Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
Still Waters

Prehistoric punch-ups shaped how humans look

59 posts in this topic

Bare-knuckle fighting helped to shape the human face which evolution has designed to minimise the damage inflicted by a fast-moving fist, according to a radical new theory about how violence changed the way we looked compared to our ape-like ancestors.

http://www.independe...ay-9509768.html

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

*looks at a picture of my brother-in-laws mother*

Yep, true that!

4 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

However, scientists have devised another plausible explanation based on the need for the face to be buttressed against the impact of flying fists which had become a principal weapon in unarmed combat between competing males.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/the-battered-look-how-prehistoric-punchups-shaped-how-humans-look-today-9509768.html

Really? And what about when they did become armed? why has man not developed a face capable of sustaining a piece of wood smacked into it? This theory sounds silly, not all men were early forms of Pikies.

The original theory is much more realistic and plausible.

The transition in facial structure from apes to early hominins had previously been explained largely by the need to chew on nuts and other hard foods that needed crushing which led to a robust jaw, large molar teeth, a prominent brow and strong cheek muscles.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/the-battered-look-how-prehistoric-punchups-shaped-how-humans-look-today-9509768.html

6 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh it must be nice to be able to get paid making this type of fiction up.

6 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

do you think Bruce Lee's face ever been battered up, considering the amount of street fights he has been in?

3Bruce-Lee-Wallpaper-1.jpg

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am not really feeling this theory, applying the modern 'punch up' to our aesthetic evolution. I don't think 'Queensbury rules' had been written at the time.

As I see it if fighting had a more prominent effect on our evolution we would have evolved better fighting tools rather than the intelligence to make our own.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bare-knuckle fighting helped to shape the human face which evolution has designed to minimise the damage inflicted by a fast-moving fist, according to a radical new theory about how violence changed the way we looked compared to our ape-like ancestors.

http://www.independe...ay-9509768.html

Yet strangely its easy to break someones nose lmao.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How wonderfull to come up with this study....B..... Idiots.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yet strangely its easy to break someones nose lmao.

I would go for jaw, a compact-able nose with a crumple zone could back up the suggested theory.

Having said that the size of some peoples noses blows the theory clear out of the water ;)

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would go for jaw, a compact-able nose with a crumple zone could back up the suggested theory.

Having said that the size of some peoples noses blows the theory clear out of the water ;)

and the blood poisoning from the broken teeth lol

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Neanderthals weren't the dominant species, we are, (although sometimes I wonder when Scientists come up with this sort of rubbish).

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm sorry I find this insulting as a homo sapien.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

erm I think something is wrong with the article

quote: "But four million years ago, if you broke your jaw, it was probably a fatal injury. You wouldn't be able to chew food... You'd just starve to death."

4 million years ago? Modern man has been here 200 000 or so. Besides, any injury in mans development could have been fatal, a gashed foot that becomes infected, being gored by an animals horns etc, a broke ankle from chasing something etc.

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
do you think Bruce Lee's face ever been battered up, considering the amount of street fights he has been in?

Wait a minute; didn't Bruce Lee die in the 1970s?

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The alien's were incredibly intelligent when they developed us.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Speaking as an old amateur boxer, I can say with out any doubt that the male face was never designed to receive punches!

The nose is the weakest part of the face and its plonked right in the middle, and sticks out a few inches!

The jaw doesn't so much break very easily but dislocations are a common occurrence! And once you have had a jaw break or dislocated your teeth never line up the same again!

The teeth get knocked out as easy as popcorn,

Eye sockets and cheek bones are a hugely susceptible to damage, and the eyes themselves can become damaged beond repair with muscle and optic nerve tearing leading to blindness,

Im struggling to belive that somebody has acctually made that statement

8 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree 6,i have had my nose broken 3 times,jaw dislocated,and several good sized cuts around my eyes.

This theory is BS!

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

erm I think something is wrong with the article

quote: "But four million years ago, if you broke your jaw, it was probably a fatal injury. You wouldn't be able to chew food... You'd just starve to death."

4 million years ago? Modern man has been here 200 000 or so. Besides, any injury in mans development could have been fatal, a gashed foot that becomes infected, being gored by an animals horns etc, a broke ankle from chasing something etc.

Our ancestor's were though and their traits would be passed on to us. Logically, the theory holds up. It just relies on the massive assumption that our distant ancestors were familiar with boxing....

The transition in facial structure from apes to early hominins had previously been explained largely by the need to chew on nuts and other hard foods that needed crushing which led to a robust jaw, large molar teeth, a prominent brow and strong cheek muscles.

http://www.independe...ay-9509768.html

How does that account for the same changes not being present in females?

Just to be clear, I don't buy this theory, I'm just wondering what people think.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Our ancestor's were though and their traits would be passed on to us. Logically, the theory holds up. It just relies on the massive assumption that our distant ancestors were familiar with boxing....

I think the closest thing to the truth of our ancestors fights were like this

caveman2.jpg

I did boxing too and you know what? Nowadays I have a club behind my door :lol: Saves all that messing about

4 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Guess Evolution didn't think about the Ears then.....

draft_lens18786273module154640978photo_1319905551tyson_bites_holyfield.jpg

where's my bottle of Chianti....

Edited by shaddow134
2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

It's quite a poorly thought-out hypothesis, as it doesn't appear to take into account the direction of bone strengthening which would allow one to determine what action it was that caused the selection.

If it was, for example, strengthening in the horizontal depth of the jaw - the 'thickness' - without any strengthening in the vertical depth of the jaw, then I could see where the hypothesis might have some support. However, from what I know of the hominid lineage we see a general development towards a 'deeper' mandible without any corresponding increase in the thickness of the bone. This would indicate to me that it was diet, and possibly sexual selection, which drove the evolution of the jaw - and possibly the shape of the face - not aggressive behaviour.

Setton,

It is probably sexual selection that lies at the heart of the differences (which are slight) between the male and female skull and mandible.

Edited by Leonardo
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

However, scientists have devised another plausible explanation based on the need for the face to be buttressed against the impact of flying fists which had become a principal weapon in unarmed combat between competing males.

http://www.independe...ay-9509768.html

Really? And what about when they did become armed? why has man not developed a face capable of sustaining a piece of wood smacked into it? This theory sounds silly, not all men were early forms of Pikies.

It did evolve to take blows to the face. Just take a look at Hockey Players every time they get into a fight or get smacked in the face with a Hockey Puck going 80mph. We just walk it off.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think they are wrong on this one .

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I suspect there is a bit of bias on the researcher's part:

"The debate over whether or not there is a dark side to human nature goes back to the French philosopher Rousseau who argued that before civilization humans were noble savages; that civilization actually corrupted humans and made us more violent. " said Carrier.
"The hypothesis that our early ancestors were aggressive could be falsified if we found that the anatomical characters that distinguish us from other primates did not improve fighting ability." he said.
"Our research is about peace. We seek to explore, understand, and confront humankind's violent and aggressive tendencies. Peace begins with ourselves and is ultimately achieved through disciplined self-analysis and an understanding of where we've come from as a species. Through our research we hope to look ourselves in the mirror and begin the difficult work of changing ourselves for the better."

Read more at: http://phys.org/news...olence.html#jCp

It sounds more like looking for data to support a hypothesis than coming to an objective conclusion.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, you would not starve to death if you could not chew. You could survive on swallowing seeds, berries, pound meat into a mash - or have someone chew the food for you!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.