The problem with drawing these kinds of conclusions is that it's easy to invent adaptive stories that purport to explain changes in morphological features, but not easy to build a case that will convince an appropriately sceptical audience.
I've heard of over a dozen disparate adaptive explanations for why zebras have stripes or why human hair is less dense than that of other mammals, but none are necessarily correct.
You are very right to be skeptical of findings like these.
However, it sounds like you might be going all the way into complete skepticism of evolutionary biology as a field. I think that's completely unwarranted. Maybe that's not what you mean though, sorry if that's the case.
see the classic (and controversial) paper by Gould and Lewontin:
Gould, SJ and Lewontin RC. 1979. The Spandrels of San Marco and the Panglossian Paradigm: A Critique of the Adaptationist Programme. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B 205(1161): 581-598
Totally agreed. It strikes me as very similar to traditional myths, or stories that purport to explain how things are. The only difference is that instead of using gods and supernatural powers, our new myths take into account scientific information like the theory of evolution.
So our new myths are more plausible, but just as unsubstantiated.
I took a couple of physical anthro courses in university, and I never did get a satisfactory explanation for why genus homo evolved a parabolic dental arcade. After reading this, one has to wonder how a parabolic vs. U-shaped dental arcade functions when it comes to spreading force from a fist-blow, either head-on or oblique.
Modern humans have proportionally less upper body strength than australopithecines, but what about neandertal's? If there was a linear relationship between reducing jaw robustness and upper body strength over the last few million years, neadertals have got to be an outlier! If a parabolic dental arcade offers better protection against blows, perhaps fisticuffs remained an evolutionary pressure but nature just found a more efficient way to address it than making thicker bones.
[+] [-] jonathansizz|11 years ago|reply
I've heard of over a dozen disparate adaptive explanations for why zebras have stripes or why human hair is less dense than that of other mammals, but none are necessarily correct.
[+] [-] davidgerard|11 years ago|reply
It did make this occur to me: http://newstechnica.com/2014/06/09/scientists-tony-abbott-ev... I can't tell you how happy it made me to find out there existed a photo of Tony Abbott getting punched in the face.
[+] [-] azakai|11 years ago|reply
However, it sounds like you might be going all the way into complete skepticism of evolutionary biology as a field. I think that's completely unwarranted. Maybe that's not what you mean though, sorry if that's the case.
[+] [-] whyenot|11 years ago|reply
see the classic (and controversial) paper by Gould and Lewontin:
Gould, SJ and Lewontin RC. 1979. The Spandrels of San Marco and the Panglossian Paradigm: A Critique of the Adaptationist Programme. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B 205(1161): 581-598
http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/205/1161/581....
[+] [-] haberman|11 years ago|reply
So our new myths are more plausible, but just as unsubstantiated.
[+] [-] beloch|11 years ago|reply
Modern humans have proportionally less upper body strength than australopithecines, but what about neandertal's? If there was a linear relationship between reducing jaw robustness and upper body strength over the last few million years, neadertals have got to be an outlier! If a parabolic dental arcade offers better protection against blows, perhaps fisticuffs remained an evolutionary pressure but nature just found a more efficient way to address it than making thicker bones.
[+] [-] vanderZwan|11 years ago|reply
http://www.smbc-comics.com/?id=2138
[+] [-] balor123|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] pavel_lishin|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Florin_Andrei|11 years ago|reply
Mother Nature is awful.
[+] [-] humanresources|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] imjk|11 years ago|reply