Taking in your note and then discarding it entirely so I can kind of answer seriously, a little

Not sure if you actually think that this is a good way to start a conversation with someone or not, but constructive criticism - if you want anyone to care about anything you've got to say, don't lead with an insult. Especially when you don't seem to know any more about the subject matter on hand than everyone else just sharing their thoughts and speculations.

I realized after I posted my two comments last night that I forgot something, so I may as well post it now in response to your comment.

The oddest part is that very little in your lengthy post really contradicted anything I said. I said that it probably wasn't ideal for them to want to try to breed with a 12 year old and instead would probably have preferred slightly older women and then you come in and say that women were probably breeding when they were 15. I would think that that would be pretty well covered by 'slightly older' than 12. I, myself, wasn't saying that ancient man had some strict moral code that matched modern US statutory rape laws exactly and that they sat around waiting for a woman to turn 18. I'm specifically talking about why the argument some people have that it's natural to 'breed' with girls who are virtually children is probably not a good tactic from a reproduction/evolutionary standpoint for a species. Especially when a lot of people are offering this argument from a point of view that is misunderstanding how long people back then lived. People have an idea that nearly everyone was dead by the time they were 30. With that in mind then yeah, you would have to have a baby at 12, but it was common for people to live much longer than 30.

Anyway, I hate having pointless debates on reddit where both sides are essentially arguing the exact same point, just phrasing it differently, so I'll leave it there.