Are Humans genetically  polygamus ?
462653
Genetics are in no way even remotely related to polygamy. Societies in the past have been polygamous, and monogamous. Every society sets up it's own social rules, but there is no standard for humans. Don't try to come up with justifications, if people want more than one, they should get more than one, and visa versa.
114541
*Shrugging my furry shoulders* Humans as a species are not monogumous; unlike wolves and certain birds of prey. IE nature did not evolve them to mate for life. \n\nThat is a religious concept that has become accepted by most...\n\nWhy chase others is a lil more complex, (just tossing out a couple of opinions here as I doubt anyone knows the real answer)\n\n1. Humans main biological programming is continuation of the species through propagation. (My personal belief) Which means spreading their genes to as many as they can.\n\n2. Trophies, it is an ego stroke to be with as many as one can. IE The more women you are with the higher on the male machoism scale you gain.
617905
First of all we have 23 pairs of chromosomes (or 46 chromosomes), and monkeys have  22 pairs of chromosomes. Big deal right? WRONG. When humans make gametes (sperm and egg) each gamete contains a one copy of the hosts DNA, therefore each gamate only contains 23 chromosomes. When the sperm reaches the egg they combine together (zygote) to from a cell that has 46 chromosomes. Any deviation from this number makes the an embryo inviable. ( we wont get into ploidy or trisomys here). Therefore if a human and an ape mated, the chromosome count coming from the human would be 23 and the money would be 22 making the chimera have 45 chromosomes. First of all essential genetic coding inforemation is lost. (AN ENTIRE CHROMOSOME IS MISSING), you have changed the specie. You have created an alleuploidy. (only viable with some plants). The chromosomes in each species are of different sizes. This totaly screws up the cellular functions and inhibits a proteins job. They would not be able to reproduce. And please do not get me started on Mullers moprhs in terms of loss of genetic information, regarding epistasis, incomplete dominance etc.... All you need to know is it would be inviable because the chromosomes are of different numbers, and the chromsome sizes are different.
377417
Don't know about "proof", but most peoples inter-marry/breed to increase the size of their gene pool. It is hard to believe that any of these cultures remained completely isolated.
611994
Animals tend to do what it is in their nature to do, and I am not yet convinced that it is entirely a part of Human nature to be monogamous. We choose to be monogamous because as humans we have the ability to make decisions based on beliefs rather than desires, but nature tends to be more driven by instinct. So you are probably right. We probably wouldn't be monogamous.\n\nIn fact, looking cross culturally, there are many things which seem to be natural to humans. There are always homosexuals, so if we took our cues from nature, we would be more accepting of homosexuals because it's part of our nature. There are always eccentric people, ...\n\nNo wait, this train of thought might be heading the wrong way because as I consider nature, I see packs led by an alpha, shunning some from the pack, and protecting others, which is not a system which encourages eccentricities. In fact, the more I think about human civilization and the things which most trouble me about it, I can see that much of it has to do with the animal part of our nature. Which means that taking it's cues from nature I have to concede that many human animals (including me) have gone with the pack and accepted monogamy.
951010
It's not poligamy if you are not married to any of them.\nPoligamy is marrying multiple wifes.  Not shacking up with them.\nAll I can say is strive on you lucky dog.
1178138
The Mormon man can marry as many women as he can, as long as he can provide for them and their children.  There are several forms of marriages or relations in the Mormon faith, and some of them are called concubines.  Some practice that rule, such as Smith.  Had several wives, but didn't live with them openly.  Brigham Young had more than 50 wives, 19 were connubial wives, and with all these women had 56 children.\n\nTo answer your questions.  Yes, but many of them don't have multiple wives.  and, Yes Mormons are polygamist.  Same with the Muslims, they are permitted to have four wives at a time, plus the concubine, plus the pleasure wives, but they too, most don't have more than one wife.
