Chimps on Treadmills Offer Evolution Insight

Chimps on Treadmills Offer Evolution Insight

www.cnn.com

Chimpanzees scampering on a treadmill have provided support for the notion that ancient human ancestors began walking on two legs because it used less energy than quadrupedal knuckle-walking, scientists said.

(visit the link for the full news article)

Is this the best science can come up with to support the theory of evolution?? I just dont make the connection here, and it seems like they are grasping at straws to me. It always seemed to me that chimps moved easier on all fours, at least that's the way it looks to me.

www.cnn.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

I love the first GoogleAd generated for me...

Jesus Loves You
Do You Love Jesus? Test Your Faith Now!
blahblahblah.com

It seems to me that the study was fairly inconclusive, and has just been tossed in as flavor for an article about the overall theory...

Overall, the chimpanzees used about the same amount of energy walking on two legs compared to four legs, but the researchers saw differences among the individual animals in how much energy they used based on their gaits and anatomy.

Makes sense that chimps would use just as much energy walking upright as on all fours. They aren't really built to walk around on two legs all the time, so it would be like a human walking on their hands. Sure they can do it, but it takes a lot of work.

Well, chimps do usually get around on all fours & they're not readily comfortable while standing upright, but when I saw the Discovery Channel called, "Walking with Cavemen," they seemed to express the theory that earliest humans still used the same amount of energy either way...
But as the human-ancestors practiced more at standing upright & evolution gradually changed the stuctural anatomy while doing so, it did eventually reduce the energy consumption.

Originally posted by the_sentinal


Is this the best science can come up with to support the theory of evolution?? I just dont make the connection here, and it seems like they are grasping at straws to me. It always seemed to me that chimps moved easier on all fours, at least that's the way it looks to me.

www.cnn.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

It does support the theory of evolution quite well actually. Where theres a will theres a way in mother natures rules. Something so simple as this explanation could spur on a big change.

For example early humans could of been intelligent enough to work out that moving on two feet was advantageous for them for long distance travelling, down the line we would have gradually adapted to serve this purpose more efficiently.

Although our brains have not changed as much as anything else this kind of thought would also help our evolution.

There are many better examples to support Darwin theory. The butterflies that adapted and saved there own extinction from parasites, it took 10 generations if i recall.

[edit on 18-7-2007 by boozercruiser]

The article says they use less energy walking upright, but I aint buyin it, the whole reason they are saying this is because the logical conclusion would be that walking upright is another evolutionary trait. but it still doesn't shed any light on the genetic missing link problem.

Ok well try walking round on all fours for 30 minutes then you might believe what the article is saying!

Originally posted by the_sentinal
The article says they use less energy walking upright, but I aint buyin it, the whole reason they are saying this is because the logical conclusion would be that walking upright is another evolutionary trait. but it still doesn't shed any light on the genetic missing link problem.

That's sort of my point... the article says that, but apparently the study does not. The study only says that people use less energy relative to size walking on two legs compared to chimps walking on all fours. Chimps used "about the same amount of energy" either way. So for the purposes of comparison, the study is meaningless. They might as well have stuck cats on the treadmill. [I can't stop snickering at the mental image that statement generates... ]

I don't doubt that walking upright goes right along with eating meat as one of the primary factors in our differing lineage. It just seems that this article, considering the source, is composed solely to support an agenda rather than provide scientific evidence.


[edit on 18-7-2007 by apc]

Our design helps us to cover vast distances with minimal energy use. To me this is a good example. Back in the day i would assume we were very nomadic compared to other ape like species which seem to keep to a patch of territory. It would make sense for us to eventually stand up right as we are today.

AAAS Science had a article back on June 1st that may be useful for some in relation to this thread's subject material.

It's titled "Origin of Human Bipedalism As an Adaptation for Locomotion on Flexible Branches" by Thorpe, Holder and Crompton and can be found online here. It provides a little different perspective from the treadmill research.

Cheers,

Vic

It is commonly stated by critics of evolution that there are no known transitional fossils.[1] This position is based on a misunderstanding of the nature of what represents a transitional feature. A common creationist argument is that no fossils are found with partially functional features. It is plausible, however, that a complex feature with one function can adapt a wholly different function through evolution. The precursor to, for example, a wing, might originally have only been meant for gliding, trapping flying prey, and/or mating display. Nowadays, wings can still have all of these functions, but they are also used in active flight.

Although transitional fossils elucidate the evolutionary transition of one life-form to another, they only exemplify snapshots of this process. Due to the special circumstances required for preservation of living beings, only a very small percentage of all life-forms that ever have existed can be expected to be discovered. Thus, the transition itself can only be illustrated and corroborated by transitional fossils, but it will never be known in detail. However, progressing research and discovery managed to fill in several gaps and continues to do so. Critics of evolution often cite this argument as being a convenient way to explain off the lack of 'snapshot' fossils that show crucial steps between species.

Transitional fossil ('Missing link')


It's so annoying when people use the missing link argument, the only reason a person uses that argument, is because they have no idea what they are talking about.

Which only perpetuates ignorance.

So, seriously, do some reading, and knock off this 'Missing Link' nonsense.


You really expect us to have a recording of every single second of human evolution? Even then you'd claim god planted the evidence... it's moronic.

Another problem with the "lack of transitional fossil evidence" argument was pointed out in that same Dicovery Channel documentary I mentioned before; The entire fossil evidence ever recovered for the history of human evolution can easily fit in the back of a pickup truck. Time is the enemy of archeology because it erases so much evidence & hides a lot more.

More Junk Science theory for a junk scietific theory, as one scientist once said if you have a theory but nothing proves it you THROW THE THEORY OUT, not in Evolution they throw out the evidence against it. Science my butt..

The missing link between Ape and Humans is....................


MAN

very funny, and we see now that death threats are being made against professors for holding on to these theories, it seems that some have been pushed to the brink of madness on this issue.

Originally posted by apc


That's sort of my point... the article says that, but apparently the study does not.

[edit on 18-7-2007 by apc]

Sorry about that, I didnt get what you were saying obviously, but I wonder why they broke from what the study said in the first place, slow news day is my guess.