Why do small organisms have an evolutionary advantage?

Gender identity

The division into "male" and "female" is justified, as evolutionary history shows. The factors for individual development - "facilities" and "environment" - cannot be viewed independently of one another.

introduction

Break up nature into its grown parts! ", Demands Socrates with his famous butcher metaphor in Plato's Phaedrus. What is meant is the conceptual breakdown of nature into different components in order to work out systemic components that ultimately help" the big one Whole "to understand better. From a sociobiological point of view, the" grown parts of nature "are evolutionary adaptations, that is, physical and psychological characteristics that have been formed over long periods of time by the action of Darwinian principles and have passed the incorruptible test of natural selection ] In relation to our topic that would mean trying to differentiate between the sexes in order to discover, despite all similarities between men and women, perhaps some differences that are significant as a result of biological adaptation processes. But it is a more or less strict differentiation of the sexes in the sense of the word "grown parts" of the Is nature really justified? In view of rapidly changing perceptions of gender roles and a considerable cultural diversity in the interpretation of the gender difference, doubts have repeatedly been expressed as to whether references to biology and evolution can be instructive and useful at all when it comes to social practice with regard to gender differences and role assignments to discuss. In order to show that the division into "female" and "male" - far from the sometimes hair-raising popular scientific "processing" of scientific findings [2] - is actually justified, it is worth taking a short digression into the natural history of sexuality.