Pop-Up Thingie

Too Lazy BBS
  • Home
  • Forum
  • Files
  • Chat
  • Bulletins
  • Top doors
  • MOTD
  • BBS Stats
  • Radio
  • AvatarChat
  • Register
  • Log in

  1. Forum
  2. USENET
  3. sci.anthropology.paleo
  • Humans evolved for distance running

    From Primum Sapienti@invalide@invalid.invalid to sci.anthropology.paleo on Sun Dec 22 22:48:48 2024
    From Newsgroup: sci.anthropology.paleo



    https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-024-04194-4
    Humans evolved for distance running rCo but ancestor
    rCyLucyrCO didnrCOt go far or fast

    Ancient human relatives ran on two legs, like
    modern humans, but at a much slower pace,
    suggest 3D computer simulations of
    Australopithecus afarensis1 rCo a small hominin
    that lived more than three million years ago.

    The analysis offers a detailed snapshot of the
    homininrCOs running speed and the muscular
    adaptations that enabled modern humans to run
    long distances, says Herman Pontzer, an
    evolutionary anthropologist at Duke University
    in Durham, North Carolina. rCLItrCOs a very thorough
    approach,rCY he says. The findings were published
    this week in Current Biology.
    ...





    https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0960982224015665

    <https://pdf.sciencedirectassets.com/272099/AIP/1-s2.0-S0960982224015665/main.pdf?X-Amz-Security-Token=IQoJb3JpZ2luX2VjEAUaCXVzLWVhc3QtMSJHMEUCIQCv9sjIMAhAWHlDsq10mZxaYwUDojyZPdNyMY3UCu%2FnwwIgYBdOiwpAd9%2FrK%2FCe9nKRwfLrpNEbqjLLrEHFxv9D9ooquwUIzv%2F%2F%2F%2F%2F%2F%2F%2F%2F%2FARAFGgwwNTkwMDM1NDY4NjUiDL2kW02vRJ610Mfn3SqPBQ4RNs8kAnKCvEArSMgbQ1CUVbkFHNZXvSDODHBFD9rlnSHx0fZTrIwD9ytdAUZRU4RheAGWAQS%2BTFtjZ411lWA8o4XlN0rQ5LanQIwaDaCv7%2ByCzZpzn3PsUkhlAc8%2FhbOMNB9BO6JXbQgCqq%2BPZekXQ7uMCNM0ndmpyJF0%2BkRjPW%2FLjC2U9QBQCiS2cGHzyrZOK7OqG2Ci15vVvPlpOOc5enXgFR6p4qBUl9ehSdRGN95bcDb7XXfEeqHPgrsZ8Vn0lF9FGVNJyvXojR%2FWPYIswddj05aiPH7BqCGgYgJPFO%2Fdb%2Fq13iun1newg9slJM5%2Fji10tTzQavWvnf5lO%2FxfoRtMfIVpIsUdsRD%2BVwQ%2Fcbm7gBqKgZQzy36kHNcPTORaKHb7Iz1w5HuIqra4FLzTTYGWTSMTorcHKUTXf7Lk7X4ouMwj4FjqlwLlK5kjnvK0zehveuPR0XrmGjQ8zluTzmHzUHpXT%2B260gu9V%2FfebDTSsvwq3GHQvYTh4UJ6tphZpEGBfKanDlmFXJq8FpjIBe%2FtOSDGdX2A49JNUQdnDbssF5HUDbJepxzAB4Zc9Zgc3u%2BKGQRrYn68GNxI8X39Ea4elbi2%2F7aIx7LQtZ0WMGF9wqfHznaI0yEnvSIBKUXGnjEzP9aIOXIIP%2FWa4MftEOeecBKxkubXcIThsJt0bZG%2BkgaQLGym2bEP9nRZlomwe4aAI0Uz77qfA7LVRxLk53OwHExcv7MXdVPYuMn%2BfG3FA5fxZKJaIXdo3wDR1muNzAZy61TO%2BvohxN8sSBqQcDCcEsDVL3HHu2u3F007Rbdj%2F0GJ%2Fqn2%2FzmTMsQcwTAExpsNhpGz8lIqbBx7qnCy8g0yJbVYRO5uL5S5074wqdyjuwY6sQHhr8NRKYWIUF%2FUbXVKqg5iD%2B44dBf4%2B9ZsFDBkBu6Y2uHZtHc6slGsDP8fiI09ezk5LijxKHD5DAes8jLi9pHHJQdgdlUXoNtFGU27oy64ftP%2B%2FHIIlDVV%2ByGnLOCuXATR%2FCL%2FVm3olcq0bgyQs6JPpOhGs%2BeAEGcUg3wfDuxm3P6tgcyZH1%2F1Co30o964yTJzFbWqVgiDz72BcdA9KlBk4K0Luj2wFanlixqdYweRspE%3D&X-Amz-Algorithm=AWS4-HMAC-SHA256&X-Amz-Date=20241223T054203Z&X-Amz-SignedHeaders=host&X-Amz-Expires=300&X-Amz-Credential=ASIAQ3PHCVTYX372UAOF%2F20241223%2Fus-east-1%2Fs3%2Faws4_request&X-Amz-Signature=319711f5523d2e0e4b3639327466f5604ddafbf9ac94cce5f2e4117e844c4a86&hash=d76f884b05bb7152d93f53f246a98d4116835e5c17b3eba9668a506d529e072a&host=68042c943591013ac2b2430a89b270f6af2c76d8dfd086a07176afe7c76c2c61&pii=S0960982224015665&tid=spdf-7f4cd257-3ed2-411d-aad5-2c009dd9e302&sid=2199f7aa37eec0402a0b6ce9360acd94ba21gxrqa&type=client&tsoh=d3d3LnNjaWVuY2VkaXJlY3QuY29t&ua=13135e0250545f530153&rr=8f6606b0a86d4ca2&cc=us>

