
Our Skulls Didn’t Evolve to be Punched - tokenadult
http://phenomena.nationalgeographic.com/2014/06/10/our-skulls-didnt-evolve-to-be-punched/
======
surrealize
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...](http://phenomena.nationalgeographic.com/2014/06/10/our-skulls-didnt-
evolve-to-be-punched/#comment-96986)

~~~
beloch
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.

~~~
tokenadult
_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.

------
alexeisadeski3
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
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.

~~~
john_b
_> "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).

~~~
alexeisadeski3
>>Wrestling is a more accurate sports approximation for how humans "naturally"
fight (assuming 1-on-1).

Disagree:
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Endemic_warfare](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Endemic_warfare)

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

~~~
jessaustin
How is that context relevant? There are rocks and sticks on the savanna.
Humans are tool-users, so their most natural fighting techniques use tools.

~~~
aResponder52
Depends. Two guys who just want to fight are probably going to have a shoving
match which will end when one gets pinned and the other guy gets pulled off.

Two groups of guys who have some need to fight over are more likely to use
tools.

~~~
verilygreen
If two people are having a shoving match, they don't really want to fight. A
fight implies you want to hurt the other person, not escalate the situation
until one of you gathers the courage to strike the other.

~~~
aResponder52
True. It only takes one person to turn a fist fight into a shoving match. Grab
on, and keep moving.

------
interg12
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.

~~~
usumoio
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.

~~~
zarify
And part of that is not attacking targets where you're likely to significantly
injure yourself as well as your opponent. There's a lot to be said for not
punching someone in the jaw.

~~~
aResponder52
and that part about the right way to hit different parts of the body.

a slap is almost as hard, and won't hurt the slapper.

~~~
1stop
A slap is no where near as hard. Surface area of an open hand vs surface area
of 2-3 knuckles. Think hammer vs fly-swat.

~~~
gadders
It is still possible to knock someone out with a slap. Some bouncers in the UK
recommend it as a) it doesn't hurt your hand so much and b) telling the police
you just slapped someone doesn't sound so bad. Plenty of videos on youtube of
people being knocked out with a slap.

~~~
1stop
being knocked out is related to the brain hitting the walls of the skull, it
has very little to do with what caused that. Slap, Fist, head-butt, concrete,
car crash etc.

But I was responding to the claim slapping is equivalent to punching.

~~~
aResponder52
Depends on the goal. You're right about it being less likely to break a bone
(on the target) or cause bleeding (again, on the target), but a solid slap
will cause similar secondary impacts (brain hitting the skull)

I'll take a KO after some body shots and two working hands over a bloodied up
opponent and a broken hand. There are much better tools to use against a
skull, like elbows (less delicate than hands), but you need to account for
range and movement.

~~~
1stop
You are arguing hypothetical outcomes, I'm arguing applied force.

We are kind of talking past each other.

~~~
aResponder52
Just so we're talking about the same kind of slap. If I had to guess, and I
can only guess at this point, you're thinking... like... a slap, a swing with
an arm.

I'm talking more like an open handed punch, complete with torso rotation and a
pivot. Like a hook, just no fist.

oh, oh, got another one.

Look into the impulse of the strike, and the pressure area. Here, you're going
to see a big difference, in favor of your position.

You'll have the same amount of force, probably with a significant increase in
the speed that force transmits into the struck area. You're right. Past a
certain point, though, someone doesn't get /more/ unconscious.

And, to anticipate your possible response, yes, they can end up /more/
unconscious to the point of death, but, cement does a much better job of that
than any human body part.

------
ultimatedelman
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.

~~~
azakai
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.

~~~
Theodores
I think that winning is what is important in an on-going war that is fought on
a daily basis, the prize being females/territory.

I base my opinion on the antics of the foxes fighting outside my window right
now. I am fairly sure I won't find a dead fox on my doorstep in the morning
and I am fairly sure tomorrow will be another chapter in the on-going duel.
Their fighting is truly no-holds barred however killing is not necessary to
win females/territory. A given territory only supports a given quantity of a
given species, a given territory can only be defended up to a certain area, so
there is no concern needed to only fight so far lest the population/gene pool
be diminished.

As for us humans and how we fight, we are pack animals that can augment our
fights with words. This applies okay in pub brawl situations, however, we have
no hesitation at all when it comes to wiping out rival tribes. This has
applied historically, I think that Hitler bloke was quite keen on wiping out
the Jewish tribe and, although worded differently, Bush and Blair had no
qualms when it came to wiping out tribes of people in more recent times. We
also have class hierarchy so the rich have no problems sending millions of
their own off to certain death, e.g. WW1, because they are a different tribe
within a tribe. Concern for population depletion really matters not.

------
stiff
I do not want to contradict the research by this, but our heads certainly
aren't all too well adapted to punching. The brain is to a large extent
floating quite freely in the cerebrospinal fluid in the skull, and when the
head is punched it experiences an effect similar to a passenger in a suddenly
breaking car - it is smashed against the skull as a result of inertia, often
resulting in permanent brain trauma:

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dementia_pugilistica](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dementia_pugilistica)

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chronic_traumatic_encephalopath...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chronic_traumatic_encephalopathy)

In fact, many people die from just a single punch to the head. They become
unconscious and fall on the concrete, for example:

[http://www.smh.com.au/national/90-killed-in-singlepunch-
assa...](http://www.smh.com.au/national/90-killed-in-singlepunch-assaults-
since-2000-20131201-2yjtr.html)

~~~
jljljl
It's worth noting that both Dementia Pugilistica and CTE seem to take a decade
or longer to appear in affected individuals, which means it is unlikely that
they would have a significant impact on an individual's ability to reproduce
(especially if winning a fist fight led to immediate opportunities to mate).

------
blisterpeanuts
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 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.

~~~
thefreeman
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.

~~~
baddox
Not everything scales the same. I suspect that heavyweight boxers, for
example, can hurt each other a lot more than featherweight boxers.

~~~
gamegoblin
This is actually why I much prefer watching lower weight MMA fights to the
bigger guys. The fights tend to go on longer and are more dynamic. With the
bigger guys, one solid punch to the head and it's often game over.

[http://fightnomics.com/blog/ufc-finishes-by-weight-
class-201...](http://fightnomics.com/blog/ufc-finishes-by-weight-class-2013/)

~~~
zarify
Interesting stats. I'm not sure it completely explains the higher weight
divisions though, since if you look at the rate at which the heavier fighters
get tired and start lowering their guard, it's much higher than in the lower
weight divisions, leaving them more susceptible to the KO/TKO.

------
GenerocUsername
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".

~~~
pessimizer
Did our feet evolve to avoid slipping on banana peels?

~~~
gambiting
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.

~~~
gress
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'?

~~~
monochr
You don't and neither does evolution.

All that the DNA knows is that it got into the next generation and it will
keep doing whatever it was doing before plus or minus a few small random
mutations.

~~~
gress
Exactly, so these just so stories are just that.

------
araes
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 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.

~~~
thefreeman
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.

~~~
mtdewcmu
He said that punches driving facial evolution was fine as a hypothesis, it
just needs evidence and he hasn't seen any.

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.

------
Someone
_" Given the very few fossils of the australopith face, I am not optimistic
that evidence of…"_

That is the primary reason you shouldn't put much faith in anything you read
about most early humanoids, especially not the parts that reach general
audiences. We simply cannot know much from the samples we have. Yet,
scientists feel the pressure of having to publish, and cannot just publish new
measurements, so they hypothise away.

This, like many in the field, mostly is a "we cannot rule out that" paper; all
evidence is circumstantial. It may be truly insightful or it may not be, but
we simply cannot know at the moment.

Can we blame the scientists? No, but I wished we educated fewer in this field
and/or told those working in the field "feel free to think, study and
experiment for a few decades and publish something when you are certain you
have a convincing argument"

On the other hand, it is intriguing to read about the latest ideas in the
field, just like it is to read about our new thinking about dinosaurs, even if
experience tells us our ideas about both will swing heavily (in a few decades,
what color will dinosaurs be? Will they be warm-blooded? Will all of them have
feathers?)

~~~
gohrt
There's nothing wrong with publishing new theoretically plausible ideas. They
just need to be properly qualified.

------
hownottowrite
I recently dismantled a human skull, cutting the entire mass into 2mm squares.
The face is definitely one of the more delicate bits.

I suppose the argument could be made that it is a crumple zone designed to
absorb shocks that might otherwise damage the brain. However, it seems far
more likely that like the rest of the skull the face evolved to facilitate the
birth of a bipedal creature with a ginormous brain.

Most studies of rapid human encephalization and obstetrics also seem to lean
towards this conclusion.

------
hcrisp
My dad often said, "Fits like a fist in an eye". So he was right or wrong
depending on your point of view.

------
dbbolton
I honestly can't even read the article because that GIF is so annoying.

I have _two_ different GIF-stopping extensions and neither of them works
because of the way the elements are nested (I guess).

I'm actually so irritated that I'm binding giphy to 0.0.0.0 in my hosts file.

/rant

~~~
tim333
Clearly
([https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/clearly/iooicodkii...](https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/clearly/iooicodkiihhpojmmeghjclgihfjdjhj?hl=en))
is pretty effective for a wide range of internet reading irritations. It even
kind of works on G+

------
gadders
In Demonic Males
([http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demonic_Males](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demonic_Males))
there is a section that highlights punching as a particularly chimpanzee (and
human) activity.

------
robomartin
What te hell?

Evolution doesn't work to achieve a goal. It isn't a goal-seaking mechanism.

Are these people getting grant money to pretend they are doing science?

Unbelievable.

Somebody send them copies of "The Blind Watchmaker".

------
femtards885
Having lived up north in t'UK, I would say some peoples bodies have evolved in
interesting ways. Drunken fights seem common here, and seems evolution has
provided enough protection.

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.

------
nautical
Or the aliens didnt allow it to evolve so that they can come one day and crush
it ... x( ...

------
khaki54
Interesting article, but better for reddit than hackernews

~~~
batmansbelt
The same content is always on both sites. Why are you making a distinction?

~~~
khaki54
I know you're probably joking, but on hacker news I usually don't have to sort
though a bunch of "interesting" articles to find relevant news. Another
distinction is that I read hackernews on the clock, but not reddit.

------
pokstad
Uh yea, that's why we punch people in the head. It's exploiting a weakness.

------
qwerta
Article is dumb.

Early humans had rocks, they did not need fists.

And reinforced skull is good in any case, when living in wilderness.

