/sci/ - Science & Math

>>10772845
Polygamy

>>10772867
childbirth is 50% male or 50% female...

>>10772845
Literally impossible. Male+female = child. You cannot have ancestry that deviates from this.

>>10772870
>>10772869
this board is so funny

>>10772870
You can with inbreeding but there's no reason why that would lead to such a disparity assuming the likelihood of a father-daughter relationship is the same as a mother-son one.

>>10772874
>>10772875
Whoa. True. Moment of retardation there, never mind guys.

>>10772870
One man has two children with two different women. Those children have a child with each other. That child has only three grandparents: two grandmothers and one grandfather.

>>10772845

Are you dumb?
Obviously women are whoring out. 80% of the women are fucking 20% of the men. That leaves children with a far higher genetic diversity from their mothers than their fathers.

>>10772845
so the /pol/ incels were right all along, huh

>>10772845
All this is saying is that, throughout history, twice as many women were able to successfully reproduce. It's not a very intuitive way of saying it, which is why I expect this thread to get 200+ replies.

>>10772890

>Women are whoring out

More like getting raped. It's real easy for 20% of the guys getting 80% of women when they are literally wiping out the males from every tribe, village and town they go after. Turn the surviving males into slaves or castrate them.

I feel like people ignore that the vast majority of our ancestry are just someone else's rape babies.

>>10772867
>>10772875
>>10772882
>>10772890
>>10772905
>>10772910

wrong, each generation has an equal chance of being male or female. the population on earth is 50% male and 50% female, therefore, we have the same amount of female ancestors as males

>>10772921
Imagine if your granddad raped your mother, leaving you a retarded mongoloid child. In the two prior generations of your family, there are 2 men (1 grandfather and one grandfather who is also your father) and 3 women (your mother and 2 grandmothers). This is one way there could be differing numbers of men and women.

>>10772845
>I dont understand the math behind this
>>10772869
>childbirth is 50% male or 50% female...
>>10772870
>Literally impossible. Male+female = child. You cannot have ancestry that deviates from this.
Are you all just trolling? There's this word "DISTINCT."
So yes, a child comes from 1 father and 1 mother.
But what definitely is NOT true is the idea a child's father is ONLY having children with that 1 mother.
Throughout history smaller numbers of men have reproduced with much larger numbers of women (most famous example being Genghis Khan (or at least someone closely related to him) ending up having his Y-chromosomal lineage represented in 8% of the entire modern male population of Asia).
Women generally reproduce regardless of what they do while serving as the sexual selectors. Men are the experimental sex basically. Women select the fewer number of men each generation which shapes how men in the future end up. So in a way women themselves created the situation where men are much stronger than they are and largely dominate over them in most if not all cultures past and present.
Here's the study where that "twice as many female ancestors" trivia comes from by the way:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22743131
>To investigate what caused the two-to-one female-male TMRCA ratio r(F/M)=T(F)/T(M) in humans, we develop a forward-looking agent-based model (ABM) with overlapping generations.
>Our results support the view that we are descended from males who were successful in a highly competitive context, while females were facing a much smaller female-female competition.

>>10772921
One man can be the father for fifty different mothers.
You could argue this one man counts as fifty fathers, but there's only 1 distinct father in this scenario, and there would be a 50 to 1 ratio of female to male genetics passed on in this scenario. That's all this subject is about.

>>10772935
>>10772938
are you trolling? using Ghenghis khan example, he is a man who has sex with a woman, kids will be 50/50 on gender, then next women will have kids who have 50/50 on gender and so on, the ratio of men to female stays the same

>>10772921

>wrong, each generation has an equal chance of being male or female.

But the chances that a male will live long enough to have offspring of his own is lower than a female live long enough to have her own.

>>10772941
so? that male still exists, he doesn't just disappear

>>10772940
It's about how many distinct men there are in the family tree.
Like I said, YES, there is always 1 father and 1 mother.
But NO, it's not always 1 man being a father through 1 woman.
1 man can be the father with 50 different women.
And that would result in the same genetics (from that 1 father) being copied over 50 times while each woman's genetics would get copied over just the 1 time.

