>>13635864
I read a comment under that video that went something like this:
The mitochondrial DNA(which is inherited through mothers) mutates a lot slower than the y chromosome.
This means you wouldn't be able to find a bottleneck of similar proportions in the female populations in case of similar amounts dying,
since there is a lot less diversity to lose to begin with.
So for example there are 5 marbles:
In the male population there is a green, yellow, red, pink and purple marble, so if say three die, you only have the green and yellow left.
In the female population you have 2 green, 1 yellow and 2 red marble, so if three die you could end up with 1 green, 1 red marble.
I don't know about the mutation rate of the x chromosome though, it should probably have a role in determining a bottleneck too if the y chromosome does.
>The only "war" required to explain it is the one between female vs male preference
Same issue as with the war narrative, why would it happen over such an area, did a virus spread that made women more selective?
When I look at the bottleneck data though, there is barely a dent in some mitochondrial stats, so you theory seems to make sense.
Maybe there was a giant war, which only the males fought, while the women were taken as trophies?
