Scientific evidence for humans having Alpha males?

Page 5 of 6 [ 84 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next

NorthWind
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 23 Jun 2016
Age: 26
Gender: Female
Posts: 517
Location: Europe (but not UK)

07 Dec 2016, 4:01 am

[quote="Alliekit]
It would be interesting because that goes against accepted birth gender ratio. Boys are more commonly born than females due to female fetuses being more likely to be aborted by the body.

XX sperm are a minuscule amount larger due to increased genetic information. However there is no proven survival difference between the sperm

In fact there is one study that suggested more males were born because in vitro Y sperm are more function and live longer
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1 ... x/abstract[/quote]

Thank you. I've always heard and read the opposite of what you are saying here (it's not a topic I looked into much though), so thanks for bringing this up. Turns out what I've been hearing/reading is an outdated but very persistent idea.



The_Face_of_Boo
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 16 Jun 2010
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 29,258
Location: Beirut, Lebanon.

07 Dec 2016, 6:14 am

NorthWind wrote:
[quote="Alliekit]
It would be interesting because that goes against accepted birth gender ratio. Boys are more commonly born than females due to female fetuses being more likely to be aborted by the body.

XX sperm are a minuscule amount larger due to increased genetic information. However there is no proven survival difference between the sperm

In fact there is one study that suggested more males were born because in vitro Y sperm are more function and live longer
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1 ... x/abstract[/quote]

Thank you. I've always heard and read the opposite of what you are saying here (it's not a topic I looked into much though), so thanks for bringing this up. Turns out what I've been hearing/reading is an outdated but very persistent idea.[/quote]


It was also commonly believed that Y swim faster than X due to their less genetic mass, but this was debunked a while ago.



Alliekit
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Mar 2016
Age: 25
Gender: Female
Posts: 2,182
Location: England

07 Dec 2016, 11:55 am

The_Face_of_Boo wrote:
NorthWind wrote:
[quote="Alliekit]
It would be interesting because that goes against accepted birth gender ratio. Boys are more commonly born than females due to female fetuses being more likely to be aborted by the body.

XX sperm are a minuscule amount larger due to increased genetic information. However there is no proven survival difference between the sperm

In fact there is one study that suggested more males were born because in vitro Y sperm are more function and live longer
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1 ... x/abstract[/quote]

Thank you. I've always heard and read the opposite of what you are saying here (it's not a topic I looked into much though), so thanks for bringing this up. Turns out what I've been hearing/reading is an outdated but very persistent idea.[/quote][/quote]

It was also commonly believed that Y swim faster than X due to their less genetic mass, but this was debunked a while ago.[/quote]


Admittedly in studies it's shown to be a miniscule amount that won't make a difference. As I was looking into this the general consensus was that there is not enough difference between the sperm to make a difference. Although its still a mystery to why boys are born more than girls despite the fact it should be 50:50



Jono
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 10 Jul 2008
Age: 39
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,343
Location: Johannesburg, South Africa

07 Dec 2016, 1:08 pm

Alliekit wrote:
The_Face_of_Boo wrote:
NorthWind wrote:
[quote="Alliekit]
It would be interesting because that goes against accepted birth gender ratio. Boys are more commonly born than females due to female fetuses being more likely to be aborted by the body.

XX sperm are a minuscule amount larger due to increased genetic information. However there is no proven survival difference between the sperm

In fact there is one study that suggested more males were born because in vitro Y sperm are more function and live longer
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1 ... x/abstract[/quote]

Thank you. I've always heard and read the opposite of what you are saying here (it's not a topic I looked into much though), so thanks for bringing this up. Turns out what I've been hearing/reading is an outdated but very persistent idea.[/quote][/quote]

It was also commonly believed that Y swim faster than X due to their less genetic mass, but this was debunked a while ago.[/quote][/quote][/quote]

Admittedly in studies it's shown to be a miniscule amount that won't make a difference. As I was looking into this the general consensus was that there is not enough difference between the sperm to make a difference. Although its still a mystery to why boys are born more than girls despite the fact it should be 50:50[/quote]


I actually thought that more girls were born than boys. I mean, except in Asia where a lot of girls are aborted, the majority of human populations are 51% female and 49% male.



