Wade.

The religions oppose abortion not on any moral grounds but because it limits their ability to grow. This is why midwives in europe and the Americas who taught natural methods of contraception and abortion, were deemed witches and burned at the stake.

The fact is that without religion the world could achieve sustainable growth and there would be NO NEED for abortion.

Religions are the CAUSE of the very thing they supposedly hate so much.

The recent victory in Ireland is very significant. It means that there is the chance that some day abortions will be rare and unnecessary.
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.6 / 5 (5) May 30, 2018
I should read what I write sometimes. This:

"This is true incidentally whether those winners were the men of their tribe, or the ones who lost in battle and proved incapable of defending their own repro rights."

-should be something like this:

"This is true incidentally whether those winners were the men of their tribe, or the victors from other tribes who proved themselves more worthy of repro rights and better defenders of their women and children."

-a situation immortalized BTW in the Helen of Troy saga, where a war was fought to reestablish repro rights over a single woman.

Hey stump whutup? Godders are so silly sometimes arent they?
rrwillsj
1.4 / 5 (5) May 30, 2018
Where is the evidence for mass slaughter 7,000 years ago?

"Lake village attacked and destroyed 7,000 years ago."

Where is the link to that claim? If this was evidence for male on male conflicts? Why were there remains of women and children?

I am guessing, if the hypothesis that this was a global event can be verified? That this 'bottleneck' has a genetic cause.

A relatively swift transition to Modern Humans may have included a lethal mutation that finally manifested at this time.

I speculate that it may have caused a high rate of premature and stillborn births for males fetuses. This could explain why so specific and so widespread.

Perhaps a natural event could have triggered this genetic breakdown. Such as catching the edge of a cosmic-ray or x-ray bombardment. Just enough to effect damage to an already vulnerable XY specific genes but faint enough not to cause widespread devastation?
humy
3 / 5 (2) May 30, 2018
Polygamy is the natural state of human reproduction.

That may or may not be true; I don't know.
But it doesn't matter either way since 'natural' doesn't equate with 'good' (nor 'bad') and 'unnatural' doesn't equate with 'bad' (nor 'good').
Rabies is perfectly 'natural'!
A life saving designer drug to cure it can be very 'unnatural'.
Perhaps polygamy is good; but not because it is natural.
tatelyle
1 / 5 (2) May 30, 2018
Academics still do not understand that a genetic bottleneck does NOT necessarily imply a reduction in population. The population could have been steadily increasing, and yet one genotype from one person was so successful that it displaced all the others. This changes the conclusions, because there is no longer any need to invoke inter-tribal conflict. - - - It may simply have been that the tribal leader and his brothers were the ONLY people allowed to mate with all the females in the tribe (a bit like a lion pride is serviced by only one male). And so that single +royal male+ genotype became dominant throughout the population.
humy
3 / 5 (2) May 31, 2018
Academics still do not understand that a genetic bottleneck does NOT necessarily imply a reduction in population.

Well some academics don't get that but there are many others that do.
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.5 / 5 (4) May 31, 2018
Where is the link to that claim? If this was evidence for male on male conflicts? Why were there remains of women and children?
Willis don't know how to google. Not surprising.
I am guessing... speculating
Of course you are. And your guessings and speculatings are just you pretending to be something you're not eh?

Why don't you go play-act somewhere else eh?
TheGhostofOtto1923
3 / 5 (4) May 31, 2018
That may or may not be true; I don't know
Well maybe that's because you're uninformed?

"By nature it seems that humans are naturally polygamous. Although polyandry, a marriage of one woman to many men, is rare, polygyny, the marriage of one man to many women, is widely practiced in human societies."

"Polygynous structures (excluding leks) are estimated to occur in up to 90% of mammals."

