Our Skulls Didn’t Evolve to be Punched
phenomena.nationalgeographic.com
Our Skulls Didn’t Evolve to be Punched
1–10 of 94 posts
Re: Our Skulls Didn’t Evolve to be Punched
#2Interesting. I would think that pre-modern humans would be unlikely to strike each other with very much force, simply because they were so strong that one or two blows would debilitate if not kill the opponent.
The Neanderthals are thought to be many times stronger than modern humans, judging by the thickness of their bones and the size of the muscle attachment sites, as well as their likely lifestyles in the brutal Pleistocene era.
If one male were to strike another with full force, it would more than likely cause concussion if not death. In those days, you couldn't afford to lose a healthy male from the tribe, even one you're pissed off at for wanting to mate with your woman.
Probably ditto for other ancestral variants such as homo erectus. They weren't exactly sophisticated, but you have to logically assume that a population that tolerated high levels of violence would be more likely to die out. A population that tended to resort to symbolic confrontations like shouting and gesturing and jumping would be more successful.
Re: Our Skulls Didn’t Evolve to be Punched
#3As human ancestors became more adept at tool usage, one would expect any evolved skull defenses to crumble.
No amount of skull reinforcement will stand up to a solid strike from a club. And even if it did, it wouldn't matter - our huge brains concuss easily, meaning that even if the bone structure itself remained intact following a club blow, the brain it protects would be quite damaged.
Human weapon use has been discussed as one reason why humans are less sexually dominant than many other primate relatives. Beta chimps don't have the ability to easily murder the reigning alpha chimp in his sleep. Humans do.
Re: Our Skulls Didn’t Evolve to be Punched
#4Honestly, this article just feels like an overreaction / rant the other direction. That there is No way that fist combat could have affected skull morphology. Like alot of evolution, it mostly comes down to a) does a trait make you more likely to have sex / better or more effective sex? b) does a trait make it more likely you'll survive to have sex? I find it hard with this amount of evidence to say that fistfights could be a driving trait, that would single-handedly shape survival / mating statistics, but I could see it being a contributor, something that helps other factors dominate survival / mating statistics. Perhaps our skull features are mostly for effective eating, but have an ancillary benefit to survival / mating when it comes to fights.
Re: Our Skulls Didn’t Evolve to be Punched
#5As human ancestors became more adept at tool usage, one would expect any evolved skull defenses to crumble. No amount of skull reinforcement will stand up to a solid strike from a club. And even if it did, it wouldn't matter - our huge brains concuss easily, meaning that even if the bone structure itself remained intact following a club blow, the brain it protects would be quite damaged. Human weapon use has been dis…
This, along with the fragility of the bones in the human hand and the hardness of the skull, make it pretty clear that we aren't evolved for punching or being punched. Boxing was developed specifically to get around the many problems with punching: protecting the hands from being broken, and developing defensive strategies to avoid blows from even padded fists. Barehanded boxing is worse. If you want to hurt someone with impunity and ensure you win, grab a stick.
If anything, the evolution of humans as bipedal creatures should have made the legs into the weapons of choice, since they are not only stronger and larger but can be wielded with momentum for increased force. But the legs make for poor weapons because all the vulnerable targets are up high. While the most direct way to hurt someone is actually a straight movement towards someone, our limbs are designed to swing and swivel, not shoot out forward.
If hands were for punching, then the tissues attaching our arms to our bodies would have been designed to issue strikes faster and more powerfully. Currently it's very difficult for humans to issue incredibly rapid strikes with power; we have to use our lats, core, legs, and hips to rotate our bodies to increase momentum in a punch and line up the shoulder with the target, lest you deliver with reduced power. In contrast, kicks can be issued just as fast and with greater power, so one would think that naturally humans would have gravitated to kicking each other rather than punching, but the opposite seems to be the case.
IMHO, the most ideal strike a human can give without injuring themselves would be from the shin or heel. If you look at animals that don't have sharp teeth or claws, often they'll use their hind legs in a kicking motion to provide the most powerful hit, while moving their sensitive head/neck/chest away from the target. A few human groups developed fighting styles this way, but for millenia we've still been fighting standing up. I can only assume this is because we got so used to being bipedal that we adapted our fighting to it. I think our evolution probably prompted us to develop new ways of fighting that were comfortable to our bodies, rather than vice versa.
Re: Our Skulls Didn’t Evolve to be Punched
#6This is dumb. If a single human survived a punch that otherwise would have killed them before breeding age than Yes, we did "evolve" to handle punches.
Evolution is not driven, it is all the little things that worked over a long period of time. The sum of all factors.
There will be no smoking gun that says we did this or that for this or that, only our modern form that says "this worked".
Re: Our Skulls Didn’t Evolve to be Punched
#7Or the aliens didnt allow it to evolve so that they can come one day and crush it ... x( ...
Re: Our Skulls Didn’t Evolve to be Punched
#8Honestly, this article just feels like an overreaction / rant the other direction. That there is No way that fist combat could have affected skull morphology. Like alot of evolution, it mostly comes down to a) does a trait make you more likely to have sex / better or more effective sex? b) does a trait make it more likely you'll survive to have sex? I find it hard with this amount of evidence to say that fistfights c…
I don't know, to me he presents at least one pretty compelling point indicating that point. The species which exhibit the exaggerated facial features could not even form a fist with which to fight.
Re: Our Skulls Didn’t Evolve to be Punched
#9Interesting. I would think that pre-modern humans would be unlikely to strike each other with very much force, simply because they were so strong that one or two blows would debilitate if not kill the opponent. The Neanderthals are thought to be many times stronger than modern humans, judging by the thickness of their bones and the size of the muscle attachment sites, as well as their likely lifestyles in the brutal…
Wouldn't their increased strength and size also offset the increased force of the blows to make it about the same as the current situation?
In my head I'm comparing it to something like: If a 250 lb NFL linebacker tackled me at full speed I am pretty sure I would break multiple bones. But NFL running backs take that kind of beating 40-50 times a game, 20 games a year.
Re: Our Skulls Didn’t Evolve to be Punched
#10This is dumb. If a single human survived a punch that otherwise would have killed them before breeding age than Yes, we did "evolve" to handle punches. Evolution is not driven, it is all the little things that worked over a long period of time. The sum of all factors. There will be no smoking gun that says we did this or that for this or that, only our modern form that says "this worked".
Did our feet evolve to avoid slipping on banana peels?