NorthWind
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 23 Jun 2016
Age: 26
Gender: Female
Posts: 517
Location: Europe (but not UK)

07 Dec 2016, 1:46 pm

Jono wrote:
I actually thought that more girls were born than boys. I mean, except in Asia where a lot of girls are aborted, the majority of human populations are 51% female and 49% male.


After birth men at any age have a higher mortality risk than women the same age. Child mortality is slightly higher and in puberty it's definitely higher due to more risky behaviour. Men's life expectancy is lower. 51% 49% because people of all ages are counted. While there are more male babies there are more very old women.

Alliekit wrote:
The_Face_of_Boo wrote:
It was also commonly believed that Y swim faster than X due to their less genetic mass, but this was debunked a while ago.
Admittedly in studies it's shown to be a miniscule amount that won't make a difference. As I was looking into this the general consensus was that there is not enough difference between the sperm to make a difference. Although its still a mystery to why boys are born more than girls despite the fact it should be 50:50

Why should it be 50:50? Maybe I'm misinterpreting what you mean but didn't you just say there were more female miscarriages and thus more boys are born?
Or do you mean it should be 50:50 because there is no reason why having more men than women should be beneficial for human populations? In that case: since boys have slightly higher childhood mortality rates and more likely die of accidents in puberty there (probably) aren't more men in the reproductive age.



Alliekit
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Mar 2016
Age: 25
Gender: Female
Posts: 2,182
Location: England

07 Dec 2016, 2:58 pm

NorthWind wrote:
Jono wrote:
I actually thought that more girls were born than boys. I mean, except in Asia where a lot of girls are aborted, the majority of human populations are 51% female and 49% male.


After birth men at any age have a higher mortality risk than women the same age. Child mortality is slightly higher and in puberty it's definitely higher due to more risky behaviour. Men's life expectancy is lower. 51% 49% because people of all ages are counted. While there are more male babies there are more very old women.

Alliekit wrote:
The_Face_of_Boo wrote:
It was also commonly believed that Y swim faster than X due to their less genetic mass, but this was debunked a while ago.
Admittedly in studies it's shown to be a miniscule amount that won't make a difference. As I was looking into this the general consensus was that there is not enough difference between the sperm to make a difference. Although its still a mystery to why boys are born more than girls despite the fact it should be 50:50

Why should it be 50:50? Maybe I'm misinterpreting what you mean but didn't you just say there were more female miscarriages and thus more boys are born?
Or do you mean it should be 50:50 because there is no reason why having more men than women should be beneficial for human populations? In that case: since boys have slightly higher childhood mortality rates and more likely die of accidents in puberty there (probably) aren't more men in the reproductive age.



The second one and that could very well be true. Also I have to warn when I'm talking about a disproportionate ratio in terms or real world it is small. Something like 107:100. Even so at it is suprising as it seems there is still a 50:50 chance of an egg being fertilised with either sperm.

And you are exactly right about why thethere is a higher female population especially when people are living longer. It's also why dementia is more prevelant in women because men die before they reach the age were it becomes commonplace



Alliekit
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Mar 2016
Age: 25
Gender: Female
Posts: 2,182
Location: England

07 Dec 2016, 2:59 pm

Jono wrote:
Alliekit wrote:
The_Face_of_Boo wrote:
NorthWind wrote:
[quote="Alliekit]
It would be interesting because that goes against accepted birth gender ratio. Boys are more commonly born than females due to female fetuses being more likely to be aborted by the body.

