>>12291351I keep hearing in various studies that it's not so much that gorillas are strong - people are particularly weak. We are actually quite pathetic, compared to most animals of our size. Why? It seems that it's the price we pay for finer motor control.
I keep hearing questions like these, many of which are basically misunderstandings of evolution - not that I'm an expert. But most questions can be taken to the extreme to basically boil down to:
"If nature makes lifeforms better, than how come we are not 10 feet tall and can punch through concrete by now?"
Because nothing is free. If you are larger, you have to eat more. You might also have fewer predators. If you are smaller, you can survive on less, but probably also have a harder time defending yourself.
It's not that gorillas are strong, I think, because other animals of similar size are similarly strong. It's that we are weak. And we are weak so we can better manipulate objects, or so the current theories go, apparently.
Also, "fitness" cannot always be taken to mean "stronger". It is much better interpreted the way it says what it is: to be "a better fit". Otherwise, we would in fact all be giants that can punch trees like in Minecraft. We would have gorilla strength, 200 IQs, and could run like Cheetahs. Why can't we? Because it all comes at a cost and it's not necessarily a better "fitness". We are doing just fine being weak and pathetic - so far. And if we have our technology to defend ourselves, it might even make sense to become even smaller, weaker, and more pathetic - because it also uses fewer resources and if we have guns to protect ourselves, who in their right mind would try to out-power a gorilla? Maybe wrestle bears?
No, the right view of evolution is not that we all become super men but that we all become just as pathetic as we can be and get away with it. Gorillas are strong not because they are the peak of evolution but b/c they don't have anything else to fight with than strength
