Anonymous
Anonymous asked in Science & MathematicsBiology · 1 month ago

is this claim about human biology true?

The way that females and males develop both in **** sapiens and in other mammals favors strength in the male and stability/pain tolerance in the female. It is the way development happens. If you put a male and a female into the same muscle/strength building program, the male with gain muscle faster and in different areas (aka arms, chest) than the female (who will be more likely to gain the muscle in her stomach or legs).

Update:

homosapiens***

2 Answers

Relevance
  • Dixon
    Lv 7
    1 month ago

    Shock horror - men and women are biologically different and evolved for different roles!!!1!

  • Anonymous
    1 month ago

    In most species in nature, females tend to be larger because larger females can produce more eggs. However, in those species in which there is male-male combat for the right to mate, the male tends to be larger because the larger an animal, the stronger it is and the more likely it will win a fight. Small males therefore are less likely to have descendants.

    We see examples of both. In most species of frogs, the females are larger. However, in most mammals, the males tend to be larger. For example, male gorillas, male elephants, male elephant seals, male bears, and male big horn sheep are much larger than females because the males of these animals fight for the right to mate with females. In contrast, male humans do NOT fight each other for the right to mate. Therefore although male humans are still larger than female humans, the difference is not as large as the difference between a male gorilla and a female gorilla. The reason human males are not much larger than females is because as long ago as 4.5 million years before the present, the likely ancestors of humans were living in groups of multiple males, and there was little male-male combat for the right to mate. Scientists notice that the canine teeth of early hominids were greatly reduced in size. They interpret this reduction as evidence of reduced male-male combat.

    After all, if a group of males are going to band together as fellow soldiers to defend themselves against predators or other similar groups, they cannot afford to fight among themselves for the right to mate. That is because males that are not allowed to mate would almost certainly not risk their own lives to help a bully that is being attacked by a wild animal. If the bully is killed, then the others may finally get a chance to have sex. Just like a pack of lions, all the adult members of a group of humans get to have sex, often with the same females. Without the need to win a fight before a male can mate, there is no longer any selective pressure to grow to be huge. In fact, being large is not very advantageous because the larger an animal, the more easily it can overheat.  Male lions and male elephant seals for example, can overheat quickly. Since humans hunt using a strategy of persistent hunting (by running long distances to tire out prey), men can actually benefit by being less muscular and better long distance runners. Have you noticed the physique of long distance runners. They are not big and muscular, unlike sprinters. Not all humans used persistent hunting however, humans that live near forests often evolve to be strong because they need to bring down prey from a short distance and they rarely have the room to run long distances. That is why Neanderthals and West Africans tend to be more muscular as they both live in or near forests. East Africans, OTOH, are taller and less muscular as they need to use persistence hunting.

    Because of the demands of persistence hunting and the lack of selection for a large body for male-male combat, human males are actually a lot less muscular than our closest relatives, the apes. Gorillas do not hunt or eat meat and chimps do not use persistence hunting, and so they tend to be more muscular than human males. They also need their muscles to defend their territories against other apes.  OTOH, humans evolved on the African savanna, where there is so little food everywhere that it does not make any sense to defend a territory and stay in a single place for a long time.. Instead hunter gatherers simply migrate rather regularly as food becomes scarce. 

Still have questions? Get your answers by asking now.