Jump to content

Indian "Liberals" claiming to be Champions of Science


surajmal

Recommended Posts

 

Nahi yaar, main to bus trolling/time pass kar raha hoon, mujko yaad aata hain yeh jaahil ka bevakoophiyah, 

 

jaahil: "mere pass Computer Science degree hai, isliye mera opinion medical doctoroan se zyaada saahe hai, main itna hosiyaar hoon, main poora jahan ka sabse betterien analyst hoon" :laugh:

 

neutral logon ko dekh sakta hain, jaise aap logon kaite ho "doodh ka doodh, paani ka paani"

 

chinta maat kar, itna serious nahi hai

chinta ka vaat nahi hai,

 

tum dono tattie-susu har thread main kar rahe ho, isliye maine bola tha, ek thread main tattie-susu kar lo, koi tum dono ko pareshaan nahi karega 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Moochad

 

Actually, there is also another study I read which used NRY and mitochondrial DNA and came to a similar conclusion, I will post a table from it below

jup.jpg

The bases of the triangles represent the current effective population sizes and the tip the ancestral effective population size. Red is female and blue is male.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Tibarn said:

@Moochad

 

Actually, there is also another study I read which used NRY and mitochondrial DNA and came to a similar conclusion, I will post a table from it below

jup.jpg

The bases of the triangles represent the current effective population sizes and the tip the ancestral effective population size. Red is female and blue is male.  

Interesting, so polygamy was the dominant practice since pre-migration out of Africa!

 

Where does/how often does polyandry occur?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Moochad said:

Interesting, so polygamy was the dominant practice since pre-migration out of Africa!

 

Where does/how often does polyandry occur?

Where it occurs I'm not sure, but of the 1267 recorded cultures, only 4 have polyandry as a method of marital organization. If I remember correctly, these groups were basically tribal groups in places like North America.

 

For comparisons sake, 186 have been monogamous and 1041 have been polygamous 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Tibarn said:

Where it occurs I'm not sure, but of the 1267 recorded cultures, only 4 have polyandry as a method of marital organization. If I remember correctly, these groups were basically tribal groups in places like North America.

 

For comparisons sake, 186 have been monogamous and 1041 have been polygamous 

I makes sense when you think about it, I guess, if the practice was is Africa pre-migration than you would expect it to continue.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Moochad said:

I makes sense when you think about it, I guess, if the practice was is Africa pre-migration than you would expect it to continue.

Yes, if you re-read the post on page 3, you can see a citation on how this behavior is conserved across mammals.

 

Polyandry is just a weird "mutant" behavior. Ultimately I would guess that it would die out fast even if it existed on any "large" scale.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Tibarn said:

Yes, if you re-read the post on page 3, you can see a citation on how this behavior is conserved across mammals.

 

Polyandry is just a weird "mutant" behavior. Ultimately I would guess that it would die out fast even if it existed on any "large" scale.

 

 

Sorry I missed that! (Your post was Yuuuge!):p:

 

Yeah, I guess the larger cultures would eventually absorb/assimilate the smaller ones with as you said, "mutant" behavior.

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Moochad said:

Sorry I missed that! (Your post was Yuuuge!):p:

That is a short post compared to some of my others. :phehe:

6 minutes ago, Moochad said:

Yeah, I guess the larger cultures would eventually absorb/assimilate the smaller ones with as you said, "mutant" behavior.

Not really that, it's more to do with size. Think of it similar to a limiting reagent.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Tibarn said:

That is a short post compared to some of my others. :phehe:

Not really that, it's more to do with size. Think of it similar to a limiting reagent.

 

I see what you're saying, It would limit the size of a population, correct?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Moochad said:

I see what you're saying, It would limit the size of a population, correct?

Exactly! :hatsoff:

 

Imagine a species of primate with a gestation period of 1 year and 3 different societies of that primate. A is polygamous, B is monogamous, C polyandrous; A has 1 male marry 10 females, B has 10 males 10 females marry, and C has 10 males and 1 female marry.

 

A and B could both produce 10 children in 1 year, but C could only produce 1 child in 1 year. 

 

Its pretty obvious that C would be more vulnerable to acts of nature like disease or natural disaster, and thus C would have a greater chance of extinction. A and B could both lose 80 percent of their population and still be okay. If anything untoward happens, C would completely disappear.

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Tibarn said:

Exactly! :hatsoff:

 

Imagine a species of primate with a gestation period of 1 year and 3 different societies of that primate. A is polygamous, B is monogamous, C polyandrous; A has 1 male marry 10 females, B has 10 males 10 females marry, and C has 10 males and 1 female marry.

 

A and B could both produce 10 children in 1 year, but C could only produce 1 child in 1 year. 

 

Its pretty obvious that C would be more vulnerable to acts of nature like disease or natural disaster, and thus C would have a greater chance of extinction. A and B could both lose 80 percent of their population and still be okay. If anything untoward happens, C would completely disappear.

 

 

 

Interesting, 

 

Actually, I think it is even worse than in your example.

 

If population C has only 1 offspring from 10M:1F, that is as good as extinct, as to further carry on the next generation, they would need at least 2 offspring,  1M and 1F, so really they would need 20M : 2F, just for a chance at survival.

 

Group A and B can both do it with less total population, 11 and 20, compared to 22 for C. They also get much greater return on investment! :laugh:

 

 

 

 

 

Edited by Moochad
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Come on guys we are all liberal in some way. We have evolved over the years culturally.  Let us not use the word liberal to make a political identification. The same mistake is being committed by conservatives in the US. There is nothing wrong with being liberal.   It is a sign of progression. Don't associate people like Sagarika Ghose with liberalism and insults it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Green Monster said:

@Tibarn

Little Tibby I think our friend VVSLaxman is talking about youu :phehe:

It doesn't matter, the thread itself devolved into trolling on the first page itself, so no one should worry about this thread anyway. The only useful information is in my post on page 3, otherwise the thread is only back and forth tu-tu-me-me

Link to comment
Share on other sites

37 minutes ago, coffee_rules said:

Gehlot Scientist - "Agar paani se bijli nikal jayegi, kehton mein kya khaak kaam aayega?"

Plagiarized from Shool the movie!!! :cantstop:

 

 

 

That thing looks fabricated. I mean how could he say that. It doesnt look real.

 

On wait ... If Sagu favors them then who knows he might be right. :phehe:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...