-Which has to be your own fault yes?
TheGhostofOtto1923
3 / 5 (4) May 31, 2018
And I told you WHY both men and women prefer it. Monogamy is an artificial way of promoting tribal harmony, and also of modulating the growth rate. Women can be confined to families and relegated to baby-making and child-rearing. Children can be inculcated in cultural norms and expectations from an early age. And men have reasons to participate in that culture by earning a living to support that family, and often by going off to fight to protect it, in wars he might not normally want to participate in.

But it is not natural, it is domestication. In religion-dominated cultures, violating the restrictions of monogamy and family exact the strictest of punishments.

It becomes genetic after 1000s of gens of culling and of successful intertribal conflict/group selection. It is another indication that we are domesticated animals.
katesisco
3 / 5 (2) May 31, 2018
The earliest societies that settled in the Danube valley were power- equal in the sexes. Or as the VINCA culture shows, women controlled the village life. I suggest this period of equality was short as women were subject to child bearing. BUT THE ORIGINAL FORM MUST HAVE BEEN EQUALITY. After a global climate crisis that altered hunting and limited fishing, farming allowed pressure blocs to be created and used. These early cities were as large as 10,000 people. I wonder if there was physiology difficulties created by CMEs or UV exposure that made childbearing difficult. Perhaps created glandular disfunction leading to thyroid and adrenal collapse.
The Celti we know claimed that they had only one father, Dis, and the king sent all of his males away at birth forbidding their return until after 21 years. This may have enabled spreading of the kingdom and did keep power ploys from being cultivated.
434a
3.7 / 5 (3) May 31, 2018
A social event 7000 years ago that was global? From the tip of Africa to Australia to Europe to Asia to the Americas? Seems implausible


Agreed. I think it fits the profile of something like pandemic disease.
Bird flu for example could be spread globally in a couple of years by migratory species moving between continents. It is today. People would be using wild birds and their eggs as a food source the world over, bringing them into contact with infection.

Flu can also be gender selective. Spanish flu affected more males than females. This is believed to be because it killed those infected with TB more readily and TB is more prevalent in men than women.

The W shape age profile of spanish flu would also have taken out significant numbers of males in their prime breeding age.

https://www.ncbi....2740912/

I am sure there are other diseases with similar profiles that could explain such a bottle neck.
TheGhostofOtto1923
3 / 5 (4) May 31, 2018
The earliest societies that settled in the Danube valley were power- equal in the sexes. Or as the VINCA culture shows, women controlled the village life. I suggest this period of equality was short as women were subject to child bearing. BUT THE ORIGINAL FORM MUST HAVE BEEN EQUALITY
You are citing temperate cultures which had begun to resist their tropical compunctions. Many amerind tribes were matriarchical. The need was to limit growth, and women in charge was the best way to resist the male desire to mate all year round.
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.3 / 5 (4) May 31, 2018
The Celti we know claimed that they had only one father, Dis, and the king sent all of his males away at birth forbidding their return until after 21 years
Spartans were forbidden to mate until after age 25. This both limited growth in a mountainous region of sparce resources, and assured that only successful warriors would reproduce.
THE ORIGINAL FORM MUST HAVE BEEN EQUALITY
Equality in what? Early tribes had men out hunting and fighting while women gathered and processed food and tended children. Yes, these roles were equally important.

They tended to live in separate groups because, like today, they had little in common.
Anonym590659
1 / 5 (1) May 31, 2018
So...I am my own Grandpa?

(and cue: Spike Jones and his orchestra!)
humy
3 / 5 (2) May 31, 2018
That may or may not be true; I don't know
Well maybe that's because you're uninformed?
...
"Polygynous structures (excluding leks) are estimated to occur in up to 90% of mammals."

So you think that means humans are 'naturally' polygynous?
Using your same logic, the fact that most mammals walk on four legs means humans 'naturally' also do so.
So, no, I don't think that is because I am necessarily 'uninformed' in particular but rather I just don't have the same flawed logic as you do.
rrwillsj
1 / 5 (4) May 31, 2018
434a, that's a pretty shrewd guess you proposed. Though, to encompass the global population 7,000 years ago? I would bet there were outbreaks over decades and centuries. That is how major pandemics have repeatedly occurred in recorded history.

