men vs woman

[dimreepr]

11 minutes ago, zapatos said:

Couldn't you have just used more women to make up for the difference in strength the men contributed?

Yes, but it's not womens work...

[iNow]

18 minutes ago, zapatos said:

Couldn't you have just used more women to make up for the difference in strength the men contributed?

Or, use their brains to engineer smarter solutions to magnify their strength... pulleys, rollers, animals like oxen, etc. 

[Phi for All]

1 hour ago, zapatos said:

Couldn't you have just used more women to make up for the difference in strength the men contributed?

What if the women of the time had a more practical focus on this life rather than the afterlife? Perhaps they were grateful the guy's work on their man-caves kept them out from underfoot? 

[zapatos]

36 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

What if the women of the time had a more practical focus on this life rather than the afterlife? Perhaps they were grateful the guy's work on their man-caves kept them out from underfoot? 

Good point. With the work-from-home rules we are following my wife asked if I could work from someone else's home! 🤪

[molbol2000]

 

I think the difference between a woman and a man is destroyed in about 1000 years. For example, in order to engage in agriculture, military qualities are not needed, this is reflected in evolution.

[swansont]

4 hours ago, molbol2000 said:

 

I think the difference between a woman and a man is destroyed in about 1000 years. For example, in order to engage in agriculture, military qualities are not needed, this is reflected in evolution.

"Military qualities"?

Any evidence that evolution happens this quickly?

And evidence that sexual dimorphism is disappearing? I'm pretty sure the average height of men is still greater than for women. And weight, strength, etc. We've been doing agriculture for many thousands of years. If it only takes 1000, then there should be none of these differences.

[molbol2000]

On 10/14/2020 at 1:51 PM, swansont said:

And evidence that sexual dimorphism is disappearing?

Not sure there is direct proof, but simptoms are there

 

On 10/14/2020 at 1:51 PM, swansont said:

Any evidence that evolution happens this quickly?

it could be speeded up by things like genocides, wars, purges of the inquisition and so on

Also maybe this is a myth, but I read like that in an ancient treatise that a charioteer was chasing a running horse. This speed is 2 times greater than the speed of a sprinter, that is, none of the modern men achieves this even approximately.

Here is still circumstantial evidence. In the world of animals sexual dimorphism in tertiary characteristics is obviously higher. For example, composition of musculs of bulls differs from cows greater then men's from women's. Bull have more speed musculs

Edited October 17, 2020 by molbol2000

[joigus]

14 minutes ago, molbol2000 said:

Not sure there is direct proof, but simptoms are there

 

it could be speeded up by things like genocides, wars, purges of the inquisition and so on

Also maybe this is a myth, but I read like that in an ancient treatise that a charioteer was chasing a running horse. This speed is 2 times greater than the speed of a sprinter, that is, none of the modern men achieves this even approximately.

You missed @Prometheus's excellent point about hippocampi. The answer to this is a similar argument applied to muscles. Although muscles can change more easily than nervous tissue. Even for hippocampus.

In fact, the kind of muscular tissue you get depends very directly on the kind of exercise you do, or whether you exercise at all.

Astronauts that spend a long time in outer space suffer a rapid deterioration of their muscular tissue if they don't exercise regularly.

That has nothing to do with evolution, but with adaptation of your tissues to varying environmental conditions.

[molbol2000]

18 minutes ago, joigus said:

In fact, the kind of muscular tissue you get depends very directly on the kind of exercise you do, or whether you exercise at all.

You're not right. In sport science, it is generally accepted that things like speed and strength are innate and depend on innate muscle composition. This, in part, explains why a woman cannot achieve the striking power of a man in combat sports.

Especially pure speed, it is almost not a trainable quality

18 minutes ago, joigus said:

than nervous tissue

BTW musculs very strongly associated with the nerves. There is, for example, a category of high-threshold fibers that are excited only from very strong impulses.

Edited October 17, 2020 by molbol2000

[joigus]

17 minutes ago, molbol2000 said:

You're not right. In sport science, it is generally accepted that things like speed and strength are innate and depend on innate muscle composition. This, in part, explains why a woman cannot achieve the striking power of a man in combat sports.

