I happen to believe both are true. But that isn’t what this graph is saying

https://files.catbox.moe/8c7xcq.jpg

The X/A ratios for Ulindi (bonobo), an African human and a European human were inferred from heterozygosity, and that for the Pan ancestor was inferred from ILS. The low X/A ratio for the European has been suggested to be due to demographic effects connected to migrating out of Africa30. Errors, 95% confidence interval (Supplementary Information, sections 8 and 9).

To approach this question in the Pan ancestor, we compared the inferred ancestral population sizes of the X chromosome and the autosomes. Because two-thirds of X chromosomes are found in females whereas autosomes are split equally between the two sexes, a ratio between their effective population sizes (X/A ratio) of 0.75 is expected under random mating. The X/A ratio in the Pan ancestor, corrected for the higher mutation rate in males, is 0.83 (0.75–0.91) (Fig. 4 and Supplementary Information, section 8). Similarly, we estimated an X/A ratio of 0.85 (0.79–0.93) for present-day bonobos using Ulindi single nucleotide polymorphisms in 200-kb windows (Supplementary Information, section 9). Under the assumption of random mating, this would mean that on average two females reproduce for each reproducing male. The difference in the variance of reproductive success between the sexes certainly contributes to this observation, as does the fact that whereas bonobo females often move to new groups upon maturation, males tend to stay within their natal group20. Because both current and ancestral X/A ratios are similar to each other and also to some human groups (Fig. 4), this suggests that they may also have been typical for the ancestor shared with humans.

I dont totally understand how they calculated that X/A index, but its some function of the ratio between sex link ‘X’ chromosomes to autosomal chromosomes. In females it is 1:1– females have 2 X chromosomes and 2 sets of autosomal chromosomes. In males it is .5:1 because only one X chromosome. So the average should be around .75. Higher than .75 would imply more females are reproductively successful than males, i.e. More polygamy. So africans score closer to chimps and bonobos in a measure of polygamy. Europeans are under .75 indicating more monogamy.

They state that random mating assumes 2 reproducing females to 1 reproducing male and Im not sure what they mean or whats going on with the math. Or what is meant by higher rate of mutation in male.

But this chart doesnt say anything about genetic distance of africans to chimps, just that they have similar mating strategies.

So i dont really like the title of the post.

Edit: better title is blacks fuck more like chimpanzees than whites. Thats what the chart is saying.

Yeah duh. It doesnt say anything about european vs african genetic distance from chimps.