Mixing
Why would post-apocalyptic men be twice as large as women?
Clash Royale CLAN TAG#URR8PPP
up vote
3
down vote
favorite
I'm creating a post-apocalyptic world several centuries into the future. After the nuclear war whatever is left of humanity has regressed into the dark age.
Society:
The offspring of those few who survived the radiation and the following nuclear winter live in small tribes. They sometimes cooperate, and sometimes compete with other tribes. Humans are few in number.
Technology:
Technology regressed to the dark ages. The survivors hate technology and blame it for the fall. Anyone caught trying to learn or recover the before-the-fall knowledge is ostracized or put to death.
Whatever is left from the destroyed civilization has been overtaken by mother nature like in Life After People. Rotting machines are mostly used for scrap metals by village blacksmiths.
Food:
Food production is limited to small scale horticulture and herding. Hunting and fishing are very important food sources since there are many animals and very few humans.
Radiation
Many places are highly radioactive and must be avoided. Some are mildly radioactive and people pass through them quickly if they are forced to. There are many dangerous mutated animals. Humans who show signs of mutations are killed.
Climate
The climate is much colder, with earth just recovering from an ice age. Humanity must rely on many food sources, since climate is very unpredictable.
In my story the average man is twice as large as average women. While the differences in modern world are 10-15kg, the average 25 year old woman in my setting weighs around 65kg, while the average 25 year old man is around 130kg. Obesity is unheard of. Men are bulky; not like modern body builders but like people who gained their muscles from a lifetime of hard work.
Is there a way to explain why dimorphism increased dramatically without resorting to genetic engineering or radioactive mutations?
science-based biology post-apocalypse
edited 13 mins ago
jdunlop
5,43411035
asked 2 hours ago
NewDawn
163
New contributor
NewDawn is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
 |Â
show 1 more comment
up vote
3
down vote
favorite
I'm creating a post-apocalyptic world several centuries into the future. After the nuclear war whatever is left of humanity has regressed into the dark age.
Society:
The offspring of those few who survived the radiation and the following nuclear winter live in small tribes. They sometimes cooperate, and sometimes compete with other tribes. Humans are few in number.
Technology:
Technology regressed to the dark ages. The survivors hate technology and blame it for the fall. Anyone caught trying to learn or recover the before-the-fall knowledge is ostracized or put to death.
Whatever is left from the destroyed civilization has been overtaken by mother nature like in Life After People. Rotting machines are mostly used for scrap metals by village blacksmiths.
Food:
Food production is limited to small scale horticulture and herding. Hunting and fishing are very important food sources since there are many animals and very few humans.
Radiation
Many places are highly radioactive and must be avoided. Some are mildly radioactive and people pass through them quickly if they are forced to. There are many dangerous mutated animals. Humans who show signs of mutations are killed.
Climate
The climate is much colder, with earth just recovering from an ice age. Humanity must rely on many food sources, since climate is very unpredictable.
In my story the average man is twice as large as average women. While the differences in modern world are 10-15kg, the average 25 year old woman in my setting weighs around 65kg, while the average 25 year old man is around 130kg. Obesity is unheard of. Men are bulky; not like modern body builders but like people who gained their muscles from a lifetime of hard work.
Is there a way to explain why dimorphism increased dramatically without resorting to genetic engineering or radioactive mutations?
science-based biology post-apocalypse
edited 13 mins ago
jdunlop
5,43411035
asked 2 hours ago
NewDawn
163
New contributor
NewDawn is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
The list you linked to is misleading, because it gives averages for populations including very young people -- the datasets in the list give averages for people 15 to 20 years old (depending on country) and older. (At 15 years of age the difference in weight should be minimal, if any. Also, there is very little value in averaging the weight of 15 year and 40 year old people.) The difference in body weight between human males and human females tends to increase with age. Maybe twice as heavy is a bit far fetched, but one and a half times as heavy is well within reasonable range.
– AlexP
2 hours ago
@AlexP I've limited my question to 20 year old, which I consider fully grown human , is that enough to clarify the question? I choose twice as heavy, since that is the largest difference I've found in large mammals i.e. polar bears. More would be better if its plausible.
– NewDawn
2 hours ago
@NewDawn big people keep on growing into their early twenties, and keep on adding weight for many more years. It's why the worst professional (American) football team is better than the best college football teams.
– RonJohn
2 hours ago
You might want to check out my old question What evolutionary factors can contribute to large sexual dimorphism in large mammals?
– Michael Kjörling♦
28 mins ago
Just a comment on the 'no technology' angle. Those people that shun technology will likely be ruled over, or at least economically dominated by, those who don't.
– GrandmasterB
19 mins ago
 |Â
show 1 more comment
up vote
3
down vote
favorite
up vote
3
down vote
favorite
I'm creating a post-apocalyptic world several centuries into the future. After the nuclear war whatever is left of humanity has regressed into the dark age.
Society:
The offspring of those few who survived the radiation and the following nuclear winter live in small tribes. They sometimes cooperate, and sometimes compete with other tribes. Humans are few in number.
Technology:
Technology regressed to the dark ages. The survivors hate technology and blame it for the fall. Anyone caught trying to learn or recover the before-the-fall knowledge is ostracized or put to death.
Whatever is left from the destroyed civilization has been overtaken by mother nature like in Life After People. Rotting machines are mostly used for scrap metals by village blacksmiths.
Food:
Food production is limited to small scale horticulture and herding. Hunting and fishing are very important food sources since there are many animals and very few humans.
Radiation
Many places are highly radioactive and must be avoided. Some are mildly radioactive and people pass through them quickly if they are forced to. There are many dangerous mutated animals. Humans who show signs of mutations are killed.
Climate
The climate is much colder, with earth just recovering from an ice age. Humanity must rely on many food sources, since climate is very unpredictable.
In my story the average man is twice as large as average women. While the differences in modern world are 10-15kg, the average 25 year old woman in my setting weighs around 65kg, while the average 25 year old man is around 130kg. Obesity is unheard of. Men are bulky; not like modern body builders but like people who gained their muscles from a lifetime of hard work.
Is there a way to explain why dimorphism increased dramatically without resorting to genetic engineering or radioactive mutations?
science-based biology post-apocalypse
edited 13 mins ago
jdunlop
5,43411035
asked 2 hours ago
NewDawn
163
New contributor
NewDawn is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
I'm creating a post-apocalyptic world several centuries into the future. After the nuclear war whatever is left of humanity has regressed into the dark age.
