Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

Ras82 t1_je4q57q wrote

For all those that don't understand what O.P. is saying:

Historically, women where twice as likely to have kids a men (because one male can impregnate multiple women). So out of 1,000,000 people, 400,000 women would be mothers while only 200,000 men where fathers.

So as a society (not indiviudals) we have twice as many female ancestors as male ancestors. You are more likely to share a male ancestor than a female.

Just take Genghis Khan as an extreme example.

35

BoiledLiverDefense t1_je4shv7 wrote

Even if only one male from every generation impregnated all the women, you would still have the same number of male and female ancestors.

All your explanation shows is that the population collectively has more female ancestors than male ancestors. Each individual would still have one male and female ancestor from every generation.

Can OP elaborate on whether they meant we as in the population's collective ancestors or everyone's individual ancestors.

25

boltzmannman t1_je6u9rb wrote

You personally have the same number. Everyone collectively has fewer, because of the overlap.

3

Xijannemb t1_je7l4hm wrote

At some point you will exhaust the quantity of people that have a mutually exclusive set of ancestors to your own, thus the child from any union will have some small portion of ancestors that are on both sides of the family tree. Could it be argued that due to the increased likelihood of males being in the category where they are an ancestor to both the mother and father that OP correct?

Lol, OP could be right because incest

1

lespaulshred t1_je7d1su wrote

Yeah, it's not like women can have kids with multiple men. Oh, wait....

2

Appeal_Optimal t1_je7qf4x wrote

Bruh, if women did that back then the bible and other religious texts say they:

  1. deserve to be forced to have an abortion by her husband
  2. her and the man she cheated with will be stoned to death

Women have been treated like cattle for most of history so this post doesn't surprise me one bit. I just find it annoying how most dudes don't even consider those facts when talking about women today. We haven't even had a full generation of being able to do that shit without massive backlash about it.

1

Skeeve911 t1_je4r4iq wrote

Interesting. I had to look this up so I could learn more about it.

1

Appeal_Optimal t1_je7h2gv wrote

Wouldn't that just simply mean that men in history typically shirked their duties as fathers entirely? Either that or went to war? Why are we surprised by any of this?

0

klc81 t1_je7z1l2 wrote

>Just take Genghis Khan as an extreme example.

Ghengis Khan's mum has at least as many direct descendants as Ghengis.

0

Ras82 t1_je87ygk wrote

And his father, so that's two men to one women.

2

fibreregulation t1_je5l16j wrote

Is that even a certainty? Let's imagine 2 simple example:

Case 1:

1 man impregnates 3 women, resulting in 3 children. In this case the next generation consist of 3 times more DNA from females than males

Case 2:

1 woman has 3 children with 3 different men. In this case the next generation consist of 3 times more DNA from males than females.

So is that enough prove that OP is not guaranteed to be right?!

−2