Men fighting over women.....it's evolutionary

Just read an article sent in by regular reader Dave, showing that the facial bones in modern man evolved to be far more robust than the same bones of our ancestors, probably because at about the same time we developed hands that could form fists. 

Seems that millions of years ago, just as now, women were the subject of warring between men. I can imagine a sexy cave-woman, sashaying on over to the carcass of the mammoth her boyfriend just killed and batting her eyelashes at some other caveman who is not her boyfriend. And behold, the first ever fist fight.
Utah Biologist David Carrier sums it up for us: 

“When modern humans fight hand-to-hand the face is usually the primary target. What we found was that the bones that suffer the highest rates of fracture in fights are the same parts of the skull that exhibited the greatest increase in robusticity during the evolution of basal hominins. These bones are also the parts of the skull that show the greatest difference between males and females in both australopiths and humans. In other words, male and female faces are different because the parts of the skull that break in fights are bigger in males."

“Importantly, these facial features appear in the fossil record at approximately the same time that our ancestors evolved hand proportions that allow the formation of a fist. Together these observations suggest that many of the facial features that characterize early hominins may have evolved to protect the face from injury during fighting with fists,”

This actually makes scientific sense. Today of course, having conquered our environment and all of our predators, our brains are our primary "weapon" for competing for scarce resources and women. Even the most hideous troll of a man, if he is smart and makes a lot of money, can pull a top-drawer female who'll happily let him breed her. Conversely, a great looking guy who is dumb and poor, say a career bartender or pool boy, while attractive in her Lifetime-movie fantasies, generally cannot, at least not long enough to keep her. 

Of course it's best, evolutionarily, for women to find existential value in brains and wealth over brawn and looks, given a binary choice and the relative scarcity of rich, good looking men. To modern women, brains and wealth imply safety, stability, and a best-chance environment for raising offspring. To cave-women, the ability to kill predators, hunt prey, and fight off other cavemen implied all those things(think the infield at Talladega). To some cave-women, it still does, which is why we still have cave-men who exhibit those "qualities". 

So for all you gals who like a brutish, aggressive, physically imposing type of man without brains, money or prospects, here's your catch of the day -- Australopithecus (he liked to fight a lot)