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.
And Cha and Lobo?
Sinister characters in jail, too, I suppose!
BTW, Why did JRM pull the report?
Do you ever answer questions?
"Soon after the study was published a number of objections were raised. In particular, Dr. Bruce Flamm told the Sun that “The entire thing may be fraudulent.” Dr. Flamm is director of research at Kaiser Permanente California..."
"Meanwhile, the Journal of Reproductive Medicine has withdrawn the study report and has investigated its findings..."
No pressure from monied interests there, is there?
Since you are familiar with the study, how do you accept that the Tier 2 Group C prayers for the Tier 1 Group C praying efficiency really worked when the Tier 2 Group B prayers for Tier 1 Group D (inferred via Tier 2 Group D prayers via Tier 1 Group D decreases) were counter to that conclusion?
No. It is about ethics and medical veracity.
I am glad you finally realized that your good Mr. Wirth is all about money and fraud. hmmm.
Then you need to correct the paucity of your knowlege. Shared endogenous retroviruses *alone* are "proof of evolution occuring at the macro-level", and "prove" the common ancestry of humans and other primates, as well as entire families of mammals.
And there are dozens of other lines of evidence supporting it as well.
In the immortal words of Red Skelton, "little do you know how little you know".
We have observed it at the micro- level, as some species have undergone slight changes in color or size,
And *much* more. The observed changes go far beyond mere "slight changes in color or size".
but in the entire history of our observation of nature we have never ever witnessed, nor have evidence, one species completely changing into another.
False. In the "entire history of our observation of nature" mankind has witnessed wolves becoming dogs. Yes, they're still canids, but they're no longer wolves, they are a new species -- that's "one species completely changing into another". The same is true of countless food crops, which are now different species (and vastly different) from the wild plants they originated from.
As for your "nor have evidence" assertion, see the above link, and also this one, just for *starters*. There is an *overwhelming* amount of evidence. Meet me at any good research library and I could literally bury you in it.
There are so many flaws in this "law" of evolution that I cannot help but laugh hysterically at anyone who takes this seriously as an explanation of the generation of species.
Feel free to state some of these alleged "flaws", so that I can show you -- with evidence -- where you're mistaken, and can "laugh hysterically" at your lack of knowledge.
For starters, there is no such thing as the "law" of evolution. If you can't even get the scientific terminology straight, how can you hope to handle the more complicated concepts?
Finally, a suggestion: Looking to creationist sources for an honest evaluation of the scientific basis for evolution is like asking Michael Moore for an introduction to conservatism.
" Dr. Flamm is director of research at Kaiser Permanente California..."
I'll call your convicted scam artist and raise you one director of research with a bonafied medical background.
In case it wasn't OBVIOUS, Mr. Skeptic Flamm is on the payroll of someone who's driving up your health costs, minimizing alternate health care, and profiting himself and the corporation to boot.
Did you completely miss the content of the remark?
And ethics and medical veracity, and scientific purity, all played a part in the VIOXX scandal how?
Did you completely miss the part about where your Mr. Wirth is nothing but a scam artist out for your money? A convicted scam artist, even.
VIOXX was approved for short-term treatments. No hazards were found for short-term treatments.
Upon trying to extend the use of VIOXX, the studies showed an increased risk for long-term treatment and MRK pulled the drugged before seeking approval for long term use.
I think I am getting a glimmer into your mind. You obviously have a horse in this race. What is it?
Ah, a difficult science question! One that will take a little research and reading (and not the all-too-familiar cut and paste parroting with which you seem to be adept). I'll provide a response as time dictates. Rapid science is bad science, isn't it?
Why do I feel compelled to provide answers for you when you so completely ignore all requests I make of you?
Let's look at a few of them again:
"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?
Upon what simplistic vision does he base this?
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?For instance, have YOU read it, yet?
Are the opinions yours?
Now, did you read that yourself, or did you rely on other commentators, and researchers, who provided an analysis with which you agreed?
What, then, is it about the "evolutionist" scientific method that is so superior over other scientists and their scientific method?
Do you see the importance?
I assume you'd like to have those 6 criteria show improvement if you were to undergo surgery!?!?!
You do like your Google for your preconceived ideas, don't you?
Have you read the study, WT?
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?
Posner?
Flamm?
Study names?
And Cha and Lobo?"
My horse is intellectual honesty. Shilling for science is like shilling for religion.
What are you shilling for?
Or is is true, as I suspected long ago, that you're just a contrarian?
Don't bother. I was just funnin' you on the complexity of his study. Almost impossible to sort out.
What about the many other criteria which showed that prayer worsened the conditions?
My Grandpa's advice:
1. Never run when you can walk.
2. Never walk when you can ride.
3. Never stand when you can sit.
4. Never pass up a chance to go to the bathroom.
Your assumption that Mr. Wirth is a scientist is as fradulent as he was.
I'll admit, I'm puzzled by this claim. Who made the claim, and at what site did you find it?
I can't answer until you come up with a destination and some info.
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.