Our bodies are full of hack solutions?

_{Denyse O'Leary

April 3, 2016

Evolution, Intelligent Design, News}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

Our spines are a mess. It’s a wonder we can even walk, says Bruce Latimer, director of the Center for Human Origins at Case Western Reserve University, in Cleveland. When our ancestors walked on all fours, their spines arched, like a bow, to withstand the weight of the organs suspended below. But then we stood up. That threw the system out of whack by 90 degrees, and the spine was forced to become a column. Next, to allow for bipedalism, it curved forward at the lower back. And to keep the head in balance—so that we didn’t all walk around as if doing the limbo—the upper spine curved in the opposite direction. This change put tremendous pressure on the lower vertebrae, sticking about 80 percent of adults, according to one estimate, with lower back pain. More.

Fact is, we can even walk. We can even run. We are also very long lived compared to most quadrupeds.

Elsewhere, a commenter noted, This is just so 1970s.

Yeah. Anyone remember avocado green appliances?

Nautilus should know that most of the public, including Darwin;s faithful, have moved on from this stuff.

Follow UD News at Twitter!

Comments

Of related note:
Energy Efficiency Doesn’t Explain Human Walking? Sept. 17, 2012 Excerpt: Why hominids evolved upright walking is one of the biggest questions in human evolution. One school of thought suggests that bipedalism was the most energetically efficient way for our ancestors to travel as grasslands expanded and forests shrank across Africa some five million to seven million years ago. A new study in the Journal of Human Evolution challenges that claim, concluding that the efficiency of human walking and running is not so different from other mammals. Physiologists Lewis Halsey of the University of Roehampton in England and Craig White of the University of Queensland in Australia compared the efficiency of human locomotion to that of 80 species of mammals, including monkeys, rodents, horses, bears and elephants.,,, To evaluate whether energy efficiency played a role in the evolution of upright walking, Halsey and White note that hominids should be compared to their closest relatives. For example, if human walking is more efficient than chimpanzee walking than you would expect based on chance alone, then it lends support to the energy-efficiency explanation. But that’s not what the researchers found. In fact, the energetic differences between humans and chimpanzees are smaller than the differences between very closely related species that share the same type of locomotion, such as red deer versus reindeer or African dogs versus Arctic foxes. In some cases, even different species within the same genus, such as different types of chipmunks, have greater variation in their walking efficiencies than humans and chimps do. http://blogs.smithsonianmag.com/hominids/2012/09/energy-efficiency-doesnt-explain-human-walking/ Another Difficulty with Darwinian Accounts of How Human Bipedalism Developed - David Klinghoffer - February 21, 2013 Excerpt: A Darwinian evolutionary bedtime story tells of how proto-man achieved his upright walking status when the forests of his native East Africa turned to savannas. That was 4 to 6 million years ago, and the theory was that our ancestors stood up in order to be able to look around themselves over the sea of grasslands, which would have been irrelevant in the forests of old. A team of researchers led by USC's Sarah J. Feakins, writing in the journal Geology, detonate that tidy explanation with their finding that the savannas, going back 12 million years, had already been there more than 6 million years when the wonderful transition to bipedalism took place ("Northeast African vegetation change over 12 m.y."). http://www.evolutionnews.org/2013/02/another_difficu069411.html Lucy Makeover Shouts a Dangerously Deceptive Message About Our Supposed Ancestors by Dr. Elizabeth Mitchell on October 5, 2013 Excerpt: Australopithecus afarensis is extinct. Its bones suggest it was not identical to living apes, but it did have much in common with them. Many have assessed the skeletal pieces of the various afarensis and possible afarensis fossils that have been found. Overall, these skeletal parts reveal an animal well-adapted to arboreal life. Its wrist bones also suggest it was a knuckle-walker. Reconstructions of its pelvis demonstrate its so-called “bipedal” gait was nothing like a human being’s upright gait. In fact, it is only the evolutionary wish to impute a bipedal gait to this animal that marches its fossils upright across the pages of the evolutionary story. https://answersingenesis.org/human-evolution/lucy/lucy-makeover-shouts-a-dangerously-deceptive-message-about-our-supposed-ancestors/
Here is an anatomically correct reconstruction of Lucy
Lucy - a correct reconstruction - picture https://cdn-assets.answersingenesis.org/img/articles/campaigns/lucy-exhibit.jpg Lucy - The Powersaw Incident - a humorous video showing how biased evolutionists can be with the evidence - 32:08 mark of video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FI4ADhPVpA0&feature=player_detailpage#t=1928 How do Theistic Evolutionists Explain the Fossil Record and Human Origins? - Casey Luskin - September 14, 2012 Excerpt: In six recent articles (see the links at right), I have argued that the fossil record does not support the evolution of ape-like species into human-like species. Rather, hominin fossils generally fall into two distinct groups: ape-like species and human-like species, with a large, unbridged gap between them.,,, Third, not all paleontologists agree with Kidder that the lack of transitional fossils is simply the result of the unsophisticated (and all-too-easy) excuse the fossil record is poor. Consider what paleontologist Niles Eldredge and paleoanthropologist Ian Tattersal (who are both committed evolutionists) co-wrote in a book on human origins: "The record jumps, and all the evidence shows that the record is real: the gaps we see reflect real events in life's history -- not the artifact of a poor fossil record." (Niles Eldredge and Ian Tattersall, The Myths of Human Evolution, p. 59 (NY: Columbia University Press, 1982).) http://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/09/how_do_theistic_1064301.html "A number of hominid crania are known from sites in eastern and southern Africa in the 400- to 200-thousand-year range, but none of them looks like a close antecedent of the anatomically distinctive Homo sapiens…Even allowing for the poor record we have of our close extinct kin, Homo sapiens appears as distinctive and unprecedented…there is certainly no evidence to support the notion that we gradually became who we inherently are over an extended period, in either the physical or the intellectual sense." Dr. Ian Tattersall: - paleoanthropologist - emeritus curator of the American Museum of Natural History - (Masters of the Planet, 2012) https://hcchristian.wordpress.com/2013/05/08/pay-no-attention-to-that-data-behind-the-curtain/
bornagain77_{April 4, 2016
April
04
Apr
4
04
2016
03:46 AM
3
03
46
AM
PDT}