Society:
The offspring of those few who survived the radiation and the following nuclear winter live in small tribes. They sometimes cooperate, and sometimes compete with other tribes. Humans are few in number.
Technology:
Technology regressed to the dark ages. The survivors hate technology and blame it for the fall. Anyone caught trying to learn or recover the before-the-fall knowledge is ostracized or put to death.
Whatever is left from the destroyed civilization has been overtaken by mother nature like in Life After People. Rotting machines are mostly used for scrap metals by village blacksmiths.
Food:
Food production is limited to small scale horticulture and herding. Hunting and fishing are very important food sources since there are many animals and very few humans.
Radiation
Many places are highly radioactive and must be avoided. Some are mildly radioactive and people pass through them quickly if they are forced to. There are many dangerous mutated animals. Humans who show signs of mutations are killed.
Climate
The climate is much colder, with earth just recovering from an ice age. Humanity must rely on many food sources, since climate is very unpredictable.
In my story the average man is twice as large as average women. While the differences in modern world are 10-15kg, the average 25 year old woman in my setting weighs around 65kg, while the average 25 year old man is around 130kg. Obesity is unheard of. Men are bulky; not like modern body builders but like people who gained their muscles from a lifetime of hard work.
Is there a way to explain why dimorphism increased dramatically without resorting to genetic engineering or radioactive mutations?
science-based biology post-apocalypse
science-based biology post-apocalypse
edited 13 mins ago
jdunlop
5,43411035
asked 2 hours ago
NewDawn
163
New contributor
NewDawn is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
edited 13 mins ago
jdunlop
5,43411035
asked 2 hours ago
NewDawn
163
New contributor
NewDawn is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
edited 13 mins ago
jdunlop
5,43411035
edited 13 mins ago
jdunlop
5,43411035
edited 13 mins ago
jdunlop
5,43411035
5,43411035
asked 2 hours ago
NewDawn
163
New contributor
NewDawn is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
asked 2 hours ago
NewDawn
163
asked 2 hours ago
NewDawn
163
163
New contributor
NewDawn is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
New contributor
NewDawn is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
NewDawn is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
The list you linked to is misleading, because it gives averages for populations including very young people -- the datasets in the list give averages for people 15 to 20 years old (depending on country) and older. (At 15 years of age the difference in weight should be minimal, if any. Also, there is very little value in averaging the weight of 15 year and 40 year old people.) The difference in body weight between human males and human females tends to increase with age. Maybe twice as heavy is a bit far fetched, but one and a half times as heavy is well within reasonable range.
– AlexP
2 hours ago
@AlexP I've limited my question to 20 year old, which I consider fully grown human , is that enough to clarify the question? I choose twice as heavy, since that is the largest difference I've found in large mammals i.e. polar bears. More would be better if its plausible.
– NewDawn
2 hours ago
@NewDawn big people keep on growing into their early twenties, and keep on adding weight for many more years. It's why the worst professional (American) football team is better than the best college football teams.
– RonJohn
2 hours ago
You might want to check out my old question What evolutionary factors can contribute to large sexual dimorphism in large mammals?
– Michael Kjörling♦
28 mins ago
Just a comment on the 'no technology' angle. Those people that shun technology will likely be ruled over, or at least economically dominated by, those who don't.
– GrandmasterB
19 mins ago
 |Â
show 1 more comment
The list you linked to is misleading, because it gives averages for populations including very young people -- the datasets in the list give averages for people 15 to 20 years old (depending on country) and older. (At 15 years of age the difference in weight should be minimal, if any. Also, there is very little value in averaging the weight of 15 year and 40 year old people.) The difference in body weight between human males and human females tends to increase with age. Maybe twice as heavy is a bit far fetched, but one and a half times as heavy is well within reasonable range.
– AlexP
2 hours ago
@AlexP I've limited my question to 20 year old, which I consider fully grown human , is that enough to clarify the question? I choose twice as heavy, since that is the largest difference I've found in large mammals i.e. polar bears. More would be better if its plausible.
– NewDawn
2 hours ago
@NewDawn big people keep on growing into their early twenties, and keep on adding weight for many more years. It's why the worst professional (American) football team is better than the best college football teams.
– RonJohn
2 hours ago
You might want to check out my old question What evolutionary factors can contribute to large sexual dimorphism in large mammals?
– Michael Kjörling♦
28 mins ago
Just a comment on the 'no technology' angle. Those people that shun technology will likely be ruled over, or at least economically dominated by, those who don't.
– GrandmasterB
19 mins ago
The list you linked to is misleading, because it gives averages for populations including very young people -- the datasets in the list give averages for people 15 to 20 years old (depending on country) and older. (At 15 years of age the difference in weight should be minimal, if any. Also, there is very little value in averaging the weight of 15 year and 40 year old people.) The difference in body weight between human males and human females tends to increase with age. Maybe twice as heavy is a bit far fetched, but one and a half times as heavy is well within reasonable range.
– AlexP
2 hours ago
The list you linked to is misleading, because it gives averages for populations including very young people -- the datasets in the list give averages for people 15 to 20 years old (depending on country) and older. (At 15 years of age the difference in weight should be minimal, if any. Also, there is very little value in averaging the weight of 15 year and 40 year old people.) The difference in body weight between human males and human females tends to increase with age. Maybe twice as heavy is a bit far fetched, but one and a half times as heavy is well within reasonable range.
– AlexP
2 hours ago
@AlexP I've limited my question to 20 year old, which I consider fully grown human , is that enough to clarify the question? I choose twice as heavy, since that is the largest difference I've found in large mammals i.e. polar bears. More would be better if its plausible.
– NewDawn
2 hours ago
@AlexP I've limited my question to 20 year old, which I consider fully grown human , is that enough to clarify the question? I choose twice as heavy, since that is the largest difference I've found in large mammals i.e. polar bears. More would be better if its plausible.
– NewDawn
2 hours ago
@NewDawn big people keep on growing into their early twenties, and keep on adding weight for many more years. It's why the worst professional (American) football team is better than the best college football teams.
– RonJohn
2 hours ago
@NewDawn big people keep on growing into their early twenties, and keep on adding weight for many more years. It's why the worst professional (American) football team is better than the best college football teams.
