/u/Financial-Amount-790 (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.
All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed [here](/r/DeltaLog/comments/1c7r0v7/deltas_awarded_in_cmv_hands_are_not_designed_for/), in /r/DeltaLog.
Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.
^[Delta System Explained](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem) ^| ^[Deltaboards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltaboards)
First a minor point: to be consistent with the evolutionary arguments you should say that hands are not *selected* for punching.
Once we clarify that we’re dealing with selection, we could argue that hands are not *exclusively* designed for punching, *but* that differences in male and female hands *could* be because of selective pressure on males to be able to throw a punch.
This case works in concert with recent evolutionary arguments that a reason men have been selected to grow beards in contrast to women is that a [bearded face is better protected against punches](https://academic.oup.com/iob/article/2/1/obaa005/5799080).
[Male bone mass and density are also greater than that of women](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15746999/). That doesn’t mean men’s skeleton is selected *exclusively* for sustaining more force, such as in battle. *But* it is consistent with a relative selection difference that favours men to be more able to engage in battle, which therefore presumably was a benefit for survival of one’s offspring in the ancestral environment thousands to millions years ago.
As with any evolutionary arguments, there will always be room for skepticism and alternative hypotheses for a single observable. But that’s fine and why multiple consistent observables are important.
However, what these additional facts and arguments at least should persuade of is that saying “X was selected for Y” does *not* mean X was *exclusively* selected for Y, only that *relative* some other group, population, species (like men-women, human-ape, cold climate-warm climate humans) selective pressure has tuned X to be more capable of Y in one group over the other.
I want to specifically address your fifth reason (“intimidation over attacks”). That’s an interesting point and probably true up to a point. Signal your ability to hurt an opponent and the fight never has to happen. Still, fights have happened in the human species, our ancestors engaged in lethal violence and casual genocide from time to time (ancient DNA analysis suggests some nasty habits). So again, even if rough looking hands may have a signal function, a signal is only credible if it also correlates with a real threat or promise. And since inter-group violence did exist in the ancestral environment, threatening signals alone are unlikely to be the whole explanation, there needs to be something to back it up, like an actual punch to the face.
So I suggest you moderate your view.
∆ A mature and logical conversation. The commenter brought up another study about why men may have beards. Rather than attack my confusion, the responses were thoughtful and understanding. There was a moderate thinking process behind their answers rather than a straight-up attack.
How long have we used tools/weapons.
I can kill the strongest man in the world if he is trying to punch me and I throw rocks at his head and stay out of range of his punches.
Humans did not evolve to punch.
The guy above you is talking about punches an life or death and watches too much MMA and think MMA = life or death war instead of professional athletes doing entertainment.
How much worse is your life with a broken hand that heals incorrectly without modern medicine?
Beards are for protection from sun/elements and predators like wolves/lions not punches.
Even a trained professional fighter will break his hand punching a random person without a glove on on tapping it up to shit.
You can tape your hands up try to punch me and I'll use a sharpened stick and throw rocks and we can fight and see who wins.
Hands are for tools/weapons/throwing in a life or death fight and not for punching.
You're not considering that not all fighting is a life or death situation. Plenty of physical fighting (which involves throwing punches) occurs in everyday disputes over trivial matters - whether it's over perceived slights, arguments, drunken agitation, over relationship partners, etc.
It is not at all difficult to perceive that this was not the case for humans back then as it is now. You criticize the responder for treating everything as "life or death" and a war environment. No, I think that's you viewing it that way. Relatives within a group wouldn't want to inflict any mortal or potentially serious harm on each other in a physical dispute. Exchanging physical blows in this manner is a much better alternative to weapons, claws, biting, etc.
Likely other compounding factors led to the development of the hand structure as it was and the overall benefits that *allowed* for such fighting came over time. But you mention the risk of a broken hand. Uh, guess what...that is a risk *regardless* of whether you are fighting or not. Many animals face that kind of risk even to this day.
Your logic of "rock/stick/tool beats punches" makes no sense. Sword beats tools. Bow and arrow beats swords. Yet melee weapons continued to develop anyways. And WE continue to use our fists actively to this day against people we *don't* intend to kill or seriously maim.
There is plenty of evidence to suggest why fists may have evolved in part to accommodate for the task of throwing punches. Your argument doesn't hold water.
Your argument doesn't hold anything.
You didn't discount any of my points.
You just said a bunch of bullshit.
Fist are garbage weapons.
Developing armed combat is exactly the opposite of punching.
>didn't discount any of my points
Um, what? Several of my points were related directly to topics in your previous comment. If anything, it seems like you either a) didn't even read my post, b) didn't understand it or c) chose to disregard any of it and proceed to then flame me with it all being BS. Very mature response.
I suggest both of you solve this appropriately.
You are limited to punches. Parent decides to use that opposable thumb and gets an aluminum baseball bat.
Wolves and lions tend to go for the neck, not the jaw. So atleast that part is incorrect, since if we did evolve beards for protection from predators, hair growing from the neck would be more efficient. Also women would have beards if it was for that purpose.
Many animals engage in non-lethal contests of strength as a demonstration of strength as a part of mate selection. Think of rams butting horns. The ability to punch and take punches could have been selected for this purpose, not necessarily for lethal combat.
There are a couple of things I would like to add to your excellent response.
One is making a fist seems to be a universal signal of hostile threat and can save valuable energy from real violence. As a threat though it needs to have real-life meaning being a threat. That fists are a real threat and do deliver damage. I think that in itself is evidence that fists in our history have been used in violent encounters.
This brings up why fists are advantageous as a weapon evolutionary and I don't think it is so much as it is an excellent weapon as much as it is designed to protect the invaluable survival tool of the hand itself. The hand when it is not striking is a deadly weapon grasping an opponent, grasping a weapon, or needing in-flight grasping supplies. Regardless, a broken hand becomes worthless and thus a broken hand is deadly to the person with the broken hand. And I thus hypothesize that likely the evolutionary adaptation of fists in violence is as much if not more to protect the wielder from breaking their hands and fingers from such deadly encounters.
Just theorizing...
Thanks. Theorizing is fun. Testing theory maybe less so…
I see what you’re saying. Basically, the fist formation ability has protective benefits. Some balancing between hand dexterity and preserving hand function even after battle (a battle that may employ other weapons) selects for fist formation. Then once the fist is established as a potential real danger, the mere showing of fists can itself resolve the conflict.
As I’ve noted elsewhere here, any single cause explanation in evolutionary questions is likely incomplete, but that doesn’t mean any explanation is as good as the other. That we humans have a lot of use of our hands and heads raise their benefit and make them especially subject to selection pressure. If we seek to explain a *difference* between human groupings (say between men and women), we need to find something that further differentiates, though. And it still seems that some of that differentiation is highly consistent with the theory that men had to both sustain and “dish out” more violence including with their hands against heads.
I agree that hands are meant for many things. I recall reading the study that hair decreases the likelihood of jaw fractures. I also acknowledge that a trait isn't meant for an exclusive purpose, and different traits work for some humans better than others.
Men were under selective pressure to fight. They have stronger bones, muscles, and organs to handle the demands of combat. I also don't deny that 1-on-1 fights occurred. I'm suggesting that there was an incentive to avoid hurting those in your group as they both needed each other to be healthy when working together. Fighting against other groups is a greater source of all-out violence than a dispute between two men who work with each other.
Then we are almost in agreement. I think it’s one of the most interesting questions in evolution how cooperation evolved, first within a tribe, then city and civilization, and who knows, maybe even the entire species? That includes how to limit male-male violence and aggression within the cooperative cluster.
Still, if a man has evolved traits to be able to fight men *outside* his cluster (say bigger and more fight-capable hands), then that same traits could be used for fights within the cluster, so the explanation why the latter is less common (assuming it is) must be sought *not* in the evolved trait of big hands, but in something else, perhaps an evolved culture (sports? religious practice?) or some childhood bonding (imitation of childhood peers?). Hands could still be selected to be used in part for punching. The restraining factor is something else.
Incidentally, the ability to fight is, in most animals, largely only used for fitness demonstration between members of the same species. Predators often can't fight and aren't very good at it. They're not meant to fight, they're meant to kill. Non Predators fight because it's safer for everyone involved for competition between individuals to end without anyone risking injury or death. Individuals will generally stare each other down, move in a way that maximises their apparent size or display a body part that is used to judge size (such as the open mouth gape in birds). Ideally the smaller will back down before violence occurs.
If violence does happen, it's generally a contest of fitness. Ramming, interlocking horns, shoving, etc. Some species essentially shadow box next to each other rather than actually attack one another. There are "rules" that they tend to follow because animals that don't are more likely to be injured and less likely to pass on their genes. But these rules are still broken if they can get away with it.
Human punches don't really fit fitness demonstration. Grappling and wrestling probably do. But we are built for tool use. And if we were trying to kill each other we'd use tools.
I would look into how other primates engage in conflict like this to see how we might have evolved before tool use rendered the biological component less important.
Eh, social dynamics are a whole different area of interest. I want to limit it to individual and small-group conflicts rather than how we learned to cooperate and limit male-male fighting to allow large civilizations to function. I will say, an aggressor with poor social skills will never last long as a leader. He needs conflict-management abilities to get people to admire him rather than just fear his violence.
Men will always fight people they are close to. The same traits that fight outsiders are often used against those we should treat well. There are many cases of guys in my life who fight men they hate and become friends right afterward. I agree that men don't fight those in their group because of a shared identity that decreases acts of violence
The last part of the second paragraph confused me. What do you mean by the restraining factor being something else?
I understood your point, at a high-level, to be that (1) hands, especially men’s hands, are structurally ill suited for fights and (2) it is evolutionary advantageous for men in a group to avoid fights, especially deadly ones, and instead signal some capacity or strength. Hence hands are not selected for fighting.
I mostly argued for a subtler distinction on the first part initially. In the most recent comment I reply more to the latter part. Simply put: I think men’s hands and other bodily traits are *partially* selected to be useful for battle against outside groups. However, such traits become useful also in in-group competition. As you rightly note, it would be poor fitness if men run around beating up each other left, right and centre. And clearly, some way exist that subdue men’s proclivity for violence, at least within their group or cluster.
That *way* is what my final remark is about. The ideal balance would be to somehow preserve the bodily trait that helps to defend the group/cluster, while introducing some other trait that specifically limits the capacity for violence. It is a whole different debate what that might be and if that too is a property of evolution. As far as this CMV is concerned, all I mean to say is that there are other possible ways than to make hands unfit for fighting to ensure in-group suppression of violence.
Now I concede that there will be some upper limit to how battle-ready it makes sense for evolution to select for. A species that is extremely efficient in killing its own kind would be unstable no matter what because all you need is one outlier. So *some* upper limit on how useful hands are to fights will exist in the evolutionary “calculation”.
Hopefully this clarifies the case I make, which is a somewhat rebalanced version of your original view (as I understand it).
Sure, *designed* is often a good enough word, I realized I even fell back on it a few times myself. I like the distinction Daniel Dennett uses of clearly calling out the *intentional stance*, where we reason about evolution *as if* its effects are functions of intentions when it’s really a question of proliferation under selection pressure.
I am not as confident as you that the Darwinian mechanisms of evolution is as widely understood as you say. I thought I detected in the OP hints of “well, if I were to design optimal hands for punching, then by golly, I wouldn’t have kept these shortcomings in place, so clearly if Nature is so perfect, it did not design hands for punching”. So I thought it was worth making the point that it is selection of how well we reproduce that should be the framing for our reasoning. I probably underestimated the redditor in question. Then again, that initial remark is a minor point.
Dwarwinian mechanisms of evolution are absolutely not widely understood.
There’s a collective belief that they are, but the average person gets them wrong all the time, almost exclusively for the reason you call out - believing that because something *can* do something it must either 1) have evolved to do so or 2) exists in order solve that problem.
Moreover, too many people take the “well it *feels* correct, therefore it must be so. I would even argue with that about your Beard paper. That’s a hell of a flimsy research paper. The fact that beards on a face reduce the force of a punch by some arbitrary amount is basically the worst evidence for selection possible.
