Yeah, not buying it. If anything it's not the c-sections them selves, but other evolutionary driven selections (i.e. larger head) and other genetic or non-genetic factors (i.e. nutrition, diabetes, maternal health, advance in medicine.... ).
It's pretty far fetched to see a 10 to 20% change in 60 years due to evolutionary selection.
Quote from the article: "The researchers estimated that the global rate of cases where the baby could not fit through the maternal birth canal was 3%, or 30 in 1,000 births.
Over the past 50 or 60 years, this rate has increased to about 3.3-3.6%, so up to 36 in 1,000 births.That is about a 10-20% increase of the original rate, due to the evolutionary effect."
I found the original. I don't pretend to understand it all.
http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2016/1...e874185bed
It's pretty far fetched to see a 10 to 20% change in 60 years due to evolutionary selection.
Quote from the article: "The researchers estimated that the global rate of cases where the baby could not fit through the maternal birth canal was 3%, or 30 in 1,000 births.
Over the past 50 or 60 years, this rate has increased to about 3.3-3.6%, so up to 36 in 1,000 births.That is about a 10-20% increase of the original rate, due to the evolutionary effect."
I found the original. I don't pretend to understand it all.
http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2016/1...e874185bed
Being told you're delusional does not necessarily mean you're mental.
