Study: Male Facial Development Evolved To Take Punches

DEAD7

Veteran
Supporter
Joined
Oct 5, 2012
Messages
51,477
Reputation
4,659
Daps
89,777
Reppin
Fresno, CA.
"A new theory suggests that our male ancestors evolved beefy facial features as a defense against fist fights. The bones most commonly broken in human punch-ups also gained the most strength in early hominin evolution. They are also the bones that show most divergence between males and females. From the article: 'Fossil records show that the australopiths, immediate predecessors of the human genus Homo, had strikingly robust facial structures. For many years, this extra strength was seen as an adaptation to a tough diet including nuts, seeds and grasses. But more recent findings, examining the wear pattern and carbon isotopes in australopith teeth, have cast some doubt on this "feeding hypothesis". "In fact, [the australopith] boisei, the 'nutcracker man', was probably eating fruit," said Prof David Carrier, the new theory's lead author and an evolutionary biologist at the University of Utah. Instead of diet, Prof Carrier and his co-author, physician Dr Michael Morgan, propose that violent competition demanded the development of these facial fortifications: what they call the "protective buttressing hypothesis".'"
 

wingzboy

All Star
Joined
Jul 7, 2012
Messages
2,516
Reputation
170
Daps
4,805
Reppin
NULL
damn breh, then I guess after a few generations nikkas in chicago gonna be developing chests that are built to withstand bullets. Rocking a bullet proof vest from nature.
 

bsmooth

All Star
Joined
May 1, 2012
Messages
2,980
Reputation
560
Daps
6,488
Reppin
NULL
This study seems to be nothing more than an ill thought out theory

Morgan and Carrier didn’t study whether or not the hands of the early australopithecines could form a fist. Their previous work was on our species,Homo sapiens. Nor did they look for signs of broken facial bones or blunt-force trauma on prehistoric skulls, or even try to model how early human skulls would have reacted to the stresses of an incoming fist. The entire argument is simply that australopithecine skulls look like they could take a punch.

In Morgan and Carrier’s view, the heavy brows, large jaws, and flaring cheeks of the australopithecines are not signals of the way primates grow or the different plant foods they dined on, as paleoanthropologists have discerned, but were adaptations for reducing damage doled out by males as they competed for mates. There’s no evidence that australopithecines fought like this. The entire conjecture is based on sports like mixed martial arts and modern crime stats. And females don’t even figure into Morgan and Carrier’s hypothesis. Female mate choice, and why sexual dimorphism between the sexes has drastically decreased through time, is either ignored or overshadowed by the belief that we owe our most distinctive features to males walloping each other. This is bro science – dudes pummeling each other driving human evolution.
Excerpt from
http://phenomena.nationalgeographic.com/2014/06/10/our-skulls-didnt-evolve-to-be-punched/
 
Top