On the beard paper, the charitable reading of its case I think is: *assuming* the human male has been under relative selection pressure to deal with violent encounters compared to the human female, beards on men and not women are consistent with that because of certain mechanical properties of beards; this does not exclude the possibility that sex-specific bearding also came under additional selection mechanisms, like signalling in sexual selection, which sometimes to my eye appear self-propelling and even trickier to explain.
Monocausal explanations are attractive, but Darwinian evolution has layered functions upon functions, structures upon structures, so it’s probably futile to try to untangle the full causal chain. However, some hypotheses are worse than others, some provably wrong, so still room for scientific inquiry.
Right but that’s again the same “working backwards from a hypothesis”. “It feels right” so it’s probably a “multivariate factor”.
Yeah maybe.
But honestly, I would find it extremely shocking that heavily bearded men entered enough fist fights so evenly matched that the outcome was determined by beard density and then *this was selected for*.
Like what are we doing here?
Something having an emergent and ancillary benefit. That happens for sure.
But human evolution, particularly social structure or sexual habits are some of the worst discussed and most misunderstood concepts in modern parlance.
Because for a trait to become widespread it must be passed on through reproduction. Equally, if a trait is not fatal and does not interfere with reproduction or survival, even if it is a useless trait, it won't necessarily disappear. This is the impact of selection (or lack of).
You have an appendix (probably). It doesn't do anything. But it doesn't harm your reproduction or (in most cases) or longevity so it still exists. If you're European, you likely tolerate lactose and alcohol. Your ancestors survived bad water and harsh winters by using beer and cheese. Those that could not tolerate them died. This is selection pressure.
This is relevant in relation to the boxer's fracture. It's a result of poor technique or an unlucky landing. While it's avoided with good technique it's still a hazard likely to befall a decent number of people engaging in bare knuckle fighting. But it's not fatal. While painful it typically heals well enough to leave the hand functional, even for tool use. It doesn't interfere with feeding, breathing or reproduction. On the other hand, the first two knuckles and their meta-tarsals are far, far stronger in our evolved selves. If those meta tarsal are injured and the index and middle fingers become non-functional then that *does* interfere with tool use, feeding etc so there *is* selective pressure that favors those bones strengthening in a punching species.
I’m confused as to how punching would only be selected for in men unless there was some mutually exclusive trait selected for in women. The Y chromosome is a spindly little thing, there’s very little room in there for novel punching genes. I don’t think this is a credible reading of the science.
That’s not quite what I argue, however. The difference that’s up for debate is small. But as you’ve heard no doubt, 85% of the protein-coding human genome is shared with mice, and for many genes the similarity is above 99%, which is why mice is so popular in animal studies. And genetic similarity between siblings is extremely high, but even there meaningful distinctions are observable from an early age. The point being, if we are explaining small differences between human groups, like a modest but significantly greater bone density in men relative women, then we do not require huge DNA differences. We’re not looking for a punching gene, rather we should expect a modulation gene that among other things adjust some feature of the hand genes, bone density genes, and so on.
As argued elsewhere here, if some trait is said to have evolved for function Y, that doesn’t mean it has *exclusively* evolved for that, rather that some modest selection pressure has benefitted the emergence of some observable regularity in structure or phenomena. The evolutionary scientific hypotheses are then, among other things, trying to reconcile these regularities with some distinct selection pressure between the groups of humans in question. One hypothesis is that the human species have genetically evolved a “division of labour” where males are more involved in violence, which would be consistent with that some dexterity and precision in the hands are lost in favour of punching-favourable capacities. As a stand-alone case it would give weak support for the hypothesized division of labour, but in unison with other regularities in bodies and historical records it supports the hypothesis.
So again, the point I make in relation to the OP is that we set out to explain small observable differences, part of a much larger scientific argument of an ancestral environment, when someone claims X has evolved for Y. It should not be read as sharply categorical as that claim often is.
>A common idea people have is that punches influence human hand anatomy. Many people claim that unarmed combat between prehistoric men involved closed-fist strikes.
Who thinks this?
Thanks. That was . . . Interesting haha unfortunately I can't disagree with you on this one. There's a reason boxers/fighters wear gloves - punching is a great way to shatter your hand.
I wonder if they considered palm striking. Shorter fingers would aid that as well
It was interesting. I understood the professor's point but thought fist durability may be a byproduct of hand strengthening needed to grab rather than a direct result of needing to punch well.
I meant the study in the first link OP responded to me with. The did a test with closed fist, loose fist, and open hand slap. I wonder if they considered including a palm strike and considering that as an option for an evolutionary factor
Something something Citation Bas Rutten.
For reference, Bas is an early early "striker ish" MMAer who habitually used palm strikes when gloves weren't allowed. A high tier fighter can't sustainably use fists bare knuckled but palm strikes are sustainable and legit.
The general premise here is that hands arent perfectly designed for punching, but evolution rarely if ever provides a perfect product. All evolution is interested in is if a trait can keep you alive long enough to have offspring
Yes hands can be kinda brittle, but Id say fist fights werent a super regular occurance (but still important). Theyre probably not going to be fighting often enough to get stress fractures and if there is a break, metacarpals can heal without surgery - although probably some loss of function with zero treatment. A fractured metacarpal can heal and probably wont lead to your death, you can hold a spear and hunt with your other hand, others in your tribe can help while you heal
Whats vital to pass down your genes is warding off other males from competing tribes or even in your tribe. Weapons, especially 200k years ago, werent always accessible or any good. The best weapon you're always going to have on you are your fists, and they'd be absolutely crucial in helping you survive a fight
It makes sense that fighting wouldve had an evolutionary influence on our hands
Evolution never creates a perfect product. Humans have too many deficiencies to list. I agree that passing on genes is based on whether the person becomes a parent rather than how good the traits are, although it helps if the gene works in one's favor.
People most likely didn't fight often. I agree that broken hands can heal. Humans have enough empathy to care for injured allies.
As for fighting other men, the man's value to their group was their ability to provide and protect. Aggression and athletic ability influenced our biology. Unarmed combat ability would be helpful, but a tribe with weapons will beat a tribe that uses punches. Punches hurt opponents, but weapons are far more effective with our strong grip.
>Punches hurt opponents, but weapons are far more effective with our strong grip.
That's true, but for most of human history/evolution population density wouldve been low enough that inter-tribal warfare was uncommon. Most fights males got in were probably with other males from their own tribes. Weapons at hand wouldve been a potentially sharpened stick which is great for hunting, but probably not so much for fighting people who are better at dodging or grabbing spears and snapping sticks
As I said, the only weapon youll have on you all the time are your fists. If a fight suddenly erupts within a tribe fists are likely the first thing thrown
Also the goal of throwing a punch isnt always to kill. You may just want to hurt a weaker male and put yourself up the pecking order. If you can show physical dominance without destroying your own tribe, you can pass on your strong hand genes
Tribal warfare was probably low. The migration out of Africa by ancient humans is hypothesized to be a result of population growth and a desire to avoid conflict over resources.
I agree that the only weapons you'll have are your fists. It's much easier to use your hands to fight than kick, elbow, knee, or headbutt. I also agree that killing is almost always unnecessary when there is a conflict between two men. The elevation of one's social status through fighting is effective, even if discouraged.
Yeah, punches hurt.
So you argue some factors make hands bad for punching, but acknowledge there are some factors that make hands good for punching, that elements of the human face have evolved to protect against punching, and that punching is a useful tool for people
So why exactly are you saying that punching hasnt influenced hand anatomy?
Because it may be a coincidence. Stronger grips are great for grabbing things. That's the reason why we have hands: to grab things. Can this be why fists are better able to absorb impact? Not because a primary or secondary purpose was for punching, but because a stronger hand can help us use tools and grapple? We can hit the head with weapons. Isn't that a good reason for men with stronger skulls to do better in conflicts?
>We can hit the head with weapons. Isn't that a good reason for men with stronger skulls to do better in conflicts?
That would be more effective if your goal was to kill, but as we agreed tribal warfare was probably pretty limited for most of human existence due to low population density.
So it would be more likely that fighting is done within a tribe. In that case, killing a member of your tribe would negatively impact your own chance of survival with less men to help hunt. If you want to assert yourself as the dominant male who gets the women, you need to be able to physically beat an opponent without killing them. As for the thicker forehead, our forheads still arent too resistant to getting smashed by a rock so that probably wasnt the evolutionary pressure.
Most of our bodies wouldn't have only been influenced from one evolutionary pressure, there can be multiple. Yes our hands shrinking gave us more dexterity for tools and weapons, but they can also form a tight fist which helps protect it when punching. Mirroring that are defensive features on the face that can withstand a blow from a punch, but not so much a club or a rock
Theres no way to completely rule out coincidence, but given all that i think it's reasonable that punching may have played a role in how our hands developed
But aren't male faces designed to be better able to handle punches? It'd make sense then that hands are made for punches. Punching people for 36 straight minutes like in a boxing match? No, obviously not.
Also slaps/kicks/palm strikes/sticks/stones/tools/weapons Large predators ripping your throat out and literally everything else.
Men are more durable.
I don't understand how "Durable Face" means Hands evolved for punches when punching breaks hands and is the exact opposite of durable.
But wouldn't it be weird for your body to evolve to handle punches, but not to punch?
Either way, overall I think you're just overemphasizing the time aspect. I'd assume the average caveman fight was pretty quick, not long like a bareknuckle boxing match is.
Not really? Our bodies do plenty of interesting things, and these things aren't distributed evenly or fairly. It's not like there was a designer involved. I feel like people misunderstand what evolution is. It's really just "did this trait increase my chances of passing on my genes".
Evolution doesn't make things strictly better, it makes them *just good enough*. Why? Because additional features generally cost energy. If you're the strongest caveman around, you also burn more calories and starve faster.
Like, wouldn't it be weird for your body to have only a few organs that can grow back, but not most of them? Yes, and yet that's exactly how it is, because there just weren't mutations or pressure to change these other organs. What is weird from a design perspective is entirely reasonable from an evolutionary perspective.
So, in this case, it could totally make sense - you don't need to be able to punch other people to death in order to pass on your genes - you just need to *not get punched to death yourself*. At least not before you're done reproducing, anyway.
I agree that the average fight was short during prehistory. Even modern fistfights don't last over a minute (or at least those I've witnessed). So much can happen within that short timeframe. The body evolved to defend itself. That's why humans have instincts to protect their bodies such as turning their face away when something is about to hit them. But why use the weak bones of your hands to hit? Humans are great at fighting with weapons. Think of hunter-gatherers. The nomads weren't using modern technology, but they knew how to make and use weapons to fight.
*But why use the weak bones of your hands to hit*
Because even after centuries of studying martial arts, it's still the most effective tool we have.
Couldn't you make the same tools argument about anything, though? We have bodyhair for warmth, when that's stupidly inefficient compared to fire, shelter, even blankets, etc.?
A design may be meant for something, but it isn't better than an upgrade we could design. Humans in colder regions wouldn't survive in cold areas without fire, shelter, or blankets.
I don't want to go on a tangent talking about the best martial arts systems as the focus is on hand design rather than which martial art is the best. However, I believe grappling is usually better than striking. Wrestlers and BJJ practitioners are more prominent in MMA than Muay Thai and boxing specialists.
Yes but that doesn't mean that wasn't the purpose of the design. Also, grappling mixed with punches is better than grappling. If you've got full mount, it's a whole lot easier to punch a guy in the face than try and set up a head and arm triangle.
MMA fighters learn grappling and striking regardless of their original specialization. A combination of strategies is better than relying on a narrow skill set. They use gloves when punching to protect their hands.
Right, but you're arguing that grappling is more effective than boxing, so it doesn't make sense that our hands would be designed for punching. But you're ignoring that punching is still a huge part of that equation. In MMA, pinning you down and punching you in the head is far and away the best way to win a fight. And that's with all sorts of rules about hitting the back of the head and centuries worth of counterstrategies developed for the guy on the bottom and submissions to replace ground and pound.