Quote

Exercise increases muscle strength and endurance
Different types of exercise produce different physical conditioning responses. In general, anaerobic activities, such as weight lifting, increase strength, and aerobic activities, such as jogging, increase endurance. What is the physiological basis for these differences? Strength is quite simply a function of the cross-sectional area of muscles: the more actin and myosin filaments in a muscle or a muscle fiber, the more tension it can produce. When athletes undertake strength training, they use weights or exercises such as push-ups to repeatedly contract specific muscles under heavy loads. Repetitions are usually done until the muscle is completely fatigued. Such stress on a muscle probably does minor tissue damage—hence the soreness the day after a hard workout— but it also induces the formation of new actin and myosin filaments in existing muscle fibers. The muscle fibers, and hence the muscles, get bigger and stronger. In extreme cases, and after serious muscle damage, new muscle fibers can also be produced from stem cells called satellite cells in the muscle. In general, however, the major effect of strength training is to produce bigger, rather than more, muscle fibers.
Aerobic exercise has a completely different effect on muscles: it enhances their oxidative capacity. This effect comes from increases in the number of mitochondria, increases in enzymes involved in energy utilization, and an increase in the density of capillaries that deliver oxygen to the muscle.
There is also an increase in myoglobin, which facilitates the diffusion of oxygen throughout the muscle fibers and provides a store of oxygen for use when oxygen delivery by the blood is insufficient. In this way, aerobic training can stimulate many fast-twitch fibers to increase their oxidative capacity.

Life, The Science of Biology (Seventh edition), chapter 47, p. 911.

-Purves, Sadava, Orians, Heller

My emphasis. Be careful with what is 'generally accepted.'

And we didn't even start talking about the effect of hormones.

Edited October 17, 2020 by joigus

[molbol2000]

4 minutes ago, joigus said:

My emphasis. Be careful with what is 'generally accepted.'

And we didn't even start talking about the effect of hormones.

Does this scientist deny the difference in muscle composition, or does he deny the difference between glycolytic or oxidative fibers?
These are too general words that are simply taken out of context.

[joigus]

1 minute ago, molbol2000 said:

Does this scientist deny the difference in muscle composition, or does he deny the difference between glycolytic or oxidative fibers?
These are too general words that are simply taken out of context.

Of course not. Many genetic conditions can affect your muscle composition. But the cases of women looking more muscular than in previous generations --that you brought up-- is easily explained by factors having to do with a person's lifestyle, not with evolution.

IOW, you have not proven that we as a species are evolving towards sexual dimorphism. People are changing their muscular development because of the gym and the diet.

[molbol2000]

7 minutes ago, joigus said:

Of course not. Many genetic conditions can affect your muscle composition. But the cases of women looking more muscular than in previous generations --that you brought up-- is easily explained by factors having to do with a person's lifestyle, not with evolution.

IOW, you have not proven that we as a species are evolving towards sexual dimorphism. People are changing their muscular development because of the gym and the diet.

Of course, the role of training and lifestyle cannot be denied, but it is simply stupid to reduce to them, I will not even discuss it, this is nonsense.

Yes, I have no direct evidence, but it is logical that if male qualities are not required for survival, then they gradually disappear

Edited October 17, 2020 by molbol2000

[joigus]

10 minutes ago, molbol2000 said:

but it is simply stupid to reduce to them,

That's why I didn't do that.

Apparently you need some help to read and understand simple sentences in English. Maybe repetition can do the trick:

17 minutes ago, joigus said:

Of course not. Many genetic conditions can affect your muscle composition.

 

[molbol2000]

Just now, joigus said:

Apparently you need some help to read and understand simple sentences in English. Maybe repetition can do the trick:

I have read enough biochemistry and sports medicine literature to take for granted marginal claims that are contrary to both fact and science.

And one of these facts is that the muscle composition of a woman is on average in the direction of oxidation, and in animals this difference can reach 90%

[joigus]

16 minutes ago, molbol2000 said:

I have read enough biochemistry and sports medicine literature to take for granted marginal claims that are contrary to both fact and science.