>>10772945
and again, the kids will be 50/50 on gender, so the generation will be evenly male and female. . the other men who didnt have sex still exist, they dont just go away

>>10772942

For some reason you keep getting hanged up on the male/female ratio at birth when that isn't the part that matters. What matters is the male/female ratio at mating age and ratio of who is more successful in having offspring.

The female in this case is more successful because they are the less likely of the two sexs to get killed in wars and raids.

>>10772946
I know you're just trolling, but those guys who didn't reproduce aren't your ancestors.

>>10772946

>the other men who didnt have sex still exist, they dont just go away

Yeah they do, if their genes don't get passed down then they don't "count" in the future genome. Unless their own father/brother(s) successfully pass their genes in the failed male stead.

>>10772950
i understand what you are saying, but you are taking an example on an individual family scale. if you look at the population as a whole it doesnt matter that 1 male fucked 50 women and 50 males did not, those males still exist and are a part of someone's ancestor tree

>>10772955
read ^ post, I'm being serious.

>>10772957
but they are still apart of someone's family tree. these men don't just appear out of nowhere

>>10772940
>he is a man who has sex with a woman, kids will be 50/50 on gender, then next women will have kids who have 50/50 on gender and so on, the ratio of men to female stays the same
It's not the ratio of male and female people, it's the ratio of distinct male and distinct female genetics.
To make a quick, crude depiction of this, imagine there's this guy Steve, represented with the letter S. And there are these women Rhonda (R), Becky (B), Katie (K), Veronica (V), Michelle (M), Annie (A), and Jessica (J). If Steve reproduces with all of them and they constitute your ancestry, then you're going to have a lot more DISTINCT female genetics represented in you than you will have DISTINCT male genetics e.g.
S+R+S+B+S+K+S+V+S+M+S+A+S+J or
S+R+B+K+V+M+A+J (depending on if you want to show just the distincts or not)
You never had a situation where there wasn't a father and a mother, but Steve monopolized the reproductive landscape so that you got the above instead of something more like this, with the added cast of Chris (C), Greg (G), Dave (D), Zach (Z), Tim (T), and Nate (N):
S+R+C+B+G+K+D+V+Z+M+T+A+N
In this second example, the ratio of distinct male ancestors to distinct female ancestors is 1 to 1, while in the first example the ratio was 1 to 7.

>>10772959

That's most likely because of their mother/sister having offspring that did survive thus their genes surviving. Which again goes back to the disparity favoring the female's over males.

>>10772959
>if you look at the population as a whole it doesnt matter that 1 male fucked 50 women and 50 males did not, those males still exist and are a part of someone's ancestor tree
It definitely does matter. Hence:
>>10772935
>https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22743131
>To investigate what caused the two-to-one female-male TMRCA ratio r(F/M)=T(F)/T(M) in humans, we develop a forward-looking agent-based model (ABM) with overlapping generations.
>Our results support the view that we are descended from males who were successful in a highly competitive context, while females were facing a much smaller female-female competition.
They didn't just make that up. It's a fact you have about twice as many DISTINCT female ancestors as you do DISTINCT male ancestors.
The same men occupy multiple different slots in our long term ancestral family tree, while women much more frequently occupy only one slot.

>>10772959
Your 3rd cousin twice removed who never had children isn't an ancestor. That's a distant family relation.

>>10772959
>>10772967
Also, let me try an analogy. When it comes to buying a product, you can generally say there's going to be 1 buyer and 1 seller. But 1 seller isn't going to limit themselves to just 1 buyer. A seller like Amazon gets ridiculously massive and processes tens of millions of transactions every day.
Add to that how most new businesses fail within a year and you can see how there's still asymmetrical landscape where one seller is massively over-represented and most other sellers that emerge rapidly die out before getting a chance to spread.
Buyers on the other hand don't have these same pressures exerted on them. New buyers don't disappear within their first year of spending money barring relatively rare young age fatalities from car crashes or uncommon diseases.
Women are like buyers. They pretty much stick around and continue buying at steady rates without much competition to deal with. Men are like sellers. They face massive competition and a very small number of the top sellers end up dominating sales while the majority of new sellers fall by the wayside shortly after beginning.