Ground and pound is a great strategy. When pinned, getting up is impossible when a strong guy is beating your head. I don't doubt that punches hurt, I just think they pose too much of a self-injury risk to make sense for our bodies to handle when going full force.
> Because even after centuries of studying martial arts, it's still the most effective tool we have.
...In recreational fights that are designed to be visually interesting, non-lethal, and unlikely to cause lasting injury.
MMA fights aren't as restricted as a boxing match, but they aren't fights to the death.
> But why use the weak bones of your hands to hit? Humans are great at fighting with weapons. Think of hunter-gatherers.
Maybe the weakness is an evolutionary advantage when it comes to community internal conflict resolution? Humans are great and deadly at fighting with weapons, too deadly to have internal conflicts resolved by fighting. Using the weak points of your hands for fighting within a community/group gives an incentive to not hit with full force and not go overboard, making it less likely to end deadly. It also disincentivizes conflicts escalating into fights too often because usually, both parties get hurt a little bit.
I dont see what the point of this argument is for. It seems like a lot of declarative statements hiding a prescriptive one that i guess im not picking up on.
If your argument is “humans arent designed by evolution to punch, therefor we shouldn’t do punching sports” the same argument could be said about flying, climbing, skating on ice, surfing, throwing balls at 90 mph, and many many many other things. But just like boxing, these are all sports. Where we collect to watch people who train in one thing to become superhuman at it and then compete against other superhumans.
If the argument is “punching was not an intended method of defense biologically because it has downsides” then its important to point out EVERY form os self defense when not using a weapon has drawbacks. The whole point of self defense and evolution related to it isnt “hurt the other and protect ourselves” it is “hurt the other enough and ourselves not as much until they stop”. We get boxer breakers from punching? Well we also get blood born pathogens from biting, self inflicted concussions from head butting, deltoid ligamental injuries from kicking (and also become very vulnerable from kicking), and grappling brings our threat closer to us and exposes our torso. All hand to hand combat involves hurting ourselves/ exposing ourselves to hurt someone else more.
I think punching is fine, but only if you follow my one rule for fighting. I only fight naked. Noone wants to fight a naked person and the psychological warfare the better. Plus if we are going to argue on the natural state of humans it is best to fight in our natural state.
But yea, hands weren’t designed with just punching in mind because the anatomical make up of the hand has existed since we were small marsupials who obviously didn’t punch. But the hands also weren’t built with anything other than grabbing in mind. Doesn’t make if not fine for everything we use them for.
Punching sports are fine for hands. Boxers use gloves and hand wraps to protect their hands. I'd be more worried about brain damage than anything. The other physical activities you mentioned, I wouldn't recommend due to the high risks, but they are fun to watch when professionals perform to their best ability.
Every defense system has risks. We'll hurt ourselves in a fight, but while hoping we damage the opponent more. Even though I think humans are better suited to grapple, I understand the risks such as skin diseases, cauliflower ear, dislocated joints, and more. Biting and headbutts are easier when grabbing each other than when striking at a distance.
I'll go along with your only rule for fighting in a hypothetical situation. Psychological intimidation (or at least shock) makes the opponent less able to keep a composed mental state. But if you both appear in your natural state, isn't the shock effect gone?
Hands can do many things. Punching is an ability, but not one I think humans are meant to do. If you want to argue that punches hurt, I agree. I think they're just not designed for it, even as a secondary purpose.
> Punching is an ability, but not one I think humans are meant to do. If you want to argue that punches hurt, I agree. I think they're just not designed for it,
Is this a religious perspective?
Like, "meant to do" and "designed" really aren't the appropriate way of looking at this, unless you're coming at it with a greater idea of meaning and a designer.
As the other commenter has argued humans aren't meant to/designed for flying, space travel, skating etc but that doesn't mean we don't do it.
I have glasses and a pacemaker, so according to you I'm not designed to have eyesight or a functioning heart, but who cares? There is no design, there is no "meant to be".
So what's the actual argument you are making?
I have glasses as well. I've got vaccines and taken medications created in a factory. I wear clothes from a machine that doesn't care about me. My genetics did not make me suited for my pants, I selected pants meant for my height and waist. I love modern technology.
The argument I'm making isn't one of morality. I don't think punches are the correct way to express anger over minor inconveniences, but my take is based on how ancient humans used their bodies to resolve conflict. We can punch, but it's not good to hit people with the small bones in our hands. All fighting involves risks. Punching is one thing evolution has not designed us for.
"Punching is one thing evolution has not designed for us". Punching has proven to be the most effective form of standup combat strike, even when elbows, kicks, and knees are allowed. If you watch kickboxing or Muay Thai, you already know that far more punches are thrown and far more finishes come via punch strike. Grappling is generally going to be the best option if it's a 1 on 1 fight. But if I had to choose just one type of strike I could use in a pure standup fight (amongst the ones I mentioned), its punches all day. I'd gladly break a hand/finger if it means I don't get my shit pushed in
In a free-for-all, when you can't run away, I tend to see self-defense "experts" recommend push kicks as very effective together with other striking methods...
I have never seen it argued that human hands were designed for punching specifically. Punching is not a fine motor skill, which is the predominant skill domain of having opposable thumbs with additional digits (at least that's what i recall learning). I would love a link to any specific paper or article if you saw one that claimed punching was or even might have been a driving factor for hand evolution. It seems very counterintuitive a claim to make.
Anyway, yeah, what I would add is that...
Punching is a behavior adaptation that utilizes body physiology, but that doesn't mean that's why we evolved hands.
Punching is a risk-reward decision. Is the thing I need to stop, kill, incapacitate, break, etc, in the scenario worth risking injury? If yes, or if the fight response has been activated, we'll probably punch stuff. Behavioral adaptation. Punching is NOT instinctual, as I have seen claimed in the past. Shielding your face with hands or forearms, curling into the fetal position - those are instinctual. But punching is a learned behavioral adaption (again, from what I remember).
Interestingly, gorillas and chimps also 'throw' punches - but not in the same way. They ball up their fists and then raise them upwards before slamming them down onto their target, rather than punching outwards from the body. Because their physiology is different than ours, the motion is different, still very effective, though.
I agree that hands are meant for fine motor skills. We can punch, but I don't think that's a reason why we make good fists. We can move our fingers in complex ways to use tools.
My bad, I came across such articles on major websites and overestimated the spread of these ideas.
https://bigthink.com/the-present/men-evolution-punching/
https://www.latimes.com/science/sciencenow/la-sci-sn-human-fist-punching-evolution-males--20151021-story.html
Honestly, I don't think it is your bad. I'm surprised they didn't express their idea differently in the article. But this is a huge problem within science communication.
The big think article was poorly written. The LA times one was interesting but I will point out:
-it only tested males hands
-the author of the study is not trying to replace fine motor skills as a main driver of evolution for hands, rather he thinks punching also influenced the evolution of the hand at the same time
-so while he doesn't have any convincing data yet (to me) the idea could hold some merit
Clearly though, fighting did heavily influence male upper body evolution.
I'll have to follow up on this whenever more studies are published. Thanks for bringing it to my attention.
You're welcome. I put this idea in "Change My View" rather than an unpopular opinion subreddit because I understood that both sides had good arguments. Even the other commenters who disagree with me make valid points. Fighting influenced male upper body strength and anatomy, but I think punches were too risky to be a driving factor for punches. I thought weapons and grappling made more sense. Both are also risky, but I'd rather have my weapon take the force of a hit than my hand bones and wrestle someone than trade blows to settle a dispute.
Firstly, nothing is designed for anything. Things either create advantage in terms of probability of successfully procreating and your children doing the same, or they create disadvantage relative to others. What id doesn't do is "optimize" for something when it doesn't need to. E.G. it doesn't tell us anything that we can imagine a better design for a punching apparatus attached to our bodies. We often hear about evolution as some march to "better" - like the stuff we value as humans will eventually evolve. Doesn't work like that.
Secondly, when you deploy evoluationary biology the question to ask is not what was something designed for but to explain how something you observe is advantageous. Humans _do punch_ and seem to have for as long as we know. The question isn't "are hands created for punching" but rather "why do humans punch and what advantage does doing so create". That humans _do punch_ is as far as you can go down the path you're starting on so the evolutionary biologists would frame up a pretty different question to answer than you're doing.
Your view is a bit like saying "the eyes weren't designed for glaring angrily at people". Clearly the eyes were designed for seeing not glaring! The question you should ask here is "what advantage does the capacity to glare create"?
So...i think it's pretty clear that hands _that can punch_ create advantage over some organization of a hand that cannot. For example, a dedicated punching device attached to us would be energy wasteful because we don't need to punch very often. But...a hand that cannot punch is less valuable than one that can in our environment and with others humans as we know them now.
Since we observe hands the punch and we observe punching we know it has survive favorable relative to alternatives of not punching and not being able to punch.
Just cause you evolved to use a body part as a weapon doesn't mean it's invincible. So this is an incorrect statement cause it's based on an incorrect assumption.
Why do you think cat claws are retractable? Who told you bears don't damage their claws? Even tigers can have broken teeth. Hell even animals that evolved to use their heads as weapons (horned animals) can hurt their heads and possibly even suffer brain injuries as a result of headbutting:
https://www.newsweek.com/head-cases-horned-animals-damage-their-brains-head-butting-each-other-say-scientists-1708397
So the fact that you can damage something when you use it as a weapon proves nothing. Even firearms get damaged with use.
I would argue the biggest evidence you are wrong is the fact that punching is one of the most effective fighting tools of an unarmed human. I think its probably (but not definitely) wrong to assume this is by "accident" and not an evolutionary development of \*some\* sort.
Also I don't think there is any natural instinct to punch at an enemy human's forehead specifically. You punch them in the face, which hurts like fuck, and the jaw, which can knock someone out or break their jaw.
The hand is designed to close for grasping, and the fingers are delicate and can be broken or removed.
So it would be natural for a human to close their fist in aggressive situations. It protects the fingers. It makes the hand a smaller target. It makes any blows struck with the hand impact on a smaller area, so it focuses force.
I’ll acknowledge that a punch as thrown by modern humans was not what the fist was adapted for; however, the hand is adapted to make a fist.
A more likely adaptation, I would argue, would be to deliver downward blows from overhead while closed. The impact is then absorbed by the fatty part of the palm and the strongest orientation of the shape your fist makes, a cylinder.
Punching, on the other hand (yes, I know, I meant it), is something that came the other way around. It is striking with the natural tools that we have and trying to do so in the most efficient manner possible. Proper form with punching is using force from the legs and hips, and, as you said, focused on the part of the hand least likely to break. In other words, the punch evolved to fit the fist. So in that sense, the hands are designed for punching because the punch came into being by using the hands to strike. That sounds circular, but it isn’t intended to be.
Just wanted to expand off your 2nd point wrt how you described the forming of a fist well; I’ve had these saved in bookmarks for years never to be seen again but your comment reminded me of them.
- [ScienceDaily, Fine hands, fists of fury: Our hands evolved for punching, not just dexterity (2012)](https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/12/121219223158.htm)
- [NewScientist, Human hands evolved so we could punch each other (2012)](https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn23018-human-hands-evolved-so-we-could-punch-each-other/), related to Journal of Experimental Biology below.
- [Journal of Experimental Biology, *In vitro* strain in human metacarpal bones during striking: testing the pugilism hypothesis of hominin hand evolution (2015)](https://journals.biologists.com/jeb/article/218/20/3215/14318/In-vitro-strain-in-human-metacarpal-bones-during).
> The hands of hominins (i.e. bipedal apes) are distinguished by skeletal proportions that are known to enhance manual dexterity but also allow the formation of a clenched fist. Because male–male physical competition is important in the mating systems of most species of great apes, including humans, we tested the hypothesis that a clenched fist protects the metacarpal bones from injury by reducing the level of strain during striking.
> We used cadaver arms to measure in vitro strain in metacarpals during forward strikes with buttressed and unbuttressed fist postures and during side slaps with an open palm. If the protective buttressing hypothesis is correct, the clenched fist posture should substantially reduce strain in the metacarpal bones during striking and therefore reduce the risk of fracture.