Nobody's saying you haven't. And stop playing straw-man, please. I can see right through it.

And if you have, then you know, no doubt, that once an organism's genetic makeup is set in motion, so to speak, developmental biology takes charge to determine how it's going to develop, right? The environment interacting with this genetic conditioning does that. Right?

Edited October 17, 2020 by joigus
corrected small grammatical mistake

[molbol2000]

More information for thought. World records in marathon for men and women differ by only a few percent. Records in hammer throwing differ enormously, with a comparable throw length, the female sports equipment is almost 2 times smaller

4 minutes ago, joigus said:

And if you have, then you know, no doubt, that once an organism's genetic makeup is set in motion, so to speak, developmental biology takes charge to determine how it's going to develop, right? The environment interacting with these genetic conditioning does that. Right?

Both factors. As I said, in the strength and speed that determines genetics

Edited October 17, 2020 by molbol2000

[swansont]

1 hour ago, molbol2000 said:

Not sure there is direct proof, but simptoms are there

Anecdotes are not evidence, and bodybuilding (plus the possible steroids) is not evolution

[molbol2000]

1 minute ago, swansont said:

Anecdotes are not evidence, and bodybuilding (plus the possible steroids) is not evolution

A more sporty look is due to the fashion for fitness, but this is just cosmetics, and we are talking here mainly about functional qualities

And this video can be misleading, since it is mainly  about weakening men.
In the old days, a woman warrior was an exception to the rule, this is no coincidence.

[swansont]

22 minutes ago, molbol2000 said:

More information for thought. World records in marathon for men and women differ by only a few percent.

What would that purport to show?

Eliud Kipchoge is the men’s marathon record holder. Height is 5′ 6″, Weight 115 lbs. Is that above or below the average for men? How is this an example of the differences disappearing?

IOW, perhaps being short and slight is an advantage in distance running, and marathon runners are not representative examples of the population.

Just now, molbol2000 said:

And this video can be misleading,

That’s OK. I didn’t watch it.

[molbol2000]

3 minutes ago, swansont said:

What would that purport to show?

That the male benefits in speed-strength sports are much greater than in endurance benefits (which is essentially a female quality)

[swansont]

Just now, molbol2000 said:

That the male benefits in speed-strength sports are much greater than in endurance benefits (which is essentially a female quality)

But your thesis is not that men and women are different, it’s that they are are not (or are less different than a few thousand years ago)

“female quality” could be taken as chauvinistic, and again, your thesis is that this distinction has gone away, destroyed within 1000 years of adopting agriculture 

[molbol2000]

Just now, swansont said:

But your thesis is not that men and women are different, it’s that they are are not (or are less different than a few thousand years ago)

“female quality” could be taken as chauvinistic, and again, your thesis is that this distinction has gone away, destroyed within 1000 years of adopting agriculture 

I see no contradiction. As a result of agriculture(and mass industry), the type of warrior, and therefore stronger and faster, is gradually dying out, and women become closer to men.

I think the end result should be something like an anthill

And note that ideology is headed in this direction.

11 minutes ago, swansont said:

But your thesis

In fact, of couse, this is not proof that the difference already disappear.

But the fact that women set themselves goals to be like men speaks of a trend. If traditional masculine values disappear, then the men themselves, bearers of these qualities, will sooner or later disappear.

[swansont]

9 minutes ago, molbol2000 said:

I see no contradiction. As a result of agriculture(and mass industry), the type of warrior, and therefore stronger and faster, is gradually dying out, and women become closer to men.

But you haven’t presented evidence of this.  You presented anecdotes, which are not evidence. You have not presented anything to do with evolution, nor any data over a span of time.

[molbol2000]

1 minute ago, swansont said:

But you haven’t presented evidence of this.

because evolutionarily qualities are preserved only when they are claimed and rewarded

Even in sports itself this trend very visible. Almost all sport disciplines are feminized,
true man's disciplines with pure speed and explosive power, like sprint, olympic weightlifting, jumps, and so on,  are not popular now