>>6606743so says modern science, though it's a bit insulting to put this newer less serious field under the same label as more serious and well studied sciences, full of far more rigorous challenging and standing.
beyond that imposing modern ideas on our ancestors is ridiculous. men engaged in far more dangerous labors before and after having children, allowing them to die virgins or without successful mating for no fault but luck or their own failures -- at risk of being proven wrong ill bring up a common sense understanding: women had a very dangerous job, too, but it's most dangerous moment came as the child came, ergo allowing for her to successfully reproduce even if she dies while doing it.
the idea of polygamy, as in one man intentionally dominating in a small pack, is fairly ludicrous except in extremely rich and unusual circumstances.
and in reference to the hokey pokey 33% male you pull out
>It is only referring to humanity's set of most recent common ancestors, and it is only "one explanation" for a discrepancy in the MRCA depths.don't buy the ludicrous elite-worship materialist atheistic nihilist propaganda pushed by fringe elements of clickbait science. no society which practices polygamy has ever achieved anything near that achieved by monogamy. it's just propaganda designed to demoralize you and make you view everything in a reductionist material transaction scope. you'll suffer for no good reason if you accept that.