XX sperm are a minuscule amount larger due to increased genetic information. However there is no proven survival difference between the sperm

In fact there is one study that suggested more males were born because in vitro Y sperm are more function and live longer
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1 ... x/abstract[/quote]

Thank you. I've always heard and read the opposite of what you are saying here (it's not a topic I looked into much though), so thanks for bringing this up. Turns out what I've been hearing/reading is an outdated but very persistent idea.[/quote][/quote]

It was also commonly believed that Y swim faster than X due to their less genetic mass, but this was debunked a while ago.[/quote][/quote][/quote]

Admittedly in studies it's shown to be a miniscule amount that won't make a difference. As I was looking into this the general consensus was that there is not enough difference between the sperm to make a difference. Although its still a mystery to why boys are born more than girls despite the fact it should be 50:50[/quote][/quote][/quote][/quote]

I actually thought that more girls were born than boys. I mean, except in Asia where a lot of girls are aborted, the majority of human populations are 51% female and 49% male.[/quote]


That's true but I'm talking specifically about birth ratio. Norhwind had a very good answer for this



The_Face_of_Boo
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 16 Jun 2010
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 29,258
Location: Beirut, Lebanon.

07 Dec 2016, 5:08 pm

Alliekit wrote:
The_Face_of_Boo wrote:
NorthWind wrote:
[quote="Alliekit]
It would be interesting because that goes against accepted birth gender ratio. Boys are more commonly born than females due to female fetuses being more likely to be aborted by the body.

XX sperm are a minuscule amount larger due to increased genetic information. However there is no proven survival difference between the sperm

In fact there is one study that suggested more males were born because in vitro Y sperm are more function and live longer
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1 ... x/abstract[/quote]

Thank you. I've always heard and read the opposite of what you are saying here (it's not a topic I looked into much though), so thanks for bringing this up. Turns out what I've been hearing/reading is an outdated but very persistent idea.[/quote][/quote]

It was also commonly believed that Y swim faster than X due to their less genetic mass, but this was debunked a while ago.[/quote][/quote][/quote]

Admittedly in studies it's shown to be a miniscule amount that won't make a difference. As I was looking into this the general consensus was that there is not enough difference between the sperm to make a difference. Although its still a mystery to why boys are born more than girls despite the fact it should be 50:50[/quote][/quote][/quote][/quote]


Maybe because male aspies are evolutionary advantageous for the group (humanity) but totally useless for mating? :lol:

/adding salt to the wound.



Alliekit
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Mar 2016
Age: 25
Gender: Female
Posts: 2,182
Location: England

07 Dec 2016, 5:38 pm

The_Face_of_Boo wrote:
Alliekit wrote:
The_Face_of_Boo wrote:
NorthWind wrote:
[quote="Alliekit]
It would be interesting because that goes against accepted birth gender ratio. Boys are more commonly born than females due to female fetuses being more likely to be aborted by the body.

XX sperm are a minuscule amount larger due to increased genetic information. However there is no proven survival difference between the sperm

In fact there is one study that suggested more males were born because in vitro Y sperm are more function and live longer
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1 ... x/abstract[/quote]

Thank you. I've always heard and read the opposite of what you are saying here (it's not a topic I looked into much though), so thanks for bringing this up. Turns out what I've been hearing/reading is an outdated but very persistent idea.[/quote][/quote]

It was also commonly believed that Y swim faster than X due to their less genetic mass, but this was debunked a while ago.[/quote][/quote][/quote]

Admittedly in studies it's shown to be a miniscule amount that won't make a difference. As I was looking into this the general consensus was that there is not enough difference between the sperm to make a difference. Although its still a mystery to why boys are born more than girls despite the fact it should be 50:50[/quote][/quote][/quote][/quote][/quote][/quote][/quote]

Maybe because male aspies are evolutionary advantageous for the group (humanity) but totally useless for mating? :lol:

/adding salt to the wound.[/quote]


Im really confused what does that have to do with what we were discussing?



314pe
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 7 Sep 2014
Age: 30
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,013

08 Dec 2016, 2:54 am

Jono wrote:
I actually thought that more girls were born than boys. I mean, except in Asia where a lot of girls are aborted, the majority of human populations are 51% female and 49% male.

It's because men are much better at dying. Check gender ratios at a specific young age, not overall.



314pe
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 7 Sep 2014
Age: 30
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,013

08 Dec 2016, 2:58 am

Alliekit wrote:
Also I have to warn when I'm talking about a disproportionate ratio in terms or real world it is small. Something like 107:100.

Yeah, just a few percent of a male population that won't be able to find a partner. No big deal.



The_Face_of_Boo
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 16 Jun 2010
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 29,258
Location: Beirut, Lebanon.

