6 ms·

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

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 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.

peterwwillis 12y ago
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.
- baddox 12y ago
  > 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 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.
  - alexeisadeski3 12y ago
    Yes, fisticuffs were common for impromptu human fights. But the stuff with evolutionary implications usually resulted from ambushes: People hiding in the bushes with sticks and stones, waiting for one and his buddies to walk by. 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.
    - aResponder52 12y ago
      You guys know that the type of fight that goes like "guys get angry, guys punch each other a few times" aren't always the same as "guys get angry, one guy kills the other"? I'm not one for hypothesizing based on hunches that look evolutionarily plausible, but, given that for a long time humans lived to 20, 25 years old, consider the types of fights teenagers and kids get into these days. A few punches, somebody (or both people) loses with some bruises, nobody dies, nobody gets seriously hurt. We're comparing those types of fights with murders here. Apples to oranges.

peterwwillis 12y ago

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.

baddox 12y ago
> 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 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.
- alexeisadeski3 12y ago
  Yes, fisticuffs were common for impromptu human fights. But the stuff with evolutionary implications usually resulted from ambushes: People hiding in the bushes with sticks and stones, waiting for one and his buddies to walk by. 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.
  - aResponder52 12y ago
    You guys know that the type of fight that goes like "guys get angry, guys punch each other a few times" aren't always the same as "guys get angry, one guy kills the other"? I'm not one for hypothesizing based on hunches that look evolutionarily plausible, but, given that for a long time humans lived to 20, 25 years old, consider the types of fights teenagers and kids get into these days. A few punches, somebody (or both people) loses with some bruises, nobody dies, nobody gets seriously hurt. We're comparing those types of fights with murders here. Apples to oranges.