>>10772974
itt he is only my 3rd cousin twice removed, but in reality, he's someone else's uncle who is apart of their family tree

>>10772977
yes, but my point is those sellers who didn't end up selling anything still exist and since they existed they must belong in someone's family tree

>>10772982
>yes, but my point is those sellers who didn't end up selling anything still exist and since they existed they must belong in someone's family tree
Not *equally* though. You're right that everyone shares genetics with every other member of the human species, and even with every other member of a variety of other species. But that *equally* caveat is a big one. You could say I'm a partial owner of a company because I have 10 shares, but someone else might have 1 billion shares.

>>10772845
Genocide and rape. Next.

>>10772845
this thread is beautiful

>>10772845
XX came before XY.
All those little asexual microbes were prototypical "female".
Males were a genetic mutation somewhere along the lines of evolution.

Females were basically like, "Hmm, we seem to keep getting eaten by these other, larger, asexual beings a lot, what if we made a new being, dedicated only for defense and attack!", and so XY was born, and the rest is quite literally 'fucking history'.

>>10773265
Why do microbes do this?
It's like they are aware in some ways, even going so far as to produce new viruses when they die, seemingly out of pure spite, a final farewell fuck you to the world that tore them apart.
More importantly, how do they do this?!

>>10773265
>XX came before XY.

No it didn’t. There are multiple forms of chromosomal sex differentiation, including XX and X and ZW.

>All those little asexual microbes were prototypical "female".

Wrong. They did not have sex.

>Males were a genetic mutation somewhere along the lines of evolution.

Wrong. Sex was.

>Females were basically like

Microbes don’t think.
You’re genuinely retarded and should die.

>>10773279
So, when did they start having sex?

>>10773273
Do what? Divide? its how they reproduce

>>10773282
Over a billion years ago when eukaryotes evolved. Prokaryotes do something similar known as horizontal gene transfer but they lack dedicated sexes and don’t do it to reproduce.

>>10773288
Right, and which set of chromosomes within eukaryotes came first once XX or XY became relevant? Which one of these two contains a larger base set of data from which to elaborate from?

>>10772900
No, because the /pol/ incels claim that this is the result of feminism, socialism, liberalism or whatever, when in fact it has been this way for the entire existence of the human race. So whether the /pol/ incels manage to destroy feminism or not is completely irrelevant. It will always be that way that twice as many women reproduce than men. It's part of humanity and thus very probably part of why our species is so successful, though I realize that there is no consolation in the realization of this harsh truth for the losers of this rat race.

>>10772845
>"You have twice as many female ancestors as male ancestors.

Lot of inbreeding going on in your family "vine".

>>10772921
>each generation has an equal chance of being male or female.
Yes, but that is beside the point.

>the population on earth is 50% male and 50% female
Yes, but that is beside the point.

>therefore, we have the same amount of female ancestors as males
That's a non sequitur.

>>10772882
This.
Incest between people who share a common male ancestor would skew the ratio towards having more female ancestors.
If they shared a common female ancestor, it would skew the ratio towards having more male ancestors.
Having more female ancestors means men were more likely to produce offspring with multiple women than women were to produce offspring with multiple men.

>>10772882
The opposite scenario is as likely as the one you propose.
One woman has two children with two different men. Those children have a child with each other. That child has only three grandparents: two grandfathers and one grandmother.

It doesnt explain the disparity

>>10774061
This

>>10772845
Around the time of the neolithic revolution there was a sudden explosion of Chad Thundercocks. For every 17 women who reproduced and contributed to todays humanity, 1 man also did so. It's probably explained by an large increases in violence/wars, the Ghengis Khan effect.
Mitochondrial haplotypes tend to not move very much, whereas there is turnover of Y-chromosome haplotypes as invaders move around. "Star shaped expansions" are a euphemism for this - group arrives out of nowhere and starts fucking the women in the area, then spread out. The patterns of Y chromosome haplotypes appear like a star eplosion.

