I have been reading with much amusement "breaking news" articles stating that it has just been discovered that learning to run propelled evolution. No kidding!
Study: Learning to Run Propelled Evolution
SALT LAKE CITY Nov 18, 2004 -- New research suggests that developing the ability to run long thought to be a byproduct of walking for early man was actually an instrumental step in the evolution of people from ape-like creatures into what we know today as humans.
If I'm correct, evolution is about one thing, survival of the fitest. So whence, I ask, cometh this astonishing revelation? To survive, you have to run from the predators that chase you, nicht wa?
Here's more of the article:
. . .
In a study published in Thursday's edition of the journal Nature, University of Utah biology professor Dennis Bramble and Harvard anthropologist Daniel Lieberman conclude that natural selection favored early humans who had genetic mutations that accommodated running.
Over time, that included a narrowed waist, shorter forearms, larger buttocks and skull modifications allowing the body to cool itself.
The research suggests that primitive man's evolution from walking to running was fundamental to human evolution forsaking the capacity to live in trees, but vastly improving the species' ability to find food and ultimately becoming anatomically similar to the way we are today.
They also hypothesize that running preceded brain enlargement and may have precipitated brain development by allowing primitive man to locate and consume more protein.
"The structure of specializations required for hunting are sort of counter to those that are useful for climbing," Bramble said. "We sort of favor the notion that humans may have evolved running initially to increase their intake. But not through hunting probably through scavenging."
Bramble estimates early man walked for 2.5 million to 3 million years before finally developing running ability.
Previously, researchers hadn't much focused on running, instead considering it simply a byproduct of walking. But Bramble points to specific adaptations like the Achilles tendon as evidence that man wasn't capable of running until evolution accommodated it.
"It turns out that (the Achilles tendon) is a terrific spring, and it makes a huge difference in the economy of running, but it makes no difference in walking," he said.
Bramble said scientists might have overlooked the importance of running because humans aren't considered particularly fast in comparison to four-legged animals.
However, Bramble says endurance, more than speed, was the key for early man enabled by adaptations allowing the body to cool itself and function over long distances.
Furthermore, Bramble suggested that early runners could even have been faster than our contemporaries, perhaps in part because projectile hunting weapons made running less necessary as humans evolved further.
"Some of our ancestors very likely could have been better runners than some of the best runners today," he said.
Christopher Ruff, director of the Center for Functional Anatomy and Evolution at Johns Hopkins University, said the theory is valuable, but won't necessarily change the way scientists think about human evolution.
Ruff said it's difficult to tell which genetic modifications uniquely accommodated running because so many of them also aid in walking.
"It's more of a hypothesis than a real test of the theory," he said. "It's interesting to think about the data in this way, and it's a good idea to consider some driving forces, but I don't consider this proof."
There were two girls walking in the woods and came upon a hungry menacing grizzly. One of the girls did the math in an amazing feat of intellectual prowess and figured that they could not outrun the bear. She then turned to her friend who was quickly removing her shoes. "What are you doing?" smartie pants asked. "I just figured out that I don't have to outrun the bear. I just have to outrun you."
------
My other fun evolution breaking news is from this USA Today story. [comments following breaking news story]
Discovery Puts Humans in South Carolina 50,000 years ago
By Dan Vergano, USA TODAY
Artifacts found in a hillside along the Savannah River indicate that modern humans inhabited North America as long as 50,000 years ago, a discovery that challenges long-held theories on the migration of our ancient ancestors.
The discovery of ancient artifacts will likely cause archaeologists to dig deeper at flint sites across the continent.
AP
The find reported Wednesday by archaeologist Albert Goodyear of the University of South Carolina flies in the face of the conventional scientific view that homo sapiens -- with the same bone structure and brain size as today's people -- moved into North America within the past 12,000 years. Until then, a 23,000-year-long Ice Age was thought to have blocked travel across Alaska's Bering Strait.
"Fifty thousand years ago is mind-boggling. It challenges a lot of theories," Archaeology magazine's Eric Powell says. "All of our models of how humans migrated will have to be reconsidered if this holds up," he says.
Goodyear and his colleagues have been exploring the ancient flint quarry in Allendale County, S.C., since 1998, unearthing a hearth, flint blades and tool chips.
The age estimate of the deepest artifacts is based on measures of radioactive carbon traces found in oak, conifer, buckeye and other plants buried alongside them.
The report, awaiting publication and peer review in a scientific journal, is certain to be controversial among archaeologists because it means that the first people raced across the globe after migrating from Africa 100,000 years ago.
North and South America had long been considered the last continents settled by humans, but the find suggests Asia was just a rest stop for humanity early on. Goodyear says the tools resemble those found in early human sites in Asia from about the same period.
Recent evidence from sites in Chile and Oklahoma have suggested that modern humans inhabited the Americas as far back as 30,000 years ago. They are thought to have colonized Australia only 60,000 years ago and Europe about 45,000 years ago.
"Man is a traveler, an explorer," Goodyear says. "In retrospect, it's almost absurd to insist that people could never get into North America before the last Ice Age."
"The question is not the validity of the dates but what is being dated," says archaeologist Tom Dillehay of Vanderbilt University in Nashville. Skeptics will likely argue that the simple flint blades are natural in origin.
"At present, I don't think these new dates prove anything. It signals to us to keep the window of opportunity and possibility cautiously open," Dillehay says.
If proved, the dates still leave open the question of how people arrived in North America. A number of routes are possible:
- A land bridge between Siberia and Alaska may have existed before the last Ice Age.
- Boats may have brought coastal fishermen island-hopping across the Bering Strait.
- Early Australians may have kept going east.
The discovery will likely cause archaeologists to dig deeper at flint sites across the continent, Goodyear says. "It may be we haven't found these before because we haven't been looking."
Wow, is it just me, or wasn't Christopher Columbus the first human in America?
Is anyone else getting tickled by all these paradigm shifting discoveries. Come on, 1 in 5 of all these discoveries blows everything out of the water, these people need to stop crying wolf. Save the sensationalism for when we discover atlantis.
BTW, my wife thinks that these early people came here seeking a better life. I like that, just . . . why South Carolina? Maybe they're still there.
A final thought, of all the options at the end of the article. My favorite is "Early Australians may have kept going East."