Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
 

Arugula Latte

(50,566 posts)
7. Also, boys traditionally had a higher mortality rate.
Sat Feb 18, 2012, 01:57 PM
Feb 2012

So by a certain age, the population is 50 - 50.

Then, of course, in later life, women outnumber men significantly.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

Why are males and females 50%-50%? [View all] cthulu2016 Feb 2012 OP
Silly me, I learned the natural ratio at birth was 107 boys to 100 girls Brother Buzz Feb 2012 #1
That's birth, not conception. cthulu2016 Feb 2012 #2
Primary sex ratio up to 170 males to 100 females muriel_volestrangler Feb 2012 #8
Fair enough cthulu2016 Feb 2012 #12
I've read that there are more males than females are born in the U.S. Honeycombe8 Feb 2012 #19
I ammended the OP to reflect cthulu2016 Feb 2012 #23
Also, boys traditionally had a higher mortality rate. Arugula Latte Feb 2012 #7
Speak for yourself karynnj Feb 2012 #3
The ratio of boys to girls at birth ranges from 1.03 to 1.07 generally, depending on country FarCenter Feb 2012 #4
Sex ratio is a feature of a species natural history traits HereSince1628 Feb 2012 #5
Maybe it maximizes the experiment potential. gulliver Feb 2012 #6
Assume there is such a thing as truly random, then random coin flips are 50% heads 50% tails. retread Feb 2012 #9
By population, women in the US make up about 52%, partially by attrition. HopeHoops Feb 2012 #10
I think the ratio is about bottlenecks napoleon_in_rags Feb 2012 #11
That's attractive but cannot be right cthulu2016 Feb 2012 #13
Hmm, interesting. napoleon_in_rags Feb 2012 #15
No here is the answer, Fisher's principle. napoleon_in_rags Feb 2012 #17
Exactly (I was trying to say that in the OP but may have failed) cthulu2016 Feb 2012 #18
It's probably more complex than that, particularly in species which are polygynous and bear litters FarCenter Feb 2012 #20
Very true cthulu2016 Feb 2012 #24
Yeah, you're right... Here's a good article: napoleon_in_rags Feb 2012 #30
Again, note the "afford to gamble" factor cthulu2016 Feb 2012 #34
Yes indeed. Do you ever see this stuff holistically cthulu? napoleon_in_rags Feb 2012 #37
Me to. My approach to posting is atypical cthulu2016 Feb 2012 #39
You bring tough questions to the surface. napoleon_in_rags Feb 2012 #40
well said. n/t lumberjack_jeff Feb 2012 #28
It is not a gene quaker bill Feb 2012 #31
That process is not as random as it would seem though. napoleon_in_rags Feb 2012 #38
Unless you are a mouse, no you can't. quaker bill Feb 2012 #42
It seems unlikely to me that a bottle-neck would lead to a change in species mating-systems HereSince1628 Feb 2012 #22
Nicely written. cthulu2016 Feb 2012 #25
My theory is that it only became important to have sons when we became Cleita Feb 2012 #14
Here's a question. Igel Feb 2012 #16
For most species, the sex ratio is approximately 1:1 cthulu2016 Feb 2012 #21
This from an earlier post of mine TexasProgresive Feb 2012 #26
How a sperm cell is formed has to do with it. 2ndAmForComputers Feb 2012 #27
True, but that is not the mechanism cthulu2016 Feb 2012 #33
Mitochondrial DNA Another Bill C. Feb 2012 #29
Wikipedia has a sortable chart on gender ratio: more guys at birth, more gals after 65 yurbud Feb 2012 #32
And with the 1:1 crossover ocurring cthulu2016 Feb 2012 #35
I just realized this balances out a biological injustice: yurbud Feb 2012 #36
I have a question.... unkachuck Feb 2012 #41
Except now in some places... like India and China JCMach1 Feb 2012 #43
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Why are males and females...»Reply #7