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.
Translation. You are unable to refute my arguments and are trying to trash me instead of doing the good work of proving your case with facts. Until then, ta ta.
---
The entire history of our (carefully recorded and scientifically analyzed) observation of nature has lasted, at the outside, 500 years (that's being generous). The sort of speciation to which you refer takes place over thousands or tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands (or more) of years (except at the microbial level).
Time is the key.
---
This is simply incorrect. In a steady-state, constant process, time cancels out of the equations. The math clearly states that you should be able to take a representative population sample and see a 'snapshot' of every point in the process.
Biologists use this mathematical prinicple to study life cycles of bacteria, physicists use it to study stellar life cycles and radioactive decay, chemists use it to study the stages of a chemical reaction, etc.
If evolution were truly occuring on the macro scale in a continual process, we wouldn't have to be digging through the fossil record, we could study it happening in the biosphere today.
---
You don't understand. We know we evolved the ability to run because, well, we can run. We have structures which allow us to run because we run. We know we de-evolved the tree-climbing structures because, well, we don't have them. And other creatures have them. So it must be true that we used to have them, becasue other creatures have them.
If you have a toe and I have a toe then we must have come from some other one thing with a toe. It is not possible that we both came from Some Other Thing With a Toe because, well, that would require Capital Letters and ockham's razor requires us to write in all small letters if we can at all get by with it.
---
To quote the Dead Pirate Roberts: Truly you have a dizzing intellect.
Again, too easy!
You mean the report that stated that "we set out with the expectation that we would show no benefit of IP (intercessory prayer)," but was authored by Daniel Wirth, who had previously published many research articles claiming miraculous, supernatural healing. Furthermore, Wirth was not a medical doctor — he has a law degree and a masters degree in, of all things, parapsychology.
You mean the report where the authors would not respond to inquirys about the study?
You mean the study that was "retracted" from the university web-site?
Are you referring to the Wirth that was indicted on felony charges of mail-fraud and transportation of stolen money?
Your query:
"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."
WT, Gary Posner sells medical equipment devices and is an M.D. to boot.
What do you think his dog is in this fight?
If you continue to parrot other's beliefs, then eventually you have to ask yourself, who am I?
But because you seem focused on not responding, I'll go forward and play the fool to your queries:
First, Yes, Byrd's methodology has been criticized, but of the 26 criteria per patient that he monitored, several criteria showed improvement, as determined by the statistical analysis of the proofs set up prior to the experiment. I assume you'd like to have those 6 criteria show improvement if you were to undergo surgery!?!?!
Second, when your guide, Gary Posner, makes a claim that there's no evidence that the group didn't pray for itself, upon what evidence does he make that claim? None. I can claim that you're a Northeastern liberal, but upon what evidence do I base this? None. Just like Posner. Secondarily, he seems fixated on the idea that quantity of prayer=effectivity. Upon what simplistic vision does he base this? Have you asked yourself these questions, or just swallowed it whole?
Third, the exact experiment has not been repeated, that is true. But then, nobody's resurrected the Studebaker either.
Study design becomes more refined, more pointed, just like car design. When I mentioned studies in support of Byrd in post 237 you didn't respond. If that's not repetition (albeit not in cardiology) what is it?
Fourth, which are the "numerous" studies that you would like to bring to the table that refute Byrd? Did they utilize the exact same criteria that Byrd did, or did they attempt to proof his study with different methodology. Name the study and let's see.
So, there's my response. Now how about all those posts where you've been so obstinate about answering my queries?
For instance, have YOU read it, yet?
And, there's numerous questions that are begging for your refutation in this post. Favor me.
You do like your Google for your preconceived ideas, don't you?
Have you read the study, WT?
Have you read the study, WT?
Have you... you get the picture.
Enjoying your life membership to CSICOP?
Read for yourself, WT!
Second, when your guide, Gary Posner, makes a claim that there's no evidence that the group didn't pray for itself, upon what evidence does he make that claim? None. I can claim that you're a Northeastern liberal, but upon what evidence do I base this? None. Just like Posner. Secondarily, he seems fixated on the idea that quantity of prayer=effectivity. Upon what simplistic vision does he base this? Have you asked yourself these questions, or just swallowed it whole? It is up to the person performing the experiment to exclude interferring factors, or at least account for them. The study failed to do so.
Third, the exact experiment has not been repeated, that is true. But then, nobody's resurrected the Studebaker either. The Studebaker was produced and reproduced multiple times.
