I Am Bored

Loads of viral videos, games, memes, lists and social networking for when you're bored. Updated every day, so visit often.
Latest Popular Most Bookmarked Most Emailed Top Rated My Favorites Random Chat
All Games Funny Entertainment Quizzes Weird Tech Lifestyle, Arts & Lit. News & Politics Science Sports Misc
T-Shirts   Submit Content  

Humans are Natural Born Runners

Click Here to Launch:

Humans are Natural Born Runners
(Will open in new window or tab)
submitted by: buddy
< Back Next >
Hits: 20480 | Favorites: 33 | Emailed: 10 | Rating: 2.8 | Category: Science | Date: 04/19/2007
 popular today
Would You F*ck This 73 Year Old Grandma? [Pix] I`d do this woman. Hell Yea!
Caught In The Act! [Gif] Honey It`s not what you think!
That`s Just Nasty [Pic] I`ve had acid trips like this....
Photoshop ALL The Things! - Before & After [Pix] *Please note Photoshop is not a valid substitution for reality. Results WILL vary.
40 Images From Russia With Love [Pix] Ah, Mother Russia where would we be without you? They grow a special brand of people there... or maybe it`s the vodka.
More Comments >

Male, 13-17, Europe
 19 Posts
Monday, September 10, 2007 1:16:07 PM
yup its true humans are naturally built for running that is why u lose more weight by walking instead of running (take notes fat peeps)

Male, 18-29, Europe
 73 Posts
Saturday, April 21, 2007 9:49:12 AM
How did you fools jump from debating whether our endurance came from evolution to debating religious beliefs? I found the article interesting, although I'm sure there must be other animals with better endurance than us.

Wolves? Buffalo?

Male, 18-29, Eastern US
 6 Posts
Friday, April 20, 2007 9:50:41 PM
Actually, they kind of did specify evidence. Thins like the ability to sweat and breathe from of our mouths (unique to the animal kingdom and specially suited for this task). The note that Australian Aborigines (our best living link to ancient human methods) still use this kind of hunting and are successful at it for the same reasons postulated in the article. If you don't like the theory, the neat thing about them is that you can give counter-theories, and unless we can disprove yours or yours gives no help in predicting what we`re discussing in the future, we either have to abandon our theory or modify it. As for your flagellum argument, what theory says the first organic life on Earth had to have fully developed flagella or could not have developed it? And how can there possibly be evidence of speciation but not of one species into another? That`s the *definition* of speciation.

Male, 18-29, Western US
 263 Posts
Friday, April 20, 2007 8:27:21 PM
there is evidence of speciation/adaption, but not one species into another. there is evidence of creation, such as the flagullum, which cannot work unless its fully formed, thus life had to have been created as a whole, not slowly over time. there is more but its beyond the scope of this arena, which doesn't lend itself to dicussion very well.

Male, 18-29, Western US
 263 Posts
Friday, April 20, 2007 8:20:08 PM
all that talk of evidence, yet teh article doesn;t give a shred of it. typical of modern naturalistic tendencies to make poo up and call it science.

More Comments >

Bored | Suggest a Link | Contact I Am Bored | About I Am Bored | Link to I Am Bored | Live Submission | Privacy | TOS | Ad Choices | Copyright Policy |