6 ms·
I don't think evolution would necessarily favor specialization between the sexes. However we do have evidence that fewer men have reproduced than women. This m
by jackcosgrove 9y ago
I don't think evolution would necessarily favor specialization between the sexes.
However we do have evidence that fewer men have reproduced than women. This means men have been under greater selection pressures than women, which would lead to specialization.
I think this is an outcome of the length of time that women are fertile relative to the time required to gestate and ween a child, plus the length of time that a man is virile. This introduces an asymmetry between the number of women who can mate and the number of men who can mate.
Your claim of sexual specialization may stand for more complex organisms which follow the mating pattern above, but I don't think there's necessarily a biological imperative to specialize the sexes, beyond the specialization in their reproductive systems.
- throwgoog452 9y ago> I don't think evolution would necessarily favor specialization between the sexes. Why wouldn't it? Other primate species are very sexually dimorphic, both physically and behaviorally. Why should humans be so fine-tuned that there are no sex differences at all in behavior?
- jackcosgrove 9y agoI meant across all species. I do acknowledge sexual dimorphism among humans, and provide a mechanism for this happening based upon the effective population sizes of mating humans. I just think the top level post's claim should be reeled in a little bit to not imply that all species that manifest sex should result in sexual specialization beyond the reproductive system.
- throwgoog452 9y agoThe entire human body is a reproductive system. That's what life is. Evolution optimizes for behaviors as much as it optimizes for gonads.