It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Fossil footprints challenge established theories of human evolution Date: August 31, 2017

page: 2
43
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 1 2017 @ 07:35 PM
link   
a reply to: intrptr

It is tough to really say from a pic whether it is humanoid or simply mammalian. I would rather keep an open mind and hope that it would be considered scientifically and more research in the surrounding area be done. It is possible that there is more that has been overlooked. Science is ever changing. Science is self evident fact, until proof is repititive to alter perception of said fact.




posted on Sep, 1 2017 @ 07:36 PM
link   

originally posted by: MarsIsRed

originally posted by: 3daysgone



In response to academia presenting new evidence which may fundamentally alter their theories, you write...

Academia have become rigid in their thoughts which tends to lead over looking evidence because it doesn't fit their theory.


My take is that tin foil hat wearers have become so rigid which leads them to ignore any evidence that doesn't fit their theories that academics are rigid in their theories!


That's exactly what an academician would say



posted on Sep, 1 2017 @ 08:04 PM
link   
The track is not the important part, its the impression

The foot prints do not have an opposible big toe, which the apes do and homonins dont, and they have a ball on the sole, which the apes dont.
.
There are distinctive differences in heel construction between the early african homonins, with some species, cant remember which, having a mix of ape like and human features.
Some of those ape like features are retained in much later archaics.
So, we have homonins in Chad and Kenya that have ape like feet at 5 1/2ish Mya, and at the same time we have homonins walking around Crete with well developed homonid feet.
Then around 4-1/2Mya, we have Ardipithecus running around Ethiopia with a mix of ape/homonid feet and then 3-3/4Mya in Tanzania Australopithecus with a homonid foot.
Now consider that the genus homo has been pushed back to 7.2Mya in Bulgaria, sure looks like it is a regional adaptation already very divergent from african forms in many ways, that moves into Africa.
edit on p0000009k07952017Fri, 01 Sep 2017 20:07:56 -0500k by punkinworks10 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 1 2017 @ 08:24 PM
link   

originally posted by: NoCorruptionAllowed
That's exactly what an academician would say


Haha - Touché!



posted on Sep, 1 2017 @ 10:11 PM
link   

originally posted by: punkinworks10
Well then, when I posted A Eurasian origin for Homo, it was met with an expected wariness by some,


A very nice article, and I look forward to seeing the back-and-forth debates among paleontologists and anthropologists on this find. We've rewritten the "how humans came to be" scenario several times during my lifetime, and it does not entirely surprise me to find that we will rewrite it again.

After all, we weren't handed ALL the pieces of this gigantic puzzle called Earth. We have to go find them and then work them into what we have already discovered.

If this find is accepted, then this means we should find evidences of this same hominid elsewhere.



posted on Sep, 2 2017 @ 01:54 AM
link   

originally posted by: MarsIsRed

originally posted by: 3daysgone



In response to academia presenting new evidence which may fundamentally alter their theories, you write...

Academia have become rigid in their thoughts which tends to lead over looking evidence because it doesn't fit their theory.


My take is that tin foil hat wearers have become so rigid which leads them to ignore any evidence that doesn't fit their theories that academics are rigid in their theories!


Well, who knows? I would say they both could be wrong. But something about how you used my exact words in your response, lets me know you don't have any ideas of your own.



posted on Sep, 2 2017 @ 01:57 AM
link   

originally posted by: Byrd

originally posted by: punkinworks10
Well then, when I posted A Eurasian origin for Homo, it was met with an expected wariness by some,


A very nice article, and I look forward to seeing the back-and-forth debates among paleontologists and anthropologists on this find. We've rewritten the "how humans came to be" scenario several times during my lifetime, and it does not entirely surprise me to find that we will rewrite it again.

After all, we weren't handed ALL the pieces of this gigantic puzzle called Earth. We have to go find them and then work them into what we have already discovered.

If this find is accepted, then this means we should find evidences of this same hominid elsewhere.



I agree, but lets say that is the only evidence that is found from that hominid. What would the science of archaeology say about it?



posted on Sep, 2 2017 @ 02:23 AM
link   

originally posted by: Asktheanimals
a reply to: six67seven

I did search and rescue mantracking and I can assure you those are strange tracks.
Human tracks when walking form a wavy line along the direction of travel.
Notice how both prints seem oriented straight ahead, put your feet in that relationship and you have to waddle to create a similar pattern.


Perhaps the gait in question isn't in relation to a walking motion constant but rather from a constant to a stand still, about to stand still feet slightly apart. Maybe the feet pulled up to a kiosk for an ice-cream....



posted on Sep, 2 2017 @ 03:23 AM
link   

originally posted by: Asktheanimals
a reply to: six67seven

I did search and rescue mantracking and I can assure you those are strange tracks.
Human tracks when walking form a wavy line along the direction of travel.
Notice how both prints seem oriented straight ahead, put your feet in that relationship and you have to waddle to create a similar pattern.