>>10774061
Yes and no.
First, the disparity is empirical observation that we gained through genetic research. It's a fact. The explanation comes after.
Second, your alternative isn't even equally likely simply for reasons of biological circumstances of human reproduction. A woman who wants to have many offspring (whether with different men or not) can only have so many because pregnancy takes time. In contrast to that a man isn't limited at all. A woman can have maybe 50 offspring at most, because she has something like 35 fertile years and each descendant requires 9 months of her time. A man OTOH requires mere second for another offspring. A man can literally have hundreds, even thousands of offspring, and some did. Which by extension means that lots of other men had to have disproportionally few children (read zero) to rebalance the equation that every child had to have one father and one mother.

>>10774061
>The opposite scenario is as likely as the one you propose.
No it isn't. Women get pregnant. That's a pretty fucking massive limiting factor. A guy can inseminate and leave with zero cost. That's a huge incentive to reproduce with multiple partners. A woman has the cost of nine months of carrying a baby followed by a historically high mortality birthing process. It's like comparing someone eating at an all you can eat buffet where the entrance fee was covered with a gift card vs. someone eating at a three star Michelin restaurant where even the tap water is $80 a glass.
Also women know the child is theirs. For men it's not known, and this further incentivizes men to opt for multiple different partners rather than dedicate all their resources to one child who might actually be carrying the genetics of some other man.

>>10772982
If they don't "sell" anything they don't have descendents retard

>>10772845
Can a limit be calculated, when the number of generations tends to infinity?

You guys are retarded. "You Have Twice As Many Female Ancestors Than Male Ancestors" refers to the fact that half of all men born never had offspring compared to women.

/sci/ really is the lowest IQ board.

>>10775672
Are you actually retarded, those guys dont just diapear. They are someones great uncle anestors

>>10775751
This cant believe how many people actually believe we have twice female ancestors

>>10776522
>This cant believe how many people actually believe we have twice female ancestors
Not individually but as a group.

>>10772845
it's wrong. the right way to say it is that throughout history twice as many women as men reproduced. i think it's been something like 40% of men and 80% of women reproduced.

>>10773903
Differs among races though.
Polygamous societies have 1.4 females per 1 male, monogamous ones have 1.1 to 1.

the absolute state of /sci/... this is pretty obvious

>>10776784
Not sure what you're saying. Races, societies - what is it? Those words don't mean the same thing. And male to female ratio? Do you mean at birth? Surely not. That's always around 106 males to 100 females. So you mean the ratio of those humans that reproduce or what? Very nebulous post.

>>10772845
this is a misuse of the word ancestor, the reason this is "unintuitive" is people consider ancestors to be members in their direct line of descent. Is your great aunt really your ancestor?

>>10776761
It's not the wrong way to say it. In fact we don't know the exact percentages. We do know however that we have twice as many female ancestors than male ancestors. This fact has been discovered by genetic research, by looking at the genetic variation of human populations:
>In a nutshell, we examined the amount of genetic variability on the Y chromosome (which is inherited by males solely from fathers) and mitochondrial DNA (inherited in both sexes solely from the mother). According to population genetic theory, the amount of variation observed among any set of chromosomes surveyed in a population is proportional to two factors, the rate of mutation and the size of the population (in terms of numbers of reproducing individuals). If we factor out differences in the rate of mutation, then any leftover difference in the amount of variation between two samples of chromosomes should be due to differences in the sizes of the populations from which they are sampled. Applying this method, we were able to estimate the relative size of the female and male human populations (from mitochondrial and Y chromosome variation, respectively). We found that the breeding sex ratio is about two females per male.
https://tierneylab.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/09/05/the-missing-men-in-your-family-tree/

This is how this fact was discovered. So it's absolutely correct to say that every human living today has twice as many female ancestors than male ancestors, whereas it's pure speculation whether the percentages of men and women who reproduced where 40/80 or 30/60 or whatever. We don't know and can't know that:
>And as for the 80%-40% numbers, admittedly those are chosen somewhat arbitrarily. It could have been 60%-30% or 70%-35%. The only definite thing was that twice as many previously living women as men have descendants alive today.
ibd.