Ellazimm: Interesting to see that Origense has abandoned trying to answer the questions that came up on another thread. Is that a concession of defeat?
That would be atypical, since, as a rule, your position, materialism, loses every debate, and every debating point of every debate. Frankly, it has been quite a while back that I held the idea that an actual debate is going on. Materialism has been shown to be utterly incoherent and thoroughly incapable to explain the universe, life, life forms, consciousness and reason. BTW I have no clue as to which thread you are referring.Origenes_{April 4, 2016
April
04
Apr
4
04
2016
02:55 AM
2
02
55
AM
PDT}

These can be taken on point by point. Yes our women have unique birthing problems. Yet that was eve's punishment. yes we have teeth issues. that because we changed our eating after the flood. Anyways about the spine. 80% do not have lower back problems. its rather that old age brings these problems but not a innate problem. kids don't have. We don't have a bow spine or ever did. thats speculation. its a column and works excellent. We do have the ape body and god makes us fit into it on creation week. We must work within a blueprint. Yet out walking is exactly accurate. Walkimng upright does not hurt our spine. in fact we do better gymnastics then any creature could do. Its only decay that is at fault. I suspect these ten points are to fight design. they miss on all ten and miss the thousands of others showing glorious design from a thinking being.Robert Byers_{April 3, 2016
April
04
Apr
3
03
2016
10:02 PM
10
10
02
PM
PDT}

