Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Your Hands Were Made For Punching According To New Study

samzenpus posted about 2 years ago | from the here's-something-for-your-eye dept.

Idle 240

They are capable of delicate surgery, creating beautiful works of art, and comforting someone feeling down, but according to a new study your hands evolved to smash someone in the face. From the article: "Human hands evolved so that men could make fists and fight, and not just for manual dexterity, new research finds. The study, published in the Journal of Experimental Biology, adds to a growing body of evidence that humans are among the most aggressive and violent animals on the planet. 'With the notable exception of bonobos, great apes are a relatively aggressive group of mammals,' lead author David Carrier told Discovery News. 'Although some primatologists may argue that chimpanzees are the most aggressive apes, I think the evidence suggests that humans are substantially more violent.''"

cancel ×

240 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Not for jacking off? (5, Funny)

colinrichardday (768814) | about 2 years ago | (#42355969)

Not for jacking off?

Re:Not for jacking off? (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42356035)

If God didn't want us to masturbate, he wouldn't have given us such long arms.

Re:Not for jacking off? (5, Funny)

colinrichardday (768814) | about 2 years ago | (#42356097)

But God was mad at T-Rex?

http://www.smbc-comics.com/index.php?db=comics&id=1637#comic [smbc-comics.com]

Re:Not for jacking off? (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42356235)

don't forget the red dot [smbc-comics.com] .

You, sir. (1)

ClintJCL (264898) | about 2 years ago | (#42356083)

I tip my hat to you, sir.

Re:You, sir. (5, Funny)

Weaselmancer (533834) | about 2 years ago | (#42357061)

Just don't shake his hand.

Re:Not for jacking off? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42356117)

Well, the summary DID mention bonobos.

Re:Not for jacking off? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42356571)

I know you're joking but masturbation definitely seems like something that would be selected against.

Re:Not for jacking off? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42356987)

Hence, if evolution were true your penis would be on your back on that little spot that you can't quite reach.
Therefore, creationism must be true! Let's go to church and thank the Lord for our accessible penises and sing His praise to the sound of organ music.

Re:Not for jacking off? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42356655)

Only when watching Nancy Sinatra and her gang of gals in miniskirts

Re:Not for jacking off? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42356691)

No,... fisting!

Re:Not for jacking off? (1)

w0mprat (1317953) | about 2 years ago | (#42357059)

Not for jacking off?

No, that's the current stage of evolution.

Explains a lot (4, Funny)

Jetra (2622687) | about 2 years ago | (#42355985)

Now I know why I have the urge to punch stupid people in the face.

Fist walking (5, Interesting)

tepples (727027) | about 2 years ago | (#42355987)

Was it for punching foes, or was it for punching the ground [youtube.com] before bipedalism became the norm? Orangutans, for example, walk on their fists [youtube.com] .

Re:Fist walking (4, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42356131)

The point of walking was to free up the hands to punch more people. Just like the point of jumping was to do scissors kicks to the neck. Cause that's just awesome.

Re:Fist walking (3, Insightful)

ColdWetDog (752185) | about 2 years ago | (#42356283)

It wasn't "for" anything.

In terms of the size and shape of hand anatomy, the scientists point out that humans could have evolved manual dexterity with longer thumbs, but without the fingers and palms getting shorter.

What a bunch of nonsense. You postulate something on the basis of a weak anatomical correlate study and then you open it up to an evolutionary mechanism. There isn't anything to suggest that reproductive fitness (the thing that drives evolution) has anything to do with punching out competitors.

I see your fist and raise the ante with a club.

Re:Fist walking (4, Interesting)

Fned (43219) | about 2 years ago | (#42356889)

Orangutans are the only great ape that walks like that, though, and they're primarily brachiators. Chimps and gorillas walk on the second knuckle rather than the first.

Speaking of chimps and violence (1)

93 Escort Wagon (326346) | about 2 years ago | (#42357185)

It was great when Chimp Team Six took out Bin Laden!

