Honestly, this article just feels like an overreaction / rant the other direction. That there is No way that fist combat could have affected skull morphology. Like alot of evolution, it mostly comes down to a) does a trait make you more likely to have sex / better or more effective sex? b) does a trait make it more likely you'll survive to have sex? I find it hard with this amount of evidence to say that fistfights could be a driving trait, that would single-handedly shape survival / mating statistics, but I could see it being a contributor, something that helps other factors dominate survival / mating statistics. Perhaps our skull features are mostly for effective eating, but have an ancillary benefit to survival / mating when it comes to fights.
I don't know, to me he presents at least one pretty compelling point indicating that point. The species which exhibit the exaggerated facial features could not even form a fist with which to fight.
He said that punches driving facial evolution was fine as a hypothesis, it just needs evidence and he hasn't seen any.
His characterization of this as a just-so story, glib and light on evidence, doesn't just accurately describe this one specific claim; there are dozens or hundreds more just like it. On any given day, you can probably find an equally vacuous story about evolutionary psychology in some newspaper. It's a lame excuse for science.
The problem is that humans are woefully designed for combat. Our hands break, and our skulls are paper thin. Compare these aspects to animals that actually fight with horns, cushioned brains, fangs and so on, it's clear to see that fighting is a spectator sport for us.
My guess on the contrary is we are well designed for combat but designed to use weapons. Look at the historic interaction between humans and pretty much any large animals - usually we wipe them out.
