On May 3, 9:11 pm, "Rita B. Flesh" <vintage_man...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Men are truly worthless creatures and I don't understand why
> 50% of the population are men. We don't need so many men.

QUOTE
The evolution of sexual proportion is a major biological question. It
has been known for a long time that the majority of sexually
reproducing species have sexual proportions around 1:1; the
explanation of this phenomenon eluded DARWIN himself, who concluded
that "the whole problem is so intricate that it is safer to leave its
solution for the future" (DARWIN 1871 Down). In 1930, FISHER proposed
an explanation that is notably simple, robust, and general. His
argument can be put as follows: in any sexually reproducing
population, half of the genes come from each sex, irrespective of its
rarity. If the sex determining system generates unequal sex
proportions, the rare sex will be effectively more fertile as a result
of a greater per capita contribution to the next generation.
Consequently, individuals investing their reproductive effort on the
rare sex will be more represented in the gene pool of the next
generations. If this investment is a hereditary trait, the alleles
causing it will spread in the population until the attainment of equal
number of males and females.
END QUOTE
An Experimental Demonstration of Fisher's Principle: Evolution of
Sexual Proportion by Natural Selection
Carvalho et al
http://www.genetics.org/cgi/content/full/148/2/719

>
> 10% men would be enough.
>
> We women should eat the other men, since male meat is very
> good.

You mean you actually...never mind.

> So why aren't we a cannibal species where the women eat the
> men???

Like we would just sit there and let you kill us for dinner.