It's all about masturbation, Mr. Carrier (4, Informative)

hduff (570443) | about 2 years ago | (#42356003)

Then arms were made for masturbation. Otherwise why would they not be that length? If they were made for punching, they would be very much longer to minimize the risk to oneself from an attacker. Hands were then made for masturbation as well, otherwise why put them at the end of the perfect length of arm?

Re:It's all about masturbation, Mr. Carrier (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42356081)

What's the evolutionary advantage of masturbation?

Re:It's all about masturbation, Mr. Carrier (3, Interesting)

Johann Lau (1040920) | about 2 years ago | (#42356307)

Not having to impregnate women you don't even like just because you feel horny, for one.

Re:It's all about masturbation, Mr. Carrier (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42356323)

You really don't understand evolution.

Re:It's all about masturbation, Mr. Carrier (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42356459)

I think he does.
Not impregnating women that I don't want to impregnate.
Means we can handle ourselves when undesirables are around.
And let loose with the desirables.
Keep the mind clear for the better of the species.

Re:It's all about masturbation, Mr. Carrier (1)

wmac1 (2478314) | about 2 years ago | (#42356663)

The whole purpose of becoming horny is to have sex and reproduce.

Re:It's all about masturbation, Mr. Carrier (1)

neyla (2455118) | about 2 years ago | (#42356813)

"purpose" ? Whose purpose ? Surely you're not implying that nature as such has a purpose ?

Re:It's all about masturbation, Mr. Carrier (4, Insightful)

Johann Lau (1040920) | about 2 years ago | (#42356995)

And the "purpose" of not having blue balls, or kids with the first woman you saw the day you reached puberty, is to increase our fitness *vastly* beyond what humping everything would... at least I assume that's the reason we came up with it. We as a species invest a lot in our kids, we don't just lay 20 eggs and let them fight amongst themselves. I mean, our kids are extremely helpless for a very long time, compared to most animals we're hilarious in that sense. This implies the need for society and a bond between the parents that goes beyond mere hornyness. After all, the same person will never make you repeatedly as horny as a person of equal hotness you haven't slept with, if there is nothing else.

Also, these days we mostly procreate by information and power. When you think you're procreating you're really mostly just making vessels filled by others, how's that for a cheerful thought? Sure, your kids might have your genes, but they mostly do what a handful (in comparison to all the people who are "just parents") of inventors and leaders/owners came up with. They don't run around with cell phones because it was your idea, do they, or fight random shitty wars for with random shitty justifications because you recommended it. The concepts they use to interact with the world they won't get from you for the most part either, nor the movies or the songs or the hygiene products they will associate with their childhood just as much as they will associate it with you. I don't say this to be mean, at least not only; I really have to say "PFFFFFF!!" to the whole gene thing, that's like 10000 years past - a number I completely pulled out of my ass.

I say we humans don't live in our genes, we live in that tiny percentage of them that makes us have these brains, in which we have ideas, knowledge, language, personality and ownership constructs. The hardware is really not the point of us. Sure, our genes may be selfish and our higher level things just a result of that blind selfishness ultimately, but now that these higher level things have arisen, they do influence and select genes as well, not just the other way around. And I'd say what is going on in our wetware, the current state, is way more important than our genes. There even was a slashdot story about this a while ago I think, about how we haven't really changed a lot biology wise. Our progress is mostly in culture "lately". Not that I'd need a scientist to know that, I looked it up in my gut; but it's always neat to have that gut feeling confirmed.

Re:It's all about masturbation, Mr. Carrier (4, Insightful)

WGFCrafty (1062506) | about 2 years ago | (#42357349)

Also, these days we mostly procreate by information and power. When you think you're procreating you're really mostly just making vessels filled by others, how's that for a cheerful thought? Sure, your kids might have your genes, but they mostly do what a handful (in comparison to all the people who are "just parents") of inventors and leaders/owners came up with. They don't run around with cell phones because it was your idea, do they, or fight random shitty wars for with random shitty justifications because you recommended it. The concepts they use to interact with the world they won't get from you for the most part either, nor the movies or the songs or the hygiene products they will associate with their childhood just as much as they will associate it with you. I don't say this to be mean, at least not only; I really have to say "PFFFFFF!!" to the whole gene thing, that's like 10000 years past - a number I completely pulled out of my ass.

I think you are profoundly underestimating the influence a parent who is nurturing and has a positive relationship with their kid, has on that child's personality. That child may be influenced greatly through non-parental channels, but they will most likely hold similair beliefs and values, which may match societal norms as well, but be closer to their family.

My point is that, their parents values may overlap with societal values but their parent's influence is greater. I'm specifically talking about people who would rate their relationship as very close.

If what you say is true I would think everyone would be grey and generic.

Re:It's all about masturbation, Mr. Carrier (4, Interesting)

FatLittleMonkey (1341387) | about 2 years ago | (#42357069)

But convincing women to have sex with you requires not being a pathetic drooling moron, which means having a way of bleeding off the excess horniness during sexless courtship. Low horniness means you don't try and drop out of the gene pool, high unrelieved horniness means you don't succeed and drop out of the gene pool. Horniness + ability to masturbate means you can select your level of horniness to fit the situation. Win.

But there was a side effect: When women breast-feed, it lowers their sex drive on average. A normal horny animal would just go off and find another mate. This limits the resources available for the child, so the species evolves young that are independent early, which limits intelligence. However, because masturbating human males could relieve their horniness, it reduced their need to constantly find other mates. This increased the resources for children, allowing the minor evolutionary pressure for greater intelligence to finally overcome the greater evolutionary pressure to reduce resource use. Thus modern humans evolved.

Context is important! (3, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42356009)

Context is important. Violence is not ubiquitous. See this:7 Things Bonobos Can Teach Us About Love and Sex
http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/sex-dawn/201202/7-things-bonobos-can-teach-us-about-love-and-sex

Re:Context is important! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42356211)

Yeah. I mean, a small percentage of us are always at war, but that was a ridiculous assertion.

Would you not say a person was pretty violent if they regularly ripped peoples throats open with their teeth and fingers? Maybe tore their children apart while they were still alive? Nature is fuckin' scary.

As a boxer... (5, Insightful)

ihatewinXP (638000) | about 2 years ago | (#42356023)

From years of boxing this couldnt be more obvious.

Your hands will fracture, break, bend, and sometimes emulsify... Especially the forefinger middle knuckle and the top pinky knuckle = 'the boxer break.' Over and over.

But each time calcifying over and becoming stronger. After a while you literally have 'hands of stone.'

Now of course my dexterity isnt what it used to be. Typing and fumbling for computer screws reminds me of my favorite pastime often.

Re:As a boxer... Ewwwwww (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42356099)

mishandling relatively short, small diameter, objects reminds you of your favourite pastime ............ just ewwww

Re:As a boxer... Ewwwwww (4, Funny)

yndrd1984 (730475) | about 2 years ago | (#42356463)

mishandling relatively short, small diameter, objects reminds you of your favourite pastime ............ just ewwww

If you haven't played with a clit, you're missing out.

Re:As a boxer... Ewwwwww (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42356607)

Is that on the Linux command line? I can't find it.

Re:As a boxer... Ewwwwww (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42356651)

I believe the command is touch /dev/clit

Re:As a boxer... Ewwwwww (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42357063)

It's above the b and below the g and h.

Re:As a boxer... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42356145)

But what your experience actually teaches you is that hands are not made for punching, nor for any particular thing, but rather for adapting to whatever it is you need them for in your current environment. Your children will have brand new sets of hands, so if your kids happen to grow up in an environment where playing the piano is more important than punching things, their hands will become good at that.

Re:As a boxer... (0)

DNS-and-BIND (461968) | about 2 years ago | (#42356173)

What, cavemen had boxing gloves? Besides, they didn't practice sparring every day, they fought sporadically.

Re:As a boxer... (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42356317)

Bullshit, your fists are not properly adapted to bare knuckle boxing, which is what TFS implies. The human face has tons of small muscles, each muscle is anchored by tiny bone ridges. The skull itself is adapted to handle whatever knocks it takes.

So, what you end up with is breaking your fingers and similar damage. If you really must hit somebody in the face, you do that with the heal of your hand which is much sturdier than your knuckles anyways. It's braced for times when you fall forward and need to use it to keep from smacking your head into the ground.

IIRC, the term heal claw strike or similar is used in Ninjitsu to refer to that type of hit.

Re:As a boxer... (1)

mosb1000 (710161) | about 2 years ago | (#42356479)

If landing punches is breaking your fingers then you're doing something wrong.

Re:As a boxer... (1)

Nefarious Wheel (628136) | about 2 years ago | (#42356487)

Pick a soft spot to punch, not the head. If you need to hit them in the head, use a utensil.

Re:As a boxer... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42357355)

Right, you're punching the face, which only a damned fool does. Hence my point. Your fists are not meant for hitting people in the face.

Re:As a boxer... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42356335)

Your hands will fracture, break, bend, and sometimes emulsify... Especially the forefinger middle knuckle and the top pinky knuckle = 'the boxer break.' Over and over.

I thought maybe there was a definition of "emulsify" that I wasn't aware of. Doesn't seem like it [reference.com] ? Unless some really funky stuff is going on when you're boxing.

Re:As a boxer... (2)

jbov (2202938) | about 2 years ago | (#42356499)

After a while you figuratively have 'hands of stone.'

FTFY

Re:As a boxer... (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42356631)

Cut him some slack, he's been hit in the head few times.

Re:As a boxer... (1)

databeast (19718) | about 2 years ago | (#42357339)

Calcium isn't a stone now? he said literally, he meant literally.

Re:As a boxer... (2)

The Moof (859402) | about 2 years ago | (#42356873)

I disagree. It's way too easy for me to injure or break my hand by simply throwing a punch. Not to mention injuring my wrist. And afterward, the full use of my hand might not be the same (you even mentioned the loss of dexterity as a result of your boxing).

These lead me to believe that hands weren't intended for punching stuff. There's way too much technique required so I don't hurt myself (and even technique isn't enough, which is where the taping comes in).

Re:As a boxer... (3, Interesting)

phantomfive (622387) | about 2 years ago | (#42357129)

Your hands will fracture, break, bend, and sometimes emulsify... Especially the forefinger middle knuckle and the top pinky knuckle = 'the boxer break.' Over and over.

Strange, I would take this as evidence that our hands are NOT evolved for punching, but rather that our bodies are amazingly adaptable to what we put them through.

It's hard to see the thumb as an adaptation used for fighting, as the article suggests.

Re:As a boxer... (2)

azalin (67640) | about 2 years ago | (#42357167)

It's hard to see the thumb as an adaptation used for fighting, as the article suggests.

Though it works marvels once a sturdy stick comes involved

Re:As a boxer... (1)

phantomfive (622387) | about 2 years ago | (#42357169)

YES

Re:As a boxer... (1)

phantomfive (622387) | about 2 years ago | (#42357231)

Let me say it a different way. If you practice the piano, your hands will stretch, hurt, and grow very very tired. Especially the fourth finger and pinky.

But each time they grow stronger, more flexible, and capable of independent action. After a while you figuratively become one with the piano.

And yet your fingers didn't evolve to play the piano. It's just a convenient side-effect.

According to my vegan, feminist ex... (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42356027)

We were living in a peaceful vegetarian world, munching on salad until the bronze age. Of course, all evidence for this was wiped out by the evil patriarchy.

Re:According to my vegan, feminist ex... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42357009)

She may be right.
http://news.discovery.com/animals/first-human-ancestor-squirrel-121018.html

Newly discovered fossilized bones for the world's oldest and most primitive known primate, Purgatorius, reveal a tiny, agile animal that spent much of its time eating fruit and climbing trees, according to a study.

I call BS (5, Informative)

Kargan (250092) | about 2 years ago | (#42356029)

Your hands are full of very small bones. It's very easy to break your hand by punching something hard and dense (such as a skull or face for instance).

If you want to strike someone in the face, it's smarter to use other parts of the body such as your knee, elbow or to use an open hand strike (such as a palm strike). That way you have the edge of a very long bone delivering the blow.

Re:I call BS (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42356203)

In that case, isn't it just better to use a blunt instrument like a bone or tree branch to smash someone's face in?

Re:I call BS (2)

bakes (87194) | about 2 years ago | (#42356301)

Some martial arts teach striking with the heel of the palm, gaining the 'end-of-long-bone advantage and protecting the fingers.

Re:I call BS (1)

Dzimas (547818) | about 2 years ago | (#42356337)

Forget using a knee or elbow. We're tool users, fer chrissakes. Just smash their skulls with a tree branch.

Re:I call BS (4, Insightful)

FatLittleMonkey (1341387) | about 2 years ago | (#42357111)

But then he'll get a bigger stronger branch. And you'll respond by attaching sharpened flint to your branch. Then he invents a system where he can make others fight you while he is protected. So you invent a system where you personify the sun or a volcano and convince others that it's the personification that wants them to fight his defenders...

Where does it all end?

Re:I call BS (1)

azalin (67640) | about 2 years ago | (#42357179)

For now by setting of the fires of the sun in your enemies villages and turning people into ashes shadows on walls

Re:I call BS (1)

w0mprat (1317953) | about 2 years ago | (#42357067)

Your hands are full of very small bones. It's very easy to break your hand by punching something hard and dense (such as a skull or face for instance).

If you want to strike someone in the face, it's smarter to use other parts of the body such as your knee, elbow or to use an open hand strike (such as a palm strike). That way you have the edge of a very long bone delivering the blow.

Pick up a stick or a rock. If the article had read, we evolved tool use from weapons then yes. By that benchmark we are the most violent species.

Level the playing field. (3, Funny)

fahrbot-bot (874524) | about 2 years ago | (#42356037)

Although some primatologists may argue that chimpanzees are the most aggressive apes, I think the evidence suggests that humans are substantially more violent.

Set the chimps down in front of a few Windows systems and we'll see...

[ Sorry, just finished working on my Windows 7 system and reading the recent Windows 8 thread and am feeling a little violent. ]

Re:Level the playing field. (5, Funny)

UltraZelda64 (2309504) | about 2 years ago | (#42356377)

I predict that they will start throwing chairs.

These hands were made for punching (2)

kervin (64171) | about 2 years ago | (#42356069)

And that's just what they'll do

Re:These hands were made for punching (2)

R3d M3rcury (871886) | about 2 years ago | (#42356375)

One of these days these hands are gonna punch all over you.

Re:These hands were made for punching (1)

Nefarious Wheel (628136) | about 2 years ago | (#42356489)

One of these days these hands are gonna punch all over you.

Nancy!

Re:These hands were made for punching (1)

cffrost (885375) | about 2 years ago | (#42357039)

Are you ready, hands? Start whacking!

Hulk (1)

Ashenkase (2008188) | about 2 years ago | (#42356071)

SMASH!!!!

Oh yeah? (5, Funny)

TWX (665546) | about 2 years ago | (#42356095)

David Carrier said, "...I think the evidence suggests that humans are substantially more violent."

Oh yeah? I bet he wouldn't say that to my face!

Re:Oh yeah? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42356167)

Pff, Humans really aren't all that violent individually.

Re:Oh yeah? (1)

TWX (665546) | about 2 years ago | (#42356381)

Humans really aren't all that violent individually.

Only because of the balance of negative consequences to positive successes through other choices. Look at places where the rule of law has faltered or where unemployment is so high that it's exceedingly difficult to make an honest living, people often turn savage. A "bad neighborhood" is an example of this on the lower end of the spectrum, and places like northern Mexico are the other end.

Re:Oh yeah? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42356647)

An another World War 3 article.

Just saying....

I hope inspirational Barack Obama (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42356107)

has his hands amputated as being incapable of forming fists he will not be tempted to so that people will follow his non-violent ways rather than those of his vilent thug son Trayvon.

Civilization is a Non-Zero-Sum Game (2)

bill_mcgonigle (4333) | about 2 years ago | (#42356115)

Well, I guess somebody has to go against the flood of neurological research showing that humans tend greatly towards the altruistic. "Fists, yeah, that's the ticket. People are inherently violent, and so we're justified being bad to them, because they need to be controlled." Augustine of Hippo called - he wants his Original Sin back.

Troll "research" is troll.

Re:Civilization is a Non-Zero-Sum Game (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42356405)

I thought we evolved fists so we could fist. Try doing that without fists.

and... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42356189)

these boots are made for walking...

Re:and...your boots were made for walking (1)

theodp (442580) | about 2 years ago | (#42356433)

Re:and...your boots were made for walking (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42356619)

walk all over you ?

I wouldn't say humans are more violent (3, Interesting)

Riceballsan (816702) | about 2 years ago | (#42356199)

Humans are gradually getting less violent. Chimps and other relatives of ours are still more violent. You don't measure violence in how many kills one person had the potential and means to create, that is partly based on intelligence, and it also goes into proportions. Second is coverage, sure we see dozens of racial hate crimes in humans for every Chimpanzee lynching, but the odds of an individual chimpanzee taken at random being killed by his own race, is significantly higher than the odds of any one human being murdered. Statistically humans are dwindling down in violence per capita, we just are more aware of every instance, and individual instances are much larger.

Re:I wouldn't say humans are more violent (1)

blahplusplus (757119) | about 2 years ago | (#42356397)

"Humans are gradually getting less violent."

But is this because humans are less violent, or tools of war (WMD) are acting as a check on how violent we can be and not suffer total annihilation in the process? Consider if Japan had nukes when truman dropped the bomb, would he have dropped the bomb? Probably not.

Humans are violent in calculated ways and their still exists lots of violence in modern societies the violence just takes different forms (bullying, being ripped off, etc).

Re:I wouldn't say humans are more violent (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42357281)

Humans perhaps are getting less violent, but the sure have better tools for killing each other.
Somehow I don't think 20th century looks less violent than 19th century.
Consider these killings:
    50,000,000 by Mao Ze Dong
    12,000,000 Hitler
    6,000,000 Stalin
    2,400,000 Bengali Hindus killed by muslims
    1,200,000 The Turks

http://www.scaruffi.com/politics/dictat.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bengali_Hindus
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=1006050806108

who funded this? (2)

blind monkey 3 (773904) | about 2 years ago | (#42356253)

After reading the article I believe the authors of the study have graphically demonstrated that their hands are best suited for masturbating.

Re:who funded this? (1)

avandesande (143899) | about 2 years ago | (#42356637)

Agreed. I saw this article a few days ago and thought to myself what a piece of crap it was, then /. sunk to a new low by posting it.

Re:who funded this? (1)

Volastic (2781511) | about 2 years ago | (#42356801)

Funding? only if someone bought her lunch.
This article was bad filler and should of been passed over.

This Analysis by Jennifer Viegas has no collaboration, no detailed examination
just what she says goes. Even if she wrote it up just for a discussion on
the topic she failed there as well -no commnets. Meaning those at news.discovery.com
know a bs headline when they see it; not even giving it a serious look.
Yet give /. a chance at it...

There was no study done on this, or Jenn forgot her cites.
Jennifer Viegas http://www.linkedin.com/in/jenniferviegas [linkedin.com]
Her job apparently is to write bad science.

Glad to see it. (2)

ddd0004 (1984672) | about 2 years ago | (#42356257)

More quality research from the Chuck Norris Institute of Bodily Harm. I predict the findings of their next study will either focus on the advantages of delivering a roundhouse kick while wearing jeans.

Re:Glad to see it. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42356707)

I don't think you know what either means.

Yes (1, Insightful)

Greyfox (87712) | about 2 years ago | (#42356311)

Yes, they were.

Good... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42356343)

Now when I get in trouble for punching someone, I can tell them it's natural, and part of my evolutionary nature. I was born this way.

The actual article is free to read (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42356411)

http://jeb.biologists.org/content/216/2/236.full

this is a joke (3, Interesting)

RedHackTea (2779623) | about 2 years ago | (#42356449)

I feel like this whole site is made for trolling. Read any of the suggested articles or the other articles that she wrote. And when you say "hands were made for punching" instead of "scientists suggest that hands may have evolved in part due to its fighting capabilities," it's hard to really consider this "scientific" but instead more to just increase read count (++readCount).

Other articles she wrote:
  1. New Dinosaur Had Unforgettable Smile
  2. Sabertooth Cat Lived in Vegas
  3. Iron Age Feast Found in England

Suggested related articles:

  1. First Human Ancestor Looked Like a Squirrel
  2. Early Human Ancestors Ate Grass

The monkey speaks his mind (1)

RevWaldo (1186281) | about 2 years ago | (#42356515)

The monkey speaks his mind

And three monkeys sat in a coconut tree
Discussing things as they are said to be
Said one to other now listen, you two
“There’s a certain rumour that just can’t be true
That man descended from our noble race
Why, the very idea is a big disgrace, yea”
No monkey ever deserted his wife
Starved her baby and ruined her life

Yea, the monkey speaks his mind

And you’ve never known a mother monk
To leave her babies with others to bunk
And passed them on from one to another
‘Til they scarcely knew which was their mother
Yea, the monkey speak his mind

And another thing you will never see
A monkey build a fence around a coconut tree
And let all the coconuts go to waste
Forbidding other monkeys to come and taste
Why, if I put a fence around this tree
Starvation would force you to steal from me

Yea, the monkey speaks his mind

Here’s another thing a monkey won’t do
Go out on a night and get all in a stew
Or use a gun or a club or a knife
And take another monkey’s life
Yes, man descended, the worthless bum
But, brothers, from us he did not come

Yea, the monkey speaks his mind

Yea, now the monkey speaks his mind

No hard feelings, but (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42356525)

Total horse shit. 1 in 1000 humans have an instinct for effective punching. The rest need lots of training. Hell; most humans would never think of aligning their radius with their pointer/middle knuckles and would instead use their ulna and pinky knuckles. Typical shoulder theatrics would also make it irrelevant either way, as cordial notifications are conducive to landing strikes. No sir. Aint havin' none of it. Stick with fish slapping. [youtube.com]

Re:No hard feelings, but (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42356727)

An intended "n't" has been robbed from "are", which should have read "aren't conducive". Moral of correction: Hands are tailored for smashing laptop keyboards and strangling those who make them.

the better to (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42356749)

survive a post-apocalyptic world.

Specious "evidence", imo.... (1)

mark-t (151149) | about 2 years ago | (#42356845)

"Because you have higher pressure when hitting with a fist, you are more likely to cause injury to tissue, bones, teeth, eyes and the jaw,"

This line is the only thing that I can find in the article that even slightly resembles evidence suggesting that the hand actually evolved for that purpose, but it seems to make the flawed assumption that since a part of our body is better at doing X one particular way than another, perhaps more natural or obvious way, then the act of doing X must have been the most dominating factor in determining the way that body part evolved, ignoring the significance, or lack thereof, of the benefit it might offer compared to the benefits offered because of other attributes. I would personally suggest that while it may be true that part of the hand's evolution could be attributed to hitting (I believe it was more for self-defense than it was actually being violent), the evolutionary advantage of the human hand for grasping and utilizing objects to do what we will with them almost certainly far outweighs that.

Proof of our violent nature? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42357049)

If you need proof of our violent nature, just go shopping on Black Friday.

Middle finger evolution... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42357055)

Could they explain why the middle finger is the longest? I guess it evolves faster in recent times...

Journal of Experimental Biology (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42357095)

So, they tried using their hands in every possible way and found out that the best they could do was punch each other?

What about the nails? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42357131)

Whithout a means to cut their nails very short I highly doubt primitive people could ever make a fist to actually punch something.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?