– RonJohn
2 hours ago
You might want to check out my old question What evolutionary factors can contribute to large sexual dimorphism in large mammals?
– Michael Kjörling♦
28 mins ago
You might want to check out my old question What evolutionary factors can contribute to large sexual dimorphism in large mammals?
– Michael Kjörling♦
28 mins ago
Just a comment on the 'no technology' angle. Those people that shun technology will likely be ruled over, or at least economically dominated by, those who don't.
– GrandmasterB
19 mins ago
Just a comment on the 'no technology' angle. Those people that shun technology will likely be ruled over, or at least economically dominated by, those who don't.
– GrandmasterB
19 mins ago
 |Â
show 1 more comment
5 Answers
5
active
oldest
votes
up vote
4
down vote
In my story average man is twice larger then average women. While the differences in modern world are 10-15kg, average women in my setting weighs around 65 kg, while man are around 130 kg.
That's B-I-G big.
Obesity is unheard of. Man are bulky, not like modern body builders, but like people who gained their muscles from lifetime of hard work.
That's not what people look like after years of manual labor, and when food is scarce from a "climate (which) is much colder then now".
Is there a way to explain why dimorphism increased dramatically without resorting to genetic engineering or radioactive mutations?
Possibly, if the only human survivors happened to be descended from American professional football players (specifically interior linemen).
Practically, no.
answered 2 hours ago
RonJohn
13.2k12661
But founder effect would make both sexes larger. I need to somehow increase the dimorphism. How about man doing hunting and herding, women doing horticulture? Or fighting (each other, enemy tribes, mutants, dangerous animals) whatever.
– NewDawn
2 hours ago
1
@NewDawn Besides the genetics to give you the potential to be very tall and muscular, you need a lot of food and the time to build your muscles. Hunting, herding and agriculture just doesn't give you that.
– RonJohn
1 hour ago
@NewDawn there's nothing stopping you, though, from handwaving all that away and just having males be big.
– RonJohn
1 hour ago
1
@NewDawn: also worth remembering: Evolution doesn’t care what you do. Just because different sexes are given different roles doesn’t necessarily mean your genetic code is going to care in the long run.
– Joe Bloggs
1 hour ago
add a comment |Â
up vote
2
down vote
They may have Gigantism due to mutations caused by the radiation. There are some mutations that can cause Gigantism from early age, resulting in a much bigger and bulkier body in adulthood. If the anterior pituitary gland is damaged by a tumor, the body basically never stops growing.
But this mutation is not limited to men, so you would have at least some women with the mutation and some men without it. Or you need to come up with a clever explaination why women with this mutation and men without it don't survive, thereby driving evolution towards your goal.
There are several problems with this, though. Excess im Human Growth Hormone (which causes Gigantism) often leads to muscle weakness rather than strong muscles. It's also accompanied by Acromegaly, causing joint pain, high blood pressure, impaired vision, Diabetes and reduced sexual function.
One of the most popular people with Gigantism is "André the Giant", who was a professional wrestler.
answered 1 hour ago
Elmy
6,4991930
add a comment |Â
up vote
2
down vote
Is there a way to explain why dimorphism increased dramatically without resorting to genetic engineering or radioactive mutations?
First off, there is no such thing as radioactive mutations. A mutation may be caused by radiation, but it will be no different from a change in the same gene caused by chance or engineering. Just as if I commit a typo here that gets corrected, the text is no different if it is edited by you or me.
Now, the change may be part cultural, part selection.
Start with a template where, given a 20th century western lifestyle, healthy people would average 80-100 kilograms. Why? Because these people were selected by evolution after the apocalypse, for whatever reason. Say, if you have to wrestle against bears here and there, or if the only clean water you can get is alcoholic, more body mass helps you.
Next, all men are either into phisiculturalism by themselves, or forced into it. They've found a way to produce steroidal anabolizants with lower technology (I've seen anedoctal evidence for it, though I lack a source now, so handwave this away) and they eat and exercise a lot. Meanwhile, women are starved. Thus men acquire more mass than what would be a natural average, while women acquire less.
This food division is outright cruel, but is a thing in undeveloped countries. There is an educational cartoon from India which, in one episode, teaches people that giving girls smaller food portions is wrong. As far as I know, this custom has not died out yet.
Alternatively, a random insertion mutation that adds growth-relates genes to the Y chromossome could do the trick. However, such mutations may cause the Y to have more sites where it can try and switch genes with the X during replication. This would cause an absurd number of mutations, mostly the kind where fetuses are not even viable anymore, so birth rates would be low. In the very least, unless there is a very favorable tradeoff going on, this kind of thing tends to be removed from the gene pool by natural selection.
edited 30 mins ago
Michael Kjörling♦
21.3k1087164
answered 1 hour ago
Renan
35.4k1184183
Regarding the increase in mutations due to an insertion in Y, I believe this is overstated. The average transcribed region of a gene is in the ballpark of 10-15 kbp. The total length of Y in humans is around 58 mbp. Barring a huge untranscribed region accompanying this insertion, with a similar sequence on X, the increase in frequency of X-Y crossover should be negligible.
– Rat In A Hat
20 mins ago
That being said, this is the best answer so far. The insertion of a growth factor on Y is the most likely reason for an increase in dimorphism. I would just leave out the bit about the increased miscarriage rate.
– Rat In A Hat
16 mins ago
+1 for pointing out that there's no such thing as "radiation mutations"
– jdunlop
12 mins ago
add a comment |Â
up vote
0
down vote
Sexual dimorphism as you've described could easily occur within a few generations, by males having to fight for access to the females. Weaker, smaller males will quickly be killed off, and larger stronger males will be the only ones able to pass on their genes to the next generation.
Being larger would provide no reproductive advantage for females though, so they would stay pretty much the same size.
answered 1 hour ago
user1751825
1614
4
That’s not how genetics works. The genes for ‘bigger, stronger’ are not necessarily linked to sex, so it’s more likely you’d just see both sexes increasing in size if there’s no advantage/disadvantage to the females being larger.
– Joe Bloggs
1 hour ago
Related to this answer, my old question What evolutionary factors can contribute to large sexual dimorphism in large mammals?
– Michael Kjörling♦
29 mins ago
add a comment |Â
up vote
0
down vote
It's not very hard to make males big and tall, like Richard Kiel. Just introduce some genetic anomaly which would make males to generate much more Growth hormone and you'll have it.
