Our Skulls Didn’t Evolve to be Punched • Hacker News Board

Re: Our Skulls Didn’t Evolve to be Punched

#21

Post by wingerlang » Thu, Jun 12, 2014, 8:37 PM UTC

thefreeman wrote: post #9

blisterpeanuts wrote: post #2

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.

Maybe on the body? But wouldn't the head still be (relatively to the strength of the body) fragile?

Re: Our Skulls Didn’t Evolve to be Punched

#22

Post by john_b » Thu, Jun 12, 2014, 8:39 PM UTC

peterwwillis wrote: post #5

alexeisadeski3 wrote: post #3

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…

> "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."

Most fights between people end up on the ground very quickly. Optimizing for full-stroke punches and kicks effectively forces your strategy to be "debilitate the other guy before he can get inside and close". The difference between humans and the non-toothed/clawed animals you mention is that humans have arms and hands that can defend against the slower knockout blows you mention.

Wrestling is a more accurate sports approximation for how humans "naturally" fight (assuming 1-on-1).

Re: Our Skulls Didn’t Evolve to be Punched

#23

Post by gambiting » Thu, Jun 12, 2014, 8:41 PM UTC

pessimizer wrote: post #10

GenerocUsername wrote: post #6

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?

If any person has ever been saved from dying from slipping on a banana peel by the shape of their foot, then the answer is yes.

Re: Our Skulls Didn’t Evolve to be Punched

#24

Post by ultimatedelman » Thu, Jun 12, 2014, 8:49 PM UTC

What's silly to me about the original argument is that the authors think that our ancestors fought in a kind of "put your dukes up" kind of fighting where only punches are thrown. While not an expert in the subject, I feel it's safe to assume that fights for mates and territory where the loser dies would not be fist fights but rather full-on fights to the death using every biological weapon available, including feet and teeth.

Re: Our Skulls Didn’t Evolve to be Punched

#25

Post by alexeisadeski3 » Thu, Jun 12, 2014, 8:50 PM UTC

john_b wrote: post #22

peterwwillis wrote: post #5

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…

> "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 fightin…

>>Wrestling is a more accurate sports approximation for how humans "naturally" fight (assuming 1-on-1).

Disagree: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Endemic_warfare

Re: Our Skulls Didn’t Evolve to be Punched

#26

Post by Torgo » Thu, Jun 12, 2014, 8:53 PM UTC

batmansbelt wrote: post #17

pessimizer wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Did our feet evolve to avoid slipping on banana peels?

Mythbusters did one on that. The demonstrated fairly convincingly that it's not that easy to slip on a banana.

The variety of banana (Gros Michel) that was commonplace when the "slip on a banana peel" comedic device was invented was a different breed than the one that is commonplace today (Cavendish.) The Gros Michel peel was reportedly very slippery.

Re: Our Skulls Didn’t Evolve to be Punched

#27

Post by john_b » Thu, Jun 12, 2014, 8:57 PM UTC

alexeisadeski3 wrote: post #25

john_b wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> "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 fightin…

>>Wrestling is a more accurate sports approximation for how humans "naturally" fight (assuming 1-on-1). Disagree: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Endemic_warfare

The context of the parent was violence in the absence of weaponry.

Re: Our Skulls Didn’t Evolve to be Punched

#28

Post by beloch » Thu, Jun 12, 2014, 9:08 PM UTC

surrealize wrote: post #20

There's a point-by-point reply from one of the authors, David Carrier, in the comments: http://phenomena.nationalgeographic.com/2014/06/10/our-skull...

Carrier's hypothesis is interesting and well argued, but only time will tell if it stands up to further scrutiny. This is the scientific process. Yong, on the other hand, is just defending his own preconceptions. While I agree with him that the established theory of changing diet/changing dentition is very well supported, Carrier's theory doesn't necessarily contradict it. Both of these theories could have shaped the faces of our ancestors and, eventually, us.

I would love to see models testing how well the skulls of different human ancestors and humans themselves stand up to blunt blows, both head-on and oblique ones. It's possible that the skulls of modern humans, despite being more gracile, might perform surprisingly well thanks to the force-spreading properties of our parabolic dental arcades. i.e. If you hit a human in the side of the jaw you're hitting a self-buttressing arc of bone and teeth. If you hit the U-shaped jaw of an australopithecine on the side, you're hitting a straight wall.

Re: Our Skulls Didn’t Evolve to be Punched

#29

Post by gress » Thu, Jun 12, 2014, 9:10 PM UTC

gambiting wrote: post #23

pessimizer wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Did our feet evolve to avoid slipping on banana peels?

If any person has ever been saved from dying from slipping on a banana peel by the shape of their foot, then the answer is yes.

How would you determine whether the cause of them not dying was 'the shape of their foot', and not any of thousands of other features you could arbitrarily pick, such as 'the balance of their skeleton', or 'their gait', or 'the thickness of their skull' or 'the responsiveness of their reflexes'?

Re: Our Skulls Didn’t Evolve to be Punched

#30

Post by qbrass » Thu, Jun 12, 2014, 9:11 PM UTC

peterwwillis wrote: post #5

alexeisadeski3 wrote: post #3

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…

Professional fighting should select for fighters more adapted to giving and taking punches similarly to species-wide evolution. Comparing the best fighters to the average human should reveal physical differences that make the fighters better at giving and taking punches.

Those differences should have similarities to the ones that are claimed to have naturally occurred in prehistoric man.