This is a friendly reminder to read our rules.

Remember, /r/Showerthoughts is for showerthoughts, not "thoughts had in the shower!"

(For an explanation of what a "showerthought" is, please read this page.)

Rule-breaking posts may result in bans.

[removed]

[removed]

[removed]

From my quick thinking, a male and female are need to procreate. Are you saying we have more female than male indirect ancestors? Like how one’s aunt.

[deleted]

Pretty sure you have the same amount of male and female ancestors

[removed]

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.

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

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.

That mean as a society, like you individually have the same amount, but if you took a group of people this would be true

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?!

[removed]

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

Historically Case 1 is much more common.

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

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?

Technically correct, which is the best kind of correct. OP's thesis is that you share your male ancestors with a greater number of contemporary humans than your female ancestors.

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

[removed]

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.

If a guy had children with 50 unrelated women and some of their offspring and descendents later mated, that guy is likely to be the ancestor of more people than most or all of the women

>Just take Genghis Khan as an extreme example.

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

What about that woman that went around getting a bunch of.. men... pregnant ?

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