But if you want your males to be very stocky without being fat, that would require a more significant change to human metabolism. To stay at 130 kgs weight, regularly tall (say, 185cm tall) human needs to eat a lot (and it has to be a very nutritious diet) and rest a lot too. For hunters gatherers, such height/weight combination would be detrimental. With more handwaving, another genetic modification may preserve muscle mass (today it is quickly does down with a lack of exercise or less nutritious diet), but as I said, this would be pretty bad for survival.
answered 10 mins ago
Alexander
16.9k42967
add a comment |Â
5 Answers
5
active
oldest
votes
5 Answers
5
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
up vote
4
down vote
In my story average man is twice larger then average women. While the differences in modern world are 10-15kg, average women in my setting weighs around 65 kg, while man are around 130 kg.
That's B-I-G big.
Obesity is unheard of. Man are bulky, not like modern body builders, but like people who gained their muscles from lifetime of hard work.
That's not what people look like after years of manual labor, and when food is scarce from a "climate (which) is much colder then now".
Is there a way to explain why dimorphism increased dramatically without resorting to genetic engineering or radioactive mutations?
Possibly, if the only human survivors happened to be descended from American professional football players (specifically interior linemen).
Practically, no.
answered 2 hours ago
RonJohn
13.2k12661
But founder effect would make both sexes larger. I need to somehow increase the dimorphism. How about man doing hunting and herding, women doing horticulture? Or fighting (each other, enemy tribes, mutants, dangerous animals) whatever.
– NewDawn
2 hours ago
1
@NewDawn Besides the genetics to give you the potential to be very tall and muscular, you need a lot of food and the time to build your muscles. Hunting, herding and agriculture just doesn't give you that.
– RonJohn
1 hour ago
@NewDawn there's nothing stopping you, though, from handwaving all that away and just having males be big.
– RonJohn
1 hour ago
1
@NewDawn: also worth remembering: Evolution doesn’t care what you do. Just because different sexes are given different roles doesn’t necessarily mean your genetic code is going to care in the long run.
– Joe Bloggs
1 hour ago
add a comment |Â
up vote
4
down vote
In my story average man is twice larger then average women. While the differences in modern world are 10-15kg, average women in my setting weighs around 65 kg, while man are around 130 kg.
That's B-I-G big.
Obesity is unheard of. Man are bulky, not like modern body builders, but like people who gained their muscles from lifetime of hard work.
That's not what people look like after years of manual labor, and when food is scarce from a "climate (which) is much colder then now".
Is there a way to explain why dimorphism increased dramatically without resorting to genetic engineering or radioactive mutations?
Possibly, if the only human survivors happened to be descended from American professional football players (specifically interior linemen).
Practically, no.
answered 2 hours ago
RonJohn
13.2k12661
But founder effect would make both sexes larger. I need to somehow increase the dimorphism. How about man doing hunting and herding, women doing horticulture? Or fighting (each other, enemy tribes, mutants, dangerous animals) whatever.
– NewDawn
2 hours ago
1
@NewDawn Besides the genetics to give you the potential to be very tall and muscular, you need a lot of food and the time to build your muscles. Hunting, herding and agriculture just doesn't give you that.
– RonJohn
1 hour ago
@NewDawn there's nothing stopping you, though, from handwaving all that away and just having males be big.
– RonJohn
1 hour ago
1
@NewDawn: also worth remembering: Evolution doesn’t care what you do. Just because different sexes are given different roles doesn’t necessarily mean your genetic code is going to care in the long run.
– Joe Bloggs
1 hour ago
add a comment |Â
up vote
4
down vote
up vote
4
down vote
In my story average man is twice larger then average women. While the differences in modern world are 10-15kg, average women in my setting weighs around 65 kg, while man are around 130 kg.
That's B-I-G big.
Obesity is unheard of. Man are bulky, not like modern body builders, but like people who gained their muscles from lifetime of hard work.
That's not what people look like after years of manual labor, and when food is scarce from a "climate (which) is much colder then now".
Is there a way to explain why dimorphism increased dramatically without resorting to genetic engineering or radioactive mutations?
Possibly, if the only human survivors happened to be descended from American professional football players (specifically interior linemen).
Practically, no.
answered 2 hours ago
RonJohn
13.2k12661
In my story average man is twice larger then average women. While the differences in modern world are 10-15kg, average women in my setting weighs around 65 kg, while man are around 130 kg.
That's B-I-G big.
Obesity is unheard of. Man are bulky, not like modern body builders, but like people who gained their muscles from lifetime of hard work.
That's not what people look like after years of manual labor, and when food is scarce from a "climate (which) is much colder then now".
Is there a way to explain why dimorphism increased dramatically without resorting to genetic engineering or radioactive mutations?
Possibly, if the only human survivors happened to be descended from American professional football players (specifically interior linemen).
Practically, no.
answered 2 hours ago
RonJohn
13.2k12661
answered 2 hours ago
RonJohn
13.2k12661
answered 2 hours ago
RonJohn
13.2k12661
answered 2 hours ago
RonJohn
13.2k12661
13.2k12661
But founder effect would make both sexes larger. I need to somehow increase the dimorphism. How about man doing hunting and herding, women doing horticulture? Or fighting (each other, enemy tribes, mutants, dangerous animals) whatever.
– NewDawn
2 hours ago
1
@NewDawn Besides the genetics to give you the potential to be very tall and muscular, you need a lot of food and the time to build your muscles. Hunting, herding and agriculture just doesn't give you that.
– RonJohn
1 hour ago
@NewDawn there's nothing stopping you, though, from handwaving all that away and just having males be big.
– RonJohn
1 hour ago
1
@NewDawn: also worth remembering: Evolution doesn’t care what you do. Just because different sexes are given different roles doesn’t necessarily mean your genetic code is going to care in the long run.
– Joe Bloggs
1 hour ago
add a comment |Â
But founder effect would make both sexes larger. I need to somehow increase the dimorphism. How about man doing hunting and herding, women doing horticulture? Or fighting (each other, enemy tribes, mutants, dangerous animals) whatever.
– NewDawn
2 hours ago
1
@NewDawn Besides the genetics to give you the potential to be very tall and muscular, you need a lot of food and the time to build your muscles. Hunting, herding and agriculture just doesn't give you that.
