0
$\begingroup$

Evolutionarily, using humans as an example, it would make sense that a successful female would produce successful male offspring. If a successful female produced male offspring that weren't successful, the female also wouldn't be successful by definition and would, through evolution, stop being desired by males. Therefore, females are selected for by their ability to produce successful males and thus successful male genes must be the same as successful female genes?

However, I've heard that in humans today, males don't like rich females while females like rich males. Also, from what I've read, lascivious females used to be looked down upon in the past while lascivious males weren't. Females and males also played very different roles in society. Also, successful males often don't spend much time taking care of children and spend more time making them, while successful females spend more time taking care of them. This suggests that successful males are genetically different than successful females? I'm an amateur in biology, so correct me if I'm wrong.

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ One important thing that the logic of your question seems to be completely missing is that, at least for humans and many other species, no male has the same genetics as a female. In humans and related species, males have one X and one Y chromosome whereas females have two X chromosomes. $\endgroup$ – Bryan Krause Aug 28 '18 at 21:48
  • $\begingroup$ What difference does it make though? Isn't the only difference that being female decreases or increases the degree of some of the traits that a male would have and vice versa? Or are the interactions more complicated than this? $\endgroup$ – dan dan Sep 1 '18 at 1:48
  • $\begingroup$ Because the traits expressed by males and females are not the same. $\endgroup$ – Bryan Krause Sep 1 '18 at 6:50
  • $\begingroup$ So your're saying that an aggressive male wouldn't necessarily make a relatively aggressive female? I somehow don't believe that. $\endgroup$ – dan dan Sep 2 '18 at 1:52
4
$\begingroup$

Evolutionarily, using humans as an example, it would make sense that a successful female would produce successful male offspring. If a successful female produced male offspring that weren't successful, the female also wouldn't be successful by definition and would, through evolution, stop being desired by males. Therefore, females are selected for by their ability to produce successful males and thus successful male genes must be the same as successful female genes?

That assumption is wrong. Of course the best thing for an individual's reproductive success is to have as many successful offspring as possible regardless of gender, but in the real world there are sometimes tradeoffs. If an individual had a trait that made, say, their female offspring a lot more successful but mildly impaired their male's offspring's success, the advantage to the female offspring might outweigh the disadvantage to the male and the trait might get passed on, even though it produced male offspring that weren't very successful.

Here is a paper apparently exploring the concept in seed beetles: http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/early/2009/12/21/rspb.2009.2026

However, I've heard that in humans today, males don't like rich females while females like rich males.

You've heard that of humans, have you? Are you sure what you heard actually applied to all humans, and not the humans in one specific society? You say "humans today", do you mean "anatomically modern humans" or "people in the 21th century"?

You really ought to investigate this kind of thing you hear before drawing all-encompassing conclusions about biology or evolution from them. Maybe you were assuming that "in humans, males don't like rich females while females like rich males" was consensus biology; if so, well, it isn't. And given that it isn't, we can't answer your questions based on such a vague claim; you should give a source that explains more precisely what exactly is being said there.

Also, from what I've read, lascivious females used to be looked down upon in the past while lascivious males weren't.

Same thing; I'll also highlight the "in the past" when your previous sentence talked about "today". Evolution works on the scales of hundreds and thousands of generations. Why would you assume evolutionary explanations for social trends that, by your own words apparently, have changed recently?

This suggests that successful males are genetically different than successful females?

In order for those things suggest that, you would need: 1) to establish reliably that the differences you talked about exist, 2) to establish that they have a probable biological basis; one way of establishing this could be to show that they are universal across human cultures, geography and history. If they aren't then it's more likely the explanation is cultural than biological, and 3) to establish that the biological difference is related to individuals being successful, as opposed to being random variation (which happens a lot in evolution).

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ competition between male and female genes is known to exist in some species, in the most extreme case sien in some mice genes on Y chromosomes that actually prevent X carrying sperm from forming properly. $\endgroup$ – John Aug 29 '18 at 3:26
  • $\begingroup$ Before I read this I thought biology was simple stuff. But does this answer my question? $\endgroup$ – dan dan Sep 1 '18 at 1:39
  • $\begingroup$ @dan-dan I tried to answer your question, so I think so... Do you feel this doesn't answer your question, and if so can you say what's missing? $\endgroup$ – Oosaka Feb 24 at 15:41

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.