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.
"Many bacteria are happy eating things that were *never* alive."
Pure fabrication. But hey, if you gotta make stuff up to support your view...
You have a better explanation? Please provide proof.
Strange argument. Most creationist argue that we haven't had enough time to even develop to a worm.
Amazing what the creationists have to 'make up' to support their 'theory'.
Oh yes. The contextual question.
When you brought your impressive credentials in to the discussion, with rocket science nomenclature to boot, you started the post by saying "I'm an engineer." as if that were a defining moment in a discussion on theoretical applications of ideas (ie. the theory of biological evolution).
The context of my "Why", apparently somewhat obtuse to you, was to question whether those who seek out who, what, when, where, and how answers (ie. engineers) are the best at answering more complicated, less 'earthy' questions (ie. Why questions).
I'm not familiar with the argument of most creationists. But if you look at the extreme differences that yet remain between the primates and humans (not the least of which is the cultural and development of each), and look back to how relatively recently the genetic leap was and compare that to when the first living thing is supposed to have been, I'd argue that if the Evolutionists were correct, all life forms would not need to consume as much as they do, would be asexual, would utilize all of what they do consume and would live far longer.
My point is this: give it another 50 or a 100 or 500 millions years and those species that are still around, are going to look pretty much the same. The only changes will be the changes within their genetic code (more hair, less hair, skin better suited for more sun, less sun, etc). The apes and monkeys would still be around.
> Pure fabrication.
Horsepuckey. Many bacteria are quite content to eat very basic carbon compounds that require no living organism to create them.
What are your conditions, or understanding, of 'proofs'?
Then you had better 'get on board' with their arguments or your posts will serve to refute their arguments.
> The context of my "Why", apparently somewhat obtuse to you, was to question whether ...
"Whether" is NOT "Why."
You asked "Why." But you never said "why" what.
Because even if you had the wingspeed of a hummingbird, it would provide no evolutionary advantage other than being able to swat the lion a few more times before it ate you!
Yes, this is true. Bacteria eat metal, arsenic, and a host of other things. They're not well-understood critters, yet, but they have become known as "man's only known predator", which seems about right.
Truly spoken, as only an engineer could. That's a compliment, so take it easy.
Authority, commands, necessary inferences, illusory references, probable causal relations.
Which of these resonates?
I guess you have learned at least one thing today. Congratulations!
Yup, did at least 30 miles a week for 40 years before I started to "climb the ladder of age" and had a few problems.
Now it's walking 30 miles a week. Very boring compared to running, so I took up golf (and walk, no cart!). Still miss running.
Certainly for me it works and it's also a good time for me to come up with ideas. Unlike other exercise my mind seems to go blank when running/walking and a solution to a problem will just "pop" into my mind, without thinking about it.
And I think God made our bodies for physical work. We can change our environment to eliminate it, but we're still wired that way. Good for the body and the soul.
Take it further, WildTurkey. If I had the wingspeed of a hummingbird, what would prevent me from having the strength of the lion, and the eyesight of the eagle, all at the same time.
Does the theory of evolution prevent me from having these in combination? No.
No, they won't. Evolution was never intended to defeat the concept of Creationism, it was intended to explain how species adapt to their environment through genetic selection.
The anti-Creationists have to make massive assumptions in order to believe what they believe, which is, after all, still only a theory. But they hold that their belief is rooted in science and is therefore indisputable. I think this is the absolute epitome of blind faith, which is the accusation often leveled against Creationists.
G.K. Chesterton summed it up best when he explained that the Evolutionists find a chip of a bone and not only hypothesize what the entire creature looked like, but then make the fantastic leap of ascribing behavioral patterns and developments to that creature.
I assume that's a snide comment. So here's my response, it's a shame that there is no open dialog with Evolutionists. They have made up their mind and defend their belief more intensely than most Creationists I've spoken with. Every little scrap of information that comes along they hold up to say, "See! There is no G--. We're all just an accident!!" And when that information is later debunked (as a great deal of it is eventually), you conveniently ignore that.
So, if you think I've 'finally learned something,' I'd have to say it's a shame that you and the other Evolutionist on this thread are incapable of opening your eyes past your petri dish. I continue to investigate and to learn, because I have solid faith in G-- and science and its theories are of no threat to me. And if I err and foolishly put science in front of my G--, he'll forgive me. But if the Evolutionist does not believe in G--, well that would go a long way toward explaining their desperate attempt to prove that Evolution as leading back to an original life form that was an accident.
I greatly admire Chesterton. For those who are accustomed to the fog of 'reality based' philosophes, then Chesterton, Lewis et al, are as intellectually incomprehensible as "What is the odor of pi + green?"
Reality is what God perceives. Chaos is what we comprehend.
Everyone, I gotta go.
Thanks for the spirited discussions.
Blessings on all of you.
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.