Muscular Guys Have Been Weeded Out By Evolution

[rootb33r]

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn17244-hunks-get-more-sex-but-theres-a-price-to-pay.html

The article basically says, in part, that because an increase in testosterone lowers the immune system, survival of the fittest has killed off more muscular guys than skinny guys.

"Testosterone, a hormone that promotes secondary muscle growth, suppresses the immune system of all animals, including people... but the downside of all that brawn is a poor immune system and an increased appetite, a new study finds. Such evolutionary costs could explain why males of our species do not all look like He-Man"

Makes sense I guess!

[Venom]

The article also says they have more sexual partners, which should equal greater reproduction. So it contradicts itself.

[rootb33r]

The article also says they have more sexual partners, which should equal greater reproduction. So it contradicts itself.

Protection!

[Venom]

If we are going to stereotype I'd say meat headz would be more careless in that regards than geeks. ;)

[klosey]

sadly the study is arse about face, the reason we havent all evolved looking like he man is because huge muscle is not needed functionally, rhino's, bulls etc need huge amounts of muscle, but humans through evolution started using tools etc to make life easier. if right now we still had to hunt by running after animals and taking them down by hand then we prob would all be musclular

[icehawk]

sadly the study is arse about face, the reason we havent all evolved looking like he man is because huge muscle is not needed functionally, rhino's, bulls etc need huge amounts of muscle, but humans through evolution started using tools etc to make life easier. if right now we still had to hunt by running after animals and taking them down by hand then we prob would all be musclular

Not doubt. If you look at artistic depictions of Neanderthals, they're absolutely jacked! Most people's work is mainly sedentary now, so there's no point in us being built from an evolutionary standpoint. It's actually worse because we require more food than our string bean counterparts. That's why larger species of the same animal have died out while the smaller ones are still around.

[rootb33r]

Not doubt. If you look at artistic depictions of Neanderthals, they're absolutely jacked! Most people's work is mainly sedentary now, so there's no point in us being built from an evolutionary standpoint. It's actually worse because we require more food than our string bean counterparts. That's why larger species of the same animal have died out while the smaller ones are still around.

But their life expectancy was like 25-30 years :) I know it's because of a lot of other reasons lol.

[DaveLin]

kinda makes sense why you have some many africans it seems genetically pre-disposed to incredible muscle and low fat.

in colder regions, sure you can be muscular, but let's see you make it through winter without padding. thus the strongman is born, all of whom are from northern cold areas.

[rogjodoin]

Think about bible times when the food was pure and free from chemicals and preservitives, and the fact that transportation was all done by foot and work was all done by manual labor. I recently heard that to get the same amount of vitamin A from a peach of the 1950's today, you will have to consume 53 peaches. Sounds far fetched, but possible. Our food is deteriorating!

[GonnaGetBig]

I tend to think people have just gotten lazier and more of them tend to sit at a computer than they have in the past. People don't have to work hard like they did many years ago thanks to technology. I mean heck a lot of those geeks sitting at a PC 24/7 might be huge if they had to bust butt doing physical work.

Honestly Scientist like to credit evolution for EVERYTHING. I just don't buy into it.

And really if it were a survival of the fittest thing wouldn’t strength play a huge advantage?

[rootb33r]

And really if it were a survival of the fittest thing wouldn’t strength play a huge advantage?

Evolution is about intelligence and physical make-up (not just strength). For example, we as humans developed opposed thumbs because that's what let us survive as omnivores the most efficient way. Strength was only useful to an extent-- I'm sure there have existed humans that were much stronger than anyone today, but there was no evolutionary need for these people. They had no advantage by being significantly stronger; all we needed to survive was hunting and gathering intelligence (for purposes of sustenance), and the desire to procreate.

There exists a wide array of body types (everything from metabolism speed to musculature to skin color) in the world today because these things mattered the least in procreation and survival, therefore they haven't been "weeded out" (yet?).

[GonnaGetBig]

Evolution is about intelligence and physical make-up (not just strength). For example, we as humans developed opposed thumbs because that's what let us survive as omnivores the most efficient way. Strength was only useful to an extent-- I'm sure there have existed humans that were much stronger than anyone today, but there was no evolutionary need for these people. They had no advantage by being significantly stronger; all we needed to survive was hunting and gathering intelligence (for purposes of sustenance), and the desire to procreate.

There exists a wide array of body types (everything from metabolism speed to musculature to skin color) in the world today because these things mattered the least in procreation and survival, therefore they haven't been "weeded out" (yet?).