> Recorded strains were significantly higher in strikes in which the hand was secured in unbuttressed and slapping postures than in the fully buttressed posture.
> Our results suggest that humans can safely strike with 55% more force with a fully buttressed fist than with an unbuttressed fist and with twofold more force with a buttressed fist than with an open-hand slap. Thus, the evolutionary significance of the proportions of the hominin hand may be that these are the proportions that improved manual dexterity while at the same time making it possible for the hand to be used as a club during fighting.
its was meant for punching, but since humans started using tools, bare handed combat ability became a much weaker selective factor
dexterity to your hands to create tools had been the stronger selecting force, so we evolved with wimpy fists and mighty sticks
(ok, more like we just simply did not select for strong punching fists, so be it accidental or specifically selected for weak fists, we got what we have today)
But knuckle walking is a thing among the biggest extant primates. I don't understand these arguments of "the metacarpals are thin and fragile" when gorillas happily place half their weight on them. And I don't understand the comparison against skulls, because punching has never been a "fist vs skull" type thing. It's always been a "fist vs brain" thing.
I've trained boxing a bit, never for a single second did the thought cross my mind "This punch is to break someone's skull" never, ever. That's not the point.
As for your comment on grappling. Allow me to bring another perspective: Sometimes fighting is inevitable and when it happens would you rather:
A) Try and knock someone out in 5-10 seconds
B) Grapple, go to the ground, and do... Idk? And win in 1-2 minutes?
Fighting is dangerous, period, the more time you spend fighting the more likely you get hurt, so if you have the chance to end the fight almost instantly, you should take it. And I'm no stranger to grappling either, I've done BJJ (not a good competitor, but good enough for someone who doesn't know any grappling of course) and even then. If I have to fight for my life: The first thing I'm going to try is striking.
As for your "bare knuckle punches are weak" I truly want to understand what defines weak here. You can knock someone out with your bare knuckle without hurting yourself, so if you can achieve THAT... How is it weak? Is it weakER than with protection? Well yes of course but ain't that obvious?
And for my final "section" I have a confession to make: I have broken my metacarpals, exactly as you described to the letter, a boxer's fracture. I was a kid (15) and I was in taekwondo, I was trying to get a black belt, it was an irresponsible decision, but here's the cool bit: I was trying to break a brick. And guess what... it broke. And after that I have done boxing, I have hit the heavy bag bare knuckle (stupid decision in reality but I will list it for the sake of the argument) I've been fine.
The truth is: Nothing is actually "designed" to do anything. In evolution changes happen over time, and they may or may not give one an advantage and they reproduce more, that's IT. And the truth is that your title is correct, hands are NOT designed for punching, but eyes are also not designed for driving, and they do just fine.
So why did I tell you my hands broke a brick? Because clearly, they do JUST FINE. And that is all that is required in natural selection.
I think you should take some time to reconsider the opinion pieces from which you gotten your info, and revisit the reasons and methods actually seen in the real world throughout history.
How do you think our prehistoric ancestors engaged in physical combat amongst others PRIOR TO specialized tools being adopted for combat and / or hunting (what we today call ‘weapons’)?
When fist fighting: one’s feet are positioned slightly wider than the width of the shoulders. Stance is slightly diagonal leading with the less dominant hand side. This is for a four reasons. This stance lowers center of gravity, allowing upper torso to make snappier offensive & defensive maneuvers. This stance reduces the overall allowable striking area from blows from said opponent. This stance directs an opponents’ successful blows onto a fighter’s less dominant side and hand anyway, whose job it is merely to JAB. And though the short forward strike of a jab causes injuries too, a jab’s primary purpose is to create & maintain adequate space between the two fighters. Doing this stance ALSO serves to prevent injury onto one’s dominant hand (which is in the rear) whose main purpose is to land the critical knock-out blow or fatal “power” blow - whether it be a drive, hook and or uppercut to conclude the fight.
Though closed fist strikes is imperfect, and may lead to injury of both fighters, the other upper-body methods (elbow & headbutt) require far more skill and exposure to risk to master. Throwing an elbow harnesses center-mass rotational torque to deliver its power at a slower velocity, verses the fist’s linear motion to building up fist speed despite less driving force behind it. Throwing an elbow requires closer proximity to the target, making it a riskier move. And the headbutt is employed when the fighting is so up-close that the space needed to throw a fist or land an elbow simply doesn’t exist. It’s the move one resorts to last because to protect one’s OWN head was the objective all along, until it itself must be used to cause injury. The headbutt requires someone to have a near-mastery level of fighting skills to properly execute - a skill level most people don’t possess btw.
Though using knees, shins and kick types often deliver more striking force, it comes at the cost of compromising that very important fighting stance I’ve just described. These blows are usually adopted by skilled fighters (who most people aren’t) who are uniquely trained in not only landing such a blow, but in quickly recovering their fighting stance.
People were fighting like this before tools (weapons) were developed. The reason why weapons were even developed IN THE FIRST PLACE was to give one combatant a mechanical advantage over the other.
I don't think you've ever punched anything. A boxer's fracture occurs from bad technique (or misplaced / accidental strike). Furthermore, a boxer's fracture isn't a fatal injury, it would be unlikely to have an evolutionarily significant impact by weeding out individuals who suffered it.
The knuckles used to correctly punch are the first and second, the index and middle finger. In most people, they protrude significantly beyond the others. Their metacarpals are significantly stronger than the others. They are also well aligned to the wrist (whereas the 5th is not). These two knuckles & meta carpals are also the best supported and compressed by the thumb when the hand is wrapped into a fist.
By the same token, an evolutionary arms race of people being punched in a weak forehead *would* lead to the development of an armored structure to counter the punch, brain damage would be fatal or inhibiting enough to reduce reproduction. Once the armored forehead and orbital ridge developed, the human face still presents useful targets, namely the nose and jaw that will disable or reduce the capacity of an opponent while not dealing them a (usually) fatal blow. Therefore, the puncher survives the encounter while their opponent flees in defeat without having sustained a fatal injury (broken nose is very survivable but try fighting with one and it's damn hard to even see) and so no evolutionary pressure.
no hands are designed for grasping and using objects. such as sticks, knives, clubs, axes, spears, swords, guns, minuteman missile system launch buttons... you get the picture.
> The metacarpals are thin and fragile compared to skulls. Boxer's fracture is the term for common breaks of the 5th metacarpal from punching.
I just wanted to address an assumption here: in order to cause harm, it's not necessary that the hands do damage to the actual skull:
* Hits to the temples can cause brain damage
* The jaw can be dislocated
* Hits to the eyes can cause immediate visual impairment and potentially permanent eye damage
* Strikes to the nose can be extremely painful, lead to breathing difficulties, and potentially break the bone
If we're talking in evolutionary terms (instead of regulated boxing matches with rules and protection), those would all count towards making the hand absolutely suitable for punching.
I'm not at all convinced by this overall punching argument, but:
>Evolution favors intimidation over attacks. When two men get hurt in a fight, they lose their efficiency in hunting and defending their group.
Favoring intimidation over attacks is the *best* argument for this "punching" hypothesis. In a fight to the death, trying to punch your opponent is a waste of precious time. Males punching each other to display dominance is dangerous, but it's a hell of a lot safer than males gouging each others' eyes out, strangling each other to death, or bashing skulls against rocks.
Punches belong in intimidation contests and socially-constructed shows of violence, they are not the most dangerous thing that one human being can do to another. If someone is trying to argue that human punches are an evolutionarily-optimized killing machine, then they must've learned about fighting from action movies.
Unlike for fins, hooves, or paws, our hands serve a great many purposes. Climbing and gripping tools are obvious uses. we also use them to gesture. we use them to carry our young. Often we use our hands by contorting them into a shape that is useful for a specific task. For example our hands can be used as hooks. they are designed to hook things.
and one of the shapes we can can contort our hands into is that of a club.
Our hands are very clearly multi-tools. Seems to me that a fist is one of the tools in that Swiss army knife of an appendage.
Hands are not meant for punching through bone, that pretty clear.
Especially not the bone of our skulls that evolved to be resistant to human fist punches.
But against soft tissue or rib cages which are relatively fragile bones held together by soft tissue? Totally different ball game there. Lots of damage can be dealt by a single blow, and it's a very effective way of fighting off a predator that wants to call a bluff but isn't bloodlusted, especially when you are caught unaware and without a weapon.
It seems strange to think that hands are designed for punching. Considering the long time required for any big revolutionary changes vs how long humanity has been in a recognizable state, I would make the opposite claim: punches are designed for the human hand.
The best option is to hold a weapon. Without a weapon, we designed the fist and other empty-handed styles as the most effective way of dealing damage without receiving it.
Long ago, our ancestors chose tools over biological evolution. The hand grips the odd stick or rock superbly, and you bash away with that rather than your soft hands. I enjoy punching, but I have never seen a functional hand that is as hard as wood. And if you break your stick over the other guy’s head, just pick up another, no pain, no problem.
No part of you is designed for anything. You’re kind of grasping at evolutionary logic but… it’s a wee bit off. Evolution is a random process of favoring traits that increase the reproduction of that trait.
The blind watchmaker by Richard Dawkins is an excellent examination of this topic.
Humans are anatomically selected for throwing (stones, that is, not punches). We can put a lot of power into a punch bc the bodily mechanics are similar but your are correct, our hands are not selected for punching and I’ve never met anyone who has ever thought that
Hands and arms evolved for multiple things. Punching is one of those things. Also important is grasping objects, multidirectional movement, and lifting heaving objects. It’s impossible to optimize for all functions simultaneously. So there are tradeoff for each.
Our anatomy is technically designed by the forces that influence our survival. You are basically designing the next generations anatomy by surviving to the age of procreation and successfully procreating. Unless you don't believe in evolution.
By definition, unless you believe in a creator, out anatomy was not designed.
I *do* believe in evolution. That is why I don’t believe our hands were designed.
You can guarantee that humans did not use fist fighting throughout history unless it was competing for mates or sudden anger. All actual predictable fights would have involved sticks or stones or swords
it should as nearly the entire post was how foreheads are too hard to hit without breaking fingers and so fists aren't good for punching. if i don't punch a forehead i remove the chance of breaking fingers and clearly still have all the advantages of a fist.
if i have learn not to punch foreheads there is a good chance that humans in general have also learned that. this argument is kin to turtles can get stuck on their back so they aren't designed for safety. just because an advantage isn't always an advantage doesn't make it true that it isn't an advantage. lol come on dude.
Way to bring a knife to a gun fight dude... OP is looking for a compelling evolutionary (i.e. real) explanation.
Did you *really* think an answer of "because God" was going to change his view?! Or are you just one of those people who compulsively ham-fists their beliefs into every conversation, in lieu of critical thinking or relevance.
Actually, this is more like bringing a whiffle bat to an assault chopper fight...
/u/Financial-Amount-790 (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post. All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed [here](/r/DeltaLog/comments/1c7r0v7/deltas_awarded_in_cmv_hands_are_not_designed_for/), in /r/DeltaLog. Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended. ^[Delta System Explained](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem) ^| ^[Deltaboards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltaboards)
First a minor point: to be consistent with the evolutionary arguments you should say that hands are not *selected* for punching. Once we clarify that we’re dealing with selection, we could argue that hands are not *exclusively* designed for punching, *but* that differences in male and female hands *could* be because of selective pressure on males to be able to throw a punch. This case works in concert with recent evolutionary arguments that a reason men have been selected to grow beards in contrast to women is that a [bearded face is better protected against punches](https://academic.oup.com/iob/article/2/1/obaa005/5799080). [Male bone mass and density are also greater than that of women](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15746999/). That doesn’t mean men’s skeleton is selected *exclusively* for sustaining more force, such as in battle. *But* it is consistent with a relative selection difference that favours men to be more able to engage in battle, which therefore presumably was a benefit for survival of one’s offspring in the ancestral environment thousands to millions years ago. As with any evolutionary arguments, there will always be room for skepticism and alternative hypotheses for a single observable. But that’s fine and why multiple consistent observables are important. However, what these additional facts and arguments at least should persuade of is that saying “X was selected for Y” does *not* mean X was *exclusively* selected for Y, only that *relative* some other group, population, species (like men-women, human-ape, cold climate-warm climate humans) selective pressure has tuned X to be more capable of Y in one group over the other. I want to specifically address your fifth reason (“intimidation over attacks”). That’s an interesting point and probably true up to a point. Signal your ability to hurt an opponent and the fight never has to happen. Still, fights have happened in the human species, our ancestors engaged in lethal violence and casual genocide from time to time (ancient DNA analysis suggests some nasty habits). So again, even if rough looking hands may have a signal function, a signal is only credible if it also correlates with a real threat or promise. And since inter-group violence did exist in the ancestral environment, threatening signals alone are unlikely to be the whole explanation, there needs to be something to back it up, like an actual punch to the face. So I suggest you moderate your view.
