Serious why something simple as bones, matter so much?

[jet112]

lets do some exercise in human biology
the bigger bones you have, the more muscle mass you can grow, the stronger you are.
you can beat other people and defend the woman if you have strength and agility
but bigger bodies require more calories, and that fuck you over in rough times.
also bigger people can do less work, as they get exhausted fairly quickly. so there are diminishing returns.
why does evolution place so much importance on strength?

 

[Mahlo]

Sexual selection does not always pick good genes. For example, A female birds may overselect for colorful plumage, making them more visible to predators

 

[TrueAlphaMale]

Becuase human nature makes no sense which makes female control a viable option

 

[yung incel]

Sexual selection does not always pick good genes. For example, A female birds may overselect for colorful plumage, making them more visible to predators

That's just a fisherian runaway

 

[Mahlo]

That's just a fisherian runaway

I want to add that evolution does not choose "Good genes", because a good gene is contextual. It's also important distinguish "good" like "that's a good bat" from "That was a good action"

 

[Evildoer]

Sexual selection does not always pick good genes. For example, A female birds may overselect for colorful plumage, making them more visible to predators

That was never an OP's question, but sexual selection is almost always bad and useless, it is scientifically proven. There are cases where it would lead into complete extinction of the species.

 

[Darth_Homosexualis]

Selecting for size and strength is a vestigial evolutionary remnant of pre-historic times which as you correctly observe necessitated physicality and martial prowess. Women and children would have been performing most of the manual, menial labor that was required for subsistence purposes while the menfolk were relegated to hunting, gathering and fighting, ergo, a biological premium being placed not on stamina or endurance but brute strength.

 

[_incelinside]

Selecting for size and strength is a vestigial evolutionary remnant of pre-historic times which as you correctly observe necessitated physicality and martial prowess. Women and children would have been performing most of the manual, menial labor that was required for subsistence purposes while the menfolk were relegated to hunting, gathering and fighting, ergo, a biological premium being placed not on stamina or endurance but brute strength.

You would think we would all be 6 foot 9 with a wide frame by now

 

[Bagelcel]

5.8 inch wrists at 6ft2 and i ask myself the same question every fucking day

 

[Darth_Homosexualis]

You would think we would all be 6 foot 9 with a wide frame by now

Considering the species is only about 100,000 years old at most (point in time where we became divergent from Neanderthalensis) and that the average height in Rome during the Flavian dynasty was about 5'6, it is not inconceivable that given another 100,000 years of evolutionary bias in favor of size that we will all look like Brock Lesner.