No. Lots of reasons why not - there's no widespread cultural knowledge of this and the effect size would have to be immense (hence, easily noticed everywhere) to offset having a near sterile male.
-
-
Replying to @CovfefeAnon @BlanchardPhD
I don't think people need to know the mechanism of an evolutionary effect for it to be an effect. There may be some advantage to having genes that predispose to ASD but it's not like everyone goes around saying "it's blessed in our culture to marry someone whose brother has ASD"
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @wontsomeonethi2 @BlanchardPhD
The hypothesis is that there's this massive built in edge in having a non-procreating brother - it's not about knowledge making it work - the problem is that there are no observations that correspond to this and the effect would have to be massive for it to work.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
-
Replying to @wontsomeonethi2 @BlanchardPhD
To make up for the huge cost in fitness.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @CovfefeAnon @BlanchardPhD
And if it only happens in families that already have several children, and improves fitness for the sister's children, and in fact isn't all that big an effect (because many gay men have children through pressure to be in a straight relationship, and others are bisexual)?
1 reply 0 retweets 3 likes -
I think you're underestimating the rate of infant mortality pre modern medicine.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @wontsomeonethi2 @BlanchardPhD
Infant mortality is irrelevant here because it's a constant - women with sterile brothers don't have lower infant mortality As far as the math goes it's absurd. Women with sterile brothers didn't have on average 2 extra surviving children every generation without people noticing
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @CovfefeAnon @BlanchardPhD
Women whose brother buys food for them and the kids would have lower infant mortality. You eat more you survive longer.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Infant mortality and under-5 mortality have declined hugely and the change since Victorian times in the West is almost exclusively due to wealth i.e. food - not e.g. vaccination - but childless siblings can help with health care too.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
You really have no idea what you're talking about. Medical intervention until quite recently was a net negative and this is irrelevant to the matter at hand anyway because unless you're proposing a "gay uncle midwife" infant mortality doesn't have a differential effect.
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.