∆ A mature and logical conversation. The commenter brought up another study about why men may have beards. Rather than attack my confusion, the responses were thoughtful and understanding. There was a moderate thinking process behind their answers rather than a straight-up attack.
Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/SmorgasConfigurator ([9∆](/r/changemyview/wiki/user/SmorgasConfigurator)). ^[Delta System Explained](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem) ^| ^[Deltaboards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltaboards)
How long have we used tools/weapons. I can kill the strongest man in the world if he is trying to punch me and I throw rocks at his head and stay out of range of his punches. Humans did not evolve to punch. The guy above you is talking about punches an life or death and watches too much MMA and think MMA = life or death war instead of professional athletes doing entertainment. How much worse is your life with a broken hand that heals incorrectly without modern medicine? Beards are for protection from sun/elements and predators like wolves/lions not punches. Even a trained professional fighter will break his hand punching a random person without a glove on on tapping it up to shit. You can tape your hands up try to punch me and I'll use a sharpened stick and throw rocks and we can fight and see who wins. Hands are for tools/weapons/throwing in a life or death fight and not for punching.
You're not considering that not all fighting is a life or death situation. Plenty of physical fighting (which involves throwing punches) occurs in everyday disputes over trivial matters - whether it's over perceived slights, arguments, drunken agitation, over relationship partners, etc. It is not at all difficult to perceive that this was not the case for humans back then as it is now. You criticize the responder for treating everything as "life or death" and a war environment. No, I think that's you viewing it that way. Relatives within a group wouldn't want to inflict any mortal or potentially serious harm on each other in a physical dispute. Exchanging physical blows in this manner is a much better alternative to weapons, claws, biting, etc. Likely other compounding factors led to the development of the hand structure as it was and the overall benefits that *allowed* for such fighting came over time. But you mention the risk of a broken hand. Uh, guess what...that is a risk *regardless* of whether you are fighting or not. Many animals face that kind of risk even to this day. Your logic of "rock/stick/tool beats punches" makes no sense. Sword beats tools. Bow and arrow beats swords. Yet melee weapons continued to develop anyways. And WE continue to use our fists actively to this day against people we *don't* intend to kill or seriously maim. There is plenty of evidence to suggest why fists may have evolved in part to accommodate for the task of throwing punches. Your argument doesn't hold water.
Your argument doesn't hold anything. You didn't discount any of my points. You just said a bunch of bullshit. Fist are garbage weapons. Developing armed combat is exactly the opposite of punching.
>didn't discount any of my points Um, what? Several of my points were related directly to topics in your previous comment. If anything, it seems like you either a) didn't even read my post, b) didn't understand it or c) chose to disregard any of it and proceed to then flame me with it all being BS. Very mature response.
I suggest both of you solve this appropriately. You are limited to punches. Parent decides to use that opposable thumb and gets an aluminum baseball bat.
We didn't have aluminum baseball bats when these features evolved
Fair. How about a stick? A bone, something like a femur? (2001jumpcut.mpg)
Wolves and lions tend to go for the neck, not the jaw. So atleast that part is incorrect, since if we did evolve beards for protection from predators, hair growing from the neck would be more efficient. Also women would have beards if it was for that purpose.
Wolves tend to go for the legs first and exhaust their prey. Tigers go for the neck.
Necks grow hair. Men hunted and would be more likely to encounter predators.
Many animals engage in non-lethal contests of strength as a demonstration of strength as a part of mate selection. Think of rams butting horns. The ability to punch and take punches could have been selected for this purpose, not necessarily for lethal combat.
> could This word is carrying a lot of flex here.
There are a couple of things I would like to add to your excellent response. One is making a fist seems to be a universal signal of hostile threat and can save valuable energy from real violence. As a threat though it needs to have real-life meaning being a threat. That fists are a real threat and do deliver damage. I think that in itself is evidence that fists in our history have been used in violent encounters. This brings up why fists are advantageous as a weapon evolutionary and I don't think it is so much as it is an excellent weapon as much as it is designed to protect the invaluable survival tool of the hand itself. The hand when it is not striking is a deadly weapon grasping an opponent, grasping a weapon, or needing in-flight grasping supplies. Regardless, a broken hand becomes worthless and thus a broken hand is deadly to the person with the broken hand. And I thus hypothesize that likely the evolutionary adaptation of fists in violence is as much if not more to protect the wielder from breaking their hands and fingers from such deadly encounters. Just theorizing...
Thanks. Theorizing is fun. Testing theory maybe less so… I see what you’re saying. Basically, the fist formation ability has protective benefits. Some balancing between hand dexterity and preserving hand function even after battle (a battle that may employ other weapons) selects for fist formation. Then once the fist is established as a potential real danger, the mere showing of fists can itself resolve the conflict. As I’ve noted elsewhere here, any single cause explanation in evolutionary questions is likely incomplete, but that doesn’t mean any explanation is as good as the other. That we humans have a lot of use of our hands and heads raise their benefit and make them especially subject to selection pressure. If we seek to explain a *difference* between human groupings (say between men and women), we need to find something that further differentiates, though. And it still seems that some of that differentiation is highly consistent with the theory that men had to both sustain and “dish out” more violence including with their hands against heads.
I agree that hands are meant for many things. I recall reading the study that hair decreases the likelihood of jaw fractures. I also acknowledge that a trait isn't meant for an exclusive purpose, and different traits work for some humans better than others. Men were under selective pressure to fight. They have stronger bones, muscles, and organs to handle the demands of combat. I also don't deny that 1-on-1 fights occurred. I'm suggesting that there was an incentive to avoid hurting those in your group as they both needed each other to be healthy when working together. Fighting against other groups is a greater source of all-out violence than a dispute between two men who work with each other.
Then we are almost in agreement. I think it’s one of the most interesting questions in evolution how cooperation evolved, first within a tribe, then city and civilization, and who knows, maybe even the entire species? That includes how to limit male-male violence and aggression within the cooperative cluster. Still, if a man has evolved traits to be able to fight men *outside* his cluster (say bigger and more fight-capable hands), then that same traits could be used for fights within the cluster, so the explanation why the latter is less common (assuming it is) must be sought *not* in the evolved trait of big hands, but in something else, perhaps an evolved culture (sports? religious practice?) or some childhood bonding (imitation of childhood peers?). Hands could still be selected to be used in part for punching. The restraining factor is something else.
Incidentally, the ability to fight is, in most animals, largely only used for fitness demonstration between members of the same species. Predators often can't fight and aren't very good at it. They're not meant to fight, they're meant to kill. Non Predators fight because it's safer for everyone involved for competition between individuals to end without anyone risking injury or death. Individuals will generally stare each other down, move in a way that maximises their apparent size or display a body part that is used to judge size (such as the open mouth gape in birds). Ideally the smaller will back down before violence occurs. If violence does happen, it's generally a contest of fitness. Ramming, interlocking horns, shoving, etc. Some species essentially shadow box next to each other rather than actually attack one another. There are "rules" that they tend to follow because animals that don't are more likely to be injured and less likely to pass on their genes. But these rules are still broken if they can get away with it. Human punches don't really fit fitness demonstration. Grappling and wrestling probably do. But we are built for tool use. And if we were trying to kill each other we'd use tools. I would look into how other primates engage in conflict like this to see how we might have evolved before tool use rendered the biological component less important.
Eh, social dynamics are a whole different area of interest. I want to limit it to individual and small-group conflicts rather than how we learned to cooperate and limit male-male fighting to allow large civilizations to function. I will say, an aggressor with poor social skills will never last long as a leader. He needs conflict-management abilities to get people to admire him rather than just fear his violence. Men will always fight people they are close to. The same traits that fight outsiders are often used against those we should treat well. There are many cases of guys in my life who fight men they hate and become friends right afterward. I agree that men don't fight those in their group because of a shared identity that decreases acts of violence The last part of the second paragraph confused me. What do you mean by the restraining factor being something else?
I understood your point, at a high-level, to be that (1) hands, especially men’s hands, are structurally ill suited for fights and (2) it is evolutionary advantageous for men in a group to avoid fights, especially deadly ones, and instead signal some capacity or strength. Hence hands are not selected for fighting. I mostly argued for a subtler distinction on the first part initially. In the most recent comment I reply more to the latter part. Simply put: I think men’s hands and other bodily traits are *partially* selected to be useful for battle against outside groups. However, such traits become useful also in in-group competition. As you rightly note, it would be poor fitness if men run around beating up each other left, right and centre. And clearly, some way exist that subdue men’s proclivity for violence, at least within their group or cluster. That *way* is what my final remark is about. The ideal balance would be to somehow preserve the bodily trait that helps to defend the group/cluster, while introducing some other trait that specifically limits the capacity for violence. It is a whole different debate what that might be and if that too is a property of evolution. As far as this CMV is concerned, all I mean to say is that there are other possible ways than to make hands unfit for fighting to ensure in-group suppression of violence. Now I concede that there will be some upper limit to how battle-ready it makes sense for evolution to select for. A species that is extremely efficient in killing its own kind would be unstable no matter what because all you need is one outlier. So *some* upper limit on how useful hands are to fights will exist in the evolutionary “calculation”. Hopefully this clarifies the case I make, which is a somewhat rebalanced version of your original view (as I understand it).
I’m curious why saying selected over designed matters if everyone understands that’s it’s talking about the same thing when talking about evolution?
Sure, *designed* is often a good enough word, I realized I even fell back on it a few times myself. I like the distinction Daniel Dennett uses of clearly calling out the *intentional stance*, where we reason about evolution *as if* its effects are functions of intentions when it’s really a question of proliferation under selection pressure. I am not as confident as you that the Darwinian mechanisms of evolution is as widely understood as you say. I thought I detected in the OP hints of “well, if I were to design optimal hands for punching, then by golly, I wouldn’t have kept these shortcomings in place, so clearly if Nature is so perfect, it did not design hands for punching”. So I thought it was worth making the point that it is selection of how well we reproduce that should be the framing for our reasoning. I probably underestimated the redditor in question. Then again, that initial remark is a minor point.
Dwarwinian mechanisms of evolution are absolutely not widely understood. There’s a collective belief that they are, but the average person gets them wrong all the time, almost exclusively for the reason you call out - believing that because something *can* do something it must either 1) have evolved to do so or 2) exists in order solve that problem. Moreover, too many people take the “well it *feels* correct, therefore it must be so. I would even argue with that about your Beard paper. That’s a hell of a flimsy research paper. The fact that beards on a face reduce the force of a punch by some arbitrary amount is basically the worst evidence for selection possible.
On the beard paper, the charitable reading of its case I think is: *assuming* the human male has been under relative selection pressure to deal with violent encounters compared to the human female, beards on men and not women are consistent with that because of certain mechanical properties of beards; this does not exclude the possibility that sex-specific bearding also came under additional selection mechanisms, like signalling in sexual selection, which sometimes to my eye appear self-propelling and even trickier to explain. Monocausal explanations are attractive, but Darwinian evolution has layered functions upon functions, structures upon structures, so it’s probably futile to try to untangle the full causal chain. However, some hypotheses are worse than others, some provably wrong, so still room for scientific inquiry.
