"The FLDS teaches that plural marriage—whereby each man partners with at least three women—is essential to salvation. How does the church get enough ladies to go around?" -- Juliet Lapidos, writing for Slate.com
The short answer is women join in with these groups and practices,...they're feminist idiots. That's not all women but, until more women decide to get courageous, get over this "non-judgemental" new age crap, and stand up to the idiots, it might as well be.
Why leave challenging this stuff to men? Oh - I got it: so they can diss us for giving a shit enough to say something about it. Great plan, that. Love you, too, Honey.
Michael Hammer, a research scientist in UA's Arizona Research Laboratories, said, "We may think of ourselves as a monogamous species, but we're coming from an evolutionary history that's probably slightly polygamous. If we're shifting toward monogamy, it's so recent it hasn't left an imprint on our genome."
ReplyDeleteOr the same reproductive behavior is continuing, but in a culturally accepted fashion, Wilder said. "The modern version that we generally don't find offensive is that men tend to remarry and have more children much more often than women do."
...
The team's research also overturns the long-accepted idea that, on average, women's genes traveled farther from their birthplace than did men's. That idea was based on a common marriage practice called patrilocality, wherein women tended to move from their natal village to their husbands' village.
If anything, men and their genes moved farther overall, the new research indicates.
To sort out how far men and women's genes traveled, the UA researchers used DNA from the Y chromosome, which is passed from father to son. Women's lineages were traced using mitochondrial DNA, which passes from mother to daughter.
The researchers report their findings in two related articles, one in the online early edition of the October issue of Nature Genetics and one in an upcoming edition of Molecular Biology and Evolution. The research was funded by the National Institutes of Health.
Scientists have puzzled over the fact that men's common ancestor, dubbed Y-chromosome Adam, seems to have lived around 100 thousand years ago, whereas women's common ancestor, known as mitochondrial Eve, lived almost 200 thousand years ago.
Worldwide, the DNA from the Y chromosome has much less genetic variability than does mitochondrial DNA.
"We wanted to know what shapes the patterns of Y-chromosome and mitochondrial DNA variation," said Wilder. "What can we learn about human behavior?"
To find out, Wilder, Hammer and Zahra Mobasher, a research specialist at UA's Arizona Research Laboratories, tested Y-chromosome DNA and mitochondrial DNA from three far-flung populations of humans: the Khoisan of southern Africa, Mongolian Khalks and highland Papua New Guineans. For each group, DNA from 24 or 25 people was tested.
Previously, researchers assumed equal numbers of men and women procreated. Based on that assumption, scientists explained the relative youth and low variability of the Y chromosome by suggesting that a beneficial mutation on the Y had swept through the whole world. However, the genetic patterns the UA researchers found contradicts those ideas.
If a beneficial mutation had swept through the males, men's common paternal ancestor would be the same age no matter where the UA researchers looked. Instead, the age of men's common ancestor differs between the southern African, Mongolian and Papua New Guinean populations studied. The finding tends to rule out some global beneficial mutation as the reason Y-chromosome DNA is less variable than mitochondrial DNA.
"Because we don't think the pattern we see was caused by an event that swept across the globe, we had to re-examine our assumptions about whether equal numbers of men and women are mating," Wilder said.
The team thinks the genetic patterns are all about sex.
Or lack thereof. Lots more men than women are childless, and it has ever been thus, the researchers say.