    Running performance in Australopithecus afarensis

    Summary
    The evolution of bipedal gait is a key adaptive
    feature in hominids, but the running abilities of
    early hominins have not been extensively studied.
    Here, we present physics simulations of
    Australopithecus afarensis that demonstrate this
    genus was mechanically capable of bipedal running
    but with absolute and relative (size-normalized)
    maximum speeds considerably inferior to modern
    humans. Simulations predicted running energetics
    for Australopithecus that are generally consistent
    with values for mammals and birds of similar body
    size, therefore suggesting relatively low cost of
    transport across a limited speed range. Through
    model parameterization, we demonstrate the key role
    of ankle extensor muscle architecture (e.g., the
    Achilles tendon) in the evolution of hominin
    running energetics and indeed in an increase in
    speed range, which may have been intrinsically
    coupled with enhanced endurance running capacity.
    We show that skeletal strength was unlikely to have
    been a limiting factor in the evolution of enhanced
    running ability, which instead resulted from changes
    to muscle anatomy and particularly overall body
    proportions. These findings support the hypothesis
    that key features in the human body plan evolved
    specifically for improved running performance and
    not merely as a byproduct of selection for enhanced
    walking capabilities.

    --- Synchronet 3.21d-Linux NewsLink 1.2
  • From Mario Petrinovic@mario.petrinovic1@zg.htnet.hr to sci.anthropology.paleo on Tue Dec 24 04:09:20 2024
    From Newsgroup: sci.anthropology.paleo

    https://youtu.be/eaeZ3RrzpLA?si=TosTJRtqh35sa77X

    This is like saying, we evolved to fly airplanes, just because today
    we are capable of flying airplanes
    The (wrong) thesis was that we evolved *bipedality* in order to do
    endurance running. No, we, obviously, didn't. When bipedality was
    already here, then we could adjust it for endurance running.
    They want to show that wrong thesis is right by twisting things upside
    down. Once again, the thesis that we evolved bipedality in order to
    endurance running *is wrong*. We evolved bipedality for some other reasons.
    I repeat, a lot of animals are bipedal, including gibbons. The real
    question is why we lost the ability to be quadrupedal. Quadrupedality is extremely important, and ti is much faster than bipedality, especially
    in non-endurance applications, which are the original applications. So,
    we desperately needed quadrupedality (unlike gibbons, who don't need it
    at all, and yet, they didn't lose the ability for it). So, we needed quadrupedality, and yet, we lost it. Why? It has to be really important reason. I know why, but nobody listens to me.


    On 23.12.2024. 6:48, Primum Sapienti wrote:


    https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-024-04194-4
    Humans evolved for distance running rCo but ancestor
    rCyLucyrCO didnrCOt go far or fast

    Ancient human relatives ran on two legs, like
    modern humans, but at a much slower pace,
    suggest 3D computer simulations of
    Australopithecus afarensis1 rCo a small hominin
    that lived more than three million years ago.

    The analysis offers a detailed snapshot of the
    homininrCOs running speed and the muscular
    adaptations that enabled modern humans to run
    long distances, says Herman Pontzer, an
    evolutionary anthropologist at Duke University
    in Durham, North Carolina. rCLItrCOs a very thorough
    approach,rCY he says. The findings were published
    this week in Current Biology.
    ...





