Quote Originally Posted by Kralizec
I don't know A.Saturnus, you would fist have to prove that manliness is pre-determined. A study I read says there's a 99.999% chance that XY chromosome fetuses will turn out male, but that's just a (albeit interesting) correlation.

As it stands having a penis is a lifestyle choice.
I have a strong feeling that you misunderstood me. As it stands, this has no relation to what I was saying.

Quote Originally Posted by Aenlic
We are extremely far from even beginning to understand the processes involved between mother and foetus and the immuno-response. Transposons, retrotranposons, the proteome, viral fragments, introns and more all play a very poorly understand part at the placental barrier. And yet, here's a psychologist making pronouncements about the genetic and cellular biology involved? I don't think so.
I think he proposed a hypothesis. And why exactly shouldn't a psychologist make pronouncements about the genetic and cellular biology of pregnancy? It's not as if psychologists wouldn't have to do with cellular biology on a day to day basis.

What about the social environment of having various numbers of brothers?
Hence the control with adopted brothers.

I seriously doubt that this so-called study had any kind of peer review.
It was published in PNAS. BTW, did you read this "so-called" study?

Quote Originally Posted by Lemur
I know this is a crackpot theory, but at least let me know you're understanding it before you tell me I'm nuts.
I think I understand it and yes, it's a crackpot theory ;)
Groups are not the element of natural selection. Individuals are also not the element of natural selection. Genes are the element of natural selection. An adaptation must be explained in terms of advantages of genes, otherwise it is not explained by the theory of evolution.