– RonJohn
1 hour ago
@NewDawn there's nothing stopping you, though, from handwaving all that away and just having males be big.
– RonJohn
1 hour ago
1
@NewDawn: also worth remembering: Evolution doesn’t care what you do. Just because different sexes are given different roles doesn’t necessarily mean your genetic code is going to care in the long run.
– Joe Bloggs
1 hour ago
But founder effect would make both sexes larger. I need to somehow increase the dimorphism. How about man doing hunting and herding, women doing horticulture? Or fighting (each other, enemy tribes, mutants, dangerous animals) whatever.
– NewDawn
2 hours ago
But founder effect would make both sexes larger. I need to somehow increase the dimorphism. How about man doing hunting and herding, women doing horticulture? Or fighting (each other, enemy tribes, mutants, dangerous animals) whatever.
– NewDawn
2 hours ago
1
1
@NewDawn Besides the genetics to give you the potential to be very tall and muscular, you need a lot of food and the time to build your muscles. Hunting, herding and agriculture just doesn't give you that.
– RonJohn
1 hour ago
@NewDawn Besides the genetics to give you the potential to be very tall and muscular, you need a lot of food and the time to build your muscles. Hunting, herding and agriculture just doesn't give you that.
– RonJohn
1 hour ago
@NewDawn there's nothing stopping you, though, from handwaving all that away and just having males be big.
– RonJohn
1 hour ago
@NewDawn there's nothing stopping you, though, from handwaving all that away and just having males be big.
– RonJohn
1 hour ago
1
1
@NewDawn: also worth remembering: Evolution doesn’t care what you do. Just because different sexes are given different roles doesn’t necessarily mean your genetic code is going to care in the long run.
– Joe Bloggs
1 hour ago
@NewDawn: also worth remembering: Evolution doesn’t care what you do. Just because different sexes are given different roles doesn’t necessarily mean your genetic code is going to care in the long run.
– Joe Bloggs
1 hour ago
add a comment |Â
up vote
2
down vote
They may have Gigantism due to mutations caused by the radiation. There are some mutations that can cause Gigantism from early age, resulting in a much bigger and bulkier body in adulthood. If the anterior pituitary gland is damaged by a tumor, the body basically never stops growing.
But this mutation is not limited to men, so you would have at least some women with the mutation and some men without it. Or you need to come up with a clever explaination why women with this mutation and men without it don't survive, thereby driving evolution towards your goal.
There are several problems with this, though. Excess im Human Growth Hormone (which causes Gigantism) often leads to muscle weakness rather than strong muscles. It's also accompanied by Acromegaly, causing joint pain, high blood pressure, impaired vision, Diabetes and reduced sexual function.
One of the most popular people with Gigantism is "André the Giant", who was a professional wrestler.
answered 1 hour ago
Elmy
6,4991930
add a comment |Â
up vote
2
down vote
They may have Gigantism due to mutations caused by the radiation. There are some mutations that can cause Gigantism from early age, resulting in a much bigger and bulkier body in adulthood. If the anterior pituitary gland is damaged by a tumor, the body basically never stops growing.
But this mutation is not limited to men, so you would have at least some women with the mutation and some men without it. Or you need to come up with a clever explaination why women with this mutation and men without it don't survive, thereby driving evolution towards your goal.
There are several problems with this, though. Excess im Human Growth Hormone (which causes Gigantism) often leads to muscle weakness rather than strong muscles. It's also accompanied by Acromegaly, causing joint pain, high blood pressure, impaired vision, Diabetes and reduced sexual function.
One of the most popular people with Gigantism is "André the Giant", who was a professional wrestler.
answered 1 hour ago
Elmy
6,4991930
add a comment |Â
up vote
2
down vote
up vote
2
down vote
They may have Gigantism due to mutations caused by the radiation. There are some mutations that can cause Gigantism from early age, resulting in a much bigger and bulkier body in adulthood. If the anterior pituitary gland is damaged by a tumor, the body basically never stops growing.
But this mutation is not limited to men, so you would have at least some women with the mutation and some men without it. Or you need to come up with a clever explaination why women with this mutation and men without it don't survive, thereby driving evolution towards your goal.
There are several problems with this, though. Excess im Human Growth Hormone (which causes Gigantism) often leads to muscle weakness rather than strong muscles. It's also accompanied by Acromegaly, causing joint pain, high blood pressure, impaired vision, Diabetes and reduced sexual function.
One of the most popular people with Gigantism is "André the Giant", who was a professional wrestler.
answered 1 hour ago
Elmy
6,4991930
They may have Gigantism due to mutations caused by the radiation. There are some mutations that can cause Gigantism from early age, resulting in a much bigger and bulkier body in adulthood. If the anterior pituitary gland is damaged by a tumor, the body basically never stops growing.
But this mutation is not limited to men, so you would have at least some women with the mutation and some men without it. Or you need to come up with a clever explaination why women with this mutation and men without it don't survive, thereby driving evolution towards your goal.
There are several problems with this, though. Excess im Human Growth Hormone (which causes Gigantism) often leads to muscle weakness rather than strong muscles. It's also accompanied by Acromegaly, causing joint pain, high blood pressure, impaired vision, Diabetes and reduced sexual function.
One of the most popular people with Gigantism is "André the Giant", who was a professional wrestler.
answered 1 hour ago
Elmy
6,4991930
edited 1 hour ago
answered 1 hour ago
Elmy
6,4991930
answered 1 hour ago
Elmy
6,4991930
answered 1 hour ago
Elmy
6,4991930
6,4991930
add a comment |Â
add a comment |Â
up vote
2
down vote
Is there a way to explain why dimorphism increased dramatically without resorting to genetic engineering or radioactive mutations?
First off, there is no such thing as radioactive mutations. A mutation may be caused by radiation, but it will be no different from a change in the same gene caused by chance or engineering. Just as if I commit a typo here that gets corrected, the text is no different if it is edited by you or me.
Now, the change may be part cultural, part selection.
Start with a template where, given a 20th century western lifestyle, healthy people would average 80-100 kilograms. Why? Because these people were selected by evolution after the apocalypse, for whatever reason. Say, if you have to wrestle against bears here and there, or if the only clean water you can get is alcoholic, more body mass helps you.