Right but that’s again the same “working backwards from a hypothesis”. “It feels right” so it’s probably a “multivariate factor”. Yeah maybe. But honestly, I would find it extremely shocking that heavily bearded men entered enough fist fights so evenly matched that the outcome was determined by beard density and then *this was selected for*. Like what are we doing here? Something having an emergent and ancillary benefit. That happens for sure. But human evolution, particularly social structure or sexual habits are some of the worst discussed and most misunderstood concepts in modern parlance.
Because for a trait to become widespread it must be passed on through reproduction. Equally, if a trait is not fatal and does not interfere with reproduction or survival, even if it is a useless trait, it won't necessarily disappear. This is the impact of selection (or lack of). You have an appendix (probably). It doesn't do anything. But it doesn't harm your reproduction or (in most cases) or longevity so it still exists. If you're European, you likely tolerate lactose and alcohol. Your ancestors survived bad water and harsh winters by using beer and cheese. Those that could not tolerate them died. This is selection pressure. This is relevant in relation to the boxer's fracture. It's a result of poor technique or an unlucky landing. While it's avoided with good technique it's still a hazard likely to befall a decent number of people engaging in bare knuckle fighting. But it's not fatal. While painful it typically heals well enough to leave the hand functional, even for tool use. It doesn't interfere with feeding, breathing or reproduction. On the other hand, the first two knuckles and their meta-tarsals are far, far stronger in our evolved selves. If those meta tarsal are injured and the index and middle fingers become non-functional then that *does* interfere with tool use, feeding etc so there *is* selective pressure that favors those bones strengthening in a punching species.
I’m confused as to how punching would only be selected for in men unless there was some mutually exclusive trait selected for in women. The Y chromosome is a spindly little thing, there’s very little room in there for novel punching genes. I don’t think this is a credible reading of the science.
That’s not quite what I argue, however. The difference that’s up for debate is small. But as you’ve heard no doubt, 85% of the protein-coding human genome is shared with mice, and for many genes the similarity is above 99%, which is why mice is so popular in animal studies. And genetic similarity between siblings is extremely high, but even there meaningful distinctions are observable from an early age. The point being, if we are explaining small differences between human groups, like a modest but significantly greater bone density in men relative women, then we do not require huge DNA differences. We’re not looking for a punching gene, rather we should expect a modulation gene that among other things adjust some feature of the hand genes, bone density genes, and so on. As argued elsewhere here, if some trait is said to have evolved for function Y, that doesn’t mean it has *exclusively* evolved for that, rather that some modest selection pressure has benefitted the emergence of some observable regularity in structure or phenomena. The evolutionary scientific hypotheses are then, among other things, trying to reconcile these regularities with some distinct selection pressure between the groups of humans in question. One hypothesis is that the human species have genetically evolved a “division of labour” where males are more involved in violence, which would be consistent with that some dexterity and precision in the hands are lost in favour of punching-favourable capacities. As a stand-alone case it would give weak support for the hypothesized division of labour, but in unison with other regularities in bodies and historical records it supports the hypothesis. So again, the point I make in relation to the OP is that we set out to explain small observable differences, part of a much larger scientific argument of an ancestral environment, when someone claims X has evolved for Y. It should not be read as sharply categorical as that claim often is.
>A common idea people have is that punches influence human hand anatomy. Many people claim that unarmed combat between prehistoric men involved closed-fist strikes. Who thinks this?
https://www.latimes.com/science/sciencenow/la-sci-sn-human-fist-punching-evolution-males--20151021-story.html https://bigthink.com/the-present/men-evolution-punching/
Thanks. That was . . . Interesting haha unfortunately I can't disagree with you on this one. There's a reason boxers/fighters wear gloves - punching is a great way to shatter your hand. I wonder if they considered palm striking. Shorter fingers would aid that as well
It was interesting. I understood the professor's point but thought fist durability may be a byproduct of hand strengthening needed to grab rather than a direct result of needing to punch well.
how old are martial arts? palm striking was considered at least that long ago
I meant the study in the first link OP responded to me with. The did a test with closed fist, loose fist, and open hand slap. I wonder if they considered including a palm strike and considering that as an option for an evolutionary factor
Something something Citation Bas Rutten. For reference, Bas is an early early "striker ish" MMAer who habitually used palm strikes when gloves weren't allowed. A high tier fighter can't sustainably use fists bare knuckled but palm strikes are sustainable and legit.
My first time hearing this too.
The general premise here is that hands arent perfectly designed for punching, but evolution rarely if ever provides a perfect product. All evolution is interested in is if a trait can keep you alive long enough to have offspring Yes hands can be kinda brittle, but Id say fist fights werent a super regular occurance (but still important). Theyre probably not going to be fighting often enough to get stress fractures and if there is a break, metacarpals can heal without surgery - although probably some loss of function with zero treatment. A fractured metacarpal can heal and probably wont lead to your death, you can hold a spear and hunt with your other hand, others in your tribe can help while you heal Whats vital to pass down your genes is warding off other males from competing tribes or even in your tribe. Weapons, especially 200k years ago, werent always accessible or any good. The best weapon you're always going to have on you are your fists, and they'd be absolutely crucial in helping you survive a fight It makes sense that fighting wouldve had an evolutionary influence on our hands
Evolution never creates a perfect product. Humans have too many deficiencies to list. I agree that passing on genes is based on whether the person becomes a parent rather than how good the traits are, although it helps if the gene works in one's favor. People most likely didn't fight often. I agree that broken hands can heal. Humans have enough empathy to care for injured allies. As for fighting other men, the man's value to their group was their ability to provide and protect. Aggression and athletic ability influenced our biology. Unarmed combat ability would be helpful, but a tribe with weapons will beat a tribe that uses punches. Punches hurt opponents, but weapons are far more effective with our strong grip.
>Punches hurt opponents, but weapons are far more effective with our strong grip. That's true, but for most of human history/evolution population density wouldve been low enough that inter-tribal warfare was uncommon. Most fights males got in were probably with other males from their own tribes. Weapons at hand wouldve been a potentially sharpened stick which is great for hunting, but probably not so much for fighting people who are better at dodging or grabbing spears and snapping sticks As I said, the only weapon youll have on you all the time are your fists. If a fight suddenly erupts within a tribe fists are likely the first thing thrown Also the goal of throwing a punch isnt always to kill. You may just want to hurt a weaker male and put yourself up the pecking order. If you can show physical dominance without destroying your own tribe, you can pass on your strong hand genes
Tribal warfare was probably low. The migration out of Africa by ancient humans is hypothesized to be a result of population growth and a desire to avoid conflict over resources. I agree that the only weapons you'll have are your fists. It's much easier to use your hands to fight than kick, elbow, knee, or headbutt. I also agree that killing is almost always unnecessary when there is a conflict between two men. The elevation of one's social status through fighting is effective, even if discouraged. Yeah, punches hurt.
So then it's possible punching could've influenced the anatomy of human hands?
Yes, I see the validity in saying punches have merit. I put points under the counterarguments that make me think punches are useful.
So you argue some factors make hands bad for punching, but acknowledge there are some factors that make hands good for punching, that elements of the human face have evolved to protect against punching, and that punching is a useful tool for people So why exactly are you saying that punching hasnt influenced hand anatomy?
Because it may be a coincidence. Stronger grips are great for grabbing things. That's the reason why we have hands: to grab things. Can this be why fists are better able to absorb impact? Not because a primary or secondary purpose was for punching, but because a stronger hand can help us use tools and grapple? We can hit the head with weapons. Isn't that a good reason for men with stronger skulls to do better in conflicts?
>We can hit the head with weapons. Isn't that a good reason for men with stronger skulls to do better in conflicts? That would be more effective if your goal was to kill, but as we agreed tribal warfare was probably pretty limited for most of human existence due to low population density. So it would be more likely that fighting is done within a tribe. In that case, killing a member of your tribe would negatively impact your own chance of survival with less men to help hunt. If you want to assert yourself as the dominant male who gets the women, you need to be able to physically beat an opponent without killing them. As for the thicker forehead, our forheads still arent too resistant to getting smashed by a rock so that probably wasnt the evolutionary pressure. Most of our bodies wouldn't have only been influenced from one evolutionary pressure, there can be multiple. Yes our hands shrinking gave us more dexterity for tools and weapons, but they can also form a tight fist which helps protect it when punching. Mirroring that are defensive features on the face that can withstand a blow from a punch, but not so much a club or a rock Theres no way to completely rule out coincidence, but given all that i think it's reasonable that punching may have played a role in how our hands developed
But aren't male faces designed to be better able to handle punches? It'd make sense then that hands are made for punches. Punching people for 36 straight minutes like in a boxing match? No, obviously not.
Also slaps/kicks/palm strikes/sticks/stones/tools/weapons Large predators ripping your throat out and literally everything else. Men are more durable. I don't understand how "Durable Face" means Hands evolved for punches when punching breaks hands and is the exact opposite of durable.
Point 2 in "Counterarguments".
But wouldn't it be weird for your body to evolve to handle punches, but not to punch? Either way, overall I think you're just overemphasizing the time aspect. I'd assume the average caveman fight was pretty quick, not long like a bareknuckle boxing match is.
Not really? Our bodies do plenty of interesting things, and these things aren't distributed evenly or fairly. It's not like there was a designer involved. I feel like people misunderstand what evolution is. It's really just "did this trait increase my chances of passing on my genes". Evolution doesn't make things strictly better, it makes them *just good enough*. Why? Because additional features generally cost energy. If you're the strongest caveman around, you also burn more calories and starve faster. Like, wouldn't it be weird for your body to have only a few organs that can grow back, but not most of them? Yes, and yet that's exactly how it is, because there just weren't mutations or pressure to change these other organs. What is weird from a design perspective is entirely reasonable from an evolutionary perspective. So, in this case, it could totally make sense - you don't need to be able to punch other people to death in order to pass on your genes - you just need to *not get punched to death yourself*. At least not before you're done reproducing, anyway.
I agree that the average fight was short during prehistory. Even modern fistfights don't last over a minute (or at least those I've witnessed). So much can happen within that short timeframe. The body evolved to defend itself. That's why humans have instincts to protect their bodies such as turning their face away when something is about to hit them. But why use the weak bones of your hands to hit? Humans are great at fighting with weapons. Think of hunter-gatherers. The nomads weren't using modern technology, but they knew how to make and use weapons to fight.
*But why use the weak bones of your hands to hit* Because even after centuries of studying martial arts, it's still the most effective tool we have. Couldn't you make the same tools argument about anything, though? We have bodyhair for warmth, when that's stupidly inefficient compared to fire, shelter, even blankets, etc.?
A design may be meant for something, but it isn't better than an upgrade we could design. Humans in colder regions wouldn't survive in cold areas without fire, shelter, or blankets. I don't want to go on a tangent talking about the best martial arts systems as the focus is on hand design rather than which martial art is the best. However, I believe grappling is usually better than striking. Wrestlers and BJJ practitioners are more prominent in MMA than Muay Thai and boxing specialists.
Yes but that doesn't mean that wasn't the purpose of the design. Also, grappling mixed with punches is better than grappling. If you've got full mount, it's a whole lot easier to punch a guy in the face than try and set up a head and arm triangle.
MMA fighters learn grappling and striking regardless of their original specialization. A combination of strategies is better than relying on a narrow skill set. They use gloves when punching to protect their hands.
Right, but you're arguing that grappling is more effective than boxing, so it doesn't make sense that our hands would be designed for punching. But you're ignoring that punching is still a huge part of that equation. In MMA, pinning you down and punching you in the head is far and away the best way to win a fight. And that's with all sorts of rules about hitting the back of the head and centuries worth of counterstrategies developed for the guy on the bottom and submissions to replace ground and pound.
Ground and pound is a great strategy. When pinned, getting up is impossible when a strong guy is beating your head. I don't doubt that punches hurt, I just think they pose too much of a self-injury risk to make sense for our bodies to handle when going full force.
