see the description

Please answer this questionwe learned a substantial amount about the evolution of human beings and our ancestors. The anthropological evidence of the transformation of the human skeleton that Professor provided us with in class was so intriguing. Evolution of body parts such as the first metacarpal, the dorsal interosseous muscle, apical tufts, peroneus longus, gluteus maximus, and many more aided our ancestors in developing into elite throwing organisms (1). Following these advancements came the development of an increased cranial capacity and brain size. Something Professor Bingham emphasizes heavily is that elite throwing came first and then brain size developed as social coercion did (2).With these miraculous advancements in bone structure and muscle definition seen in the fossil evidence, my question is: why is there an increase in height over the fossil evidence as well? Did this evolutionary adaptation prove to be advantageous in certain environments? Or was it a secondary result of one of the skeletal developments?Lucy, an Australopithecus afarensis, was measured to be 3 ft 7 in tall. The Homo naledi men stood at about 5 feet tall. Nariokotome, a Homo erectus, was measured to be 5 ft 3 in. The average height of a male Homo sapien today is 5 ft 10 in. Why do we see this trend down the Homo sapien lineage? According to one investigative research, the development of height resulted directly from the anatomical evolution of the female pelvis. As this structure grew, fetuses were allowed to grow and develop more within the womb (3). Besides that article, I was unable to find any other scholarly that directly answered my question. However, one recent research found that taller men have higher reproductive success. They claimed this trend was due to the fact that men who are taller have an easier time attracting mates (4). To me, it is still unclear how the evolution of our height developed.