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.
Then you would ignore the THOUSANDS of studies done by universities like Princeton about the efficacy of prayer on the recuperation and survival rates of surgery patients? (Blind, double blind studies over short distances, long distances, prayer for people you know, people you don't know, etc.)
Or maybe this isn't the kind of science that fits in with your preconceived answers, eh?
Are you saying you would stay in bed and pray rather than go to the doctor?
Really? I didn't know that. What's the max sustainable range for a horse? For a man, it's about 20 miles day. I would've thought a horse could do much better, and certainly in less time.
Contrariness does not become a dialogue.
If you want to answer a question, that's fine. But it would appear that you have all the genuineness of a Monty Python skit on Arguments.
Do you believe in the efficacy of prayer, as proven through Science, or not?
Yes is spelled YES, and no is spelled NO.
I can't believe that I haven't seen any jokes on this thread about this being the reason they call it the HUMAN RACE.
I can go to the doctor and also pray. Your position of only prayer prevents the use of modern drugs to fight infectuions.
Teddy Kennedy was 'born to swim'. Wonder how he does it? Guess he's pretty buoyant with that front yard.
Guess he was born to swim, then run...from the scene of the crime!!!!
I think you are making a big leap of faith to accept these studies as definitive. A much larger leap of faith than required for the evidence supporting evolution.
"Your position of only prayer prevents the use of modern drugs to fight infectuions."
You have assumed something I didn't say. Don't presume to understand an answer I didn't give.
Secondly, you haven't answered the question: Do you believe in the efficacy of prayer, as proven through SCIENCE, or not?
You put the choice as being between drugs and prayer, not me.
False premis as it has not been proven through science.
Do you believe in the evolution, as proven through SCIENCE, or not?
A few million years of divergent evolution would also get you a whole lotta intermediary fossils - where are they?
Would you like me to direct the flood of studies SINCE THE 1950's UP TO TODAY to your direct email? Then you could pick and choose which of the scientists you agree with, and which you disagree with.
A false premise is that which leads to an unsupportable conclusion, or a conclusion that is demonstrably incorrect.
Which exact false premise are you concerned about while trying to answer the question: Do you believe in the efficacy of prayer, as proven by SCIENCE, or not?
Oh, and by the way, answering a question is a time-dishonored tradition for those who have no interest in pursuing a line of inquiry in an honest and open-minded fashion (isn't that what scientists always criticize Creationists for ?).
False.
My religious beliefs have no bearing on the validity of the theory of evolution.
No. Just give me your best shot.
So as we conclude this *ahem* discussion, let me sum up:
You believe the thousands of scientific studies about the efficacy of prayer to be false, even though they point to the same conclusion.
Therefore, there is some Science with which you agree, based on evidence derived from the scientific method, and there is some Science with which you disagree, despite the evidence derived from the scientific method.
What, then, is it about the "evolutionist" scientific method that is so superior over other scientists and their scientific method?
You are ignoring what is inconvenient to your point of view, aren't 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.