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.
No. I had it exactly right.
> There has not yet be any evidence of evolution *around* those limits.
Sure there are. Can't outrun the predators? Figure out how to make a pointed stick.
The belief in God does not mean you can't believe in science. We are not threatened by what we don't know and don't understand. True believers in evolution feel threatened by that which they don't understand and can't explain. Hence they cling to an unproven theory because they refuse to believe in a higher power and can stand having such a big 'unknown' so they get upset when evolution is questioned because they have nothing to replace it with. Those that do believe in a designing power are comfortable with not being able to understand every aspect of the creation a supreme mind created. They know on some level they personally will never be able to understand it all so they are able to seek understanding without desperation and without making leaps of faith involving improbably chance and eons of time. Evolution is not incompatible with faith in God but lack of faith in God is incompatible with anything BUT evolution. Hence they will defend the theory with zealous fervor until another explanation for life the universe and everything comes along. Such an attitude is incompatible with the scientific process since it assumes a solution and constantly seeks only to prove that solution. By itself that is not a problem but going about it by making leaps of logic with no evidence and building complex models based on tiny fragments is exercising a higher level of blind faith than evolutionist accuse creationists of. This cuts both ways. Anyone that presumes to know the exact processes by which things came about and blindly seeks to prove those to the exclusion of all else is jeopardizing their scientific objectivity. My observation is that people with the belief in God are more open to objectively viewing the data at hand than those whose world view is dependent on there NOT being an intelligent designer.
Belief in God requires the greatest leap of faith. As to your words about evolutionists, you are totally ignorant of what they think and believe.
of >> or ???
Again, by definition, a person who believe in G-d does believe in some form of creationism. OTOH, I know many hardcore creationists who believe evolution is a tool of G-d. Result? Believing that G-d and evolution are necessarily mutually exclusive is not all that open-minded. From what I've seen and heard, the mainline evolutionists go into all sorts of contortions to try to remove all vestiges of G-d from evolution. Not, what I would consider, an open-minded position.
You're dodging. You have little, other than a contrarian nature, to support what you're saying.
You say 'evolution' supposedly has allowed our mind to evolve to the point that we dominate all other species. We have apparently reached our zenith, or so it seems that you imply. So what does this say about the tiny bacteria, or the virus (for which there are no cures)? If the mind has 'evolved' to a point of superiority over all things, why then are these tiny microorganisms still the only known natural enemy and predator of man? And we are no closer to having 'superiority' over them than we have ever been.
Perhaps they have been 'evolved' to be our superiors? Evolutionary 'proofs' and 'arguments' are amazingly odd.
well...when you consider where we were on the food chain back then
Doogle
Fallacious argument. You could also argue that since the Theory of Gravitation does not have any vestiges of God, believing in the Theory of Gravitation is not, an open-minded position.
Evolution tries to explain the progress from point X to point Y. Whether or not there is a God is irrelevant and thus not part of the theory. Evolutionary theory is totally consistent with the existance or non-existance of a God.
I imply no such thing.
So what does this say about the tiny bacteria, or the virus (for which there are no cures)?
Are you alluding to the bacteria mutations?
If the mind has 'evolved' to a point of superiority over all things, why then are these tiny microorganisms still the only known natural enemy and predator of man? And we are no closer to having 'superiority' over them than we have ever been.
Makers of various drugs would disagree.
No, I'm alluding to bacterial and viral destruction of the human existence.
If you believe in the claims of the mega-pharmaceutical scientific community, you do, indeed, have a faith greater than that which is necessary to believe in God.
> Sharpening a pointed stick is not evolution.
No. But evolving the intellect and ability to do so is. A dolphin may well be smart enough to figure out that a pointed stick is a useful thing... but their physical evolution has not given them the ability. A chimp might well hav ethe physical ability to make a pointed stick, but they may not be smart enough to figure it out (this is by no means certain... they are smart enough to may simple tools and use clubs in combat, so, maybe...).
> But the spear did not evolve the brain power.
Ah, but that too is uncertain. Learnign to make toold for hunting improved the protein diet of proto-humans, which allowed the brain to evolve in directions it otherwise would have been blocked from doing so due to basic nutritional issues. Another example of evolution going around barriers.
> The time lag between the spear and the brain power from a genetic mutation standpoint makes the evolution of it as a survival trait extremely improbable.
Worked stone points are very, very old. predating modern humans. Fire and stone tools are the products of at least Homo Erectus, and probably far earlier.
If I get sick, I am going to the doctor rather than stay in bed and pray.
This isn't pertinent, but a man can outwalk a horse.
I disagree. Maybe men were built to run but not women and certainly not mothers. Human babies do not cling to mothers but need to be supported with two hands. And human women are the only animals to have swollen breasts year round even when not lactating.
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.