Male faces 'buttressed against punches' by evolution

originally posted by: Subnatural
...Anyway, I feel the burden of proof is on you in this case. Just my personal opinion.

Well - thanks for all your thoughts on the matter.
As to the quoted portion of your post - you're wrong (imo).
The burden of proof is on those that 'postulate' (which, in this case, would be the 'scientists' referenced in the OP), and not on those that 'question' the claim/s.

Otherwise, I find the argument rather circular.
What's going to happen (or would have happened) more often and more consistently - men being hit in the face/jaw, or their hands/knuckles/fists taking punishment by hitting or being hit by someone/something-else?

Again, though - thanks for your time.

a reply to: Subnatural

Bones in the face brake the easiest simply because they are in a vulnerable position.

No bones break easiest in the face because they haven't evolved to withstand punishment. Just like rams face doesn't break so easily. Because it has evolved to take abuse to the face. Humans, all primates have sexual dimorphisim. Humans too. The difference in robustness in male facial bones could be due to a vestige of being a primate. In fact humans have less sexual dimorphisim than previous versions of hominids. We lost a lot of sexual dimorphisim through the evolution of the homo genus not gained it. So the scientists theory is crap right there.

Generally male primates have larger check bones due to having larger jaw muscles that needed to attach to the sagittal area. not to withstand more blows than another male to the head. We as humans have actually lost most of our dimorphisim not gained it by getting punched in the face.

Men have bigger noses then women? Last time I looked they are they same size.

Jaws break easy. It sure appears that our jaw did not evolve to withstand any sort of force to it other than what it was designed for. They pop out of socket too easily too. Wouldn't the ascending ramus be reinforced where it attached near the mastoid process to minimize this happening? It doesn't seem any more developed then what would be accounted for by basic sexual dimorphisim.

Regarding the necks. The longer the neck the more angular momentum is driven to the brain. Animals that evolve to not get knocked out so easily have shorter necks to minimize that. Wouldn't males have shorter necks to mitigate this?

SO they have bigger jaws, shorter necks, stockier bodies and went on to out mate the rest of the neighboring population to become the dominate specimen on the earth. Tell that to the Chinese. I sure don't see a lot of dudes looking like Sylvester stallone running around there. Short stalky guys with fred flinstone bodies and the face of Arnold schwarzenegger are running the human race? Seems the opposite happened to me.

I don't think the chicks had so much a choice in who they mated with in cavemen times. There was the alpha male. He got that way by beating up the other guy. Probably not from out smarting him in a game of social chess. Getting a broken bone in the face doesn't stop Og from mating, probably not even in the long run. Thats a modern thing. He regardless of how he looked after the fight was the victor and did whatever the hell he probably wanted and whomever the hell he wanted. Kinda how it works in the animal kingdom. How's a broken face going to stop the guy from procreating, especially when it probably wasn't up to the women. "Ewww you're ugly....oglana no wanna" "yeah, what's your point, bend over? Ooog!!! ooog!!! ooog!!!"

Ever thought for a second that males from one group of humans had bigger jaws then males from another because of what they ate. Gorillas have huge jaws. Massive sagittal areas, massive zygomats to allow passage of large muscles. All of that not to withstand blows to the face. because hardness isn't really the deciding factor. But because they needed the muscle power to out chew their rivals and out eat them. You know. Group A has tougher food to chew than group B. hence the evolution of tougher jaws. Exquisite!

a reply to: Verum1quaere

scientists have repeatedly found viable T-Rex blood cells:

False.

a reply to: Phage

ONLY if you read "the official report: BUT you can find the scientists saying so in their own words before being censored.

FACT.

a reply to: Verum1quaere
Cool.
Where can I find the uncensored statements?

a reply to: Phage

go through the you tubes or google it;

T-REX BLOOD CELLS AND SOFT TISSUE?
youtu.be...

Sorry, nothing there about viable red blood cells.

The only dinosaur "tissue" which has been found is collagen. Protein, not actually tissue.

Perhaps you're confused because the collagen was preserved by iron contained in the dinosaurs blood. Perhaps you just hear want supports your beliefs.

a reply to: Phage

the agenda gets pretty obvious after a while: jesuit Pierre De Chardin was also a major proponent of "evolution" and behind some of the early Hoaxes… HOAXES? yeah, and I used to have a whole page of them listed. They made stuff up and caused millions to be misled and then later it was found out… meanwhile, the "magic" of tricking people has been done…

www.icr.org...
"According to astronomical observations, galaxies like our own experience about one supernova (a violently-exploding star) every 25 years. The gas and dust remnants from such explosions (like the Crab Nebula) expand outward rapidly and should remain visible for over a million years. Yet the nearby parts of our galaxy in which we could observe such gas and dust shells contain only about 200 supernova remnants. That number is consistent with only about 7,000 years worth of supernovas."

a reply to: Verum1quaere
So...the galaxy is 7,000 years old.

Wonderful bit of ignorant stupidity there.

a reply to: Phage

there are masonic teachings, including Albert Pike, who would disagree w you…

I know it is mental gymnastics to grok this, because we have all been told billions and billions, etc…

the fact is, INFORMATION always has a Source…

a tornado does not randomly make a 747 Jet, no matter how much time you give it…

ditto DNA complexity…

so you either believe in "aliens" or God…

a reply to: Verum1quaere

Wouldn't that be a false dichotomy. A big no no in logical debate. Either aliens or god because you can't explain how DNA evolved from cosmic dust over billions of years. There's got to be other options we either aren't aware of or are knowledgeable about. No a wind storm won't build a 747. 747's are complex and designed. DNA is not complex it's four proteins. lopped together in various permutations by accident. 99% of them probably didn't work. eventually a few did.