Again I feel like they just want to give credit to evolution for something it's not responsible for. I like science but I have gotten where I just don’t jump on the wagon when it comes to evolution because I don’t think they are unbiased enough with the research. And to me this article is really reaching to find a connection between evolution and a lower population of muscular people.

Also are we really seeing a reduction in large or muscular people? I sure don’t see it but I’m curious if there is any proof of that. I mean people in general are a lot larger than they were even 50 years ago I think. I’m sure it has to do with diet and the fact that food is very abundant these days. But whatever the reason I just don’t see a reduction in size in people today…if anything I think we have gotten considerably larger in every way.

Now I’m not trying to completely discredit evolution here….I’m just not sold on this particular topic I guess.

I personally think it’s fairly obvious that in humans microevolution exist but I’m not going along with the whole “we came from monkeys” stuff. :D

[rogjodoin]

I personally think it’s fairly obvious that in humans microevolution exist but I’m not going along with the whole “we came from monkeys” stuff. :D

Duh! how come the monkeys aren't still evolving?
Gen. 1:25
"And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and the cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth on the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good."

[Venom]

Again I feel like they just want to give credit to evolution for something it's not responsible for. I like science but I have gotten where I just don’t jump on the wagon when it comes to evolution because I don’t think they are unbiased enough with the research. And to me this article is really reaching to find a connection between evolution and a lower population of muscular people.

Natural selection is observable and can be seen today. So I don't really have a problem with the general assertion of the article; I just think it is baseless. This topic does not really relate to ape to man evolution, though.

[GonnaGetBig]

So I don't really have a problem with the general assertion of the article; I just think it is baseless. This topic does not really relate to ape to man evolution, though.

Well that's my point though. I think it's reaching for a connection that isn't really shown in his research. Once again..."it's got to be evolution"...or really it's that he WANTS it to be evolution.

[Wizard24]

I’ve also got to balk at the premise of this article. If muscle growth through increased testosterone lowers the immune system, then what is the effect of being overweight? Being obese is even more harmful to the immune system than being muscular, yet 50% of US adults are overweight or obese and this number continues to rise. This flies in direct contradiction to the evolutionary theory of “survival of the fittest”. People are fatter and less muscular now because they, for whatever reason, are choosing to be this way. Saying it is because of evolution just takes this responsibility away from the individual in my opinion.

[rogjodoin]

I’ve also got to balk at the premise of this article. If muscle growth through increased testosterone lowers the immune system, then what is the effect of being overweight? Being obese is even more harmful to the immune system than being muscular, yet 50% of US adults are overweight or obese and this number continues to rise. This flies in direct contradiction to the evolutionary theory of “survival of the fittest”. People are fatter and less muscular now because they, for whatever reason, are choosing to be this way. Saying it is because of evolution just takes this responsibility away from the individual in my opinion.

Its like typical. We as humans love to play the blame game. Of course, eating wrong is not hard these days with all the misunderstood ingredients in our food. People need to become aware of what they are injesting. But, then again, most don't care. End the SAD(standard American diet)!

[rootb33r]

Duh! how come the monkeys aren't still evolving?


Ignorant statement #34,959,402,836,754 made by creationists. Typically followed by scripture of God creating the world.

Too predictable, man ;)

Seriously though, this article IS claiming micro-evolution. It's claiming that within the homosapien population as we know it today, it has evolved such that it makes THEORETICAL sense.

[rogjodoin]

[QUOTE=rootb33r;889001]Ignorant statement #34,959,402,836,754 made by creationists. Typically followed by scripture of God creating the world.

Too predictable, man ;)



Well, do you have a logical answer to my question? How is this an ignorant statement when the evolutionist are too ignorant to answer it? It is so logical and makes so much sense. Yet those who rebel against God and His Holy scripture will not even use creation as a possibility of origin. They totally dismiss it because it will prove itself correct. Of course, an atheist cant be proven wrong, that would injure his pride!

Please don't misunderstand me. I am not arguing against you, I just know beyond measure that God does exsist and the Bible is accurate. This has been revealed to me by God's Holy spirit. Ya, you may think thats weird, but unless you experiance it, you will never understand it. So I share the truth with all I can because I am passionate about it. The Bible says that God has put it in the heart of all men to know that He exsist. so therefore, we either choose to believe or we rebel against Him.

I choose to bow before Him now rather than after its too late!;)

[rootb33r]

Well, do you have a logical answer to my question? How is this an ignorant statement when the evolutionist are too ignorant to answer it? It is so logical and makes so much sense. Yet those who rebel against God and His Holy scripture will not even use creation as a possibility of origin. They totally dismiss it because it will prove itself correct. Of course, an atheist cant be proven wrong, that would injure his pride!

Please don't misunderstand me. I am not arguing against you, I just know beyond measure that God does exsist and the Bible is accurate. This has been revealed to me by God's Holy spirit. Ya, you may think thats weird, but unless you experiance it, you will never understand it. So I share the truth with all I can because I am passionate about it. The Bible says that God has put it in the heart of all men to know that He exsist. so therefore, we either choose to believe or we rebel against Him.

I choose to bow before Him now rather than after its too late!;)

The logical answer is that the evolution of ape into human took millions of years. We haven't been competent or coherent as a human race for long enough to witness the evolution of apes further. Besides, there are other exogenous factors at play which will change the previous evolutionary timeline; it won't happen again in the same fashion. Humans are a species of ape that has branched out so far that all intermediaries have been "Darwinised," for lack of a better phrase.

I actually love to be proven wrong because that is the most efficient way of learning. You never forget when you're wrong.

No offense (seriously, I'm not just ubiquitously saying that), but the only proof your people have is a bunch of nut-jobs running around claiming personal visits from one of the trinity.

I honestly don't understand how people can believe in religion (Christianity, yes, but this also applies to any religion). It seriously BOGGLES my mind.

[rogjodoin]

The logical answer is that the evolution of ape into human took millions of years. We haven't been competent or coherent as a human race for long enough to witness the evolution of apes further. Besides, there are other exogenous factors at play which will change the previous evolutionary timeline; it won't happen again in the same fashion. Humans are a species of ape that has branched out so far that all intermediaries have been "Darwinised," for lack of a better phrase.

I actually love to be proven wrong because that is the most efficient way of learning. You never forget when you're wrong.

No offense (seriously, I'm not just ubiquitously saying that), but the only proof your people have is a bunch of nut-jobs running around claiming personal visits from one of the trinity.

I honestly don't understand how people can believe in religion (Christianity, yes, but this also applies to any religion). It seriously BOGGLES my mind.

I hear ya about being boggled. I don't understand how people can believe in evolution and everything being so perfect and intriquit originated by chance. This totally boggles my mind. I guess we can agree to disagree. You have been given the freedom of choice, to believe in whatever you want.

[GonnaGetBig]

Well this is an argument no one is going to win.

To me even IF evolution were true it does not prove the Bible wrong. No one knows how God decided to create and no one knows what a "day" is to God.

As it stands right now I believe that God MAY have created animals through evolution but I'm not sold on humans. There is WAY to big of a gap between humans and everything else. You can say "well monkeys have DNA very close to humans...blah, blah" but take a look around you. No other species is even close to the same ballpark of the human race.

But what I don't get is why some people are so against creation. In my opinion the odds are WAY in favor of creation vs the theory of everything just being a random accident.

And I just don't understand why scientist will not even take creation into consideration but they will take just about any other off the wall GUESS from anyone who calls themselves a scientist. To me that is insanely closed minded and shows just how arrogant these scientist are.

But you know to each his own I guess. You can not argue someone into believing in Christ so I'm not going to try to.

For me....I just don't trust anything but the word of God. :)

[rogjodoin]

Well this is an argument no one is going to win.

To me even IF evolution were true it does not prove the Bible wrong. No one knows how God decided to create and no one knows what a "day" is to God.

As it stands right now I believe that God MAY have created animals through evolution but I'm not sold on humans. There is WAY to big of a gap between humans and everything else. You can say "well monkeys have DNA very close to humans...blah, blah" but take a look around you. No other species is even close to the same ballpark of the human race.

But what I don't get is why some people are so against creation. In my opinion the odds are WAY in favor of creation vs the theory of everything just being a random accident.

And I just don't understand why scientist will not even take creation into consideration but they will take just about any other off the wall GUESS from anyone who calls themselves a scientist. To me that is insanely closed minded and shows just how arrogant these scientist are.

But you know to each his own I guess. You can not argue someone into believing in Christ so I'm not going to try to.

For me....I just don't trust anything but the word of God. :)

I take genesis literally in its description of creation. Evening and morning was one day. I believe it totally removes the theory of evolution.
No, we cant argue someone to Christ, ultimately it is the Holy Spirit that coverts people, but if I see someone in danger, I feel I must warn them. Then they can make their own decision.:eek:

[rootb33r]

As it stands right now I believe that God MAY have created animals through evolution but I'm not sold on humans. There is WAY to big of a gap between humans and everything else. You can say "well monkeys have DNA very close to humans...blah, blah" but take a look around you. No other species is even close to the same ballpark of the human race.

But what I don't get is why some people are so against creation. In my opinion the odds are WAY in favor of creation vs the theory of everything just being a random accident.

And I just don't understand why scientist will not even take creation into consideration but they will take just about any other off the wall GUESS from anyone who calls themselves a scientist. To me that is insanely closed minded and shows just how arrogant these scientist are.


Why won't scientists consider creation? Probably because it has no temporal merit. There is a book (or two, or whatever), that claims creation. And it's not like it's some logical way of creation, either... it's a giant, elaborate process that sounds like a Hollywood movie.

Hey, I don't judge people for believing... I'm surrounded by them. It pisses me off when I see people I love being brainwashed, but I don't try to mediate, nor do I judge them.

I had a woman say to me the other day "thank the good lord I haven't been laid off yet." Dubble-yoo-tee-eff??? Are you kidding me? You REALLY think that if there was a God he was watching out for you? Come on, there are billions of Christians in the world, many of whom face far more catastrophic fates than being laid off.

I take genesis literally in its description of creation. Evening and morning was one day. I believe it totally removes the theory of evolution.
No, we cant argue someone to Christ, ultimately it is the Holy Spirit that coverts people, but if I see someone in danger, I feel I must warn them. Then they can make their own decision.

Warn them from what, may I ask? The advent of god? Armageddon? I'm actually offended that you think that you have to warn people.


:eek: omigosh here it comes.

[rogjodoin]

if you saw someone in serious danger or possibly death, would you warn them or are you so cold that you would just walk by?

[rootb33r]

if you saw someone in serious danger or possibly death, would you warn them or are you so cold that you would just walk by?

Really? You're really asking that?

Let's just say that you can go do your thing and waste your own time, while I live a perfectly happy and fulfilling life without wasting time reading scripture, attending church, and wasting my money on tithes to what is essentially a business.

Don't even get me ranting on the whole "church is a business" side of things.

[rogjodoin]

Really? You're really asking that?

Let's just say that you can go do your thing and waste your own time, while I live a perfectly happy and fulfilling life without wasting time reading scripture, attending church, and wasting my money on tithes to what is essentially a business.

Don't even get me ranting on the whole "church is a business" side of things.

Thats your perogitive, (did I spell that correctly?) I guess we will see who was right in the end. I dont think living my life trying to refrain from things that displease God is a waste. If anything, it is good. I doesn't bother me to avoid partying,drunkenness,hate,greed,lust,cursing,etc,e tc. I don't miss any of that, infact I despise all that and I am perfectly content. So I don't see my lifestyle as a waste. And I won't have any regrets when I'm old.

I rather enjoyed conversing with you, we do share a passion for bodybuilding so I hope we can continue to do so on other subjects! I certainly don't want any hostility between us cuz we disagree on this subject.

[Boddhisatva]

Wow, so this post went a little off topic. From an evolutionary standpoint, can we really say that we are less muscular? Do we have less potential to be muscular than we used to, or is it just a choice of lifestyle. I would definitely argue that evolution has increased our potential brainpower, but you would have a hard time convincing me that the physical shape of the common man is an evolutionary trait.


if you saw someone in serious danger or possibly death, would you warn them or are you so cold that you would just walk by?

A guy once threw me out of the way of a bus and saved my life. Funny thing is I was standing in hotel lobby. I nonetheless thanked him and went about my day.

[Boddhisatva]

Natural selection is observable and can be seen today. So I don't really have a problem with the general assertion of the article; I just think it is baseless. This topic does not really relate to ape to man evolution, though.

I am not sure I agree with natural selection being observable today. In humans most of our legislature goes to supporting those who would be "weeded out" by natural selection. We as a society are consistently supporting and trying to give a boost to lower classes and those who need our help. Even most animals survival is based on their interactions with humans. Panda's would be extinct if they weren't so freakin cute! From what I see around me, human society has largely become what used to be natural selection.

I am not saying that any of these programs are a bad thing, only that they seem to go against the idea of traits being selected by nature to be advantageous and thus ensuring survival.

