First ask if it is right. In order for the “difficulty to get up” to be “evolved” and a sentence “wouldn’t the genes for the difficulty of getting up be screened out by natural selection in ancient times”, you need to have evidence that: 1. “Difficulty to get up” is a specific one Or determined by multiple genes, rather than “acquired acquisition”, “epigenetic modification”, “temporary intention of the body in the interaction with the environment”, “caused by long-term lack of sleep, poor sleep quality or pathological factors”; 2. The above-mentioned genes existed in ancient humans, and at that time they could lead to the “difficulty getting up” observed now, instead of “there was no such effect at that time, but later it was mutated”, and its effect was affected by the effect of other genes at that time. , Environment, people’s lifestyle and other factors”; 3. The trait of “difficulty getting up” will lead to problems such as low viability of ancient human individuals in ecological choices, difficulty in finding a spouse, difficulty in producing offspring, and low viability of offspring. , So that there is a probability of being “screened out by natural selection”; 4. The disadvantage brought by the “difficult to get up” trait is so great that you think “deemed as a neutral trait and accidentally continued” is not suitable as an explanation , It is worth asking “why” specifically. Obviously, you don’t even have one piece of the above evidence. The difficulty of getting up may be a collection of many problems that are not related to any specific gene. Even if the gene is related, it does not necessarily exist in ancient humans. Even if it does, it may not have the same effect, and even if it does, it may not cause a large enough problem. Moreover, maybe this is still part of a favorable trait. Researchers such as Luke Strotz of the University of Kansas have examined the metabolic rate of mollusks that have become extinct in the past five million years, and found that species with low metabolic rates are extinct than species with high metabolic rates. The probability is lower. High metabolic rate can be a good predictor of extinction, especially for species with more restricted habitats. This study shows that laziness is an efficient survival strategy, whether it is for individuals, species, or biomes. The use of mollusks to study “the effect of metabolic rate on extinction rates” is because scientists currently have a lot of data available in this area. Scientists involved in related research stated that “in the long term, the best evolutionary strategy for animals may be to maintain a lazy state. This laziness refers to a lower metabolic rate so that organisms are more likely to survive.” “Compared to ‘ Survival of the fittest may be more appropriate to say’survival of the lazy'”. Also, the way of life of ancient humans may not need to “get up easily” at all. There are about hundreds of thousands of hunter-gatherers in the world. Research on them can reflect the culture of ancient hunter-gatherers living in barren areas, but it is difficult to reflect the huge-scale ancient hunter-gatherers living in rich areas. Even so, if you look at the existing hunter-gatherers in the desolate area of the Kalahari Desert in East Africa, hunting once every three days, gathering 3 to 6 hours a day can feed the entire tribe, and you can imagine how idle their lives are. Research has shown that ancient hunter-gatherers often sleep twice a day; some modern hunter-gatherer tribes can sleep for five to eight hours during the day when they are idle, and it is estimated that the same was true in ancient times. So, it’s hard to expect that ancient humans would need the traits of “easy to get up early in the morning and not lying in bed” to do anything.