@farmerman,
Ive found several interesting pop xplanations for the "returning soldier effect" and the birth of boys during and just after wars.
1. Taller soldiers are statistically more "survivable" in wars nd the Brits state that a 3.33(cm) height margin graces the aurvivors v the fallen soldiers. In terms of gene expression of variability, this alone could explain the sex split of post-war babies.
2. The NIH has recently done some research and has some evidence of a genetic expression that occurs in men alone . Combine survivorhip via "height advantage"(whatever the hell that means) [V] genetic expression that too could display the apparent "more baby boys" effect when all the statistical chains are computed.
So, we can control breeding outcomes in stock animals by artificially creating excellent crop years with which to feed the stock, and controlling breed cycles by pushing circadian rhythms and good record studs . Do people ork the same way?? We are animals so Im sure some grad students in Human genetics or ag genetics will (or has alrady done) their pHDs in this subject .
I saw in the NIH stuff that girls are more common babies during famines. (Im not sure I buy the veracity of that because usually, famine affected countries dont have the time or the interest to keep complex population records cause the population is busy starving). So Im thinking that our vaunted NIH can also come up with bullshit every so often.
Most "alternative truth" positions need careful parsing because they usually do have a lean to the incredulous. Even NIH , as I said, can come up with "facts" that may have been pulled out of the air.