70294
The answer to this question is, in fact, infinite. There are an infinite number of possibile combinations due to process called crossing over. But because of the number of chromosomes humans have (23 pair), even with out crossing over there is a pretty impressive number of possible combinations. To figure that out all you have to do is figure out how many possible chromosomal combinations for each parent. Because their are 23 pair, the number of chromosome combinations, based on pure random selections for the gametes would be 2^23 or  8,388,608 combinations. This is true for both parents, so if square that number you get the pottential number of combinations two people could create through random segregation of chromosomes through meiosis (gamete production) -- that number is 70,368,744,000,000.\n\nBut please remember there are an infinite number more possibilities than this because meiosis isn't the only mechanism used to create genetic diversity in living things. The amount of crossing over that will occur -- a process in which DNA is traded between maternal and paternal chromosomes creating two hybrid versions of the original chromosomes that are now neither completely maternal or paternal -- is impossible to predict with any certainty.
828336
Yes, of course it does. Breeding within a limited population always increases the incidence of recessive gene expression. Interestingly, a lot of these societies practice consanguineous marriage, which further amplifies the risk.
52176
Genetic predisposition.
1003518
First question. If you mean sexual interciurse then of course, IVF (AI) etc\nBut as this is biology then ill assume you mean syngamy between gamets. \nIn which case the option is cloning which is not established as viable in humans yet (Korean research is under fraud investigation so its validity unclear at present) but is not permitted in most countries anyway.\n\nAs to the second question:- NO\nAsides one alleged and unlikely case (the virgin birth of mary yielding jesus christ which if it was true (unlikely) was a dead end as it was a male), parthenogensis (asexual reproduction) has never been reported in humans. Morever it is very unlikely to be viable or to occur due to imprinting etc.
853333
I hope no-one takes offence to your question. It is a valid one and you clearly state this as a generalisation and obviously understand that there is a huge variation in jewish appearance, but yes, there is some characturistics that are considered 'jewish'.\n\nI think it is as someone has already said, there is a geographical orrigination and historically jews have not married out of religion, although this is of course a generalisation in its self. So the gene pool has largely remained intact. Obviousy the genes for those characturistics have been carried through the generations and not been widely circulated among other religious backgrounds. Although again I stress those characturistics are not exclusively jewish and intermarriage has scattered them about into other cultures too.\n\nPerhaps even, many of those characturistic genes are recessive, and therefore generally appear in the more pure jewish families than the ones of more mixed race. \n\nBut I do dissagree with about the 'christian' look. I'm sure out of a line up of jews, christians, muslims, hindus, buddists and many other religions, that someone could pick out a christian. Generally speaking of course. I'm sure we could also find many traditianaly jewish or traditionally muslim looking people and actually find that thay are infact christian or buddist.
685313
If your serious?. There is a place in genisis that tells of the sons of god being with the daughters of man and creating a race of giants... but for the most part i dont think they reproduce.
813478
There is no magic number.\n\nIt is not a matter of genetic distance as much as it is number of chromosomes, and other pre- and post-zygotic barriers.\n\nGiven that we are all very genetically close (by the numbers at least) it will be interesting to see what the future brings in the way of hybridization of animals (plants have already been messed with A TON).
212845
Have you ever heard of polygamy involving more than one husband? I like it about as much as the idea of a threesome with two women. Don't men have enough problems with just one wife?
41810
Polygamy refers to a form of marriage with more than two participants. That is to say their can be one husband and many wives (polygyny), one wife and many husbands (polyandry), or multiples of both (polyamory).\n\nGod Bless,\n\nRobert
235492
while cheating is wrong, i think theres part of male subconsious that causes a man to want to spread his seed,\n\nin cave man times when kids died a lot and cave man wanted to get his genetics into the next generation he would go and try and impregnate as many cave women as he can\n\nthere are some species that I think are monogomous, I can't think of any off the top of my head but I think there are, I might be wrong,\n\nanyhow,  darwinian logical i would think would say, find as many partners as you can if you are male,\ndarwinian logic meaning try and spread your seed and win the genetic next generation olympics,\n\nin modern day america we sorta have a concept that monogomy is right, and cheating is wrong,\nbut because the modern male mind still gets these biological messsages in the form of heh i wanna go and have some more @ss than just my current partner, spouse or girlfriend, this discrepensy causes unhappiness\n\nmature men deal with it\njerks cheat