tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post3839363511439151884..comments2024-01-04T04:11:55.717+02:00Comments on Dienekes’ Anthropology Blog: Gender differences in reproductive success (Brown et al. 2009)Dienekeshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02082684850093948970noreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-33905790400622952742009-05-09T20:52:00.000+03:002009-05-09T20:52:00.000+03:00One can't disagree with their call for the collect...<I>One can't disagree with their call for the collection of relevant data to investigate whether the three principles apply in humans, nor with their observation that what is applicable to fruit flies (the subject of Bateman's original research) does not necessarily apply to humans, and certainly not to all societies</I>.<br /><br />Very true.<br /><br />Importantly it would be decissive to probe if sexual selection (apparently somewhat stronger among males than females) is effectively inherited or not and, if it is, how strongly. If a particular man is very succesful reproductively, this may or not affect his offspring and the next generation would get a different Don Juan from a completely different lineage, balancing the effect of sexually-biased drift in the long run to a great extent. <br /><br />This issue is crucial when debating hyped single-founder lineages as the alleged Chingis Khan lineage but also when looking at the whole Y-DNA patterns in humankind. If Chingis Khan was an exceptionally succesful father, he would still need his sons, grandsons, etc. to be similarly succesful in terms of reproductive success in order for his Y-DNA lineage to be actually so widespread. This IMO is not likely to happen, at least not with enough force as to cause such alleged massive founder effects in an already crowded post-Neolithic World.Majuhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12369840391933337204noreply@blogger.com