Posted on 11/17/2004 11:06:41 AM PST by ElkGroveDan
LONDON (Reuters) - Humans were born to run and evolved from ape-like creatures into the way they look today probably because of the need to cover long distances and compete for food, scientists said on Wednesday.
From tendons and ligaments in the legs and feet that act like springs and skull features that help prevent overheating, to well-defined buttocks that stabilize the body, the human anatomy is shaped for running.
"We do it because we are good at it. We enjoy it and we have all kinds of specializations that permit us to run well," said Daniel Liberman, a professor of anthropology at Harvard University in Massachusetts.
"There are all kinds of features that we see in the human body that are critical for running," he told Reuters.
Liberman and Dennis Bramble, a biology professor at the University of Utah, studied more than two dozen traits that increase humans' ability to run. Their research is reported in the science journal Nature.
They suspect modern humans evolved from their ape-like ancestors about 2 million years ago so they could hunt and scavenge for food over large distances.
But the development of physical features that enabled humans to run entailed a trade off -- the loss of traits that were useful for being a tree-climber.
"We are very confident that strong selection for running -- which came at the expense of the historical ability to live in trees -- was instrumental in the origin of the modern human body form," Bramble said in a statement.
AGAINST THE GRAIN The conventional theory is that running was a by-product of bipedalism, or the ability to walk upright on two legs, that evolved in ape-like human ancestors called Australopithecus at least 4.5 million years ago.
But Liberman and Bramble argue that it took a few million more years for the running physique to evolve, so the ability to walk cannot explain the transition.
"There were 2.5 million to 3 million years of bipedal walking without ever looking like a human, so is walking going to be what suddenly transforms the hominid body?" said Bramble.
"We're saying 'no, walking won't do that, but running will."'
If natural selection did not favor running, the scientists believe humans would still look a lot like apes.
"Running has substantially shaped human evolution. Running made us human -- at least in the anatomical sense," Bramble added.
Among the features that set humans apart from apes to make them good runners are longer legs to take longer strides, shorter forearms to enable the upper body to counterbalance the lower half during running and larger disks which allow for better shock absorption.
Big buttocks are also important.
"Have you ever looked at an ape? They have no buns," said Bramble.
Humans lean forward when they run and the buttocks "keep you from pitching over on your nose each time a foot hits the ground," he added.
Humans were born to run and evolved from ape-like creatures into the way they look today probably because of the need to cover long distances and compete for food, scientists said on Wednesday.
If true, why is every medium to large predator able to easily outrun a human?
Guess what: "No idea" and "I don't know" are both quite simple, wholely accurate*, and at the same time, the most magnificent answers possible.
* (well, they can be, unless you're asking a Dem about the illegal things they've done)
> your inability to see beyond the superficial aspects of the seen, and logically inferred,
Why do you think I have an "inability" here?
>are you insinuating that my questions are ill-thought-out or vague?
Yes, indeed. For example, post 85:
"I have yet to find a single engineer who is able to answer the question: Why?"
"Why?", by itself, is an astonishingly vague question. As such, no answer is appropriate except "because." Every "why" question will have a "because" answer. But what follows *after* "because" is determined by what follows after "why."
> Cynicism does not wear well on the human condition.
Bah.
> why is every medium to large predator able to easily outrun a human?
Humans are pack animals. More importantly, pack animals with pointed sticks and fire. Ain't a predator on the planet that can take down a prepared pack of humans. Consequently, our need to outrun them is minimal.
I have a theory. We "evolved" skinny fingers so we can push those tiny buttons on the remote. And to type totally worthless comments on the internet.
I'd like to ask the Einsteins who have proposed this theory why a big fat bear on all fours can run down a human.
As is evolution. Case closed.
Delightfully abstruse, yet incapable of giving one's foe credit.
AH, nothing like engineering school, eh? The chicken and the egg. Does the engineering mind come first, or does the school predate the engineer? Could be biblical in it's proportions, yes?
To say that "No idea" and "I don't know" are simple is to belabor the obvious. Magnificent? Not unless you think the Dems did a "magnificent" job in the last election cycle.
As for the "Why" question in post 85: in context it's a carry-on of a thought first posed by you. Taken out of context, and distorted, it becomes a disembodied spirit with no texture or meaning.
You didn't mean to take me out of context, or distort my question, did you?
After all, you and I are in the business of facts, good or bad, aren't we? Men like us should spend little or no time on that which lowers our gentlemanly, rational capacities.
Why? Because.
And your observation of an evolutionary event that has irrefutably occurred over the last decade is..........?
If man was born to run, how come the knees go south so quick?
Turtles are quadrupeds, and I'm pretty sure I can outrun the average turtle.
There are some other quadrupeds, such as sloths, that are a lot slower than we are.
I know this is just really semantics but are we really "pack" animals? Would the better term be "troop" as is used with some other primates? Tribe seems to say too much. What is the correct name for an early group of hunter/gatherer humans?
No dispute there.
However, I still don't buy the authors thesis. As supportive evidence, I would need to see an analysis of caloric intake/output and how this special style of running gave the species a reproductive advantage.
Yes, I thought as much.
Then why is it that running wrecks the knees?
bump
BTTT
> Does the engineering mind come first, or does the school predate the engineer?
The engineering mind. There were people out to determien the way the world *really* worked, and how to utilize that info, long before there were schools to teach it.
> "No idea" and "I don't know"... Magnificent?
You betcha. The beginning of wisdom is the realization that you are missing information. If you are presented with a question that you don't know the answer to, and you just pull out some pat response to it... that is the end of wisdom.
> You didn't mean to take me out of context, or distort my question, did you?
There *was* no context to your "Why?" in post 85.
> are we really "pack" animals?
Go to a gangsta rap concept, and then get back to us on that...
> Life and all its myriad variations and permutations is all just one big freak accident.
There is no difficulty with that notion. It is the height of hubris exhibitted by many humans to think that they are special events in the history of the universe.
> That means, all living things must consume what was one living.
Incorrect. Many bacteria are happy eating things that were *never* alive. Once you get those, you can evolve other bacteria that will eat the first ones.
Good, I thought we had lost you for a minute there.
With regards to "Magnificent"...if your immediate manager were to pose a question to you, that he/she thought you capable of answering (to some degree, greater or lesser) and you simply said "No idea", without so much as a "But it's something I'll look into," he/she wouldn't regard that as a very "Magnificent" answer.
Your original response was:
"Guess what: "No idea" and "I don't know" are both quite simple, wholely accurate*, and at the same time, the most magnificent answers possible."
Explain to me how you got from simple (which is true), to wholly accurate (which is true only if the person is intellectually honest, and wholly clueless about the subject), to the most magnificent answer possible (which challenges the realm of factuality).
The beginning of "knowledge" (not wisdom) is the realization that you are missing information. There are many people gifted with the ability to accumulate knowledge who would not be mistaken for someone filled with 'wisdom'.
If you believe that knowledge is synonymous with wisdom, then I can better understand your individual logic.
And pat responses to questions may indicate "...the end of wisdom."... but more often it indicates an intellectual laziness, or a lack of desire to challenge one's preconceived prejudices.
And the chicken vs. egg question was rhetorical in nature.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.