The issue here is the island and the time span. Without establishing what the baseline was prior to their arrival how can you know that 22 isn’t a return to the norm?
Secondly, 141 years is an awfully short time span to ‘evolve’. Is this really macro-evolution or some other social factor? Did they even control for that? Did you see them listing a control population? Did they compare their results to other islands? Are they measuring the mean, mode or median age at which women give birth? Can you think of other causes that would lower the age at which women give birth?
“141 years is an awfully short time span to ‘evolve’.”
Understatement!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Calling this evolution is absurd. A little study should show that the age at first childbirth has varied up and down for a long, long time depending on cultural and environmental factors. Nutrition will even play a part. It makes no more sense than saying that longer hair styles are proof of evolution. In my not so humble opinion calling this evolution is totally ridiculous.
Yeah, there are way too many holes in the methodology for this to be taken seriously. All human populations respond to stress with changes in breeding patterns. This isn’t evolution, it’s built-in to our design. War, disease, famine, will all lead to increased birth rates, and none of those are examples of evolution, so why would anyone consider this an example?