/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.7531615]

Why are female humans less strong and more frail than males? Is it advantageous to the species for this disparity to exist? How?

Is evolutionary discussion like this /sci/ appropriate?

[Anonymous No.7531616]

>>7531615
you are literally retarded
you should already know the answer
god damn it delete this thread

[Anonymous No.7531650]

>>7531615
Are you aware you're making a loaded abiguous question, right?

[Anonymous No.7531654]

You can see in nature that the female counterpart usually takes the role of managing their sanctuary and attend to the kids while male part protects the home and keep the family safe.

Most mammals adopt this behaviour instinctively and work it out throughout their lives.

[Anonymous No.7531660]

>>7531654
So muscle mass equal to males is unnecessary and shed so that energy is saved?

Alright.

[Anonymous No.7531671]

>>7531660
Re-form your post with a correct and sensible articulation and post again please. If English is not your first language, request assistance from a friend.

[Anonymous No.7531697]

>>7531650
Are you implying women aren't weaker and more frail than men? If so you're a cuckold.

[Anonymous No.7531722]

>>7531697
>cuckold
Please, leave this board for good and return to /pol/.

[Anonymous No.7531739]

>>7531722
>dodging the question

[Anonymous No.7531742]

>>7531615

Women are not frail and weak, you shitlord.

[Anonymous No.7531750]

Survival of the fittest isn't a very good way of understanding evolution. It's more like 'Survival of anything that meets the bare minimum.'

The genes that code for the male and female phenotype can be found in both sexes - Dmrt1, and FOXL2. What this means is that both the mother and the father carry their own genetic template for 'male' and 'female.' A person can inherit either the mother's or the father's chromosome in any given place. What this means is that you can inherit either your mother's or your father's male and female phenotype.

So the proper question is 'why is the male phenotype physically stronger than the female phenotype.'

And the answer is in the definition; the male phenotype in general involves higher amounts of stronger hormones. A male is a more differentiated female. An example of this is how men have longer spines and necks, as well as bigger skulls and brains. The female looks like like a child - because she undergoes a weaker metamorphosis during puberty.

>>7531654

>You can see in nature that the female counterpart usually takes the role of managing their sanctuary and attend to the kids while male part protects the home and keep the family safe

Most species are asocial, and the female raises the child alone - if at all. If anything, the fact that only mammals and birds tend to have large, dominant males contrasts with the fact that in most insects and reptiles, the females are larger.

Social spiders and insects, for example, often remove males entirely from their society except during reproduction events.

[Anonymous No.7531752]

Objectively speaking, no matter what role women could have take in our society, it would be of course better if they were all as strong as men.
But they aren't for a simple reason.

Women of our species were raped before large communities or laws existed.
Raping the weakest was the easiest and these genes for women were therefor passed on.

[Anonymous No.7531767]

>>7531752
Uh what

[Anonymous No.7531771]

>>7531750
Rather informative. Thank you.

>>7531752
Actually realized this might be part of the answer after making the thread.

[Anonymous No.7531782]

>>7531752

[Anonymous No.7531798]

For women it could be survival of who gets fucked easiest.

[Anonymous No.7531803]

Energy.

Basically more muscle means more energy consumption. Females have less muscle and more fat, i.e. they waste less energy and store more energy. This is mostly due to them needing more energy when they are bearing a fetus in their womb.

[Anonymous No.7531829]

Considering women are doing more hard work, and men are taking care with kids, I'd imagine the sexual dimorphism would begin to even out, that is if our species continues to exist within the next few million years.

[Anonymous No.7531854]

>evolution
>reason

durrr
everything ITT is just-so stories for redditors

[Anonymous No.7531884]

There was an additional selective pressure on men, as there is in many mammalian species: to defeat rival males. Female lions are a perfect size for hunting, but male lions are bigger, because the most successful ones must not only hunt (as juveniles) but be big enough to fight off other males for the right to breed.

There's no advantage for women to beat up other women, but there's a big advantage for men to be able to beat up other men.

[Anonymous No.7531912]

We evolved from primates whose social structure based on the alpha, beta, etcetera hierarchy, it's much easier to mate being an alpha and it was, and probably still is, easier to assert dominance beating other monkeys.
I.E Men need to be strong to be alpha in order to breed.