Next, all men are either into phisiculturalism by themselves, or forced into it. They've found a way to produce steroidal anabolizants with lower technology (I've seen anedoctal evidence for it, though I lack a source now, so handwave this away) and they eat and exercise a lot. Meanwhile, women are starved. Thus men acquire more mass than what would be a natural average, while women acquire less.
This food division is outright cruel, but is a thing in undeveloped countries. There is an educational cartoon from India which, in one episode, teaches people that giving girls smaller food portions is wrong. As far as I know, this custom has not died out yet.
Alternatively, a random insertion mutation that adds growth-relates genes to the Y chromossome could do the trick. However, such mutations may cause the Y to have more sites where it can try and switch genes with the X during replication. This would cause an absurd number of mutations, mostly the kind where fetuses are not even viable anymore, so birth rates would be low. In the very least, unless there is a very favorable tradeoff going on, this kind of thing tends to be removed from the gene pool by natural selection.
edited 30 mins ago
Michael Kjörling♦
21.3k1087164
answered 1 hour ago
Renan
35.4k1184183
Regarding the increase in mutations due to an insertion in Y, I believe this is overstated. The average transcribed region of a gene is in the ballpark of 10-15 kbp. The total length of Y in humans is around 58 mbp. Barring a huge untranscribed region accompanying this insertion, with a similar sequence on X, the increase in frequency of X-Y crossover should be negligible.
– Rat In A Hat
20 mins ago
That being said, this is the best answer so far. The insertion of a growth factor on Y is the most likely reason for an increase in dimorphism. I would just leave out the bit about the increased miscarriage rate.
– Rat In A Hat
16 mins ago
+1 for pointing out that there's no such thing as "radiation mutations"
– jdunlop
12 mins ago
add a comment |Â
up vote
2
down vote
Is there a way to explain why dimorphism increased dramatically without resorting to genetic engineering or radioactive mutations?
First off, there is no such thing as radioactive mutations. A mutation may be caused by radiation, but it will be no different from a change in the same gene caused by chance or engineering. Just as if I commit a typo here that gets corrected, the text is no different if it is edited by you or me.
Now, the change may be part cultural, part selection.
Start with a template where, given a 20th century western lifestyle, healthy people would average 80-100 kilograms. Why? Because these people were selected by evolution after the apocalypse, for whatever reason. Say, if you have to wrestle against bears here and there, or if the only clean water you can get is alcoholic, more body mass helps you.
Next, all men are either into phisiculturalism by themselves, or forced into it. They've found a way to produce steroidal anabolizants with lower technology (I've seen anedoctal evidence for it, though I lack a source now, so handwave this away) and they eat and exercise a lot. Meanwhile, women are starved. Thus men acquire more mass than what would be a natural average, while women acquire less.
This food division is outright cruel, but is a thing in undeveloped countries. There is an educational cartoon from India which, in one episode, teaches people that giving girls smaller food portions is wrong. As far as I know, this custom has not died out yet.
Alternatively, a random insertion mutation that adds growth-relates genes to the Y chromossome could do the trick. However, such mutations may cause the Y to have more sites where it can try and switch genes with the X during replication. This would cause an absurd number of mutations, mostly the kind where fetuses are not even viable anymore, so birth rates would be low. In the very least, unless there is a very favorable tradeoff going on, this kind of thing tends to be removed from the gene pool by natural selection.
edited 30 mins ago
Michael Kjörling♦
21.3k1087164
answered 1 hour ago
Renan
35.4k1184183
Regarding the increase in mutations due to an insertion in Y, I believe this is overstated. The average transcribed region of a gene is in the ballpark of 10-15 kbp. The total length of Y in humans is around 58 mbp. Barring a huge untranscribed region accompanying this insertion, with a similar sequence on X, the increase in frequency of X-Y crossover should be negligible.
– Rat In A Hat
20 mins ago
That being said, this is the best answer so far. The insertion of a growth factor on Y is the most likely reason for an increase in dimorphism. I would just leave out the bit about the increased miscarriage rate.
– Rat In A Hat
16 mins ago
+1 for pointing out that there's no such thing as "radiation mutations"
– jdunlop
12 mins ago
add a comment |Â
up vote
2
down vote
up vote
2
down vote
Is there a way to explain why dimorphism increased dramatically without resorting to genetic engineering or radioactive mutations?
First off, there is no such thing as radioactive mutations. A mutation may be caused by radiation, but it will be no different from a change in the same gene caused by chance or engineering. Just as if I commit a typo here that gets corrected, the text is no different if it is edited by you or me.
Now, the change may be part cultural, part selection.
Start with a template where, given a 20th century western lifestyle, healthy people would average 80-100 kilograms. Why? Because these people were selected by evolution after the apocalypse, for whatever reason. Say, if you have to wrestle against bears here and there, or if the only clean water you can get is alcoholic, more body mass helps you.
Next, all men are either into phisiculturalism by themselves, or forced into it. They've found a way to produce steroidal anabolizants with lower technology (I've seen anedoctal evidence for it, though I lack a source now, so handwave this away) and they eat and exercise a lot. Meanwhile, women are starved. Thus men acquire more mass than what would be a natural average, while women acquire less.
This food division is outright cruel, but is a thing in undeveloped countries. There is an educational cartoon from India which, in one episode, teaches people that giving girls smaller food portions is wrong. As far as I know, this custom has not died out yet.
Alternatively, a random insertion mutation that adds growth-relates genes to the Y chromossome could do the trick. However, such mutations may cause the Y to have more sites where it can try and switch genes with the X during replication. This would cause an absurd number of mutations, mostly the kind where fetuses are not even viable anymore, so birth rates would be low. In the very least, unless there is a very favorable tradeoff going on, this kind of thing tends to be removed from the gene pool by natural selection.
edited 30 mins ago
Michael Kjörling♦
21.3k1087164
answered 1 hour ago
Renan
35.4k1184183
Is there a way to explain why dimorphism increased dramatically without resorting to genetic engineering or radioactive mutations?
First off, there is no such thing as radioactive mutations. A mutation may be caused by radiation, but it will be no different from a change in the same gene caused by chance or engineering. Just as if I commit a typo here that gets corrected, the text is no different if it is edited by you or me.
Now, the change may be part cultural, part selection.
Start with a template where, given a 20th century western lifestyle, healthy people would average 80-100 kilograms. Why? Because these people were selected by evolution after the apocalypse, for whatever reason. Say, if you have to wrestle against bears here and there, or if the only clean water you can get is alcoholic, more body mass helps you.
