Do you think evolution will favor men to become pregnant? Can it?

Answer 1

The answer is an unequivocal "NO"! For starters, lets look at the rationale against such a proposition.

Evolutionarily speaking, sexual reproduction is important in that it has the advantage over asexual reproduction of mixing genetic combinations available to the offspring. In the human species, this sexual reproduction requires both a male and a female. What accompanies these facts is that the female is genetically prepared to carry a child once pregnant. Such features which are vital to this are a uterus, the hormones estrogen and progesterone which prepare the uterus for implantation, ovaries to supply eggs, and a vaginal canal for birthing. All of these features are primary sex characteristics that can only develop in the ABSENCE of a "Y" chromosome. Evolutionarily, then, it is to the advantage of the species that phenotypic distinctions between males and females exist, and these physical differences preclude the possibility of the male of the species to be capable of pregnancy. On this logic alone, men can not become pregnant. But there is more evidence.

Secondly, think about this: humans and our ancestors have had millions of years to develop such features, if it were in fact possible, but it has NOT happened. Why not? Because there is no SELECTIVE ADVANTAGE for the human species of men acquiring these features and abilities.

Third, there ARE cases of individuals that receive extra SEX chromosomes (look up Klinefelters and Turner' syndrome, for example) where individuals are born with XXY and XYY. XXY individuals, as a rule, are infertile and can not produce children. XYY individuals are fertile but are phenotypically male and do not develop uteruses and other features necessary to become impregnated. So even in the cases of chromosal conditions that might perhaps favor male pregnancy, we do not observe males with the ability to be so.

So, IF a male had eggs they could not be fertilized because there is no way that the design of a male can receive semen into the genetalia. But even if this were possible, there would be no place for the fertilized eggs to implant. And if even they could implant, they couldnt grow because estrogen and progesterone are not present in high enough quantities in males to prepare the uterus (high levels of these hormones would have produced a female during development of the fetus). This all boils down to the simple and obvious reality that males can not become pregnant.

Someone might perhaps argue, well it would be possible if certain mutations occurred. This also is false. Why? Because evolution is a process that moves down a one-way street. While such capability is present in lower organisms, higher animals are too specialized to be capable of such a transformation. Even if all the proper sets of supposed mutations had amassed in one organism, that organism would either (one) not survive and be spontaneously aborted in utero, or (two) be born as an infertile individual. Again, only lower animals with less well specialized sexual reproductive organs are capable of self-fertilization and "pregnancy" (flowering plants, for example, are capable of this).

Finally, a genotypic male could undergo gender reassignment and become female, but a uterus and other "equipment" would have to be transplanted and various hormones taken. I imagine, in theory, that this individual would be capable of becoming pregnant but in this scenario "he" is no longer "male".

Good question, but the answer is NO!

Answer 2

There should be a problem for the reason of the evolution of men becoming pregnant. Maybe it would help solve the over population problem but then women would have to stop reproducing.

I guess anything can happen but very well doubt it. We will be making babies in tube when the time comes.

Answer 3

It can, in simpler organisms. Technically, it still could in humans. I doubt it will be happening any time soon.

Many species only have one gender. Most animals have two genders. The reason for this is to speed up the evolutionary process. It actually comes down to math.

In a single gendered organism, the only way to evolve is through mutation. For organisms with very short life spans such as bacteria, this is completely acceptable. They can evolve very quickly through mutation.

As you get larger, more multicellular organisms such as humans, the time between generations is far greater. This drastically slows down the evolutionary process. To compensate, we double our genetic material and we swap it, creating almost limitless combinations for each offspring. That, in essence, is the purpose of two genders. Evolution is exponentially sped up, and we continue to adapt.

Having said that, this only explains why two genders have evolved. Now that we have two genders, each with two gene sets, we could technically converge back to a single gender (or two genders both capable of birth) so long as we continue to mate and swap genes.

I don't expect this to happen, because the truth is that we're already reproducing too fast on earth. We don't need twice as many births in this world. There are some other reasons, but that's the most striking.

p.s...if you want to know if it is possible for a man to get pregnant, it very much is with some relatively minor mutation. I don't think his genes will be favoured in our world, though.

Answer 4

The reality that you simply stated ladies handiest suppose approximately intercourse a couple of occasions per week suggests that you have not been with many ladies..or possibly you have not been with a lady in any respect. No offense. You're fallacious approximately asking psychologists, seeing that I realize plenty of psychologists that would possibly not consider you. The rationale why there are not many identified feminine little one molesters or rapists is seeing that no one experiences them. I realize men and women who have been molested through their mothers, step-mothers, and aunts, however they did not wish the arena to grasp their industry. Plus, you are forgetting that almost all ladies do not wish to confess how quite often they suppose approximately intercourse. If they are saying they suppose approximately intercourse every day, men are simply going to suppose that they have got a threat with them. I do not inform each man that I'm a intercourse addict and that I love porn, seeing that then they are simply going to appear at me as anyone to get intercourse from.

Answer 5

Men do not have the *ahem* proper equipment to become pregnant. Considering that men are set up to be sperm donors and not receivers, I really don't see how evolution would pull a complete reversal. At least, not without the meddling of biological engineering.

Answer 6

No, we'd need Mitochondral DNA, which is passed only through the female. Men pass the sex on, women the form. We have no Vaginal opening, no cervix to respond while pregnant or womb to contain the baby in. While these are stored in our genetic memory, being XY, nature has made us this way, and not one mammalian species has developed into parenting this way. No reason to think it would happen to us, therefore.

Answer 7

No, I don't think so on both counts.

Evolution in my understanding is mutations in the genes that gives rise to a greater chance of survival and ultimately procreation.

Thus for men to be able to become pregnant and carry a child, they would need multiple mutations to accomodate this. Hormone changes will be needed, a uterus would be needed, some way to fertilize the egg (asexual perhaps).

So I don't think this is really possible.

Answer 8

No. Because we've already evolved away from that end of the spectrum. Sexually reproducing species start out as species that have neither male nor female, but still require two of them to procreate. Over time, the male and female gender evolved from that model because it is more efficient to have two parents that are different and abilities complement each other than to have two parents whose abilities completely overlap. Plus, there's quite a bit about the size and amount of gametes that effect that push as well.

Answer 9

There would have to be some major traumatic event for the scales to tip towards a man's ability to become pregnant.

After millions of years, evolution has not really moved in that direction, so I would say not

Answer 10

theoretically speaking, since we evolved from fish to apes to humans, anything is possible. I highly doubt it though. What I think would be more likely to happen is we would evolve to become asexual. Or hermaphrodites. Then the survival of the species would be guaranteed, without necessarily involving another person.