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
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: Why are males and females 50%-50%? [View all]napoleon_in_rags
(3,992 posts)17. No here is the answer, Fisher's principle.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fisher%27s_principle
1) Suppose male births are less common than female.
2) A newborn male then has better mating prospects than a newborn female, and therefore can expect to have more offspring.
3) Therefore parents genetically disposed to produce males tend to have more than average numbers of grandchildren born to them.
4) Therefore the genes for male-producing tendencies spread, and male births become more common.
5) As the 1:1 sex ratio is approached, the advantage associated with producing males dies away.
6) The same reasoning holds if females are substituted for males through-out. Therefore 1:1 is the equilibrium ratio.
No bottlenecks, no magic, just a simple formula. Its interesting to look at this playing out economically as well, as your OP says. The fascinating thing is to watch these forces drive culture, like in China where the dislike of female children will clearly become less and socially acceptable as these forces kick in with the male population.
1) Suppose male births are less common than female.
2) A newborn male then has better mating prospects than a newborn female, and therefore can expect to have more offspring.
3) Therefore parents genetically disposed to produce males tend to have more than average numbers of grandchildren born to them.
4) Therefore the genes for male-producing tendencies spread, and male births become more common.
5) As the 1:1 sex ratio is approached, the advantage associated with producing males dies away.
6) The same reasoning holds if females are substituted for males through-out. Therefore 1:1 is the equilibrium ratio.
No bottlenecks, no magic, just a simple formula. Its interesting to look at this playing out economically as well, as your OP says. The fascinating thing is to watch these forces drive culture, like in China where the dislike of female children will clearly become less and socially acceptable as these forces kick in with the male population.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
Recommendations
0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):
43 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
The ratio of boys to girls at birth ranges from 1.03 to 1.07 generally, depending on country
FarCenter
Feb 2012
#4
Assume there is such a thing as truly random, then random coin flips are 50% heads 50% tails.
retread
Feb 2012
#9
It's probably more complex than that, particularly in species which are polygynous and bear litters
FarCenter
Feb 2012
#20
It seems unlikely to me that a bottle-neck would lead to a change in species mating-systems
HereSince1628
Feb 2012
#22