Next, all men are either into phisiculturalism by themselves, or forced into it. They've found a way to produce steroidal anabolizants with lower technology (I've seen anedoctal evidence for it, though I lack a source now, so handwave this away) and they eat and exercise a lot. Meanwhile, women are starved. Thus men acquire more mass than what would be a natural average, while women acquire less.
This food division is outright cruel, but is a thing in undeveloped countries. There is an educational cartoon from India which, in one episode, teaches people that giving girls smaller food portions is wrong. As far as I know, this custom has not died out yet.
Alternatively, a random insertion mutation that adds growth-relates genes to the Y chromossome could do the trick. However, such mutations may cause the Y to have more sites where it can try and switch genes with the X during replication. This would cause an absurd number of mutations, mostly the kind where fetuses are not even viable anymore, so birth rates would be low. In the very least, unless there is a very favorable tradeoff going on, this kind of thing tends to be removed from the gene pool by natural selection.
edited 30 mins ago
Michael Kjörling♦
21.3k1087164
answered 1 hour ago
Renan
35.4k1184183
edited 30 mins ago
Michael Kjörling♦
21.3k1087164
edited 30 mins ago
Michael Kjörling♦
21.3k1087164
edited 30 mins ago
Michael Kjörling♦
21.3k1087164
21.3k1087164
answered 1 hour ago
Renan
35.4k1184183
answered 1 hour ago
Renan
35.4k1184183
answered 1 hour ago
Renan
35.4k1184183
35.4k1184183
Regarding the increase in mutations due to an insertion in Y, I believe this is overstated. The average transcribed region of a gene is in the ballpark of 10-15 kbp. The total length of Y in humans is around 58 mbp. Barring a huge untranscribed region accompanying this insertion, with a similar sequence on X, the increase in frequency of X-Y crossover should be negligible.
– Rat In A Hat
20 mins ago
That being said, this is the best answer so far. The insertion of a growth factor on Y is the most likely reason for an increase in dimorphism. I would just leave out the bit about the increased miscarriage rate.
– Rat In A Hat
16 mins ago
+1 for pointing out that there's no such thing as "radiation mutations"
– jdunlop
12 mins ago
add a comment |Â
Regarding the increase in mutations due to an insertion in Y, I believe this is overstated. The average transcribed region of a gene is in the ballpark of 10-15 kbp. The total length of Y in humans is around 58 mbp. Barring a huge untranscribed region accompanying this insertion, with a similar sequence on X, the increase in frequency of X-Y crossover should be negligible.
– Rat In A Hat
20 mins ago
That being said, this is the best answer so far. The insertion of a growth factor on Y is the most likely reason for an increase in dimorphism. I would just leave out the bit about the increased miscarriage rate.
– Rat In A Hat
16 mins ago
+1 for pointing out that there's no such thing as "radiation mutations"
– jdunlop
12 mins ago
Regarding the increase in mutations due to an insertion in Y, I believe this is overstated. The average transcribed region of a gene is in the ballpark of 10-15 kbp. The total length of Y in humans is around 58 mbp. Barring a huge untranscribed region accompanying this insertion, with a similar sequence on X, the increase in frequency of X-Y crossover should be negligible.
– Rat In A Hat
20 mins ago
Regarding the increase in mutations due to an insertion in Y, I believe this is overstated. The average transcribed region of a gene is in the ballpark of 10-15 kbp. The total length of Y in humans is around 58 mbp. Barring a huge untranscribed region accompanying this insertion, with a similar sequence on X, the increase in frequency of X-Y crossover should be negligible.
– Rat In A Hat
20 mins ago
That being said, this is the best answer so far. The insertion of a growth factor on Y is the most likely reason for an increase in dimorphism. I would just leave out the bit about the increased miscarriage rate.
– Rat In A Hat
16 mins ago
That being said, this is the best answer so far. The insertion of a growth factor on Y is the most likely reason for an increase in dimorphism. I would just leave out the bit about the increased miscarriage rate.
– Rat In A Hat
16 mins ago
+1 for pointing out that there's no such thing as "radiation mutations"
– jdunlop
12 mins ago
+1 for pointing out that there's no such thing as "radiation mutations"
– jdunlop
12 mins ago
add a comment |Â
up vote
0
down vote
Sexual dimorphism as you've described could easily occur within a few generations, by males having to fight for access to the females. Weaker, smaller males will quickly be killed off, and larger stronger males will be the only ones able to pass on their genes to the next generation.
Being larger would provide no reproductive advantage for females though, so they would stay pretty much the same size.
answered 1 hour ago
user1751825
1614
4
That’s not how genetics works. The genes for ‘bigger, stronger’ are not necessarily linked to sex, so it’s more likely you’d just see both sexes increasing in size if there’s no advantage/disadvantage to the females being larger.
– Joe Bloggs
1 hour ago
Related to this answer, my old question What evolutionary factors can contribute to large sexual dimorphism in large mammals?
– Michael Kjörling♦
29 mins ago
add a comment |Â
up vote
0
down vote
Sexual dimorphism as you've described could easily occur within a few generations, by males having to fight for access to the females. Weaker, smaller males will quickly be killed off, and larger stronger males will be the only ones able to pass on their genes to the next generation.
Being larger would provide no reproductive advantage for females though, so they would stay pretty much the same size.
answered 1 hour ago
user1751825
1614
4
That’s not how genetics works. The genes for ‘bigger, stronger’ are not necessarily linked to sex, so it’s more likely you’d just see both sexes increasing in size if there’s no advantage/disadvantage to the females being larger.
– Joe Bloggs
1 hour ago
Related to this answer, my old question What evolutionary factors can contribute to large sexual dimorphism in large mammals?
– Michael Kjörling♦
29 mins ago
add a comment |Â
up vote
0
down vote
up vote
0
down vote
Sexual dimorphism as you've described could easily occur within a few generations, by males having to fight for access to the females. Weaker, smaller males will quickly be killed off, and larger stronger males will be the only ones able to pass on their genes to the next generation.
Being larger would provide no reproductive advantage for females though, so they would stay pretty much the same size.
answered 1 hour ago
user1751825
1614
Sexual dimorphism as you've described could easily occur within a few generations, by males having to fight for access to the females. Weaker, smaller males will quickly be killed off, and larger stronger males will be the only ones able to pass on their genes to the next generation.
Being larger would provide no reproductive advantage for females though, so they would stay pretty much the same size.
answered 1 hour ago
user1751825
1614
answered 1 hour ago
user1751825
1614
answered 1 hour ago
user1751825
1614
answered 1 hour ago
user1751825
1614
1614
4
That’s not how genetics works. The genes for ‘bigger, stronger’ are not necessarily linked to sex, so it’s more likely you’d just see both sexes increasing in size if there’s no advantage/disadvantage to the females being larger.
– Joe Bloggs
1 hour ago
Related to this answer, my old question What evolutionary factors can contribute to large sexual dimorphism in large mammals?
– Michael Kjörling♦
29 mins ago
add a comment |Â
4
That’s not how genetics works. The genes for ‘bigger, stronger’ are not necessarily linked to sex, so it’s more likely you’d just see both sexes increasing in size if there’s no advantage/disadvantage to the females being larger.
– Joe Bloggs
1 hour ago
Related to this answer, my old question What evolutionary factors can contribute to large sexual dimorphism in large mammals?
– Michael Kjörling♦
29 mins ago
4
4
That’s not how genetics works. The genes for ‘bigger, stronger’ are not necessarily linked to sex, so it’s more likely you’d just see both sexes increasing in size if there’s no advantage/disadvantage to the females being larger.
– Joe Bloggs
1 hour ago
That’s not how genetics works. The genes for ‘bigger, stronger’ are not necessarily linked to sex, so it’s more likely you’d just see both sexes increasing in size if there’s no advantage/disadvantage to the females being larger.
– Joe Bloggs
1 hour ago
Related to this answer, my old question What evolutionary factors can contribute to large sexual dimorphism in large mammals?
– Michael Kjörling♦
29 mins ago
Related to this answer, my old question What evolutionary factors can contribute to large sexual dimorphism in large mammals?
– Michael Kjörling♦
29 mins ago
add a comment |Â
up vote
0
down vote
It's not very hard to make males big and tall, like Richard Kiel. Just introduce some genetic anomaly which would make males to generate much more Growth hormone and you'll have it.
But if you want your males to be very stocky without being fat, that would require a more significant change to human metabolism. To stay at 130 kgs weight, regularly tall (say, 185cm tall) human needs to eat a lot (and it has to be a very nutritious diet) and rest a lot too. For hunters gatherers, such height/weight combination would be detrimental. With more handwaving, another genetic modification may preserve muscle mass (today it is quickly does down with a lack of exercise or less nutritious diet), but as I said, this would be pretty bad for survival.
answered 10 mins ago
Alexander
16.9k42967
add a comment |Â
up vote
0
down vote
It's not very hard to make males big and tall, like Richard Kiel. Just introduce some genetic anomaly which would make males to generate much more Growth hormone and you'll have it.
But if you want your males to be very stocky without being fat, that would require a more significant change to human metabolism. To stay at 130 kgs weight, regularly tall (say, 185cm tall) human needs to eat a lot (and it has to be a very nutritious diet) and rest a lot too. For hunters gatherers, such height/weight combination would be detrimental. With more handwaving, another genetic modification may preserve muscle mass (today it is quickly does down with a lack of exercise or less nutritious diet), but as I said, this would be pretty bad for survival.
answered 10 mins ago
Alexander
16.9k42967
add a comment |Â
up vote
0
down vote
up vote
0
down vote
It's not very hard to make males big and tall, like Richard Kiel. Just introduce some genetic anomaly which would make males to generate much more Growth hormone and you'll have it.
But if you want your males to be very stocky without being fat, that would require a more significant change to human metabolism. To stay at 130 kgs weight, regularly tall (say, 185cm tall) human needs to eat a lot (and it has to be a very nutritious diet) and rest a lot too. For hunters gatherers, such height/weight combination would be detrimental. With more handwaving, another genetic modification may preserve muscle mass (today it is quickly does down with a lack of exercise or less nutritious diet), but as I said, this would be pretty bad for survival.
answered 10 mins ago
Alexander
16.9k42967
It's not very hard to make males big and tall, like Richard Kiel. Just introduce some genetic anomaly which would make males to generate much more Growth hormone and you'll have it.
But if you want your males to be very stocky without being fat, that would require a more significant change to human metabolism. To stay at 130 kgs weight, regularly tall (say, 185cm tall) human needs to eat a lot (and it has to be a very nutritious diet) and rest a lot too. For hunters gatherers, such height/weight combination would be detrimental. With more handwaving, another genetic modification may preserve muscle mass (today it is quickly does down with a lack of exercise or less nutritious diet), but as I said, this would be pretty bad for survival.
answered 10 mins ago
Alexander
16.9k42967
answered 10 mins ago
Alexander
16.9k42967
answered 10 mins ago
Alexander
16.9k42967
answered 10 mins ago
Alexander
16.9k42967
16.9k42967
add a comment |Â
add a comment |Â
NewDawn is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
NewDawn is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
NewDawn is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
NewDawn is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fworldbuilding.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f127118%2fwhy-would-post-apocalyptic-men-be-twice-as-large-as-women%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
The list you linked to is misleading, because it gives averages for populations including very young people -- the datasets in the list give averages for people 15 to 20 years old (depending on country) and older. (At 15 years of age the difference in weight should be minimal, if any. Also, there is very little value in averaging the weight of 15 year and 40 year old people.) The difference in body weight between human males and human females tends to increase with age. Maybe twice as heavy is a bit far fetched, but one and a half times as heavy is well within reasonable range.
– AlexP
2 hours ago
@AlexP I've limited my question to 20 year old, which I consider fully grown human , is that enough to clarify the question? I choose twice as heavy, since that is the largest difference I've found in large mammals i.e. polar bears. More would be better if its plausible.
– NewDawn
2 hours ago
@NewDawn big people keep on growing into their early twenties, and keep on adding weight for many more years. It's why the worst professional (American) football team is better than the best college football teams.
– RonJohn
2 hours ago
You might want to check out my old question What evolutionary factors can contribute to large sexual dimorphism in large mammals?
– Michael Kjörling♦
28 mins ago
Just a comment on the 'no technology' angle. Those people that shun technology will likely be ruled over, or at least economically dominated by, those who don't.
– GrandmasterB
19 mins ago