....male and female created he them. Genesis 1:27
"Men are better fist-fighters. So what else is new? What’s new is a new evolutionary tale that will make some culture warriors angry. This sexual-selection story came from Darwinians at the University of Utah:
This makes no sense. Fists are not good for fighting lions and mammoths; a spear would be much more useful. So what is more likely to evolve, something that allows you to eat another day, or something for the rare, occasional cave brawl?
Yes, we all know that men tend to be stronger than women with equally active. But why must there be an evolutionary story behind it? Maybe they were created that way from the beginning.
The paper in the Journal of Experimental Biology by Morris et al. attributes the difference to evolution:
With this statement, they leave empirical science behind and hallucinate on Darwine."
CEH
"Men are better fist-fighters. So what else is new? What’s new is a new evolutionary tale that will make some culture warriors angry. This sexual-selection story came from Darwinians at the University of Utah:
Elk have antlers. Rams have horns. In the animal kingdom, males develop specialized weapons for competition whenAha! So men and women are real after all. The differences are so strong, a transgender man would not be able to punch as good as a real man, and a biological male will always outcompete a woman in activities that involve upper-body strength and stance and fist power.
winning a fight is critical. Humans do too, according to new research from the University of Utah. Males’ upper bodies are built for more powerful punches than females’, says the study, published in the Journal of Experimental Biology, suggesting that fighting may have long been a part of our evolutionary history.
“In mammals in general,” says U professor David Carrier of the School of Biological Sciences, “the difference between males and females is often greatest in the structures that are used as weapons.”
Twenty men and 19 women participated. “We had them fill out an activity questionnaire,” Morris says, “and they had to score in the ‘active’ range. So, we weren’t getting couch potatoes, we were getting people that were very fit and active.”So there is evidence that men and women are really different (for those who haven’t noticed). But what’s evolution got to do with it? At that point, the scientists leave empiricism behind and go into their Darwin trance.
But even with roughly uniform levels of fitness, the males’ average power during a punching motion was 162% greater than females’, with the least-powerful man still stronger than the most powerful woman.
“It evolves slowly,” he says, “and this is a dramatic
example of sexual dimorphism that’s consistent with males becoming more specialized for fighting, and males fighting in a particular way, which is throwing punches.”
They didn’t find the same magnitude of difference in overhead pulling strength, lending additional weight to the conclusion that males’ upper body strength is specialized for punching rather than throwing weapons.
This makes no sense. Fists are not good for fighting lions and mammoths; a spear would be much more useful. So what is more likely to evolve, something that allows you to eat another day, or something for the rare, occasional cave brawl?
Yes, we all know that men tend to be stronger than women with equally active. But why must there be an evolutionary story behind it? Maybe they were created that way from the beginning.
The paper in the Journal of Experimental Biology by Morris et al. attributes the difference to evolution:
The results of this study add to a set of recently identified characters indicating that sexual selection on male aggressive performance has played a role in the evolution of the human musculoskeletal system and the evolution of sexual dimorphism in hominins.
With this statement, they leave empirical science behind and hallucinate on Darwine."
CEH