IGM The Dudley Do-right Theory

Inter-Galactic Memo
To: All personnel
Fr: W. Leavitt, Crypto-Anthropologist
Re: The “Dudley Do-right” Theory
5-14-10

A recently released report from Evolution and Human Behaviour, a British humor magazine, has thinking people everywhere rolling in the aisles.
It seems a Doctor David Puts, from Pennsylvania State University, has a new theory about human development. I’m going to quote the good Doctor because I don’t want to be accused of making this up.

Winning a mate used to depend only on physical prowess and men with the strongest jawline and thickest skulls were better able to survive onslaughts from love rivals.

His theory is, as far as I can tell, that despite the fact that men and women are pretty close to the same size—unlike other animals— men are much stronger. This is because we spent a few million years fighting over females. Then in the same sentence, he indicates that the average size difference is “only” 15 %. Let’s see . . . I’m 6’4”, which is 76”. If I were 15% taller, I would be 87.4” tall, which is 7’ 3”. That’s a foot, give or take. You can ask around, if I were 7’3” tall (and a little younger) I’d be playing in the NBA. I’d be starting. Which means I’d be making several million dollars a year, which means I wouldn’t have to worry about attracting women, which means I wouldn’t have to fight other guys. I think we can agree that I have blown this guy out of the water. And I’m willing to meet him in the Octagon if he disputes my superiority.

Seriously, I have two problems with this guys theory . . . no, three.

One: The counter argument is that if we spent all our time beating each other’s brains out (and I admit that the chance of sex is totally a sufficient incentive for that), we wouldn’t have had to figure out how to negotiate and compromise, which means we would never have evolved to the point where we rise above the brute animals.

Two: If one pays even cursory attention to animal behavior, one observes that nearly all males posture, but they don’t actually fight. They lock horns, chase each other around, and establish dominance, but there is very little violence serious enough to lead to something as radical as bigger foreheads and jaws. Besides, lots of women prefer men who wear argyle, or play chess, or cross-dress. Fighting leads to death and death leads to extinction. Wow, how is it I’m not in charge of the Smithsonian or something?

3: Humans didn’t evolve from lower life forms, so the entire hypothesis is moot. Granted, we do evolve, but as I’ve said before, it’s probably more a backwards thing than forward. And even it were all true, evolution is supposed to be totally random, blind, with no agenda, including being indifferent to survival. Which would mean that there is no reason for any trait. Including Dudley Do-right jaws and Frankenstein foreheads. You know, now that I think of it, Patrick Ewing has both. And he played in the NBA. Coincidence? I think not.