That's fucking BS. ONE MAN, ONE WOMAN, ONE CHILD. 50/50

>>8666439
Let's take a small community with one man and 99 woman. Now let's assume that the man has one heck of a libido and fertility and that he makes one child with every woman.

Now, of course, if you take one of the child, he'll have ONE father and ONE mother.
However, if you take the whole of the childs, their ancesters will be 99%women and 1% men.

That's what he meant.

PS: I don't say the assomptions of this redditard are true, I just try to explain them as you obviously didn't understood them

>>8666480
He said 2/3 of my ancestors are female.

>>8666439
Is this bait? I hope it is. One man can have sex with 100 women, therefore more women reproduced than men. Also 2/3 of your ancestors being female is a possibility. Probably not as dramatic however.

>>8666439

Retarded.
What does Ancestors mean? Even if you don't have to be related to your ancestor, that doesn't mean that anyone knows whether there have been more women than men, nor does it mean that women were necessarily monogamous and men weren't. Evidence suggests that despite some cultures preferring men or women, that birth genders are 50/50.

If it means related, then you have an equal amount of male and female parentage, since you can't be born twice, nor can you have more than one father or mother.

>>8666497
Barring incest, it's literally not possible. I have a mother and a father. Fifty fifty, and you can follow this pattern back to the start and it remains at the same ratio of men to women.

>>8666497
But only 1 female and 1 male is an ancestor for each 1 offspring.

>>8666503
>barring incest.
yes, because your two parents having a same great great great...... grand parent is absolutely unlikely.
Actually, it's almost certain for most people.

For example, it's estimated that in france, 40% of the people descend from king louis IX

>>8666515
>Adam and eve

50/50

You want to play the far back game, I'll go all the way back.

>>8666524
then go one generation lower:
Cain, abel and seth, and explain me that shit!

>>8666534
Ummmmmmmmmmm, like they had to have a daughter. Or god made them some waifus. I haven't read that book in a long time.

>>8666537
I was toying with you. The answer is nephilims according to "that book".
Still, we're supposedly on a scientific board, those don't really belong here.

I suppose what he was saying is that a larger percentage of your UNIQUE ancestors are female. Women have inherent biological value that men don't have, and they've tended to reproduce just by being functioning women.

>>8666550
No its fifty fifty

>>8666493
In that case, consider a community with one man M and 2 women A B

Man M has a son with A, call him MA, and a daughter with B, call her MB

MA and MB have you as their child. Your ancestors are M, A, B, MA, and MB, 3 women and 2 men.

Obviously real life isn't as incestuous. But 50/50 assumes that your ancestors only appear in one branch of any fork going up your ancestral tree. This can't be the case, because each level up, the number of ancestors doubles (if they are all unique). Eventually the supposed number of ancestors will exceed the human population of their generation.

If you have more shared male members than female members, you will end up having less male ancestors.

>>8666514
Sure but the argument is that males will appear more than once in your family tree. So that overall if you take a list of all your ancestors 2/3rds of them would be women.

>>8666625
No, that's wrong! You and your stupid liberal gypsy math. There would be equal numbers of men and women.

Allowing every male chucklefuck to reproduce is dysgenic.

>>8666589
You don't get to count all five as ancestors. One wouldn't count. If you look at the family tree, it would be M and A as grandparents, MA and MB as parents and you as the child. That sidewhore is irrelevant. I have four ancestors, two different men and two different women.

>>8666627
clearly impossible, as >>8666589 points out.
>This can't be the case, because each level up, the number of ancestors doubles (if they are all unique). Eventually the supposed number of ancestors will exceed the human population of their generation.

>>8666627
If that were true then going back more than a few generations would result in an impossibly large generation size. Let's say there have been 5000 generations of anatomically modern humans (an underestimate). That would mean at some point about 15000 years ago, there were about [math]1.4x10^{1505}[/math] humans. That's absurd.

>>8666589
But you could do the same thing with girls. One girl going between two grandfather's resulting in a 2/3 male ancestry.

>>8666652
Yes. It's possible.
A woman can be impregnated by different men. And then the children will have more male ancestors than females.

>>8666439
Then why aren't I 60% female?

>be me
>alone in my restaurant at night
>staring at napkin with a crudely drawn family tree with my hand buried in my hair in confusion
>furiously arguing with the napkin about if that makes sense and scribbling
>bread guy walks in
>what are you doing?

They already think I'm weird.

File: ancestry.png (29KB, 1394x652px) Image search: [Google]

29KB, 1394x652px

It's not that hard to understand how it could be possible.

If it's right is a different question.

>>8666678
yes but they're coming from two different base families, their genomes might still vary due to, perhaps, environment in utero and after, recessive genes and their probabilties, other stuff i don't know

>>8666439
Correct way to say it is, we as a whole have more common fathers, than mothers.

Human children share male parent more often than female.

Most of us are step bros/sis compared to siss or bros.


Makes sense.

>>8666634
??
MB is your parent, and B is MB's parent, why wouldn't B be your ancestor?

File: IMG_1141.jpg (19KB, 225x225px) Image search: [Google]

19KB, 225x225px

ONE LOVE
ONE LIFE
WHEN IT'S ONE NEED
IN THE NIGHT

We live in an era where any halfway decent man can change this. Just become a sperm donor, or travel around the world blowing your load in women from developing countries without giving them your name/any personal information. I bet that if one man had enough dedication, he could become like a new genghis khan without any violence. Of course a he would drop dead from some unholy concoction of STDs in a few years, but fuck, it's probably worth it to be the grandfather of 1/10 of the population in a few centuries.

File: granny.jpg (54KB, 600x960px) Image search: [Google]

54KB, 600x960px

A woman can make only 1 child per year, a man can make dozens and more.

Sure. If I have
1 mom at my birth in 1990,
2 grandmoms in 1965,
4 grandgrand-moms 1940,
8 grandgrandgrand-moms in 1915,
16 grandgrandgrandgrand-moms in 1890 and
32 grandgrandgrandgrandgrand-moms 1865
maybe twelve of those 32 were actually impregnated by two 1865's super players and the other 20 women were with nice guys husbands.
Then I have 32 female and 22 male ancestors.

It's supposed to be this way. Men compete and women (having to be occupied for almost a year with carrying out) much more actively select the best genes. Survival of the fittest.
That's why humans are as smart as they are.

>>8666439
It does seem to be mindless stats and irrelevant.
But I have noticed that guys who rut tend to rut a lot of different females; not caring who they rut, merely getting off masturbating on someone, loveless.

>>8667769
Are you a British girl?

>>8666439
80/20 IS TRUE
PARETO WAS RIGHT