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.
You believe the thousands of scientific studies about the evolution 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 "prayer" 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?
Do you assert that these studies prove devine intervention?
Contrariness would be so much more appealing if it were done with a spark of creativity.
Parroting is not a form of flattery, though I am flattered that you would try to distort my rhetoric. When you come back with solid argumentation, concrete refutation, or even an attitude of open investigation, let me know.
Til then, buh bye
I take it that you are unwilling to provide your "best shot" as you know I can easily refute it.
Thus far, the only thing you've refuted is your own stated abilities to argue cogently for your case.
Let's try this (I'm such a sucker for simple cases): Read the study done by Randolph Byrd, published in the Southern Medical Journal, July 1988, and then give me your refutation.
Til then, buh bye.
"we certainly don't run very fast"
Depends on what you mean. If you mean, run faster than saber-tooth tigers, I agree. But if you mean running away from a band of enemy humans - simply keeping pace with them would allow us to reach places of safety before they killed us. And if we managed to belong to a tribe that moved into an area populated by shorter, slower humans, we'd have an edge over them in the way of attack and retreat, giving us a reproductive edge over time (because we wouldn't die as much, and they would die more). Of course, if the world was created 4000 years ago and everything was placed there pre-made and ready to go...well, I'd be wrong.
We've been waiting for you. You're late.
Too EASY!
First, the 'prayed' group had improvement in only 6 of 26 conditions. In many they fared WORSE than the control group!
Second, there is no evidence that the 'control' group did not pray for themselves or had relatives praying for themselves. It is highly likely that there was no substatial difference in the amount of prayer for either group.
Third, This experiment has not been repeated. Isn't that a requirement for your accepting a hypothesis? That it be repeated?
Fourth, Numerous studies have been done which refute the Byrd study.
Thank you.
Good. Now, did you read that yourself, or did you rely on other commentators, and researchers, who provided an analysis with which you agreed?
Thanks for being honest about this, WT.
I noticed you didn't refute my arguments, you merely try to discredit me. Is that because you cannot?
Thank you. We now may consider the Byrd study to be an invalid proof of prayer healing.
Oh, we haven't yet begun. I like things that are long-term.
But, my question still remains (like so many of my questions of you), did you read the study for yourself?
Then, we can go on.
And since you have neatly dodged my arguments, I assume you have no argument to refute them. Case closed. Byrd is trash.
I guess that means you are not going to try to refute my arguments.
Yes. I have read it. Many others as well.
You haven't.
To rely on some commentator without investigating the original sources, or documents, to the greatest degree that one can is to set oneself up for shamanism, whether religious or scientific.
You are a seeker. You owe it to yourself to go the difficult route of deep seeking, and not just take the word of anyone.
This discussion is not so much about who can pin which facts on the other, as much as it is about being intellectually honest.
Yes, Byrd has it's contradictions. It also has it's pointed successes. However, other experiments like the Matthews, Marley, McNutt study on prayer for arthritis, and the Cha, Wirth, Lobo study on prayer and in-vitro pregnancy success not only build on Byrd's work (and many others), but they prove that there are statistical observable positive results from prayer.
You owe it to yourself. Try to not be angry.
But you're wrong about prayer. The science in favor is too extensive for you to claim that prayer is ineffective.
Case open. Science is not trash.
I notice you try to infer emotions on me instead of refuting my arguments. I am not angry, just right. Byrd is trashed.
Have you read it, WT?
Are the opinions yours? Are you 'trashing' someone just because? Like the Dems 'trash' Bush, not just for any opinion they have formed due to an open investigation of the facts, but because someone told them he was a bad guy?
Do you see the importance?
---
Because they fit nicely into the niche they were in. Humans and human ancestors found a new niche that was at the time unfilled, or at least open to exploitation.
---
FOUND a new niche? Evolution is blind; there's no "finding" at all. Besides, the niche is empty again. Our technology has made it obsolete to us. We should be seeing selection pressures pushing for speciation into this niche once again according to the theory.
Heck, we should be seeing selection pressure pushing into the niche REGARDLESS of whether it is filled or not. A less successful form will exist for a time, then go extinct, a more successful form will supplant what's in the niche now. Just because a niche is full doesn't mean selection suddenly stops working.
Of course, we should be seeing speciation all over the place in the biosphere (study the mathematics of continual processes and population sampling to find out why) and we don't, but try to put that in a textbook in some school somewhere and the screaming hordes of "scientists" will come out and burn you at the stake.
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.