.:.:.:.:
RTTP
.
Mobile
:.:.:.:.
[
<--back
] [
Home
][
Pics
][
News
][
Ads
][
Events
][
Forum
][
Band
][
Search
]
full forum
|
bottom
Reply
[
login
]
SPAM Filter:
re-type this
(values are 0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,A,B,C,D,E, or F)
you are quoting a heck of a lot there.
[QUOTE]blah blah blah[/QUOTE] to reply to Arrow NLI.
Please remove excess text as not to re-post tons
message
[QUOTE="Arrow%20NLI:1340013"][QUOTE="Boozegood:1340012"] but I am saying that our biology could have have developed favoring effective combat uses on it's evolutionary path; as with any other animal evolution, primarily predators. [/QUOTE] Again, body comes first. Then we adapted our fighting style to that body. Most compelling argument against these scientists? The primary reason our hands DO exist, coupled with our primary choice in weapons - go pick up a sword, stick, bat, etc... - our hands were built to grip, not fight. If evolution was effected this heavily by fighting, then we wouldn't be getting smaller over history. Especially compared to our nearest genetic relatives who are far, far, far faster, stronger, and better at fighting than we are. The problem with this entire theory these guys came up with is you'd need to find some compelling evidence of actual change in the development of the human hand over time. Instead, it's been pretty consistent throughout our history. Meanwhile the way we fight has changed a zillion times in that same history. [/QUOTE]
top
[
Vers. 0.12
][ 0.005 secs/8 queries][
refresh
][