You've smoothly shot right past solid ground (evolution doesn't design things) to a fairly wild claim (rock-throwing apes didn't experience evolutionary pressure to get better at throwing rocks).

Orangutans aren't humans, so what are you saying, apes which don't throw rocks to kill their prey don't... throw rocks to kill their prey?

Perhaps my example is poor, but it shows that hands are not coupled to predation

I'm specifically talking about the evolution of hands, humans are not the only organism with hands.

The poster didn't say "hands", they said "your hands".

Your human hands, which co-evolved with throwing things, we have abundant paleontological evidence of this and you may read as many papers on the subject as you would care to.

Got links to any of those papers?

Are you vegan? Just curious.

No, but I'm not sure what that has to do with the topic at hand

Also unsure how that's an appropriate response to a request for citations?

This seems accurate to me.

Like complex brains are evolutionarily fit because they can solve lots of disparate problems, hands are evolutionarily fit because they can do lots of disparate things.

Of course, we do also then design violins for our specific dexterity.

I think you're assigning too much weight to the word itself. In informal settings, or even quasi-formal ones, it's not uncommon to use "designed" when we don't mean "literally designed".

The use of "design" in the context of the structure and capability of human bodies means precisely "literally designed" to many religious people, including many readers of HN.

So I don't think it's out of place for the GP to address this.

Thank you. This was exactly the point of my comment. While some readers interpret the word lightly, there are many who use it literally in the context of biology with a reference to creationism. There is no evidence for creationism