Were females evolutionarily meant to be larger than males?
112901
Testosterone, it is a fickle thing, and affects different animals different. The hormones posessed by humans are much different than the hormones posessed by whales and spiders. \n\nBut on a personal note, you've never met my aunt Lorraine. She makes linebackers look like toddlers.
81308
Size: Males are larger.\nColoration: males have black and white feathers, whereas females are less conspicuous, usually grayish brown (probably for crypsis). In sexually mature animals, the legs have red plates (males), or black plates (females).\nBehavior: During the breeding season, males watch primarily for predators and/or conspecifics, whereas females have shorter vigilance periods and spend more time feeding. \nMales can be aggressive during this season.
1159368
whoa,thats deep...can we prove that they actually existed? if so,then yes,the poor woman must have gone through alot of pain.if she did exist,i think she would have  died giving birth to her like 10 baby...and men think that they rule humanity...they wouldnt be there if it wasnt for us women ! but,personally,i believe in evolution.
271982
Good point Pazion. But I still say in millions of years we still have seen no physical evidence that this is genetic. There have been no new emergence of a new gender. We are still born male and female. Again, in the next million years we may find that we were wrong in our assumptions. But we will be dead and therefore we still will not care. So it's a lost point even discussing it.
966025
I think it would help your paper to say why you think each of these things might occur, and even add some references that support your reasoning. You might be interested in the "Trends in Evolution" part of the web page I have linked at the bottom to help your make predictions.\n\nWhy do you think sexual dimorphism would change in the future, and why would it get more apparent if sexual roles are becoming more equal? (in general sexual dimorphism has been decreasing in human evolution - see link below, about 2/3 of the way down the page)\n\nWhy do you predict they will get taller (this is a good prediction, by the way, but why do you think it to be true)? \n\nIs there any reason to think that ESP or telekinesis will become possible?? (probably not, in my opinion, but what data can you find that says one way or the other)? \n\nIf you have read something that supports what you are saying, and you can provide references in the paper, your arguments will be much stronger - increasing the probability of a good grade!!
1035045
Big Black or Big Beautiful Female\n\nSingle White Female
1102060
Yes.The are called hermorphodites.They are born with both male and female sex organs.
749549
The size of a man's equipment is about as important to the ladies as the size of a woman's is to a man.  We are genetically programmed to want the best to pass on to our children.  Having said that, we are not completely subject to the whims of our hormones.  \n\nWe date to discover what is truly under all that bluff and bluster than men are constantly throwing around.   And to find out if the pros of a huge schlong outweigh the cons of having to put up with this particular slob.
561568
Sexual selection. Large breasts and wide hips suggest that the female is well-capable of bearing children. Therefore, men choose such females as their partners, and thusly, the genes for these qualities are passed down to the children.
1121134
Because if so, we wouldn't be surprised to see evolutions in same species.  For instance, nobody would have cared that I went from man to woman because it would be so acceptable.  Here is some truth:  In reality, I am and always have been a woman.  I like quirky, interesting and fun to answer questions.  I chose  brown hair because YA's blond hair looks ugly to me.  Brown is not my real hair color.
658467
like it's already been stated, with spiders the female tends to be larger, also in some cases the female will eat the male when the fertilization is complete.\n\nBut as for a special chamber inside the female to store the male...never heard of that
21184
There is definitely some severe debate going on concerning this issue. Some have proposed women have prominent breasts as the result of natural or sexual selection. Suggesting since women with large breasts are considered more desirable they would have more suitors and as a result reproduce more often. \n\nOthers argue that this concept myopic because its based solely on modern Western society's ideals of what is considered attractive. Those folks would suggest that breast size has seldom been of major importance in most societies. In the majority of societies breasts are just a source of nourishment for infants and young children. \n\nWhereas there is a relatively important argument against the latter argument in favor of the former. It would be difficult to believe that there is some "natural selection" root for the "modern western society" propensity of finding women with large breasts attractive. It would seem unlikely that these sorts of pervasive ideals toward the female form would simply appear out of thin air -- that's giving Playboy a lot of credit I think.\n\nThen minimalistic view of why female breasts become so prominant is that the development of the female breast during puberty is likely the side affect of some biological necessity that is not readily apparent. Perhaps it is simply that human females experience a greater increase in estrogen levels during puberty than do other mammals.\n\nI do have to admit that I like the theory mentioned above about the need for larger to prevent suffococation while breast feeding, however, I would reckon that a major contribution to increased breast size may be the increased fatty content of our diet. This may be an explanation for why past cultures didn't have an affinity toward large breasts, because of the lack of high fat content in their diet, there were few women who displayed large breasts. However, because diet was usually a representation of status, there were many female members of aristocracic classes throughout time who were viewed as the most beautiful women of their day. These women tended to be rather Rubenesque. So, maybe it was already engrained in the human race early on.\n\nSo, it's not well known the mechanism by which female breasts have become more promenent in comparison to other mamals. Which leads me onece again to my soap box: When it comes to biology/evolution, it's impossible to answer much of anything when it comes to "why." Things happen for reasons, but very little of -- if any -- biology happens for a reason. Breasts aren't more prominent in the human species when compared to other mammalian species because of any designed reason. It could be that women with bigger breasts are more likely to mate, or mate more often, than women with smaller breasts, maybe it is our diet, whatever the reason that allows for breast sizes to increase, the genetics that allow for this to happen was determined by hundreds of the thousands -- if not millions -- of years of selective pressures that selected these genes as the most fit. These pressures have altered and molded these genes to their current status.
913449
No. On average guys are 80% larger than their female counterparts and are proportionately stronger.
768094
not all females put make up a female animal doesnot put make up
401542
I think it has to do with reproduction and development.  Girls need to mature faster both mentally and physically in order to be viable birthing chambers at a sooner age. While boys are expendable and worthless in the scheme of things so nature has given them more time to develop viable social skills so they can contribute to survival of the women.
662230
Absolutely not. Thats just like saying big feet, big nose, big hands, or being african american has anything to do with size. It is all genetics. Sad but true, if your father, grandfather, great-grandfather, etc were small you will be too. Thats just the way it goes. It's the same with women's breasts.
1036836
Darwin's theory of evolution isn't entirely wrong. However what does seem wrong is that while it is able to explain the phenomena of selection as well as survival in animals, humans seem to violate the very postulates of the theory.\nAlso darwin's theor talks about sexual selection where the male is generally the better-looking or stronger etc of the two genders and that the female choose the one who is stronger/better looking/can sing better etc...but then there are certain birds where instead of the male it is the female that has the coloured plummange and looks better.\n\nBetter research some specific examples in case you need to prove a point to someone