>>10776881
it's not correct to say "every" because that refers to each one. "all" might be correct. read the thread for more posts about this

>>10776892
Troll.

If you wanna be asinine about it we should only be allowed to say "in the populations that were observed" or "whose genes were sampled and analyzed that way". But that's the thing: even though the amounts of male and female ancestors of different populations varied (simply because different populations have different genetic variability; it's highest among Africans for example), the ratio of male to female ancestors was the same in all investigated populations.
So it's completely fine to say "every", just as it's fine to say on every planet the laws of physics apply, even though we didn't actually check every planet. What matters is that we have sufficient proof to make such a statement.

>>10776522
Uncles are not ancestors

If that was true there'd be an evolutionary advantage in having daughters. Boys and girls are born 50/50 so that suggests it isn't true.

>>10772942

>>10772938
/thread
Don't know why this is so hard to understand.

>>10777049
You are either a troll or severely retarded

Is a stepmother considered an ancestor?

>>10772869
I can't tell if you're trolling or not, well done jews

>>10772921
that's not how it works, rethink this. How many women can one man have children with? Answer, a lot more than a woman can

>>10772845
>>10772869
>>10772870
>>10772940
>>10772942
Are you discord trannies or leftypol?

>>10776814
>Not sure what you're saying. Races, societies - what is it?
Different races have different evolutionary strategies, that is why it varies race. And society, in so far as different races have different societies. Take for example America, while black, white and oriental people all live in the same society, their are far more like the people living in their homelands of their races. White Americans are nearly identical to Europeans in all measures, same goes for Asians except they are wealthier. Black people are much wealthier, and perform slightly better than Africans on various measures of life quality, crime etc. than Africans. About has much as you would expect if you were a race realist, and took into account the 20-30% white admixture the typical black person in America has.

TLDR: blacks getting cucked, whites not so much, asians even less so

>>10779004
she's not your ancestor

It's because women reproduce 80% of the time, but for men it is only 40%. Because some men are having all the women

>>10772845
Hhsjeklelwlwlw

>>10772870
You can, inbreeding and rape. Another interesting factoid is that the odds of having a rape somewhere in your lineage are extremely high

>>10779200
true, but this is also because as you go back further the number of ancestors double for each iteration, give that all ancestors are unique in each generation (they aren't)

>>10772845
>every woman has one child and every man who has a child has two and every man who doesn't has zero.
this is untrue

Chad ALWAYS wins now and forever

>>10772845
this is the lowest iq thread in the catalog and has been for days good fucking god
>>10779256
lol

>>10772845
I think this is the simplest way to explain it:

Say all of a tribe's males are wiped out by a mammoth attack except for one.
That one male breeds with all the women.
The children then breed with each other, these new offspring have the same granddad, but two grandmothers.
The new offspring breed with each other, now the new new offspring have 4 great-grandmothers, but one great-granddad.

(This is kind of fucking with me, but I think I did this right?)

>>10779426
yes

also the average person is much more inbred than you think period, you don't even have to consider situations like these where one man impregnates four women

>>10778976
"Ancestor: one from whom a person is descended and who is usually more remote in the line of descent than a grandparent"

Fucking esl

>>10779178
I'm a discord tranny

>>10774106
Wow.

Look at that. Just look at it.

>>10774061
Wrong.
All females get to breed.
Only alpha males get to breed.
50% of all men in history have been incels.
To counteract this horrible injustice, women were banned to the kitchen for all eternity to make us sandwiches.
The great injustice of our time is that women have been released from their kitchen cell but men remain incels in large numbers.

>>10780580
No, i am the discord tranny

>>10772845
>retarded question
>youtube link
>named thread
>asks a question if something is possible yet in he says it has to be possible in the question itself

oh papa

>>10782665
Our you autistic?

>>10772921
I don't think you know what "ancestor" means.

>>10777063
>If that was true there'd be an evolutionary advantage in having daughters. Boys and girls are born 50/50 so that suggests it isn't true.
What do you mean "if?" It is true. It's not a conjecture. It's a fact about our genetics.
But to answer why your expectation isn't the case, there's this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fisher%27s_principle