The essential flaw in your logic is this: "evolved to" Evolution has neither purpose nor end. That which is more 'fit' (a very vague term to be sure) is what ev

The essential flaw in your logic is this: "evolved to" Evolution has neither purpose nor end. That which is more 'fit' (a very vague term to be sure) is what evolution favors. If a larger force with better weapons can defeat a smaller, disorganized force, then evolution clearly favors the former. Napoleon is a case example. There are many, many more I could call upon, but I think a lesson in world history is beyond the scope of this debate.