    https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0960982224015665

    <https://pdf.sciencedirectassets.com/272099/AIP/1-s2.0- S0960982224015665/main.pdf?X-Amz-Security- Token=IQoJb3JpZ2luX2VjEAUaCXVzLWVhc3QtMSJHMEUCIQCv9sjIMAhAWHlDsq10mZxaYwUDojyZPdNyMY3UCu%2FnwwIgYBdOiwpAd9%2FrK%2FCe9nKRwfLrpNEbqjLLrEHFxv9D9ooquwUIzv%2F%2F%2F%2F%2F%2F%2F%2F%2F%2FARAFGgwwNTkwMDM1NDY4NjUiDL2kW02vRJ610Mfn3SqPBQ4RNs8kAnKCvEArSMgbQ1CUVbkFHNZXvSDODHBFD9rlnSHx0fZTrIwD9ytdAUZRU4RheAGWAQS%2BTFtjZ411lWA8o4XlN0rQ5LanQIwaDaCv7%2ByCzZpzn3PsUkhlAc8%2FhbOMNB9BO6JXbQgCqq%2BPZekXQ7uMCNM0ndmpyJF0%2BkRjPW%2FLjC2U9QBQCiS2cGHzyrZOK7OqG2Ci15vVvPlpOOc5enXgFR6p4qBUl9ehSdRGN95bcDb7XXfEeqHPgrsZ8Vn0lF9FGVNJyvXojR%2FWPYIswddj05aiPH7BqCGgYgJPFO%2Fdb%2Fq13iun1newg9slJM5%2Fji10tTzQavWvnf5lO%2FxfoRtMfIVpIsUdsRD%2BVwQ%2Fcbm7gBqKgZQzy36kHNcPTORaKHb7Iz1w5HuIqra4FLzTTYGWTSMTorcHKUTXf7Lk7X4ouMwj4FjqlwLlK5kjnvK0zehveuPR0XrmGjQ8zluTzmHzUHpXT%2B260gu9V%2FfebDTSsvwq3GHQvYTh4UJ6tphZpEGBfKanDlmFXJq8FpjIBe%2FtOSDGdX2A49JNUQdnDbssF5HUDbJepxzAB4Zc9Zgc3u%2BKGQRrYn68GNxI8X39Ea4elbi2%2F7aIx7LQtZ0WMGF9wqfHznaI0yEnvSIBKUXGnjEzP9aIOXIIP%2FWa4MftEOeecBKxkubXcIThsJt0bZG%2BkgaQLGym2bEP9nRZlomwe4aAI0Uz77qfA7LVRxLk53OwHExcv7MXdVPYuMn%2BfG3FA5fxZKJaIXdo3wDR1muNzAZy61TO%2BvohxN8sSBqQcDCcEsDVL3HHu2u3F007Rbdj%2F0GJ%2Fqn2%2FzmTMsQcwTAExpsNhpGz8lIqbBx7qnCy8g0yJbVYRO5uL5S5074wqdyjuwY6sQHhr8NRKYWIUF%2FUbXVKqg5iD%2B44dBf4%2B9ZsFDBkBu6Y2uHZtHc6slGsDP8fiI09ezk5LijxKHD5DAes8jLi9pHHJQdgdlUXoNtFGU27oy64ftP%2B%2FHIIlDVV%2ByGnLOCuXATR%2FCL%2FVm3olcq0bgyQs6JPpOhGs%2BeAEGcUg3wfDuxm3P6tgcyZH1%2F1Co30o964yTJzFbWqVgiDz72BcdA9KlBk4K0Luj2wFanlixqdYweRspE%3D&X-Amz-Algorithm=AWS4-HMAC-SHA256&X-Amz-Date=20241223T054203Z&X-Amz-SignedHeaders=host&X-Amz-Expires=300&X-Amz-Credential=ASIAQ3PHCVTYX372UAOF%2F20241223%2Fus-east-1%2Fs3%2Faws4_request&X-Amz-Signature=319711f5523d2e0e4b3639327466f5604ddafbf9ac94cce5f2e4117e844c4a86&hash=d76f884b05bb7152d93f53f246a98d4116835e5c17b3eba9668a506d529e072a&host=68042c943591013ac2b2430a89b270f6af2c76d8dfd086a07176afe7c76c2c61&pii=S0960982224015665&tid=spdf-7f4cd257-3ed2-411d-aad5-2c009dd9e302&sid=2199f7aa37eec0402a0b6ce9360acd94ba21gxrqa&type=client&tsoh=d3d3LnNjaWVuY2VkaXJlY3QuY29t&ua=13135e0250545f530153&rr=8f6606b0a86d4ca2&cc=us>

    Running performance in Australopithecus afarensis

    Summary
    The evolution of bipedal gait is a key adaptive
    feature in hominids, but the running abilities of
    early hominins have not been extensively studied.
    Here, we present physics simulations of
    Australopithecus afarensis that demonstrate this
    genus was mechanically capable of bipedal running
    but with absolute and relative (size-normalized)
    maximum speeds considerably inferior to modern
    humans. Simulations predicted running energetics
    for Australopithecus that are generally consistent
    with values for mammals and birds of similar body
    size, therefore suggesting relatively low cost of
    transport across a limited speed range. Through
    model parameterization, we demonstrate the key role
    of ankle extensor muscle architecture (e.g., the
    Achilles tendon) in the evolution of hominin
    running energetics and indeed in an increase in
    speed range, which may have been intrinsically
    coupled with enhanced endurance running capacity.
    We show that skeletal strength was unlikely to have
    been a limiting factor in the evolution of enhanced
    running ability, which instead resulted from changes
    to muscle anatomy and particularly overall body
    proportions. These findings support the hypothesis
    that key features in the human body plan evolved
    specifically for improved running performance and
    not merely as a byproduct of selection for enhanced
    walking capabilities.