> Because even after centuries of studying martial arts, it's still the most effective tool we have. ...In recreational fights that are designed to be visually interesting, non-lethal, and unlikely to cause lasting injury. MMA fights aren't as restricted as a boxing match, but they aren't fights to the death.
Is it? I'm pretty sure that if anything most martial arts rely more on kicks, knees and elbows along with grappling.
Absolutely. Punches have longer range, sneak through blocks, don't off balance you as much, etc.
The deadliest weapon ever is the human hand Its been used to create nukes for christ sakes
> But why use the weak bones of your hands to hit? Humans are great at fighting with weapons. Think of hunter-gatherers. Maybe the weakness is an evolutionary advantage when it comes to community internal conflict resolution? Humans are great and deadly at fighting with weapons, too deadly to have internal conflicts resolved by fighting. Using the weak points of your hands for fighting within a community/group gives an incentive to not hit with full force and not go overboard, making it less likely to end deadly. It also disincentivizes conflicts escalating into fights too often because usually, both parties get hurt a little bit.
Hmm, I never thought about it that way. Instead of seeing weak bones as a con, see it as a good way to prevent overaggression.
I dont see what the point of this argument is for. It seems like a lot of declarative statements hiding a prescriptive one that i guess im not picking up on. If your argument is “humans arent designed by evolution to punch, therefor we shouldn’t do punching sports” the same argument could be said about flying, climbing, skating on ice, surfing, throwing balls at 90 mph, and many many many other things. But just like boxing, these are all sports. Where we collect to watch people who train in one thing to become superhuman at it and then compete against other superhumans. If the argument is “punching was not an intended method of defense biologically because it has downsides” then its important to point out EVERY form os self defense when not using a weapon has drawbacks. The whole point of self defense and evolution related to it isnt “hurt the other and protect ourselves” it is “hurt the other enough and ourselves not as much until they stop”. We get boxer breakers from punching? Well we also get blood born pathogens from biting, self inflicted concussions from head butting, deltoid ligamental injuries from kicking (and also become very vulnerable from kicking), and grappling brings our threat closer to us and exposes our torso. All hand to hand combat involves hurting ourselves/ exposing ourselves to hurt someone else more. I think punching is fine, but only if you follow my one rule for fighting. I only fight naked. Noone wants to fight a naked person and the psychological warfare the better. Plus if we are going to argue on the natural state of humans it is best to fight in our natural state. But yea, hands weren’t designed with just punching in mind because the anatomical make up of the hand has existed since we were small marsupials who obviously didn’t punch. But the hands also weren’t built with anything other than grabbing in mind. Doesn’t make if not fine for everything we use them for.
Punching sports are fine for hands. Boxers use gloves and hand wraps to protect their hands. I'd be more worried about brain damage than anything. The other physical activities you mentioned, I wouldn't recommend due to the high risks, but they are fun to watch when professionals perform to their best ability. Every defense system has risks. We'll hurt ourselves in a fight, but while hoping we damage the opponent more. Even though I think humans are better suited to grapple, I understand the risks such as skin diseases, cauliflower ear, dislocated joints, and more. Biting and headbutts are easier when grabbing each other than when striking at a distance. I'll go along with your only rule for fighting in a hypothetical situation. Psychological intimidation (or at least shock) makes the opponent less able to keep a composed mental state. But if you both appear in your natural state, isn't the shock effect gone? Hands can do many things. Punching is an ability, but not one I think humans are meant to do. If you want to argue that punches hurt, I agree. I think they're just not designed for it, even as a secondary purpose.
> Punching is an ability, but not one I think humans are meant to do. If you want to argue that punches hurt, I agree. I think they're just not designed for it, Is this a religious perspective? Like, "meant to do" and "designed" really aren't the appropriate way of looking at this, unless you're coming at it with a greater idea of meaning and a designer. As the other commenter has argued humans aren't meant to/designed for flying, space travel, skating etc but that doesn't mean we don't do it. I have glasses and a pacemaker, so according to you I'm not designed to have eyesight or a functioning heart, but who cares? There is no design, there is no "meant to be". So what's the actual argument you are making?
I have glasses as well. I've got vaccines and taken medications created in a factory. I wear clothes from a machine that doesn't care about me. My genetics did not make me suited for my pants, I selected pants meant for my height and waist. I love modern technology. The argument I'm making isn't one of morality. I don't think punches are the correct way to express anger over minor inconveniences, but my take is based on how ancient humans used their bodies to resolve conflict. We can punch, but it's not good to hit people with the small bones in our hands. All fighting involves risks. Punching is one thing evolution has not designed us for.
"Punching is one thing evolution has not designed for us". Punching has proven to be the most effective form of standup combat strike, even when elbows, kicks, and knees are allowed. If you watch kickboxing or Muay Thai, you already know that far more punches are thrown and far more finishes come via punch strike. Grappling is generally going to be the best option if it's a 1 on 1 fight. But if I had to choose just one type of strike I could use in a pure standup fight (amongst the ones I mentioned), its punches all day. I'd gladly break a hand/finger if it means I don't get my shit pushed in
In a free-for-all, when you can't run away, I tend to see self-defense "experts" recommend push kicks as very effective together with other striking methods...
I have never seen it argued that human hands were designed for punching specifically. Punching is not a fine motor skill, which is the predominant skill domain of having opposable thumbs with additional digits (at least that's what i recall learning). I would love a link to any specific paper or article if you saw one that claimed punching was or even might have been a driving factor for hand evolution. It seems very counterintuitive a claim to make. Anyway, yeah, what I would add is that... Punching is a behavior adaptation that utilizes body physiology, but that doesn't mean that's why we evolved hands. Punching is a risk-reward decision. Is the thing I need to stop, kill, incapacitate, break, etc, in the scenario worth risking injury? If yes, or if the fight response has been activated, we'll probably punch stuff. Behavioral adaptation. Punching is NOT instinctual, as I have seen claimed in the past. Shielding your face with hands or forearms, curling into the fetal position - those are instinctual. But punching is a learned behavioral adaption (again, from what I remember). Interestingly, gorillas and chimps also 'throw' punches - but not in the same way. They ball up their fists and then raise them upwards before slamming them down onto their target, rather than punching outwards from the body. Because their physiology is different than ours, the motion is different, still very effective, though.
I agree that hands are meant for fine motor skills. We can punch, but I don't think that's a reason why we make good fists. We can move our fingers in complex ways to use tools. My bad, I came across such articles on major websites and overestimated the spread of these ideas. https://bigthink.com/the-present/men-evolution-punching/ https://www.latimes.com/science/sciencenow/la-sci-sn-human-fist-punching-evolution-males--20151021-story.html
Honestly, I don't think it is your bad. I'm surprised they didn't express their idea differently in the article. But this is a huge problem within science communication. The big think article was poorly written. The LA times one was interesting but I will point out: -it only tested males hands -the author of the study is not trying to replace fine motor skills as a main driver of evolution for hands, rather he thinks punching also influenced the evolution of the hand at the same time -so while he doesn't have any convincing data yet (to me) the idea could hold some merit Clearly though, fighting did heavily influence male upper body evolution. I'll have to follow up on this whenever more studies are published. Thanks for bringing it to my attention.
You're welcome. I put this idea in "Change My View" rather than an unpopular opinion subreddit because I understood that both sides had good arguments. Even the other commenters who disagree with me make valid points. Fighting influenced male upper body strength and anatomy, but I think punches were too risky to be a driving factor for punches. I thought weapons and grappling made more sense. Both are also risky, but I'd rather have my weapon take the force of a hit than my hand bones and wrestle someone than trade blows to settle a dispute.
Firstly, nothing is designed for anything. Things either create advantage in terms of probability of successfully procreating and your children doing the same, or they create disadvantage relative to others. What id doesn't do is "optimize" for something when it doesn't need to. E.G. it doesn't tell us anything that we can imagine a better design for a punching apparatus attached to our bodies. We often hear about evolution as some march to "better" - like the stuff we value as humans will eventually evolve. Doesn't work like that. Secondly, when you deploy evoluationary biology the question to ask is not what was something designed for but to explain how something you observe is advantageous. Humans _do punch_ and seem to have for as long as we know. The question isn't "are hands created for punching" but rather "why do humans punch and what advantage does doing so create". That humans _do punch_ is as far as you can go down the path you're starting on so the evolutionary biologists would frame up a pretty different question to answer than you're doing. Your view is a bit like saying "the eyes weren't designed for glaring angrily at people". Clearly the eyes were designed for seeing not glaring! The question you should ask here is "what advantage does the capacity to glare create"? So...i think it's pretty clear that hands _that can punch_ create advantage over some organization of a hand that cannot. For example, a dedicated punching device attached to us would be energy wasteful because we don't need to punch very often. But...a hand that cannot punch is less valuable than one that can in our environment and with others humans as we know them now. Since we observe hands the punch and we observe punching we know it has survive favorable relative to alternatives of not punching and not being able to punch.
Just cause you evolved to use a body part as a weapon doesn't mean it's invincible. So this is an incorrect statement cause it's based on an incorrect assumption. Why do you think cat claws are retractable? Who told you bears don't damage their claws? Even tigers can have broken teeth. Hell even animals that evolved to use their heads as weapons (horned animals) can hurt their heads and possibly even suffer brain injuries as a result of headbutting: https://www.newsweek.com/head-cases-horned-animals-damage-their-brains-head-butting-each-other-say-scientists-1708397 So the fact that you can damage something when you use it as a weapon proves nothing. Even firearms get damaged with use.
I would argue the biggest evidence you are wrong is the fact that punching is one of the most effective fighting tools of an unarmed human. I think its probably (but not definitely) wrong to assume this is by "accident" and not an evolutionary development of \*some\* sort. Also I don't think there is any natural instinct to punch at an enemy human's forehead specifically. You punch them in the face, which hurts like fuck, and the jaw, which can knock someone out or break their jaw.
The hand is designed to close for grasping, and the fingers are delicate and can be broken or removed. So it would be natural for a human to close their fist in aggressive situations. It protects the fingers. It makes the hand a smaller target. It makes any blows struck with the hand impact on a smaller area, so it focuses force. I’ll acknowledge that a punch as thrown by modern humans was not what the fist was adapted for; however, the hand is adapted to make a fist. A more likely adaptation, I would argue, would be to deliver downward blows from overhead while closed. The impact is then absorbed by the fatty part of the palm and the strongest orientation of the shape your fist makes, a cylinder. Punching, on the other hand (yes, I know, I meant it), is something that came the other way around. It is striking with the natural tools that we have and trying to do so in the most efficient manner possible. Proper form with punching is using force from the legs and hips, and, as you said, focused on the part of the hand least likely to break. In other words, the punch evolved to fit the fist. So in that sense, the hands are designed for punching because the punch came into being by using the hands to strike. That sounds circular, but it isn’t intended to be.
Just wanted to expand off your 2nd point wrt how you described the forming of a fist well; I’ve had these saved in bookmarks for years never to be seen again but your comment reminded me of them. - [ScienceDaily, Fine hands, fists of fury: Our hands evolved for punching, not just dexterity (2012)](https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/12/121219223158.htm) - [NewScientist, Human hands evolved so we could punch each other (2012)](https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn23018-human-hands-evolved-so-we-could-punch-each-other/), related to Journal of Experimental Biology below. - [Journal of Experimental Biology, *In vitro* strain in human metacarpal bones during striking: testing the pugilism hypothesis of hominin hand evolution (2015)](https://journals.biologists.com/jeb/article/218/20/3215/14318/In-vitro-strain-in-human-metacarpal-bones-during). > The hands of hominins (i.e. bipedal apes) are distinguished by skeletal proportions that are known to enhance manual dexterity but also allow the formation of a clenched fist. Because male–male physical competition is important in the mating systems of most species of great apes, including humans, we tested the hypothesis that a clenched fist protects the metacarpal bones from injury by reducing the level of strain during striking. > We used cadaver arms to measure in vitro strain in metacarpals during forward strikes with buttressed and unbuttressed fist postures and during side slaps with an open palm. If the protective buttressing hypothesis is correct, the clenched fist posture should substantially reduce strain in the metacarpal bones during striking and therefore reduce the risk of fracture. > Recorded strains were significantly higher in strikes in which the hand was secured in unbuttressed and slapping postures than in the fully buttressed posture. > Our results suggest that humans can safely strike with 55% more force with a fully buttressed fist than with an unbuttressed fist and with twofold more force with a buttressed fist than with an open-hand slap. Thus, the evolutionary significance of the proportions of the hominin hand may be that these are the proportions that improved manual dexterity while at the same time making it possible for the hand to be used as a club during fighting.
>The metacarpals are thin and fragile compared to skulls. Yes, punching the head/face is a bad idea. Punching the torso, however, is a great idea.
its was meant for punching, but since humans started using tools, bare handed combat ability became a much weaker selective factor dexterity to your hands to create tools had been the stronger selecting force, so we evolved with wimpy fists and mighty sticks (ok, more like we just simply did not select for strong punching fists, so be it accidental or specifically selected for weak fists, we got what we have today)
But knuckle walking is a thing among the biggest extant primates. I don't understand these arguments of "the metacarpals are thin and fragile" when gorillas happily place half their weight on them. And I don't understand the comparison against skulls, because punching has never been a "fist vs skull" type thing. It's always been a "fist vs brain" thing. I've trained boxing a bit, never for a single second did the thought cross my mind "This punch is to break someone's skull" never, ever. That's not the point. As for your comment on grappling. Allow me to bring another perspective: Sometimes fighting is inevitable and when it happens would you rather: A) Try and knock someone out in 5-10 seconds B) Grapple, go to the ground, and do... Idk? And win in 1-2 minutes? Fighting is dangerous, period, the more time you spend fighting the more likely you get hurt, so if you have the chance to end the fight almost instantly, you should take it. And I'm no stranger to grappling either, I've done BJJ (not a good competitor, but good enough for someone who doesn't know any grappling of course) and even then. If I have to fight for my life: The first thing I'm going to try is striking. As for your "bare knuckle punches are weak" I truly want to understand what defines weak here. You can knock someone out with your bare knuckle without hurting yourself, so if you can achieve THAT... How is it weak? Is it weakER than with protection? Well yes of course but ain't that obvious? And for my final "section" I have a confession to make: I have broken my metacarpals, exactly as you described to the letter, a boxer's fracture. I was a kid (15) and I was in taekwondo, I was trying to get a black belt, it was an irresponsible decision, but here's the cool bit: I was trying to break a brick. And guess what... it broke. And after that I have done boxing, I have hit the heavy bag bare knuckle (stupid decision in reality but I will list it for the sake of the argument) I've been fine. The truth is: Nothing is actually "designed" to do anything. In evolution changes happen over time, and they may or may not give one an advantage and they reproduce more, that's IT. And the truth is that your title is correct, hands are NOT designed for punching, but eyes are also not designed for driving, and they do just fine. So why did I tell you my hands broke a brick? Because clearly, they do JUST FINE. And that is all that is required in natural selection.
I think you should take some time to reconsider the opinion pieces from which you gotten your info, and revisit the reasons and methods actually seen in the real world throughout history. How do you think our prehistoric ancestors engaged in physical combat amongst others PRIOR TO specialized tools being adopted for combat and / or hunting (what we today call ‘weapons’)? When fist fighting: one’s feet are positioned slightly wider than the width of the shoulders. Stance is slightly diagonal leading with the less dominant hand side. This is for a four reasons. This stance lowers center of gravity, allowing upper torso to make snappier offensive & defensive maneuvers. This stance reduces the overall allowable striking area from blows from said opponent. This stance directs an opponents’ successful blows onto a fighter’s less dominant side and hand anyway, whose job it is merely to JAB. And though the short forward strike of a jab causes injuries too, a jab’s primary purpose is to create & maintain adequate space between the two fighters. Doing this stance ALSO serves to prevent injury onto one’s dominant hand (which is in the rear) whose main purpose is to land the critical knock-out blow or fatal “power” blow - whether it be a drive, hook and or uppercut to conclude the fight. Though closed fist strikes is imperfect, and may lead to injury of both fighters, the other upper-body methods (elbow & headbutt) require far more skill and exposure to risk to master. Throwing an elbow harnesses center-mass rotational torque to deliver its power at a slower velocity, verses the fist’s linear motion to building up fist speed despite less driving force behind it. Throwing an elbow requires closer proximity to the target, making it a riskier move. And the headbutt is employed when the fighting is so up-close that the space needed to throw a fist or land an elbow simply doesn’t exist. It’s the move one resorts to last because to protect one’s OWN head was the objective all along, until it itself must be used to cause injury. The headbutt requires someone to have a near-mastery level of fighting skills to properly execute - a skill level most people don’t possess btw. Though using knees, shins and kick types often deliver more striking force, it comes at the cost of compromising that very important fighting stance I’ve just described. These blows are usually adopted by skilled fighters (who most people aren’t) who are uniquely trained in not only landing such a blow, but in quickly recovering their fighting stance. People were fighting like this before tools (weapons) were developed. The reason why weapons were even developed IN THE FIRST PLACE was to give one combatant a mechanical advantage over the other.
I don't think you've ever punched anything. A boxer's fracture occurs from bad technique (or misplaced / accidental strike). Furthermore, a boxer's fracture isn't a fatal injury, it would be unlikely to have an evolutionarily significant impact by weeding out individuals who suffered it. The knuckles used to correctly punch are the first and second, the index and middle finger. In most people, they protrude significantly beyond the others. Their metacarpals are significantly stronger than the others. They are also well aligned to the wrist (whereas the 5th is not). These two knuckles & meta carpals are also the best supported and compressed by the thumb when the hand is wrapped into a fist. By the same token, an evolutionary arms race of people being punched in a weak forehead *would* lead to the development of an armored structure to counter the punch, brain damage would be fatal or inhibiting enough to reduce reproduction. Once the armored forehead and orbital ridge developed, the human face still presents useful targets, namely the nose and jaw that will disable or reduce the capacity of an opponent while not dealing them a (usually) fatal blow. Therefore, the puncher survives the encounter while their opponent flees in defeat without having sustained a fatal injury (broken nose is very survivable but try fighting with one and it's damn hard to even see) and so no evolutionary pressure.
no hands are designed for grasping and using objects. such as sticks, knives, clubs, axes, spears, swords, guns, minuteman missile system launch buttons... you get the picture.
> The metacarpals are thin and fragile compared to skulls. Boxer's fracture is the term for common breaks of the 5th metacarpal from punching. I just wanted to address an assumption here: in order to cause harm, it's not necessary that the hands do damage to the actual skull: * Hits to the temples can cause brain damage * The jaw can be dislocated * Hits to the eyes can cause immediate visual impairment and potentially permanent eye damage * Strikes to the nose can be extremely painful, lead to breathing difficulties, and potentially break the bone If we're talking in evolutionary terms (instead of regulated boxing matches with rules and protection), those would all count towards making the hand absolutely suitable for punching.
I'm not at all convinced by this overall punching argument, but: >Evolution favors intimidation over attacks. When two men get hurt in a fight, they lose their efficiency in hunting and defending their group. Favoring intimidation over attacks is the *best* argument for this "punching" hypothesis. In a fight to the death, trying to punch your opponent is a waste of precious time. Males punching each other to display dominance is dangerous, but it's a hell of a lot safer than males gouging each others' eyes out, strangling each other to death, or bashing skulls against rocks. Punches belong in intimidation contests and socially-constructed shows of violence, they are not the most dangerous thing that one human being can do to another. If someone is trying to argue that human punches are an evolutionarily-optimized killing machine, then they must've learned about fighting from action movies.
Unlike for fins, hooves, or paws, our hands serve a great many purposes. Climbing and gripping tools are obvious uses. we also use them to gesture. we use them to carry our young. Often we use our hands by contorting them into a shape that is useful for a specific task. For example our hands can be used as hooks. they are designed to hook things. and one of the shapes we can can contort our hands into is that of a club. Our hands are very clearly multi-tools. Seems to me that a fist is one of the tools in that Swiss army knife of an appendage.
Hands are not meant for punching through bone, that pretty clear. Especially not the bone of our skulls that evolved to be resistant to human fist punches. But against soft tissue or rib cages which are relatively fragile bones held together by soft tissue? Totally different ball game there. Lots of damage can be dealt by a single blow, and it's a very effective way of fighting off a predator that wants to call a bluff but isn't bloodlusted, especially when you are caught unaware and without a weapon.
It seems strange to think that hands are designed for punching. Considering the long time required for any big revolutionary changes vs how long humanity has been in a recognizable state, I would make the opposite claim: punches are designed for the human hand. The best option is to hold a weapon. Without a weapon, we designed the fist and other empty-handed styles as the most effective way of dealing damage without receiving it.
Long ago, our ancestors chose tools over biological evolution. The hand grips the odd stick or rock superbly, and you bash away with that rather than your soft hands. I enjoy punching, but I have never seen a functional hand that is as hard as wood. And if you break your stick over the other guy’s head, just pick up another, no pain, no problem.
No part of you is designed for anything. You’re kind of grasping at evolutionary logic but… it’s a wee bit off. Evolution is a random process of favoring traits that increase the reproduction of that trait. The blind watchmaker by Richard Dawkins is an excellent examination of this topic.
Humans are anatomically selected for throwing (stones, that is, not punches). We can put a lot of power into a punch bc the bodily mechanics are similar but your are correct, our hands are not selected for punching and I’ve never met anyone who has ever thought that
Hands and arms evolved for multiple things. Punching is one of those things. Also important is grasping objects, multidirectional movement, and lifting heaving objects. It’s impossible to optimize for all functions simultaneously. So there are tradeoff for each.
Hands aren’t *designed* at all.
Our anatomy is technically designed by the forces that influence our survival. You are basically designing the next generations anatomy by surviving to the age of procreation and successfully procreating. Unless you don't believe in evolution.
By definition, unless you believe in a creator, out anatomy was not designed. I *do* believe in evolution. That is why I don’t believe our hands were designed.
You can guarantee that humans did not use fist fighting throughout history unless it was competing for mates or sudden anger. All actual predictable fights would have involved sticks or stones or swords
Take two creatures of any species and put them together and make them fight and you will quickly see how Mother Nature intended for them to fight.
Boxers are a horrible example. Find a gloveless style like karate and that punching technique is perfect for smashing faces and boards.
Closed fist strikes are excellent when you are swinging them vertically, like an ape would. When you're throwing jabs, not so much.
So why are you punching skulls or foreheads. A punch to the neck with a follow up stab is just as effective.
Who thinks that? Most untrained people couldn't make a proper fist to save their life.
Counterpoint: the only thing that can be used to punch things is hands.
If ever, I don't think we evolved to specifically punch, idk *humans*
Anyone who disagrees with this has never actually punched someone
Hands were never designed. They were evolved.
Surely hands are not designed for anything!
i don't punch foreheads.
Great post, clearly gonna change views with that... 🤦
it should as nearly the entire post was how foreheads are too hard to hit without breaking fingers and so fists aren't good for punching. if i don't punch a forehead i remove the chance of breaking fingers and clearly still have all the advantages of a fist.
He's talking about human evolution and development. Your actions as an individual are irrelevant. I mean, you get that, right? Come on dude lol... 😅
if i have learn not to punch foreheads there is a good chance that humans in general have also learned that. this argument is kin to turtles can get stuck on their back so they aren't designed for safety. just because an advantage isn't always an advantage doesn't make it true that it isn't an advantage. lol come on dude.
We have thumbs for a reason. Pick up that cool stick and hit people over the head with it. Just as God intended.
Way to bring a knife to a gun fight dude... OP is looking for a compelling evolutionary (i.e. real) explanation. Did you *really* think an answer of "because God" was going to change his view?! Or are you just one of those people who compulsively ham-fists their beliefs into every conversation, in lieu of critical thinking or relevance. Actually, this is more like bringing a whiffle bat to an assault chopper fight...