11–20 of 94 posts
Also, evolution seems to have made them quite supple, evidenced with the "T'Northern Yoga", which is basically the awkward body poses they pull off when passed out drunk in the Town Square.
Interesting. 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.
As 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…
Perhaps that's true, but isn't it also true that fisticuffs were a "natural" way for impromptu humans fights? I highly doubt that boxing was the first invention of fighting by standing up and punching the other person. It seems more likely that human already tended to fight that way when genuinely angry at each other, and as people began to be interested in fighting prowess, the protective rules of boxing were developed to allow experts to fight for longer.
And, like in any discussion regarding evolution, it's important to point out that phrases like "if hands were for punching" are dangerously close to being deceptive because of the implied attribution of purpose to the evolutionary process.
Honestly, 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.
His characterization of this as a just-so story, glib and light on evidence, doesn't just accurately describe this one specific claim; there are dozens or hundreds more just like it. On any given day, you can probably find an equally vacuous story about evolutionary psychology in some newspaper. It's a lame excuse for science.
This 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?
Interesting article, but better for reddit than hackernews
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
> 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. Perhaps that's true, but isn't it also true that fisticuffs were a "natural" way for impromptu humans fights? I highly doubt that boxing was the first invention of fighting by standing up and punching the other person. It…
Or just hitting him over the head with a rock while he slept.
Forager societies more closely resemble middle school than modern life. In modern life, you can get in a fight at the bar and not see the person you lost to for weeks - if ever. In middle school, you lose a fight and you have to see that person every day for the rest of your life - unless you skip town (leave the tribe) - which appears to have been somewhat common.
Thus any fisticuffs victory will be hollow, as the loser can simply murder you one day when you least expect it.
http://phenomena.nationalgeographic.com/2014/06/10/our-skull...