This should stimulate some lively discussion, not to mention photos.
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-55 next last
To: ElkGroveDan
"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,"I hate running.
43 posted on
11/17/2004 11:45:39 AM PST by
SoDak
(Home of Senator John Thune)
To: ElkGroveDan
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. Why I fall down so much when I run. Padded in the wrong places.
47 posted on
11/17/2004 11:49:43 AM PST by
VadeRetro
(A self-reliant conservative citizenry is a better bet than the subjects of an overbearing state. -MS)
To: ElkGroveDan
59 posted on
11/17/2004 12:12:41 PM PST by
New Perspective
(Proud father of an 11 month old son with Down Syndrome)
To: ElkGroveDan
not this human--
![](http://www.glennbeck.com/leadstories/09-19-03/09-19-03.jpg)
61 posted on
11/17/2004 12:15:09 PM PST by
petercooper
(Kerry voters -- How can 57,166,951 people be so DUMB?)
To: ElkGroveDan
Humans were born to run This particular human was born to nap. I can point to all sorts of features I have that make me particularly well suited to it.
I don't know what I evolved from, but I'll consider that question in about 20 minutes.
Shalom.
66 posted on
11/17/2004 12:18:55 PM PST by
ArGee
(After 517, the abolition of man is complete)
To: ElkGroveDan
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. What's truly amazing is that all of these things "evolved" without knowing what the final result was going to be...good runners. Larger disks wouldn't have been needed unless and until we were already running. Shorter forearms wouldn't have been needed unless and until we could balance upright.
We were designed to run.
To: ElkGroveDan
Thirteen marathons for me. Some of them were racewalking rather than running.
71 posted on
11/17/2004 12:28:49 PM PST by
jimfree
(Your heros say something about your view of heroism.)
To: ElkGroveDan
"well-defined buttocks"
Add another to the list for next Thursday.
To: ElkGroveDan; martin_fierro; mhking
"Have you ever looked at an ape? They have no buns," said Bramble.I think we just found the first legitimate candidate for a Darwin Award who didn't have to self-destruct.
80 posted on
11/17/2004 12:37:11 PM PST by
Willie Green
(Go Pat Go!!!)
To: ElkGroveDan
Then how come our ankles and knees constantly need surgery? 3 million years of adaption and this is all we get? Whatever happened to punctuated equilibrium when you really need it?
81 posted on
11/17/2004 12:41:22 PM PST by
cookcounty
(-It's THE WHITE HOUSE, not THE WAFFLE HOUSE.)
To: ElkGroveDan
Anyone who is familiar with the differences between male and female skeletons can see that it is unlikely that women were "born to run".
To: ElkGroveDan
Ever try to catch a road runner. We really are pretty slow.
![](http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v492/fritzz/RoadRunnerPencil.gif)
90 posted on
11/17/2004 12:58:44 PM PST by
fritzz
To: ElkGroveDan
Running is hard on the knees. Try blading. :-)
93 posted on
11/17/2004 1:00:25 PM PST by
k2blader
(It is neither compassionate nor conservative to support the expansion of socialism.)
To: ElkGroveDan
The fact is bipedalism is very inefficient for locomotion, running in particular. Because we move on two ball-and-socket jointed legs, every step we take destroys most of the kinetic energy of the prior step. In contrast, a quadruped's front legs act more like a shock absorber, allowing more of the forward momentum to be preserved. This is evident in that today humans still have a shoulder blade rather than a ball-and-socket at the shoulder. While the ball-and-socket would be more efficient for us to use our arms, the shoulder blade is a bit of an evolutionary leftover (of course this isn't explained if one does not believe in evolution). Also a quadruped's rear legs swing through a wider angle, allowing more energy to be conserved in the tendon's. This again is more efficient than we are. While our legs have certainly adapted to be more efficient for two-legged movement, bipedalism is still not a logical forward step for locomotion, so certainly some other influence encouraged us to stand upright.
101 posted on
11/17/2004 1:11:30 PM PST by
duznshwrnkd
(america is blushing)
To: ElkGroveDan
To: ElkGroveDan
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?
121 posted on
11/17/2004 1:56:33 PM PST by
fso301
To: ElkGroveDan
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.
To: ElkGroveDan
If man was born to run, how come the knees go south so quick?
To: ElkGroveDan
Then why is it that running wrecks the knees?
133 posted on
11/17/2004 2:20:23 PM PST by
valkyrieanne
(card-carrying South Park Republican)
To: ElkGroveDan
134 posted on
11/17/2004 2:27:10 PM PST by
Oldeconomybuyer
(The democRATS are near the tipping point.)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-55 next last
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson