Originally Posted by rootb33r
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 donít jump on the wagon when it comes to evolution because I donít 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 donít see it but Iím 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. Iím sure it has to do with diet and the fact that food is very abundant these days. But whatever the reason I just donít see a reduction in size in people todayÖif anything I think we have gotten considerably larger in every way.
Now Iím not trying to completely discredit evolution hereÖ.Iím just not sold on this particular topic I guess.
I personally think itís fairly obvious that in humans microevolution exist but Iím not going along with the whole ďwe came from monkeysĒ stuff.