[Anonymous No.7531926]

Females have only one purpose. You know what it is. Men do all the work and thinking.

[Anonymous No.7531929]

>>7531884
Well you beta manlet ass will be disselected. Your genes are inferior.

[Anonymous No.7531955]

Neolithic Revolution

[Anonymous No.7531959]

>>7531615
Muscles eat calories.

This is why, for instance, birds with no predators and ample food at ground level, often evolve into flightless birds. Flight becomes an unnecessary and inefficient use of calories. In such a situation, birds that find it more slightly difficult to fly, both need less food and get more of it, and thus they quickly outbreed their more prone to flying brethren, until eventually, only those that cannot fly remain.

Among social mammals, the same mechanism tends to come into play, with the males being larger and the females being smaller, for similar reason. The female is protected by the social group, if she can dedicate more of her calories to breeding, instead of muscle, the offspring are more likely to thrive, and the group uses less food collectively.

Which is, of course, great, until a bunch of guys come along with muskets, or rape on the mind, but evolution doesn't really think ahead.

[Anonymous No.7531962]

>>7531750
ur smart

[Anonymous No.7531964]

>>7531615
>Why are female humans less strong and more frail than males? Is it advantageous to the species for this disparity to exist? How?
Consider the opposite. Some spiders have the females do nearly everything, meanwhile the beta fag spiders just barely live long enough to mate with the female spiders. This works just fine but it's statistically less likely to succeed because you're putting all the pressure on one gender only instead of spreading it apart. If the female spider can't build webs, catch food, find a mate, carry it's baby spiders around while at the same time hunting for itself and the extra energy needed for the baby spiders then it's probably just going to die off. The male spiders don't really help at all and some of them just get eaten as the last thing the female spider wants is another spider competing against it for food.

Consider a situation where both male and female are nearly equal in physical strength and intellligence. I would argue this is where humanity is headed right now but we are in an intermediate point of our evolution. For hundreds of thousands of years humans have competed with nature and each other, early humans realized very quickly that letting the females stay home and take care of the children was better than having them out hunting for food or fighting other humans or animals where they could be killed. The tribes that did not realize this, had a larger probability of dying off. Consider the following scenario.

[Anonymous No.7531970]

>>7531964
Tribe A has 10 males, 10 females.Tribe B has 10 males, 10 females. Assume both males and females are equally strong and intelligent.

Tribe A and B fight in a small skirmish that ends up with everyone dead or soon to be dead from their wounds. Tribe A sends in 8 males. Tribe B sends in 3 males and 5 females.

Tribe A has 2 males and 10 females left. Tribe B has 7 males and 5 females left. However, neither tribe knows the other tribes true numbers, and after losing almost half their population in a recent fight, decide to not go out looking for a fight again and simply hunt and gather where their homes are at rather than trying to conquer one another.

Tribe A can give birth to 10 babies within a year meanwhile Tribe B can only give birth to 5 babies within a year. Both tribes can feed themselves and maintain themselves just fine as they have no problem leaving their children at home while they gather food and male/females are equally strong and intelligent. But Tribe A will re-grow much faster than Tribe B which means it's only a matter of time before Tribe A heavily out numbers Tribe B and they decided to attack Tribe B again, this time successfully.

Tribe B goes extinct and this is how natural selection favours leaving females at home due to the high value of women being able to produce babies but with only 1-2 men needed to impregnate large numbers of women. As tribes leave women at home more and more, they begin to evolve differently than men, women are naturally selected for their ability to produce strong men AND for their ability to produce women who are good at maintaining the family and managing the village while men are away fighting or hunting or doing whatever needs to be done to make sure their family survives.

[Anonymous No.7531973]

>>7531615
Evolution is more accurately about what works, which indirectly applies to what's advantageous relative to a population's ecology.

That we know of, genetically mediated traits are not developed in response to demand. Either a species can, gets lucky, or it can't. This means that the species must be composed of the right affordances to allow it to change and survive an environment that is in flux. Often times, if a species is to go extinct, that change is much too drastic, or much too fast.

