"The Achilles tendon is believed to have first developed two million years ago enabling humans to run twice as fast"
AND HOW DID WE COME TO THAT CONCLUSION?
"if the Achilles tendon is so important in terms of evolution, then why is this tendon so prone to injury"
WHAT ON EARTH DOES ONE HAVE TO DO WITH THE OTHER? EYES ARE IMPORTANT AS WELL BUT ARE MUCH MORE PRONE TO INJURY .
THE REST OF THIS IS NO BETTER. IN CASE THE AUTHER HAS NOT NOTICED, THE FASTEST ANIMALS ON THE PLANET EITHER RUN ON ALL FOURS OR HAVE FINS.
"However, contradictory to these findings that show the importance of the Achilles tendon for athletes, it is well known that obtaining an Achilles tendon injury for an athlete can be career-altering."
Start off with a false premise & you inevitably come to the wrong conclusions. So yes, I've wasted my time to some extent on this as well, thus I won't bother critiquing the above research. However, I say "to some extent" as research of this nature always provides me with more material/evidence to support my premise... which is more scientifically sound than the pre-assumed above. It also provides more material/evidence to the accumulated fallacies associated with the other (evolution)... which is growing year after year.
We should also be aware that research money/grants are more prevalent for the conjecture of human evolution studies in associated areas. Research relies on funding; research supports jobs in the science community. Hence we have the obscure link of an historical conjecture – evolution... to the scientifically assessed individual acquired conditioning traits of the Achilles.
Anyhow, my Achilles is fine thank you (& I work mine a lot)... I have conditioned mine appropriately to withstand the loads directed to it. Part of my job is to help resolve the Achilles of others who have subjected their Achilles to many unconducive factors i.e. sedentary lifestyle, poor footwear etc... it's all part & parcel of evidence based medicine.
Evolution or creationism really isn't the issue here.
What the authors say (and as far as I can see from the quote by Newsbot, it's mostly jumbled-up nonsense) would apply equally well to
the AT of a subject descended from Adam and Eve eleven and a half thousand years ago (or whichever version of creationism you believe in).
Agreed... makes you wonder how material of this calibre gets published.
I personally can't see it happening this way. Evolution (& associated implications) is the driving mechanism for the above researcher’s hypotheses here... & I couldn't see similar conclusions being made form a totally different process of cause & effect.
If one has biased methods that presumed evolution to be fact before they even approached the data, then data will always be interpreted according to this belief (to varying degrees) - irrespective of whether there is a valid alternative interpretation.
...would apply equally well to the AT of a subject descended from Adam and Eve.."
Well, perhaps.
Wasn't it EVE who picked the apple from the tree of life?
I would assume that the ripest, most red apples are a bit higher on the tree, where the sun hits them. One would most likely need to reach, even to the point of getting up on the tippy toes to get a nice red fruit. Certainly a healthy Achilles Tendon would enable Eve to pick and reach the best, thus giving her an evolutionary advantage. OF COURSE, if they were the ONLY TWO humans around they might not need any advantage (at lease over like bipeds)