Do people think that evolution only worked on one gender?

Question

I remember chuckling over some of the "old school" misogynistic scientists, who proclaimed that evolution might not have been as necessary in developing the brain of females, since it "obviously" didn't take any intelligence to survive and raise children - only to hunt and "use tools", which was supposedly the exclusive domain of men. Naturally, the idea that our female ancestors were a bunch of airheads, who survived only because they were incredibly cute, is roundly rejected these days.

But lately I seem to be hearing a similar idea - that men evolved to be brilliant, strong, and all-powerful....by themselves. I guess the folks saying this don't realize that you actually have to find a female ancestor willing to breed with those "all-powerful" men in order to be successful? Do they think that "survival of the fittest" means bachelors who were really good at hunting, but couldn't get a girlfriend? "Fittest" means, "best able to create offspring who will later breed".

To be clear.... *I* am not one of those people who thinks this! LOL. And I said the reasoning back then was that men *supposedly* were the only ones hunting and using tools. I'm aware that women have traditionally brought in most of the food through gathering and catching small animals or fish. I'm just asking if people are missing what "fittest" actually means - surviving long enough to leave a genetic legacy

Answer 1

The more troubling fact is that about half of Americans don't believe in evolution at all. They believe that women are in a subordinate position because it was ordained by God.

Reputable scientists are quickly rejecting the sexist assumptions built into early evolutionary theory, but the general public is centuries behind. I can't help but wonder if evolution will ever allow us as a society to outgrow outmoded ways of looking at the world.

Answer 2

"Evolution only worked on one gender"

This comment is way off the mark. You raise a good point about that primitive toolsman or hunter that couldn't get a mate. I like your definition of "fittest" but it's not the whole picture. Fittest is best able to create offspring who will survive to later breed and the survival element is a big point.

Science has increasingly shown that women have a far more complex system for judging what's attractive and what to mate with than men (something you're probably already very aware of). The practical reasons for this are obvious, women can get pregnant while a man can hypothetically impregnate 9 different women in a week and have nothing to deal with. In our very distant ancestors before monogamy gradually took over this behavior may have been very normal. The effect of this is (that before monogamous relationships became the norm) the changes in the male gene pool would have been more rigorously selective than that of the female gene pool, since the women would breed more selectively. Women are "more psychologically complex" than men because the psyche of all humans is defined by almost entirely reproductive behavior. This female behavior probably explains how males came from existing for nothing but the purpose of a more diverse breeding system (sexual reproduction) to actually becoming the dominant sex in the many senses that they remain to this day in much of the world.

These days however, although adultery is still not that uncommon; monogamous relationships are the normal practice and women and men are changing as fast as each other although probably not for the better (we've surpassed that point). To clarify the opening statement comes close to holding a small element of truth in that males have evolved further in the last 2 million years however that said it's also wrong. Men and women today are definelty very different but completely equal.

Answer 3

While there are some genetic differences between men and women, relating to evolution, those differences are so slight that you can't make a statement like "men evolved to be smarter". There are very, very small genetic differences between men and women (like height, weight) for the average of the species. But since we are the same species, any good genetic attribute given through evolution would be passed on to men and women.

So yes, if a genetic trait of increased intelligence was introduced into a population of hunters and gatherers, it might benefit the males more, but wouldn't only be found in males. So as soon as the hunters and gatherers started using both sexes to do the same jobs, the intelligence level would already be equal.

Answer 4

I actually think it would be pretty interesting if they fused the male and female brains, greater size (males) and greater neuron density (females)...

I think a lot of people have a misconception of early hunting. A lot of people seem to have this mental picture of a bunch of cavemen beating a mammoth to death with clubs. Such feats would be rather rare. In reality, early humans, relied mostly on primitive traps, which really could be set by either sex. Using tools, is also fairly unisex.

Gender roles were less defined, though men generally did more physical work, while women did more nurturing, though both sexes did a fair bit of both, neither has a monopoly on those domains.

Edit: Guns Fan, though you really believe the drivel you spout?

Answer 5

Fittest means they who will sustain life.
Procreation is sustainment, but it goes further.
They must be able to adapt to changes over centuries.
They must be able to find symbiosis with life around so that the future will be decidedly secure.
They must pass on these things to the next so that they may progress further and not spend their whole life learning the same.
Evolution is growth of life.
The clear path of evolution revolves around the whole organism we call earth, not the individual cells performing duties to the whole.
As does the nucleus, our earth controls us from its core through the electromagnetic waves that give us life.
Free Will suggests that we are not connected to the whole.
What do you think?

Answer 6

After centuries of oppression woman have equal right for education , for the first time in history.First we got the right to vote. Then we became wage earners. Now we are take over in the scholastic world and in the work force. We will soon control the economy. The history of the world is the history of man, of his exploits, of hisconquests, of his magnificent accomplishments and spectacular failures.Patriachal societies are the societies that are backwards. Society is ever evolving and women are gaining in power. The past clearly belongs to men, but the future -clearly belongs to women.

Answer 7

No, obviously this this hypothesis has no evidence to back it up, nor does it fit the facts.

The only creditable hypothesis that I've heard recently is that women then to prefer reds, pinks and yellows due to them being largely ripe fruit colors. Women that had a preference for them would have survived a bit better.

Answer 8

we've the extra effective area of 1000000000 years to cover. One existence of single cells -- the eukaryotes -- got here up with a thank you to create a double genome, chop up it, pair it off with yet another a million/2 (haploid gametes), forming a sparkling double genome organism. having suggested that they might in simple terms reproduction themselves into different cells over the years, this technique allowed the organisms to share genes, expanding adaptability. it is sexual duplicate with in undemanding terms one "gender". The project got here once you started making those gametes at a time while recombination became into effective. the closest gametes have been your very own. some cells progressed molecules that prevented their from recombining with different video games with a similar molecule. You had to fuse gametes with yet another "mating form", and there have been in specific situations extra beneficial than 2 "genders", however the gametes have been a similar. Animals with diverse cellular kinds regarded. They have been frequently sessile like sponges. The mating kinds became sexes, with one cellular gamete (sperm) searching for a sessile gamete (egg). regardless of the reality that some aquatic animals progressed ability of in-physique fertilization and progression, the amphibians that first got here on land have been based of water for duplicate. The amniote egg regarded, permitting reptiles to place eggs on land. With it got here the platforms for coming up and expressing the egg and those might substitute right into a uterus. One line of reptiles became mammals, characterised by making use of milk production. The breast is a changed sweat gland.. That team chop up into 3 lines. the 1st, the monotremes like the platypus, which produce eggs in a similar way as reptiles. the 2d, the marsupials ought to advance their youthful in the physique, till they became sufficiently enormous to circulate slowly right into a pouch and advance on milk. The final progressed a placenta that should draw food from the womb to a extensive length. it is our line. Compatibility of intercourse organs became into maintained in the time of the line for the reason that any species that did no longer died out. it is an oversimplified precis. Nature has tried numerous adjustments. existence is approximately duplicate.

Answer 9

If you want to watch this experiment in action, check out China and India. Because of generations of abortions and infanticides on female fetuses/infants, there are far, far more marriageable-age men than women in both countries. The result is that the marriageable women are able to be very, very selective about whom they marry. Potentially, they will effectively start breeding out unwanted (the "nature" part, not the "nurture") male personality traits.

Answer 10

Go to antimisandry dot com and you will get some further laughs. Those folks seem to think women should still be chained to the stoves.