Fourth, which are the "numerous" studies that you would like to bring to the table that refute Byrd? Did they utilize the exact same criteria that Byrd did, or did they attempt to proof his study with different methodology. Name the study and let's see. You have already stated in a previous post that Byrd has its contradictions. No need to follow this line.
BTW, because researchers don't respond to ONE rabid, foaming at the mouth skeptic like Bruce Flamm probably bodes well for the researchers.
Also, websites at universities for researchers are generally taken down when the researcher leaves the university.
You're not trying to distort these events to portray something sinister about these SCIENTISTS, are you? Heavens, there may thousands of them out there, just willing to lie and distort in the name of scientific progress, mightn't there?
Posner, Flamm, and no study names. Hmmm....
You forgot to mention how they lied about their motives and the felony prosecutions for mail fraud and stolen money.
> FOUND a new niche?
Yes. Found a new niche. Sometimes taking a walk will put you in a whole new ecosystem where you'll prosper.
> We should be seeing selection pressures pushing for speciation into this niche once again
We have not abandoned the niches we've held for the past hundred thousand years. On the contrary... we're leading adventure safaris into them and building condos on them.
> Of course, we should be seeing speciation all over the place in the biosphere ...
Over time, yes. And that's just what the evidence shows.
And your point is that scientists can be frauds and only interested in self-aggrandizement and money?
Hmmm... casts a long pall on evolutionary scientists, doesn't it?
I suppose that a felony does impair one's professional reputation, though, doesn't it? And the mail fraud and stolen money directly affected the results of the experiment?
Get a grip, man.
It was not his or his website. It was the Columbia U review of the article and it was deleted. For obvious reasons.
Posner?
Flamm?
Study names?
Cough it up.
Red
Scientists? I really doubt it! Not characters I would want to base my life on.
A mysterious individual known as Daniel P. Wirth. In October 2002, one year after the Cha/Wirth/Lobo study was published, Mr. Wirth, along with his former research associate Joseph Horvath, also known as Joseph Hessler, was indicted by a federal grand jury (9). Both men were charged with bilking the troubled cable television provider Adelphia Communications Corporation out of $2.1 million by infiltrating the company, then having it pay for unauthorized consulting work. Police investigators discovered that Wirth is also known as John Wayne Truelove. FBI investigators revealed that Wirth first used the name of Truelove, a New York child who died at age five in 1959, to obtain a passport in the mid-1980s. Wirth and his accomplice were charged with thirteen counts of mail fraud, twelve counts of interstate transportation of stolen money, making false statements on loan applications, and five other counts of fraud. A federal grand jury concluded that the relationship between Wirth and Horvath extended back more than twenty years and involved more than $3.4 million in income and property obtained by using false identities. In addition to the Adelphia scheme, Wirth apparently found a way to defraud the federal government by collecting Social Security benefits totaling approximately $103,178 from 1994 to 2003 in the name of Julius Wirth. This man, possibly Daniel Wirth's father, died in 1994 but his benefits continued to be paid after his death via electronic funds transferred to the Republic National Bank.
Incredibly, at the time of the indictment, Horvath, Wirth's partner, was already in jail, charged with arson for burning down his Pennsylvania house to collect insurance money (10). The FBI investigation revealed that Horvath had previously gone to prison in a 1990 embezzlement and false identity case in California. Interestingly, the investigation also revealed that he had also once been arrested for posing as a doctor in California. It appears that the "doctor" who performed biopsies on human research subjects in Wirth's famous healing studies may have actually been Horvath impersonating a doctor. Horvath was a co-author on another of Wirth's studies in which salamander limbs were amputated and found to grow back more quickly when "healers" waved their hands over the wounds.
Both Wirth and Horvath initially pled not guilty to the felony charges, and over the next eighteen months their trial was delayed six times. However, on May 18, 2004, just as the criminal trial of the United States v. Wirth & Horvath was finally about to begin, both men pled guilty to conspiracy to commit mail fraud and conspiracy to commit bank fraud (11). Each man faced a maximum of five years in federal prison and agreed to forfeit assets of more than $1 million obtained through fraudulent schemes. Horvath, however, was found dead in his jail cell on July 13, 2004, an apparent suicide.
Red
And the total lack of any scientific/medical credentials ...
BTW, why did the University pull its review of the report? hmmm.
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.