Could it be that at the time there was a body of water there, causing the wading motion?

Just a thought, I have no idea of the archaeology of the area..



posted on Sep, 2 2017 @ 05:35 AM
link   
a reply to: badw0lf

They wouldn't leave any clear impressions if it were under water.
Soils have to be the right type (sandy mud in this case) and right water content then left to dry without disturbance to end up fossilized.
Eta: tracks can also become fossilized by flooding and subsequent layers of silt covering them.
edit on 2-9-2017 by Asktheanimals because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 2 2017 @ 05:40 AM
link   
a reply to: six67seven

That would also make their full foot length 4 inches heel to toe.
Hobbits perhaps?



posted on Sep, 2 2017 @ 06:24 AM
link   
a reply to: punkinworks10


The track is not the important part, its the impression

Oh contrare, the track is the tell, how its laid, the impression it leaves, the weathering, all contribute to Identification.

Which in this case is made more difficult, because we didn't actually see the animal that made it.

A hunter sees a quarry and then tracks it, never mind that some of the impressions don't 'look like' they're from the animal he's tracking.



posted on Sep, 2 2017 @ 06:26 AM
link   

originally posted by: Asktheanimals
a reply to: six67seven

That would also make their full foot length 4 inches heel to toe.
Hobbits perhaps?

A bear going down a snow bank leaves a 'print' longer than his foot, just saying.



posted on Sep, 2 2017 @ 09:03 AM
link   

originally posted by: intrptr
Pretty hard to miss that distinction , then or now.

Nothing to miss. They did not say it was not human. They said it was definitely mammal. They then studied further (rather than guess) and concluded definitely human. That's how science works.



posted on Sep, 2 2017 @ 09:05 AM
link   

originally posted by: intrptr
So again, not human.
Not homo-sapien, but according to the research it's a foot that should not exist at that time anywhere, and certainly not there.



posted on Sep, 2 2017 @ 10:17 AM
link   
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

My point exactly.
It shows that the lines that led to humans and apes had aleady diverged, and likely not in africa, and that they had devoloped significant differences.
Ape feet are climbing adapted, the feet that made these tracks were already adapted to walking, while at the same time in africa, we find no such thing.



posted on Sep, 2 2017 @ 10:39 AM
link   
From the actual paper,

We describe late Miocene tetrapod footprints (tracks) from the Trachilos locality in western Crete(Greece), which show hominin-like characteristics. They occur in an emergent horizon within anotherwise marginal marine succession of Messinian age (latest Miocene), dated to approximately 5.7 Ma(million years), just prior to the Messinian Salinity Crisis. The tracks indicate that the trackmaker lackedclaws, and was bipedal, plantigrade, pentadactyl and strongly entaxonic. The impression of the large andnon-divergent first digit (hallux) has a narrow neck and bulbous asymmetrical distal pad. The lateral digitimpressions become progressively smaller so that the digital region as a whole is strongly asymmetrical.A large, rounded ball impression is associated with the hallux. Morphometric analysis shows thefootprints to have outlines that are distinct from modern non-hominin primates and resemble those of hominins. The interpretation of these footprints is potentially controversial. The print morphologysuggests that the trackmaker was a basal member of the clade Hominini, but as Crete is some distance outside the known geographical range of pre-Pleistocene hominins we must also entertain the possibilitythat they represent a hitherto unknown late Miocene primate that convergently evolved human-like foot anatomy.


Possible hominin footprints from the late Miocene (c. 5.7 Ma) of Crete?



posted on Sep, 2 2017 @ 10:50 AM
link   

originally posted by: punkinworks10


No the prints are undeniably human, we have the ball on the foot and a big toe apes do not.

and you missed this as well


This is especially true of the toes. The big toe is similar to our own in shape, size and position; it is also associated with a distinct 'ball' on the sole, which is never present in apes. The sole of the foot is proportionately shorter than in the Laetoli prints, but it has the same general form. In short, the shape of the Trachilos prints indicates unambiguously that they belong to an early hominin, somewhat more primitive than the Laetoli trackmaker.


Don't you mean "undeniably hominid" here?

Nobody has placed these in the genus Homo, have they?

Harte



posted on Sep, 2 2017 @ 10:52 AM
link   

originally posted by: ConscienceZombie
I think nothing on this earth brings me more joy then the "geniuses" being "idiots". They all claim like religion that they know better then us. Yet time and time again life proves them wrong. Looking forward to the day we consider Albert to be more average of thought then the genius we knew him as.

I'd point out that it's the "idiots" that told you about this very find that brings you such joy.

Harte



posted on Sep, 2 2017 @ 10:55 AM
link   
a reply to: Harte

Yes, Harte a poor choice of words, not homo but possibly basal to Homo.




top topics



 
43
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join