The question is not if I CAN. Yes, I surely can hunt deer in that manner, but it's not very clever. And our advantage is that we are clever, not that we are phy

The question is not if I CAN. Yes, I surely can hunt deer in that manner, but it's not very clever. And our advantage is that we are clever, not that we are physically superior. If this endurance approach were really an effective hunting mechanism, then why are there no animals doing this? There is no need to have a huge expensive brain if all you need is just lithe enduring figures and an efficient gait. And I once went antelope 'hunting'. You know what happens when they see you? The run, really quickly and they completely disappear from sight. You have no frickin idea where they are anymore. Only in really huge savannas that are completely flat and with very low grass can you keep your eye on one animal and just follow it. This whole idea of endurance hunting does not sit well with me. The influence of the second world war on genetic culling, in my opinion, was pretty minimal. The second world war was really not survival of the fittest, it was survival of the luckiest. First of all, the physically fittest were most likely to die, because they were fighting in the front. And even among those fighting, how fit you are hardly had an influence on your death. Bombs and guns and falling buildings are not affected by muscle size. And your other statement about unfit males being killed by other males is just plain old dumb. Where did you read that nonsense? Humans are dominant because of social structure and tool handling, and not because of physical strength. Any human society that selected for physical fitness would decay very quickly.