[sjohnston]

i know this is remotely random...but in one of my classes we learned that the way humans are built has a lot to do with the climate that they were struggling to survive in...i.e. humans that had to live in a very cold climate were stockier and shorter where as humans that lived in places that were very hot were leaner and taller...a lot of evolution in our bodies had to do with retaining heat and the ability to cool ourselves off.

[rootb33r]

I am not sure I agree with natural selection being observable today. In humans most of our legislature goes to supporting those who would be "weeded out" by natural selection. We as a society are consistently supporting and trying to give a boost to lower classes and those who need our help. Even most animals survival is based on their interactions with humans. Panda's would be extinct if they weren't so freakin cute! From what I see around me, human society has largely become what used to be natural selection.

I am not saying that any of these programs are a bad thing, only that they seem to go against the idea of traits being selected by nature to be advantageous and thus ensuring survival.

I agree with this. As humans and having evolved into a very complex society with moral and social boundaries, we've developed a system where the weak survive very effectively.

That said, evolution/natural selection also takes THOUSANDS of years to occur (and is always an ongoing process). So now that we are a complex society which helps the weak, abnormal, whatever... evolution will take even longer.

[rootb33r]

i know this is remotely random...but in one of my classes we learned that the way humans are built has a lot to do with the climate that they were struggling to survive in...i.e. humans that had to live in a very cold climate were stockier and shorter where as humans that lived in places that were very hot were leaner and taller...a lot of evolution in our bodies had to do with retaining heat and the ability to cool ourselves off.

Adapting to physical environments is the #1 factor in evolution:

Just like why Giraffes have long necks; it's because the ones with shorter necks all died out over a long period of time. They died out because they could not reach the tops of the trees to eat the leaves.

That is how we have giraffes.

[klosey]

I am not sure I agree with natural selection being observable today. In humans most of our legislature goes to supporting those who would be "weeded out" by natural selection. We as a society are consistently supporting and trying to give a boost to lower classes and those who need our help. Even most animals survival is based on their interactions with humans. Panda's would be extinct if they weren't so freakin cute! From what I see around me, human society has largely become what used to be natural selection.

I am not saying that any of these programs are a bad thing, only that they seem to go against the idea of traits being selected by nature to be advantageous and thus ensuring survival.

natural selection is going on now through subconcious and hormonal response, men (generally are attracted to curvy women) not just physically but subconciously this makes them better at carrying children there is a talk about it somewhere on internet.

[Boddhisatva]

natural selection is going on now through subconcious and hormonal response, men (generally are attracted to curvy women) not just physically but subconciously this makes them better at carrying children there is a talk about it somewhere on internet.

I will agree that we do have preferences towards certain types of women, but there are very few cases of human not reproducing because they are unable to find a partner. This in turn practically eliminates any kind of selection. I do think that we are evolving, as there will always be genetic changes. I just don't believe evolution is controlled by a natural selection process anymore.

You could argue that certain types of women are inclined to bear more children. Some religious groups have definitely used this as a means of increasing their followers. Not quite sure if I would accept it as a form of natural selection though.

[Wizard24]

Just like why Giraffes have long necks; it's because the ones with shorter necks all died out over a long period of time. They died out because they could not reach the tops of the trees to eat the leaves.

That is how we have giraffes.

No offense, but this is just a crock. Giraffes are not tall because they would die out if they were short. There are countless species of animals that live in the same environment and are much shorter than giraffes and they manage to live on just fine.

[rootb33r]

No offense, but this is just a crock. Giraffes are not tall because they would die out if they were short. There are countless species of animals that live in the same environment and are much shorter than giraffes and they manage to live on just fine.

Just did a bit more research on it, and it seems that the consensus is that theory is an old theory. It was once thought that the long necks of giraffes were due to ability to forage, but I guess some new research shows that the main reason was for "neck-swinging mating battles."

Whatever that means... lol.

[GonnaGetBig]

Just did a bit more research on it, and it seems that the consensus is that theory is an old theory. It was once thought that the long necks of giraffes were due to ability to forage, but I guess some new research shows that the main reason was for "neck-swinging mating battles."

Whatever that means... lol.

When they fight they use the necks like that but that theory is strange as well.

They grew crazy long necks for that reason...to fight over the ladies? hmmm...not sure I'm going with that either.

[Wizard24]

the main reason was for "neck-swinging mating battles."
That's what she said.:eek: Sorry, I couldn't resist.