Yes, I was quite prepared to win the argument over the broader negative side
effects of sexual polygamy behaviors among members serving in the armed
forces . . . the issue which launched the discussion in the first place.

However, you made claims as the genetic benefits of polygamous breeding-
claims which rested on some demonstrably false assumptions on your part.

You seemed to be quite certain that such benefits existed. As are many who
have not really studied the issue.

Are you ceding that point now as well?

Seems like just a little bit of math could make quite a convincing argument
that the increases in genetic variation from polygamous breeding would be
negligable. Perhaps even a net loss, when you consider the costs of the
"unwanted" variation which would then have to be accounted for.

At least that's what the research has shown. And a little bit of math and
reflection would demonstrate the same.

Steve Swartz



"Gord Beaman" wrote in message
news
"Leslie Swartz" wrote:

Many unpleasant places to go withjt eh genetic argument. In any case, I
don't believe it will get you anywhere with respect to the issue of
"Using
'Human Nature' to Excuse Behavior."


Steve Swartz


Steve, this has suddenly become an exercise in untangling English
prose instead of discussing the benefits of one lifestyle over
another.

So, sorry to leave you with a bunch of probably unuseable
baited (sic) breath, but I've lost interest.

Again,

Sorry.
--

-Gord.