Male faces 'buttressed against punches' by evolution

It's funny the hubby and I were just talking about something similar. He said human noises are mushy so we don't hurt each other when we kiss. If our noses were hardened bone it would be like taking an elbow hit to the face. I doubt kissing would've been so much fun or as spontaneous if we had to watch out for each others noses.

We were built to be lovers as well as fighters both are integral to survival. Boney nut casings could be more painful than helpful. I've got a boney butt and it hurts like hell to sit on hard surfaces. Be careful what you wish for lol.

originally posted by: theabsolutetruth
I read about this recently, science has now proved something that us women have always known.

It isn't by chance that we prefer men with certain attributes, such as strong jaws and broad shoulders, it is natural selection.

As for men being warmongering competitive aggressors, well history speaks for itself. However there are shades of grey and it is obvious some nations and cultures have got a grip on man's aggression by utilising it more constructively, such as in the West, instead of rampaging around feudalist style, it is channelled away from tribal style violence and used in far better ways.

That is probably the answer, give men some physical task to do and chances are he will have utilised his excess testosterone, excess energy and aggression on say, harmless building materials, or a football. As well as being too tired to bother being aggressive he will have hopefully achieved something worthwhile.

It is the age old thing of civilization requiring civilized behaviour while our genetics are playing catch up. But we know about it and we are able to manage it so we should, we should always be looking at constructive behaviour.

Yeah, that's the best way.

It's just so deep in us, we are adapted for life in that tribal state, even though violence is not useful in the civilized world. Instead it's useful to be patient and analytical. For the regular Joe, anyway. And it's seductive, this idea of the primal struggle, being the alpha male and getting the girls etc. We carry all this with us in our culture. We watch movies about war, like medieval knights and stuff. And I love that stuff, it's awesome. But we are not truly free if we are slaves to ourselves, to our own values. And everyone is.

But then again, who are we to go against this? We wouldn't even be here if it wasn't for the fact that our ancestors were better at beating apes up than some other apes. Maybe it is necessary? We have to abandon every preconception to get around this.

I think this has something to do with all these young men going on killing sprees these days.

Anywho, I'm getting off topic here, maybe.

a reply to: Phage
Gotta wonder how many generations of Dead Rams it took...to develop those skull & horn features?
Seems like - only the rather pacifistic rams would have survived.

Well - anyway!

originally posted by: MorninggloryWe were built to be lovers as well as fighters both are integral to survival.

True, that's good to keep in mind. And man is the measure of everything, maybe it's pointless to speculate which principle is stronger, lover or fighter. Although it's not even like they are opposites, now that I think of it.

a reply to: WanDash

Seems like - only the rather pacifistic rams would have survived.

The victors are the ones who mate. The pacifists don't...so much.

Evolution is about those who reproduce, not those who just survive.

originally posted by: Phage
I wonder if evolution had anything to do with the skull structure of these guys.

The bony structures in their heads are adapted to protect the brain from the tremendous impact. Bighorn sheep have a double-layered skull honeycombed with bone struts to protect their brains during their impressive head-banging battles. Thick tendons link the skull and spine to help recoil from the impact.

bighornfighting.blogspot.com...

Gotta love those chaps.... just smacking into each other head on. That takes balls. Purity of purpose. It's clean and visually interesting. They are true pros, would be an honor to work with them.

originally posted by: Phage
...The victors are the ones who mate. The pacifists don't...so much.

Evolution is about those who reproduce, not those who just survive.

Point being - there would likely be no victors in such contests (or - no victors capable of wooing a ewe)...before the skulls & horns had developed to handle such forces.
I'm sure, though, that you can deduce that (the gist of that), as well.
So - the other answer would be that 'the sport' grew more violent as the bone structures developed to withstand/deliver greater punishment. Probably started as a noggin' bump after a quick game of chess...and eventually, with the more luxurious models of headgear - just tossed the chess board away.

a reply to: Subnatural

I agree, it's a balancing act.

The primal urges are always there, hence the fact procreation is still going strong. People still mate though I think these days society has become perhaps too primal, pleasure seeking and satisfying urges that are misplaced, for example, the primal urge for procreation and settling has become in the western world extreme hedonism, places like Ayia Napa etc where teenagers and twenty somethings are just there for getting blind drunk and having random sex, when they really should be curtailing that urge and looking for a long term relationship (where they can still do the primal urge thing). In practically every western town and city the same thing, extreme hedonism. It has an effect on our cultural evolution generally, there are more single parents, more millennials staying with their parents until their 30's, it affects the housing market, how children grow up, education, the economy, morals, so many things.

Our society is geared towards people coupling, staying together, being life partners, buying houses, providing role models for children, being valued grandparents and taking an active role in childcare for their grandchildren, their property and saved wealth becomes inheritance. It works that way, it relieves a lot of the strain we are seeing today, where people are spending too much on childcare and mortgages or not being able to be on the property ladder because of house prices or sharing costs, it has all added to a society more obsessed about money and having to overwork. Many companies have seen it as an opportunity for zero hour contracts etc, having more power over people because they can, because people have so many financial commitments, being slaves to the dollar / pound isn't constructive to society.

On the flip side there is the extreme of primal urges, giving men too much say, the allowance of treating women as slaves and going with violent urges, instead of recognising them as a more animal trait, such as those of jihadi.

We have strong minds and strong primal urges though we live in a (mostly) civilized world, we have major wipeout tech, we have to look at being constructive as the alternative is destruction.

Humanity has some major stuff going on compared to the rest of the Earth's animal life, it's like being given a great gift and it should be used wisely. If we have the brains to build atomic bombs then we have the brains to live constructively.

It does seem though like half the world has got this 'gift' and the other half stuck in some primal medieval culture and that's where things
need sorting. It's almost like the world behaving as if tribes, the uncivilized, low tech feudalists and the civilized high tech negotiators.

I wish there could be an easy answer, if those of more primal cultures could be taught to be more civilized and have more recognition of human rights and the more cultured places with the gift of technology and being able to see beyond primal urges, be taught to utilise these gifts more constructively.

a reply to: WanDash

So - the other answer would be that 'the sport' grew more violent as the bone structures developed to withstand/deliver greater punishment.

Yes. Rams with tougher skulls defeated those less well equipped. They passed their traits onto their offspring. Since the winners were more successful at mating, there were more lambs with traits which led to winning the contest. Thick headed lambs became the rule rather than the exception.

a reply to: Phage
I'm familiar with the theoretical line of reasoning... Just challenging it because...it looks more like wishful thinking, to me.
Thanks for your thoughts on the subject.

originally posted by: WanDash
a reply to: Phage
I'm familiar with the theoretical line of reasoning... Just challenging it because...it looks more like wishful thinking, to me.
Thanks for your thoughts on the subject.

Are you doubting that evolution happens, or are you trying to find evidence to support some ideal that violence is bad and not favored by evolution? Because you've got an up-hill battle either way.

originally posted by: James1982
...Are you doubting that evolution happens, or are you trying to find evidence to support some ideal that violence is bad and not favored by evolution? Because you've got an up-hill battle either way.

Perhaps you could clarify the intent of your question.
Are you letting me know that you know something/more than I... Or, that you're smarter...or...more mature...or better educated... Or, perhaps...that your critical-thinking skills & abilities are far enough superior to mine, that you can offer a hand-up?
If you would kindly answer this general question, I might be better able to answer your question, without missing the point.
Thanks.

originally posted by: WanDash

originally posted by: James1982
...Are you doubting that evolution happens, or are you trying to find evidence to support some ideal that violence is bad and not favored by evolution? Because you've got an up-hill battle either way.

Perhaps you could clarify the intent of your question.
Are you letting me know that you know something/more than I... Or, that you're smarter...or...more mature...or better educated... Or, perhaps...that your critical-thinking skills & abilities are far enough superior to mine, that you can offer a hand-up?
If you would kindly answer this general question, I might be better able to answer your question, without missing the point.
Thanks.

I'm curious what your opinion on evolution as it relates to this topic is. You seem to be dancing around some idea with your line of posting and I'd just like to know what that idea is.

Such as:

This theory can't be possible because nature wouldn't do that (be mean and violent)

This theory can't be possible because evolution isn't real

This theory can't be possible because.......? Why I said you have an uphill battle should be fairly obvious, nature is violent and evolution is a commonly accepted fact so arguing against them would be difficult. Never said wrong!

I want your perspective, sir!

a reply to: James1982
Thanks!
My perspective... "Might be. Might not be."
As in every matter investigated, I explore the answers presented, and assign them whatever degree/s of probability that seems most likely (to me).
As to the theory represented in the OP...at this point, I'm giving it a 50/50 chance of holding water.
As someone-else posed - "why do our hands/fists hurt".
My take on that? I would think that we'd all come out of the womb with "Hellboy" fists...since the fists would have taken more punishment (used more often on more objects) than the face.

a reply to: Subnatural

From experience I can tell you zygomats break the easiest and fairly common is fights. the zygomat is your cheek bone. It's pretty fragile. Aren't high cheekbones a feminine quality sought after by supermodels and the fashion industry?

What about the nose that breaks pretty easily too and fairly commonly in a fight. I don't see those being any larger then one would expect between males and females.

I guess jaws are whats left. But wait those break easily too. Damn these scientists are striking out. Maybe some of them should get a little more experience fighting so they won't have to speculate so much to make up a lame theory.

Wouldn't men develop overdeveloped traps and neck muscles and shorter necks then females to protect the head against whiplash injury and rotational force on the brain which can and does knock people out pretty easily. its a fact the longer and less developed some dudes neck is the easier they are to knock out. rotational force and all. why do guys not have shorter necks then women if this theory is true?

How bout higher pain thresholds. wait nope don't have those either. doesn't seem like men were evolved to withstand fist fights better then women after all.

originally posted by: WanDash
a reply to: James1982
Thanks!
My perspective... "Might be. Might not be."
As in every matter investigated, I explore the answers presented, and assign them whatever degree/s of probability that seems most likely (to me).
As to the theory represented in the OP...at this point, I'm giving it a 50/50 chance of holding water.
As someone-else posed - "why do our hands/fists hurt".
My take on that? I would think that we'd all come out of the womb with "Hellboy" fists...since the fists would have taken more punishment (used more often on more objects) than the face.

Thanks for replying!

a reply to: BASSPLYR

Sure there is sexual dimorphism between males and females in primates. but is the reason really because males had to withstand more physical punishment than the other to breed successfully. There's probably plenty of other reasons why males have more robust skeletal systems than females then to fair better in a fist fight over who gets to run the clan.

originally posted by: Phage
If faces evolved to withstand punches, shouldn't hands have done so as well?


No because primates don't really punch. Sure you'll find a youtube video somewhere of a chimp punching or something. but really watch primates fight and they don't punch much if at all. humans probably didn't back then either. in fact in a lot of cultures they still don't really punch and use open hands. punching and assuming thats what all humans do is in some ways cultural bias. Punching with a fist is a stupid human idea. primates do it better and safer and use open hands usually. It's not natural to punch anyways. Besides a primate is going to use whats most effective to save his butt and a soft impact weapon is faster and more powerful when it comes to dropping other primates, not punching. Why do you think slapjacks work better than fists.

a reply to: BASSPLYR

And then finally from experience. A broken facial bone does not end a fight or stop another angry alpha male. so evolving to withstand breakage of facial bones in a fist fight doesn't really make sense. the guys got a broken cheek or a cracked skull. so what. he's still pissed. he still isn't close to stopping, he's still dangerous. he still has a good chance or killing or beating down the other alpha male and all that still has nothing to do with his ability to after the fight is over broken face and all from going around and "asserting" his dominance on all the females. A broken facial bone or skull does not end a fight and won't have much impact on who will go on after said fight and rape all the females or whatever cavemen did back then to spread their seed.

The physics of getting knocked out and bested in a fight between two alpha males aren't really determined by how hard your skull or bones in the face are. at least not for the physiology of a human. it's more about how the forces transmit through the head case. not how hard the head case is.

originally posted by: BASSPLYR
a reply to: BASSPLYR
it's more about how the forces transmit through the head case. not how hard the head case is.

And wouldn't that change in shape/strength also change how force transmits through it?

Also, a broken bone may not be a big deal now, but it could have meant death back then. If your face is too busted up to eat, you'll die. Broken face bones and heavy injury open the body can lead to deadly infection. It's not only about a single mating, but how many times a male can mate. Break his face and he may still beat you, but then he may go off and die a few days later, while you live on and mate more times than him, even if he won the battle at first.

You say a fractured skull doesn't end a fight, well you are basing that on experience with a modern skull. If we still had more fragile skulls it's possible a fractured skull WOULD end a fight. And I'm going to come out and say it anyway, a fractured skull WILL stop most people, and if you hit someone hard enough to fracture their skull, you probably hit them hard enough to ring their brain proper.

Injured animals are often targeted because of weakness, even if you win the fight, having a broken bone in your face is NOT advantageous to survival or reproduction.