In Evolutionary Game Theory, conflicting behaviors within a population create points of contention called “games.” In these games two players or populations have a set of genetically predisposed behaviors that have reciprocating payoffs from taking part in these behaviors. These ideas can be connected to plethora of differing situations.
About 100,000 years ago, modern man walked on to this earth. With this first strides it was evident that they these men were vastly different from their primate ancestors. Some of these differences developed and gave rise to the opposable thumb and present hand structure. In The Economist, they wrote about a report, Journal of Experimental Biology, by Michael Morgan and David Carrier of the University of Utah. In this report they dissect the geometry and the dual use of the hand. Instead of focusing on the thoroughly fleshed out idea of the hand’s constructive power being the driving force for the evolutionary change; they focused on its destructive abilities.
Though an intriguing read, the points made focuses that the present-day hand structure was the most evolutionary stable option in our ancestors’ arsenal. Given that the force given by a fist is extremely more than any of counterparts made by primates. It would stand to reason that by the higher level in its effectiveness that the ancestor species before homo sapiens had higher payoffs from those primates with hands resembling homo sapiens. I receive lighthearted mirth thinking of fictional prehuman scientist drawing of matrices to discover if the hands that they were drawing these up with were evolutionary stable.