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: 20469 | Favorites: 33 | Emailed: 10 | Rating: 2.8 | Category: Science | Date: 04/19/2007
 
 popular today
15 Sex Dolls So Real They Got A Photo Shoot [Pix] This is the kind of lover that won`t talk back...EVER!
Not Your Average Christmas Party... [Pic] Please let that be a candle.
Shhhhh... [Pic] It`s a secret.
Grandpa Always Shoots Straight [Pic] Just keepin` it real.
And You Thought Ugly Xmas Sweaters Were Bad [Pic] The hammock from hell. [NSFW]
More Comments >

leshark
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)

DrugMunky
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?


Anhur
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.

monktoast
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.

monktoast
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 |
© 2014 Demand Media, Inc. All rights reserved.