So, you're at it again, two peas in a pod who can't produce anything to support what they say but are none-the-less quite willing to turn up their noses at extensive citations from Scientific American, the director of the Jane Goodall Center, and other subject matter experts and researchers.
You might want to educate yourself a bit more fully before you speak in the future because you seem to be woefully misinformed on a wide variety of topics. Besides the fact that it's pretty much universally agreed among anthropologists that patriarchy (dominance hierarchies) first emerged with agriculture, our closest relatives, chimps and bonobos have large testes and penises compared to body size because they do not engage in mate competition in the same way that gorillas do. They engage in sperm competition.
"Comparisons to other primates are especially persuasive. Like humans, our closest cousins, chimps and bonobos, have testes on the outside (though theirs are bigger), and male animals are typically 10 to 15 percent larger than females. Gorillas, though, like more distant cousins on steroids, have small penises (balls on the inside), and males that are twice as big as females. Because gorillas mate polygynously (multiple ladies for each dude), males must be imposing to win access to females (specifically, their vaginas). But for chimps and bonobos, “multimale-multifemale” maters, the battle is on the inside — large volumes of sperm fight to the egg, even leaving traps for competitors. Our genital similarities to chimps and bonobos thus reveal our promiscuous past.(5)"
"Of our primate cousins, we are genetically closest to bonobos and chimps, both of whom undertake multi-male/multi-female mating. ‘The alpha male usually wins his position not because he is physically stronger, but because he leads a large and stable coalition. These coalitions play a central part not only during overt struggles for the alpha position, but in almost all day-to-day activities. Members of a coalition spend more time together, share food, and help one another in times of trouble.’ (9)"
(That's not me saying those things. It's subject matter experts in the field) Being so entrenched that you are unwilling to learn anything new is a sad state indeed. Did you even read the resource material that I linked you last time? On the other hand, I'm quite happy to learn something new or to stand corrected. I amended a story just the other day because a commenter made a good point. But you haven't made any good points and I'm not entirely certain what Ned's points are. If you don't like my research, provide some of your own that counters it, something that you've so far been unable to do.