"When our ancestors walked on all fours, their spines arched, like a bow, to withstand the weight of the organs suspended below. But then we stood up. That threw the system out of whack by 90 degrees, and the spine was forced to become a column. Next, to allow for bipedalism, it curved forward at the lower back. And to keep the head in balance—so that we didn’t all walk around as if doing the limbo—the upper spine curved in the opposite direction. This change put tremendous pressure on the lower vertebrae, sticking about 80 percent of adults, according to one estimate, with lower back pain."
Well that's one interpretation of the data. Here is another one in an article written by Jerry Bergman entitled "Back problems: How Darwinism mislead research-ers" creation.com/images/pdfs/tj/j15_3/j15_3_79-84.pdf Also, a similar point is made here in this article entitled "Top 10 Consequences of evolution? - Smithsonian blunders again!" http://creation.com/smithsonian-evolution-top-10-consequences The third consequence they list is backaches for the very reason this guy says. But what is the real truth?
3. Backaches Predictably, the article argues that our skeleton was originally evolved for going around on all fours, and bipedalism, for all its other evolutionary advantages, means that our back is in an unnatural position. The S curve of our spine is in this view an imperfect jerrybuilt solution. But the S curve of the spine is actually ideal, and humans are actually able to lift a higher percentage of their bodyweight than gorillas, whose spines do not have the S curve. Evolutionist orthopedic surgeon Paul Williams even designed exercises to reduce the lordosis curve in the spine to help reduce backaches. But these were often unsuccessful, often causing people to resort to surgery. But physical therapist Robin McKenzie discovered that proper posture that restores the lordosis often reduces or even eliminates back pain. See the following related articles: Back problems: How Darwin misled Standing upright for creation Curved spines and pregnant primates Lifting for the Lord
Hmm. Now what type of doctor would you like to be treated by? One who has swallowed the whole evolutionary story and treats you based on that? Not me!tjguy_{April 3, 2016
April
04
Apr
3
03
2016
08:37 PM
8
08
37
PM
PDT}

It seems likely that repair enzymes evolved early, because the need for them would have been much greater before the appearance of an ozone layer in the atmosphere. - John Maynard Smith Amazing! Repair enzymes on demand!Mung_{April 3, 2016
April
04
Apr
3
03
2016
06:49 PM
6
06
49
PM
PDT}

Evolution is not a search for solutions to problems. Or so I've been told. I've also been told that it is, just that it's not a search for a perfect solution. I feel like someone is lying to me.Mung_{April 3, 2016
April
04
Apr
3
03
2016
06:47 PM
6
06
47
PM
PDT}

The Amazing Human Body - Fearfully and Wonderfully Made - video https://www.facebook.com/philip.cunningham.73/videos/vb.100000088262100/1147298341949764/?type=2&theater Memory capacity of brain is 10 times more than previously thought: Data from the Salk Institute shows brain’s memory capacity is in the petabyte range, as much as entire Web - January 20, 2016 Excerpt: “This is a real bombshell in the field of neuroscience,” says Terry Sejnowski, Salk professor and co-senior author of the paper, which was published in eLife. “We discovered the key to unlocking the design principle for how hippocampal neurons function with low energy but high computation power. Our new measurements of the brain’s memory capacity increase conservative estimates by a factor of 10 to at least a petabyte, in the same ballpark as the World Wide Web.” http://www.salk.edu/news-release/memory-capacity-of-brain-is-10-times-more-than-previously-thought/bornagain77_{April 3, 2016
April
04
Apr
3
03
2016
06:38 PM
6
06
38
PM
PDT}

Interesting to see that Origense has abandoned trying to answer the questions that came up on another thread. Is that a concession of defeat?ellazimm_{April 3, 2016
April
04
Apr
3
03
2016
02:57 PM
2
02
57
PM
PDT}

Let those who sneer produce a design that meets as many constraints in a self-replicating entity and is manifestly superior.kairosfocus_{April 3, 2016
April
04
Apr
3
03
2016
02:48 PM
2
02
48
PM
PDT}

Commenter Chris R asks: "If evolution cannot produce perfection, how do you explain Olivia Wilde?" I would like to know as well.Origenes_{April 3, 2016
April
04
Apr
3
03
2016
02:15 PM
2
02
15
PM
PDT}

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply