Human Hands Evolved for Punching

Collector Freaks Forum

Help Support Collector Freaks Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
If you don't think attempting to understand how we came to be who we are is important, then nothing I can post here is going to help you feel otherwise. Evolutionary biology textbooks should all be tossed in the trash I suppose.
 
If you don't think attempting to understand how we came to be who we are is important, then nothing I can post here is going to help you feel otherwise. Evolutionary biology textbooks should all be tossed in the trash I suppose.

If his theory were sound, that the hand evolved to fight, bones wouldn't break as easily as they do when they strike a skull. It's as sound as the theories that the breasts evolved on a woman where they are to remind a mate of the buttocks or that the lips on a face are supposed to remind males of labia. It's wasted science and wasted $$$ spent on salaries for scientists to research. :lol
 
tumblr_mb8iuuljTl1r44z1oo1_1280.jpg
 
[ame="https://youtu.be/2z-OLG0KyR4"]https://youtu.be/2z-OLG0KyR4[/ame]

reminds me of this shat.....

i so want to shove that banana up his arse.
 
Agreed. Trying to understand our world better is a waste of time and money. We should be spending it on chocolate pudding instead.

When all the money belongs to all of us, then all of us can decide how best to spend it on the good of all.

If someone personally wishes to understand the evolution of human appendages, they are more than welcome to pay someone to do it with whatever resources they own. They aren't welcome to pillage my life to pursue their intellectual curiosity. My money isn't their money. It's not society's money. It's not humanity's money. It's mine and I'll decide what's in my interest.
 
monkeys beat ray comfort's logic. lolz

now, this is more educational.
[ame="https://youtu.be/BRcOY-PvOC8"]https://youtu.be/BRcOY-PvOC8[/ame]

evolution of hands used properly.
 
If his theory were sound, that the hand evolved to fight, bones wouldn't break as easily as they do when they strike a skull. It's as sound as the theories that the breasts evolved on a woman where they are to remind a mate of the buttocks or that the lips on a face are supposed to remind males of labia. It's wasted science and wasted $$$ spent on salaries for scientists to research. :lol
The nature of science is to investigate things we don't fully understand. You may disagree with their findings (though I suspect you are no biologist), but it is an interesting idea. They developed experiments, and found support for their hypotheses apparently. If someone has a better alternative hypothesis, they will no doubt test it and see if it has more validity based on the methods they employ and evidence they discover. Saying that bones break more easily than you think they should isn't firm evidence that what these people have found is wrong. Seems that they found human hands are less susceptible to damage from punches than are other close ancestors. Could be this has nothing to do with the use of hands for punching. Could be that it does. The only way we'll know is through investigating this scientifically. The importance, and implications of scientific study varies, but it is one of the things that really helps to move humanity forward in a variety of ways.

As for the money, science is funded through college tuition, privately funded grants, and yes, state and federal tax dollars (the latter frequently through competitive grants that are reviewed by other scientists who want to reward novel ideas and good, relatively important science). But just because you don't think it's important doesn't mean that it isn't. Some think art isn't important, and shouldn't be funded by taxes. Some think clean air and water isn't important, because nature will take care of itself despite man's best efforts to destroy it, etc.

Unfortunately, your way of thinking is beginning to take more and more precedent over the kinds of research that is being undertaken (i.e., only that which leads directly to some kind of financial profit) and the kinds of researchers who are hired and retained. Fewer students are getting instruction in the classroom (and fewer still will in the future) because that isn't the most economically viable means of doing it. And what does that say about the nature of knowledge as we move forward? What use are philosophers and theologians, or artists when you take your perspective on these things? Really, what is the value and importance of human existence without these things?
 
The nature of science is to investigate things we don't fully understand. You may disagree with their findings (though I suspect you are no biologist), but it is an interesting idea. They developed experiments, and found support for their hypotheses apparently. If someone has a better alternative hypothesis, they will no doubt test it and see if it has more validity based on the methods they employ and evidence they discover. Saying that bones break more easily than you think they should isn't firm evidence that what these people have found is wrong. Seems that they found human hands are less susceptible to damage from punches than are other close ancestors. Could be this has nothing to do with the use of hands for punching. Could be that it does. The only way we'll know is through investigating this scientifically. The importance, and implications of scientific study varies, but it is one of the things that really helps to move humanity forward in a variety of ways.

As for the money, science is funded through college tuition, privately funded grants, and yes, state and federal tax dollars (the latter frequently through competitive grants that are reviewed by other scientists who want to reward novel ideas and good, relatively important science). But just because you don't think it's important doesn't mean that it isn't. Some think art isn't important, and shouldn't be funded by taxes. Some think clean air and water isn't important, because nature will take care of itself despite man's best efforts to destroy it, etc.

Unfortunately, your way of thinking is beginning to take more and more precedent over the kinds of research that is being undertaken (i.e., only that which leads directly to some kind of financial profit) and the kinds of researchers who are hired and retained. Fewer students are getting instruction in the classroom (and fewer still will in the future) because that isn't the most economically viable means of doing it. And what does that say about the nature of knowledge as we move forward? What use are philosophers and theologians, or artists when you take your perspective on these things? Really, what is the value and importance of human existence without these things?

What's more important to you? Spending billions on funding things like hypothesizing why someone can ball up their fist with the thumb on the outside and on the inside? Or figuring out a way to produce and maintain fertile soil in a decayed desert environment? If they want to take it on as a hobby, that's one thing. But spending taxpayer money on essentially useless science is a waste of resources. Most of these types of scientists spend their lives studying irrelevant stuff claiming it's important to know where we came from yet lack the skill to start a fire without an incendiary device. You don't see the idiocy in that?
 
There is a lot of research going to funds lots of different things. It all has its value. Not all of it can be narrowly "practical," and nor should it IMO for reasons I've already put out here. I'm sure you would be pleased to know that a great deal of science that is funded (no doubt most of the money spent on it) is taking place in private industry and by governments of the world focusing on those kinds of things you advocate.

If you don't like the way your taxes are being spent, the by all means speak with your vote, organize a community movement, go on Fox News, or move to a country like China where that kind of research is probably frowned upon. However, our elected representatives and the organizations they create and manage are responsible for taxes. There is a competition of ideas for how they are spent. And the side taking your perspective is winning handily, so good news.
 
There is a lot of research going to funds lots of different things. It all has its value. Not all of it can be narrowly "practical," and nor should it IMO for reasons I've already put out here. I'm sure you would be pleased to know that a great deal of science that is funded (no doubt most of the money spent on it) is taking place in private industry and by governments of the world focusing on those kinds of things you advocate.

If you don't like the way your taxes are being spent, the by all means speak with your vote, organize a community movement, go on Fox News, or move to a country like China where that kind of research is probably frowned upon. However, our elected representatives and the organizations they create and manage are responsible for taxes. There is a competition of ideas for how they are spent. And the side taking your perspective is winning handily, so good news.

The problem with that is while there are a dozen people like me who vote against the overspending and misappropriation of our tax dollars, there are hundreds of people like you who don't care where the funds come from nor where they go. The results of this election pretty much disprove your last sentence. :huh
 
Back
Top