Nightscrawlers

Well, at least according to this article from CNN.

Once you get past the gimmicky lead and photo, it is interesting.

Counterargument: So, if a decrease in childbirth age is a sign of evolution, why is it always fluctuating? 2000 years ago, young teenage girls were married and with child within the first two years, so would the increase to the twenties be de-evolution? Or simply cultural?

Additionally, factors such as education, women's rights, career and advances in technology, medicine (especially in the fields of gynecology and contraception) have affected when women have their first child.

That's not evolution but rather, social change, something that the article does point out and acknowledge.

On the other side of the coin, women in poorer countries (eg: Ethiopia,) still have their babies young as insurance against old age - and they have many children to ensure at least some survive to old age. However if these women are educated, not only do they have their babies a little later, but they have fewer children and those children are healthier.

One thing though: "we must remain agnostic on a definitive conclusion." Egads, can't they just say "we don't know the answer yet?" :lol