Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Our Skulls Didn’t Evolve to be Punched

phenomena.nationalgeographic.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 94 posts

Re: Our Skulls Didn’t Evolve to be Punched

#31

Post by WalterBright »

araes wrote: post #4

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…

Note that bighorn sheep ram each other in the head, and there are definite adaptations for it.

Re: Our Skulls Didn’t Evolve to be Punched

#32

Post by svachalek »

baddox wrote: post #15
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…

> 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…

In my school years, there were quite a few "impromptu" fights. For whatever reasons my school system was pretty ineffective at stopping them. I ended up in dozens if not hundreds. They pretty much always go the same way -- punch thrown, usually dodged or blocked but sometimes connecting for quite a bit of pain. Followed by lots of wrestling.

Re: Our Skulls Didn’t Evolve to be Punched

#34

Post by usumoio »

interg12 wrote: post #33

I worked at an oral surgeons office for a few years. Everytime we performed jaw surgery on someone who was in a fight, 9/10 times they also had a broken hand. The hand wasn't designed for punching either.

I've studied Martial Arts for about 12 years. You're totally right. It takes years of training to learn how to properly throw a punch such that you harm your opponent and do not break your own hand.

Re: Our Skulls Didn’t Evolve to be Punched

#35

Post by tokenadult »

beloch wrote: post #28
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…

Yong, on the other hand, is just defending his own preconceptions.

When I take into account that the author of the submitted article is science writer on evolution topics Brian Switek and not general science writer Ed Yong, I wonder what defending of preconceptions is going on in your comment.

AFTER EDIT: After I first posted this, I looked up how the first attested use of stone tools by early hominins compares in time with the hypothesized change in facial features discussed in the article, and I see there is some dispute about the very earliest regular use of stone tools, but that definitely precedes the emergence of Homo sapiens by far, and may go back to the time of some of the later australopithecines. Using stone tools as weapons (even just picking up and throwing rocks) was surely a game-changer in fights.

Re: Our Skulls Didn’t Evolve to be Punched

#37

Post by azakai »

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...

Frankly, I have nothing but respect for the authors of that paper after reading that comment. Even if they're wrong, which they admit they might be, at least they're working hard to evaluate their hypothesis, and their opponents are a bunch of journalists and internet commenters using terms like "their article is just 'bro science'." Despite the critics' lack of respect, the authors response is polite and informative.

Re: Our Skulls Didn’t Evolve to be Punched

#38

Post by azakai »

ultimatedelman wrote: post #24

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…

Such duels are often heavily ritualized, they aren't necessarily lacking in rules. The victor doesn't want to kill the opponent, they want to prove their social standing. For example wolves have a submissive signal they can show, that stops a fight in the middle, avoiding serious injury or death. If every such duel ended in a death, the population would quickly shrink.

Re: Our Skulls Didn’t Evolve to be Punched

#39

Post by btilly »

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…

One on one unarmed combat quickly goes to the ground, yes.

But in serious group fights, willingness to go to the ground fast is willingness to get killed by someone else's feet.

And as soon as you assume a level of technology that includes pointy sticks, retaining mobility becomes VERY important.

Re: Our Skulls Didn’t Evolve to be Punched

#40

Post by Swizec »

interg12 wrote: post #33

I worked at an oral surgeons office for a few years. Everytime we performed jaw surgery on someone who was in a fight, 9/10 times they also had a broken hand. The hand wasn't designed for punching either.

As a trained boxer I just hope I never get in a fight because at the speeds/power I can punch with my wrists will just shatter. Even with huge padded boxing gloves and wrist wraps it takes a month off training before my wrists stop hurting.
Post reply on HN