    --- Synchronet 3.21d-Linux NewsLink 1.2
  • From Mario Petrinovic@mario.petrinovic1@zg.htnet.hr to sci.anthropology.paleo on Tue Dec 24 04:15:15 2024
    From Newsgroup: sci.anthropology.paleo

    On 24.12.2024. 4:09, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
    https://youtu.be/eaeZ3RrzpLA?si=TosTJRtqh35sa77X

    -a-a-a-a-a-a-a This is like saying, we evolved to fly airplanes, just because
    today we are capable of flying airplanes
    -a-a-a-a-a-a-a The (wrong) thesis was that we evolved *bipedality* in order to
    do endurance running. No, we, obviously, didn't. When bipedality was
    already here, then we could adjust it for endurance running.
    -a-a-a-a-a-a-a They want to show that wrong thesis is right by twisting things
    upside down. Once again, the thesis that we evolved bipedality in order
    to endurance running *is wrong*. We evolved bipedality for some other reasons.
    -a-a-a-a-a-a-a I repeat, a lot of animals are bipedal, including gibbons. The
    real question is why we lost the ability to be quadrupedal.
    Quadrupedality is extremely important, and ti is much faster than bipedality, especially in non-endurance applications, which are the
    original applications. So, we desperately needed quadrupedality (unlike gibbons, who don't need it at all, and yet, they didn't lose the ability
    for it). So, we needed quadrupedality, and yet, we lost it. Why? It has
    to be really important reason. I know why, but nobody listens to me.

    https://youtube.com/shorts/g2-w3zApZvI?si=WKDj_HkQEt05fjV3
    --- Synchronet 3.21d-Linux NewsLink 1.2
  • From Mario Petrinovic@mario.petrinovic1@zg.htnet.hr to sci.anthropology.paleo on Tue Dec 24 04:16:26 2024
    From Newsgroup: sci.anthropology.paleo

    On 24.12.2024. 4:09, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
    https://youtu.be/eaeZ3RrzpLA?si=TosTJRtqh35sa77X

    -a-a-a-a-a-a-a This is like saying, we evolved to fly airplanes, just because
    today we are capable of flying airplanes
    -a-a-a-a-a-a-a The (wrong) thesis was that we evolved *bipedality* in order to
    do endurance running. No, we, obviously, didn't. When bipedality was
    already here, then we could adjust it for endurance running.
    -a-a-a-a-a-a-a They want to show that wrong thesis is right by twisting things
    upside down. Once again, the thesis that we evolved bipedality in order
    to endurance running *is wrong*. We evolved bipedality for some other reasons.
    -a-a-a-a-a-a-a I repeat, a lot of animals are bipedal, including gibbons. The
    real question is why we lost the ability to be quadrupedal.
    Quadrupedality is extremely important, and ti is much faster than bipedality, especially in non-endurance applications, which are the
    original applications. So, we desperately needed quadrupedality (unlike gibbons, who don't need it at all, and yet, they didn't lose the ability
    for it). So, we needed quadrupedality, and yet, we lost it. Why? It has
    to be really important reason. I know why, but nobody listens to me.

    https://youtube.com/shorts/g2-w3zApZvI?si=WKDj_HkQEt05fjV3
    --- Synchronet 3.21d-Linux NewsLink 1.2
  • Who's Online

  • Recent Visitors

    • Geek2
      Sun May 17 07:06:15 2026
      from Euclid, Oh via Telnet
    • Geek2
      Sat May 16 21:25:04 2026
      from Euclid, Oh via Telnet
    • Jas Hud
      Sat May 16 00:50:28 2026
      from Bbs.Eob-Bbs.Com,wi via Telnet
    • Geek2
      Fri May 15 19:53:20 2026
      from Euclid, Oh via Telnet
  • System Info

    Sysop: Amessyroom
    Location: Fayetteville, NC
    Users: 65
    Nodes: 6 (0 / 6)
    Uptime: 13:15:14
    Calls: 862
    Files: 1,311
    D/L today: 7 files
    (11,196K bytes)
    Messages: 265,448

Download SyncTerm or IcyTerm for best BBS experience. RetroTerm is a web-based alternative also. -- © Too Lazy BBS, 2026