SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
http://neurosciencenews.com/evolution-hands-fighting-2917/
"As an alternative, we suggest that the hand proportions that allow the formation of a fist may tell us something important about our evolutionary history and who we are as a species," Carrier adds. "If our anatomy is adapted for fighting, we need to be aware we always may be haunted by basic emotions and reflexive behaviors that often don't make sense – and are very dangerous – in the modern world," says biology Professor David Carrier.
Carrier and his collaborators not only have argued our hands evolved partly for punching but that the faces of human ancestors, the australopiths, evolved to resist punching – and that human faces became more delicate as our violence became less dependent on brute force. The new study sought more experimental evidence for his theory using nine male cadaver arms purchased from the university's body donor program and from a private supply company.
Shoryuken!
(Score: 2) by bradley13 on Monday October 26 2015, @02:36PM
While the research is interesting, the tone of half-surprise that people fight? The suggestion that this is somehow controversial?
Of course fighting is an essential part of human evolution. Men fighting over women, just like so many other species. People fighting over food, or to take over the better cave, or as a proof of fitness in a tribal society. On a societal level, the entirety of recorded history is basically one long story of warfare and conflict. As the saying goes: "Peace is a state that we hypothesize, because there have been occasional pauses between wars". A few societies were, briefly, nonviolent - usually because they had been beaten into submission by their enemies.
Today, we have pulled a thin veneer of civilization over this violence. Remove that veneer and see what's underneath [motherjones.com]: rule by brutality, with beatings, rapes, and murders as the daily routine. Civilization is a good thing, we should try to keep it...
Everyone is somebody else's weirdo.
(Score: 2) by RamiK on Monday October 26 2015, @03:11PM
The problem is that humans were using clubs and spears to hunt. So, if it's true that human facial features were evolved to contend with fist blows, then it means that human sexual selection might have had a dominant element of non-lethal competition rather then the ol' "kill him and rape his wife" or the progressive "bring pretty shinny things to her and hunt the biggest pray around" theories that were supported by the multiple wounds inflicted on human skeletons and the abundance of jewelery even for people who were straggling for food.
compiling...
(Score: 3, Funny) by frojack on Monday October 26 2015, @06:44PM
That last sentence wandered so far afield that it needed a club to fight its way back home.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 3, Funny) by RamiK on Monday October 26 2015, @08:40PM
And that's just the theatrical release. The original director's cut was a 5 paragraphs extravaganza with a 2 parts thesis statement, citations, counter points and an extended bibliography.
Overall, I say you should consider yourself lucky.
compiling...
(Score: 2) by wonkey_monkey on Monday October 26 2015, @03:40PM
While the research is interesting, the tone of half-surprise that people fight? The suggestion that this is somehow controversial?
The research isn't saying "people fight." It's looking at specific physical traits and how they might have evolved in order to give an advantage during combat.
Carrier and his collaborators not only have argued our hands evolved partly for punching but that the faces of human ancestors, the australopiths, evolved to resist punching – and that human faces became more delicate as our violence became less dependent on brute force.
See, that doesn't seem all that "obvious" to me. In any case, there can be much scientific worth in attempting to prove those things which are "obvious."
systemd is Roko's Basilisk
(Score: 2) by bradley13 on Monday October 26 2015, @04:01PM
What prompted my comment were more the responses to the research, which were also part of the article. Passages like these:
"Critics of the 'aggressive ape' theory of human evolution often argue that humans are by nature empathetic, cooperative and peaceful"
Sure we are... Dunno what dream world those people live in, but they apparently don't read the news.
Everyone is somebody else's weirdo.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 26 2015, @04:52PM
Oh, we are very empathetic. Remember, empathy is about understanding the feelings of others; a psychopath who enjoys the suffering of others is also empathetic, or else he would be blind to that suffering and couldn't enjoy it.
We are also very cooperative. Note that war is generally a very cooperative activity; a single soldier can achieve very little.
About peaceful … well, probably they share the definition of peace that also the Nobel peace prize committee uses. ;-)
(Score: 3, Insightful) by linuxrocks123 on Monday October 26 2015, @05:17PM
The news is news because it's surprising and unusual. Do you, day to day, get into fights with other people? If so, you're the exception.
Violent crime isn't even a top 10 cause of death in the US: http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/leading-causes-of-death.htm [cdc.gov]
Humans certainly can be violent. As with many things, a lot depends on culture. Specifically, humans can get into negative feedback loops where violence continues to cause more violence until something breaks the loop or everyone dies. Hence the proverb, "An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind." Which is a very old proverb, indicating people have recognized violence as an undesirable cause of misery for quite a while.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 27 2015, @04:48PM
> "An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind." Which is a very old proverb
In evolutionary terms, nope, it isn't.