Registered? Please log in below.
New? Please register.
Here are some reasons why.

From Reuters:
LONDON (Reuters) - Many prehistoric Australian aboriginals could have outrun world 100 and 200 meters record holder Usain Bolt in modern conditions.
Some Tutsi men in Rwanda exceeded the current world high jump record of 2.45 meters during initiation ceremonies in which they had to jump at least their own height to progress to manhood.
Any Neanderthal woman could have beaten former bodybuilder and current California governor Arnold Schwarzenegger in an arm wrestle.
These and other eye-catching claims are detailed in a book by Australian anthropologist Peter McAllister entitled "Manthropology" and provocatively sub-titled "The Science of the Inadequate Modern Male."
McAllister sets out his stall in the opening sentence of the prologue.
"If you're reading this then you -- or the male you have bought it for -- are the worst man in history.
"No ifs, no buts -- the worst man, period...As a class we are in fact the sorriest cohort of masculine Homo sapiens to ever walk the planet."
Speak for yourself, egghead.
Sure, this makes perfect sense. When prehistoric man has few tools to work with and had to chase prey on foot, the fastest, strongest and most nimble survived, and the slow-footed starved, died out and didn't reproduce.
Yet since we Monkeys place somewhere between the first and second figure above — and have the steel-trap brains of Modern Man ... well, perhaps the comments around here should be a little more polite. You wouldn't want your mild mannered Dr. Z running over to your house and dispatching you like an antelope, now would you?
EEEEK!
Comments
He's probably right
The is no longer much, if any evolutionary pressure to select for physical fitness. We as a (set of?) species have been moving away from that set of criteria ever since we picked up a rock/bone/stick and bonked something with it. Of course, the average modern man could undoubtedly out-compete a the prime examples of our ancestors given our modern tools and knowledge. McAllister seems to be limiting his criteria for "better" to purely physical characteristics (at least based on the quoted passage).
I got yer counterpoint's illlustration right here
Kirk vs. Lizard Man on the planet of infinite raw resources.
Counterpoints
The "lizard man" is a Gorn.
Amateur.
What was it...
...you were saying about some having more sex? [*cough* nerd/geek *cough*]
Re: Physical fitness
"The is no longer much, if any evolutionary pressure to select for physical fitness. "
Except for that whole "more likely to have sex" thing.
Except not
Physically unfit people reproduce all the time. Exhibit A: The United States.
Additionally, thanks to medical science, genetic disorders and predispositions for various disease which in the past were less likely to be passed on (e.g. because they killed in childhood or adolescence), are now more prevalent in the gene pool.
"Physically unfit people reproduce all the time. "
Well, yes. And I'm extremely grateful for that. But I'm going to go out on a limb and suggest that physically fit people have a lot more opportunities for sex than I ever had. And they know it, too. That's why they get in shape.
More fit = more sex
Well, probably, but does that lead to more offspring? I don't think so, and least not by a large margin. And if we look at human reproduction over an evolutionary relevant time span (say, the past 10,000 years) it's clear that physical fitness has had a decreasing impact on successful breeding.