08 Dec 2016, 4:35 am

Alliekit wrote:
The_Face_of_Boo wrote:
Alliekit wrote:
The_Face_of_Boo wrote:
NorthWind wrote:
[quote="Alliekit]
It would be interesting because that goes against accepted birth gender ratio. Boys are more commonly born than females due to female fetuses being more likely to be aborted by the body.

XX sperm are a minuscule amount larger due to increased genetic information. However there is no proven survival difference between the sperm

In fact there is one study that suggested more males were born because in vitro Y sperm are more function and live longer
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1 ... x/abstract[/quote]

Thank you. I've always heard and read the opposite of what you are saying here (it's not a topic I looked into much though), so thanks for bringing this up. Turns out what I've been hearing/reading is an outdated but very persistent idea.[/quote][/quote]

It was also commonly believed that Y swim faster than X due to their less genetic mass, but this was debunked a while ago.[/quote][/quote][/quote]

Admittedly in studies it's shown to be a miniscule amount that won't make a difference. As I was looking into this the general consensus was that there is not enough difference between the sperm to make a difference. Although its still a mystery to why boys are born more than girls despite the fact it should be 50:50[/quote][/quote][/quote][/quote][/quote][/quote][/quote]

Maybe because male aspies are evolutionary advantageous for the group (humanity) but totally useless for mating? :lol:

/adding salt to the wound.[/quote][/quote][/quote][/quote][/quote]

Im really confused what does that have to do with what we were discussing?[/quote]



It's just a theory-joke:
The excess males that are being born might be the aspie males, who are advantageous (in evolutionary sense) for the group but not for mating.
And the "aspie genes" continue to being passed on by female aspies.



Alliekit
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Mar 2016
Age: 25
Gender: Female
Posts: 2,182
Location: England

08 Dec 2016, 7:30 am

314pe wrote:
Alliekit wrote:
Also I have to warn when I'm talking about a disproportionate ratio in terms or real world it is small. Something like 107:100.

Yeah, just a few percent of a male population that won't be able to find a partner. No big deal.


But like we discussed the ratio evens out after puberty so unless you are dating as a baby there shouldn't be to much of an issue of mismatch ratio. But then that's not including asexuals and homosexuals in which women are more likely to be gay



314pe
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 7 Sep 2014
Age: 30
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,013

09 Dec 2016, 3:11 am

Alliekit wrote:
314pe wrote:
Alliekit wrote:
Also I have to warn when I'm talking about a disproportionate ratio in terms or real world it is small. Something like 107:100.

Yeah, just a few percent of a male population that won't be able to find a partner. No big deal.


But like we discussed the ratio evens out after puberty so unless you are dating as a baby there shouldn't be to much of an issue of mismatch ratio. But then that's not including asexuals and homosexuals in which women are more likely to be gay

According to this info (https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulation ... bruary2016) it only evens out at 26. Most people start dating before 26.



314pe
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 7 Sep 2014
Age: 30
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,013

09 Dec 2016, 3:12 am

Alliekit wrote:
But then that's not including asexuals and homosexuals in which women are more likely to be gay

You probably meant less. Otherwise, it would decrease potential dating pool for men even more.



NorthWind
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 23 Jun 2016
Age: 26
Gender: Female
Posts: 517
Location: Europe (but not UK)

09 Dec 2016, 3:25 am

314pe wrote:
Alliekit wrote:
314pe wrote:
Alliekit wrote:
Also I have to warn when I'm talking about a disproportionate ratio in terms or real world it is small. Something like 107:100.

Yeah, just a few percent of a male population that won't be able to find a partner. No big deal.


But like we discussed the ratio evens out after puberty so unless you are dating as a baby there shouldn't be to much of an issue of mismatch ratio. But then that's not including asexuals and homosexuals in which women are more likely to be gay

According to this info (https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulation ... bruary2016) it only evens out at 26. Most people start dating before 26.


Won't dating be more difficult for young men than for young women but more difficult for older women than for older men either way simply because there are more women willing to date an older man than her own age than men willing to date women older than themselves and because there are more older men who are into young women than older women who are into young men?