Genetics isn't evo-psych. and since you can't use google scholar: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6436108/ … Note that this is merely one example - this phenomenon was common and why about 2/3rds of your ancestors are women.
-
-
Replying to @CovfefeAnon @PositivelyKatie
17 women reproduced for every man who did. IOW, the average man who left descendants did so by conquering neighboring tribes and the women accepted it or got weeded out. https://psmag.com/environment/17-to-1-reproductive-success …
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @CovfefeAnon @PositivelyKatie
Note that that article is desperately trying to avoid noticing the true cause >"Like was there some sort of weird virus that only affected males across the whole globe, 8,000 years ago?" Conquest. Conquest was the "weird virus".
3 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
Replying to @PositivelyKatie
Hmm, woman argument list:
"You have a smol dic"
"Who hurt you?"
"You can't get laid"
Says "sweetie" condescendingly1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
Replying to @PositivelyKatie
Ah yes, the tired cliche of responding with ancient genetic evidence vs the cliche of "ok sweetie, ur dic smol"
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
Replying to @RhiannonsHorse @PositivelyKatie
My case is that women (and men) are descended from women who accepted and welcomed conquest by outsiders. Showing that there were massive sweeps of conquest is directly relevant and no one has mustered an argument against it other than "ok sweetie"
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
This Tweet is unavailable.
The fact that they left descendants is absolute proof of it. Maybe they were really angry about it but they accepted it. Once you grant that ask yourself - what reproductive benefit is there in being angry about it? (none)
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.