As far as human females go, I'm not certain if it could be said to have a "purpose", or an advantage. Human likely survived the last glacial event because we distributed specific tasks between the sexes, probably because they lacked the brute strength to hunt. Interestingly, it is actually estrogen which masculinizes the male brain and leads to differing visuospatial skills, etc. In women, the BBB disallows this. Etc.

There are probably some models based on other species and our modern day cousins, but truthfully, we don't really know the nature of what any given trait is, why, or where it came from. In other species, it is the female that is much larger, so it isn't uniform. Likely, what we were neatly fit into our ecological niches over time and so it's just what we stayed. There might have even been selective pressure against change.

>>7531660
Muscle trophism is controlled by a set of intertwined hormonal factors. Much of the male variant of this would mess with female reproduction. Genes controlling this might be highly conserved for a very long time.

[Anonymous No.7531983]

>>7531964
With one or two exceptions, spiders aren't social critters. The female thus has to be able to perform all functions. In their case, it also helps if the male is smaller and more agile, as a lot of female spiders also have a bad habit of eating their mates, or otherwise mistaking them for food. (It's actually kind of a miracle these things breed at all, when ya think about it - might be why they tend to breed in the thousands.)

Granted, in most breeds of scorpions the males and females are about the same size... But if you've ever seen a pair of scorpions go at it, you can see where they might have been better off taking the same approach. But evolution isn't perfect - shit happens - and if it isn't too broken, it tends not to get fixed.

[Anonymous No.7532035]

>>7531970
What if tribe A sends in 10 male warriors and 10 Amazons, while tribe B sends in 10 males only. Some number less than 10 from tribe A die, while all 10 B warriors die. B females are then left to die/get raped/get killed/become slaves/any of the above by A. What of your premise now?

[Anonymous No.7532065]

>>7532035
>>7532035
NTG, but, well, it's not the best premise, as it is kinda suggesting the difference in our male/female phenotypes is a result of tribal warfare, when in reality, the same difference in relative size and muscle mass between the sexes is prevalent in almost all social mammals (usually in far greater extremes). Most herd animals, for instance, don't spend a lotta time executing tribal warfare. I suspect, therefore, this has to be traced to a mechanism that came about long before we came down from the trees and started chucking spears at each other.

It isn't *entirely* universal though. Among rats, for instance, the females tend to be larger. Granted, said female rats also often have to deal with males trying to eat their young.

[Anonymous No.7532162]

>>7531615
That whole opposites attract thing. Did you think of that?

[Anonymous No.7532193]

>>7531973
>Muscle trophism is controlled by a set of intertwined hormonal factors
I didn't mean that muscle mass would decrease so drastically in an individual because it was unnecessary, but over generations.

[Anonymous No.7532234]

>>7532162
Except there's already been several scientific studies that prove they don't.

[Anonymous No.7532238]

Well it's because females are exposed to the kitchen much earlier

[Anonymous No.7532243]

Men kill each other. Winner gets to fuck all women.

[Anonymous No.7532245]

>>7531750
survival of the fittest implies efficiency too, not just the biggest number in some aspect. just say that most people fail to understand this

[Anonymous No.7532265]

>>7532234
>prove
indicate (that often)*

[Anonymous No.7532269]

It's ok though, evolution stop at the neck.
They are our equals.

[Anonymous No.7532278]

>>7531616
have some respect for OP you little shit

[Anonymous No.7532284]

>>7531752
that easy huh

[Anonymous No.7532290]

>>7531912
lol even if true, has little relevance

[Anonymous No.7532306]

>>7531750
To add to this:

Muscle mass is expensive, it requires a larger metabolism and more food consumption. Females, generally, have less muscle mass so they require less food, which in turn allows them to store fat and in mammals feed young. Pregnancy and the production of eggs in all species (from fish to mammals) is incredibly energy intensive. It requires most of the females energy.

Basically: Males can be larger and stronger becuase they do not devote excess energy to creating children.

[Anonymous No.7532495]

>>7532290
even male dogs are bigger you smarty

[Anonymous No.7533359]

the female brain .

[Anonymous No.7533366]

they're not it's because men are sexist is why

[Anonymous No.7533879]

>>7533366
>purposely shitting up the board with this faggotry.
Pls go n stay go.