The influenza pathogen you suggested does seem to be a product of pig-farming. On an evolutionary scale still a new source of disease. Regular outbreaks spread to outlying communities. Up and down trade routes and religious pilgrimages.

I would conjecture that the Spanish Flu struck males worse than females because the males were trapped in crowded barracks and troop ships. Similar outbreaks occur today in barracks and dormitories.

The women and children and elderly were a lot more dispersed. It was easier for distant communities to isolate themselves with stringent quarantines.

Today? That is not a realistic method to protect yourself. Even the survivalists in their bunkers need to replenish the larder & water supply.
Alenano
4 / 5 (1) May 31, 2018
https://en.wikipe...unatsite

https://en.wikipe...eath_Pit

https://en.wikipe...d_raptio

https://en.wikipe...al_site)

https://evolution...ence.jpg

https://ourworldi...ence/#/1

http://quillette....atherer/

https://twitter.c...51862528

https://twitter.c...05335552

There's plenty of evidence of mass slaughter during the Neolithic, especially when combined with other findings on violence in societies like the Hunter-Horticulturalist Yanomamo. Sorry, the noble savage is imaginary. Like Communism on the scale of a country (see Cuba being a shithole).
rrwillsj
1 / 5 (4) May 31, 2018
But Alieno, once you got flushed out... The Cuban air smelled much better with you no longer around to stench it up.
ZoeBell
Jun 01, 2018
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
ZoeBell
Jun 01, 2018
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Ghostt
2.5 / 5 (4) Jun 01, 2018
Polygamy leads to more dysfunction than enforced mongamy.


Source?
torbjorn_b_g_larsson
not rated yet Jun 01, 2018
Interesting. The Karmin et al reference paper [ https://bib.irb.h...sity.pdf ], a huge work, shows that the diversity dips in the male transmitted Y genes correlates with each continent date of farming and population growth, it looks simultaneous in the discussed paper due to plot scale but is not.

The difference between this and female transmitted mitochondria gene diversity show that population size changes or flows cannot explain it, Karmin et al suggest "a combination of culturally driven increased male variance in offspring number within demes and an increased male-specific variance among demes, perhaps enhanced by increased sex-biased migration patterns (Destro-Bisol et al. 2004; Skoglund et al. 2014) and male-specific cultural inheritance of fitness."

[tbctd]
torbjorn_b_g_larsson
not rated yet Jun 01, 2018
[ctd] The new paper claims this cannot happen due to three factors, break with etnographic normal conditions one of them - but that is the point. The other two proposed factors are irrelevant (similarities between community types in similar conditions) or implausible (selection for reproductive success). Also, group selection is unprecedented. I will go with Karmin et al for the time being.

Interesting that the discussion nevertheless went to population size changes or polygamy, neither of which is evidenced in the data. The baseline effective population size was about two females per male, which is neither strict monogamy nor strict polygamy.
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.7 / 5 (3) Jun 01, 2018
So you think that means humans are 'naturally' polygynous?
Using your same logic, the fact that most mammals walk on four legs means humans 'naturally' also do so.
So, no, I don't think that is because I am necessarily 'uninformed
Ha this is the danger of posting more than one quote for posters with limited attention spans.

Here's the first one again, all by itself

"By nature it seems that humans are naturally polygamous. Although polyandry, a marriage of one woman to many men, is rare, polygyny, the marriage of one man to many women, is widely practiced in human societies." -see google

-Let me know if you have problems with it and I'll chop it up for you the way your mom cuts up your dinner.
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.7 / 5 (3) Jun 01, 2018
stealing many men. The qualities of men who are provide the perspective for children
So I'll try to explain it another way. Our purpose as genetic vehicles is to deliver our genes from one gen to the next, in the form most able to continue into the future (see dawkins/the selfish gene)

Men can reproduce several times a day and so potentially have a better shot at this. But they have to compete with other males for the opportunity.

Women in contrast only have this opportunity once per year. And so they are much more concerned, genetically speaking, with making sure that each time she conceives it is with the best possible donor she can get.

This has nothing to do with husbands or social conventions. Throughout prehistory society has changed to accommodate this reality, not the other way around. Women lived separate from men, in their own tents/hogans/caves, not in monogamous family relationships. Children were raised by the village, to paraphrase a tired quote.
Cont>
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.7 / 5 (3) Jun 01, 2018
Who says families are the best way to raise children? Religions say this. Religions suit themselves, for the reasons I explained above, as well as the tribe, for they are traditionally one and the same.

But without religion society tends to revert; men are off on their own, competing for the best women, who themselves are living together, raising their children collectively, and tempting the best men they can find to compete for their affections.

Read countless stories and anecdotes about urban, gang-dominated black communities for enlightenment.

"According to a 2010 study, 72 percent of black children are born to unwed mothers..."

-Whites are perhaps only a little more domesticated in this regard, having spent more generations in the thrall of judeo-xian shepherds/husbanders. But see biker gangs and lebensborn for insight into our true nature.
Cont>
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.7 / 5 (3) Jun 01, 2018
This prehistoric pleistocener tribal structure could never grow because of the inevitable disruption all this tempting and competing would cause. Strong tribal chiefs could maintain order to an extent. But there were always inherent limits.

But religions which could claim authority from a higher source - one that was watching you while the chief was not around - could spread order and stability much more effectively. It could extend the tribal identity throughout regions, uniting many disparate groups with common beliefs, goals, and fears.

It could disrupt the male/female prerogatives. It could force men and women into monogamous families, put women into cloth bags and end their ability to tempt, and thereby enable men to trust each other and cooperate as never before.

And since all men were assured repro rights without having to constantly defend them and compete for them, they were all much more willing to die in battle for the system that had given them this great gift.
humy
3 / 5 (2) Jun 01, 2018

"By nature it seems that humans are naturally polygamous. Although polyandry, a marriage of one woman to many men, is rare, polygyny, the marriage of one man to many women, is widely practiced in human societies."

TheGhostofOtto1923

So NOW you saying if HUMAN societies 'widely' practice something then it is 'natural'?
In that case;
Monogamy is ALSO 'naturel' because human societies 'widely' practice it.
And burning gas and oil is ALSO 'naturel' because human societies currently 'widely' practice it.
See any problem with your logic?
Premise correct but false inference i.e. your conclusion doesn't follow from your (correct) premise.
You have been giving one false inference after the other; a seemingly endless stream of false inferences from correct premises. I have yet to see a single correct inference from you.
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.7 / 5 (3) Jun 01, 2018
So NOW you saying if HUMAN societies 'widely' practice something then it is 'natural'?
Perhaps it is the case that you do not understand the concept 'reputable source'. Those are quotes from experts citing the results of scientific studies and polls. Understand yet?
In that case;
Monogamy is ALSO 'naturel' because human societies 'widely' practice it
According to the results of scientific studies and polls, NO its NOT.
I have yet to see a single correct inference from you
-because you're ascribing the reputable sources which you disagree with, or are just too dim to understand, to poor otto who is only the messenger.

Again why don't you google them and find out who it is you really disagree with? Cant handle disappointment?
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.7 / 5 (3) Jun 01, 2018
Look - to be fair, I do agree that just because something is widely practiced this does not mean it is natural. For instance

"It is estimated that more than 200 million girls and women alive today have undergone female genital mutilation in the countries where ..."

-not to mention all that circumcising out there which is essentially the same thing. But without continuous social, usually religious, reinforcement the institution of marriage quickly disintegrates, because women will always be looking to upgrade, and men will always be looking to maximize their proliferation. I think I used genghis Khan as a popular example. Also Wilt Chamberlain. Also any daytime soap opera you want to watch.
rrwillsj
1 / 5 (3) Jun 01, 2018
otto, that is the one thing I admire about you. How many ways you can find to repeat yourself. Repetitiously... Over and over again.

I'm jealous of such talent!
humy
not rated yet Jun 01, 2018
So NOW you saying if HUMAN societies 'widely' practice something then it is 'natural'?
Perhaps it is the case that you do not understand the concept 'reputable source'. Those are quotes from experts citing the results of scientific studies and polls. Understand yet?

Yes, I understand you are so stupid as not to comprehend I am NOT saying the polls are wrong but it is only your inference that is wrong. Something being practiced 'widely' doesn't imply 'natural'; Understand yet?

humy
not rated yet Jun 01, 2018
In that case;
Monogamy is ALSO 'naturel' because human societies 'widely' practice it
According to the results of scientific studies and polls, NO its NOT.

Which polls say monogamy is NOT practiced 'widely'?
Much more relevant question; How 'widely' is 'widely'? The vague word 'widely' isn't a scientific term that has a standard accepted mathematical formula to determine whether something is 'widely' so, NO, there are no polls showing monogamy is NOT practiced 'widely'; at least no scientific polls.
Monogamy is practiced much in US and UK and at least several other countries. Why does that mean it is not 'widely' practiced? To answer that, first define how much is 'widely', which you have yet to do.
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.7 / 5 (3) Jun 01, 2018
Which polls say monogamy is NOT practiced 'widely'?
And you STILL haven't googled that quote I posted? What's wrong with you humy??? No Google in your country? How about running water? Do you get American basketball over the radio I hope?
humy
not rated yet Jun 02, 2018
Which polls say monogamy is NOT practiced 'widely'?
And you STILL haven't googled that quote I posted?

I have googled it. What of it? It didn't lead to any links saying polls say monogamy is NOT practiced 'widely'.
If you deny this, perhaps you care to show me just one example of those links? It shouldn't be a huge effort on your part if you are telling the truth thus I can only draw one conclusion if you don't.
ZoeBell
Jun 02, 2018
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.7 / 5 (3) Jun 02, 2018
Yeah but it leads to stronger, larger, more cohesive and more successful tribes and so favors group selection over evolution. Something darwin, dawkins, and many other scientists have trouble accepting.

Polygamy for instance allows tribes to recover their numbers faster after conflicts. It was used by mormons to quickly populate regions in the western central US by putting civil war widows to work making babies.

Swelling populations began exploiting the resources in these regions which aided in the growth of the US economy which suggests that the mormon religion was concocted for this specific purpose.
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.7 / 5 (3) Jun 02, 2018
otto, that is the one thing I admire about you. How many ways you can find to repeat yourself. Repetitiously... Over and over again.

I'm jealous of such talent!
And you do so enjoy repeating the word 'I' dont you?
ZoeBell
Jun 02, 2018
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
TogetherinParis
not rated yet Jun 02, 2018
Perhaps circumcision and other epigenetic changes enter into the equation to diminish the value of masculine diversity's contributions to reproductive success? We will only understand genetic shifting historically & prehistorically after we understand it going forward. This will take time and work, not speculation.
TheGhostofOtto1923
5 / 5 (2) Jun 03, 2018
But we should also realize, that Europe has no oil and significant natural resources - and all these guys never learned to work in their utilization - everything what they can do is just to sell their oil
Yeah and a millenium ago it was they with the clear economic, scientific, and military advantages.

Youve got to consider humanity throughout the pleistocene, what brought us into the modern era. You've got to consider the kind of power a successful tribe with an innovative social system or a breakthrough in weapons tech can wield, what an Alexander or a Khan or a Muhammad or a pizarro can accomplish.

What good is a social system if the huns can wipe it out entirely?

The bantu nearly extincted the khoisan in a very short time. It is reasonable to assume that this sort of thing has happened countless times throughout prehistory.

Re refugee invaders in europe, consider how civilizations quickly collapsed around the Med when the displaced Sea Peoples arrived.
savvys84
1 / 5 (1) Jun 04, 2018
genghis who ffs?
tho i would like 17 women wow

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.