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

originally posted by: six67seven
a reply to: Asktheanimals

Im not so sure this is the case (over a foot part for their stance)

The scale in the pic shows 5 cm and I doubt you can fit that 5cm scale 4 times over between the feet. Meaning its a max of 20 cm apart which is only 8 inches, and thats on the high side.

Other than that, its anyones guess.

Still a problem when you consider the size of the hominid is almost certainly not the same as a modern human.

8in:12in :: 4ft:6ft

Harte

a reply to: punkinworks10

I agree that it's an exciting find. I hope it pans out and I hope someone finds a lot more evidence of this hominid.

Harte

a reply to: OccamsRazor04

They then studied further (rather than guess) and concluded definitely human. That's how science works.

They aren't trackers, what they know about prints in mud?

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04

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.

Which means its something else already known.

This is like saying an image of something unidentified must be Aliens.

I don't know much about this stuff, but I do know a bears hind footprint looks like a human footprint, with a big toe. Often when someone who does not know that see's them they think they are Bigfoot.

Were there smaller species of bear or related to bears who could have left those?

Grizzly hind footprint in mud.



They don't look very clearly defined in those photo's?

a reply to: Blaine91555

Unless the bears were standing up walking around, dont think it was bears

BTW bear tracks look nothing like bigfoot print, to somebody who knows

a reply to: punkinworks10

Just asking. I've tracked bears and had one track me once and know they actually do walk upright for distances that might surprise you, in particular black bears. I should have left the Bigfoot reference out since it's not the topic.

My question though is related to the tracks being so indistinct as to be troubling to identify. People can and do mistake the hind footprint of bears for people. Tracks are rarely ever clear in real life except in sand or a thin layer of mud and even then not so much. It was just a thought and an honest question. I guess I'm asking, when tracks are not very clear, can they actually be identified with any certainty?

Blaine
Here is a link to the PDF of the actual paper, they address the bear issue.

Plus it has lots if good info.

www.dropbox.com...

a reply to: Blaine91555

As for bears and bigfoot, I was blessed with the opporotunity to witness bigfoot tracks within minutes of being laid down, not just one or two, but the track went for 1/4 mile.
The track was also witnessed by a group of bear hunters.
We were in thr middle of the trail looking at the prints and tbey came up and asked what we were looking at, "big bare footprints", not want to just blurt out bigfoot. They heard big bear footprints and got all excited, only to be stunned as we were when they saw them.
In whispers as they got back in their jeep, "Those aint no bear footprints".

Track was laid down in fine sierra nevada trail silt.
Nearly perfect impressions, you could see the lines, wrinkles and creases of the sole. The toes were broadly splayed and it had no arch. Flat footed as can be. Prints were 12"ish long, and in several places you could tell it stopped and shuffled around a little, like someone might do to get a listen around them.
Wish we could have got a cast, but we were 25 miles from nearest town and not prepared for it.

originally posted by: intrptr

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.

Bears have a largest toe on the outside of the foot, opposite of us humans.
Small Black bear size is about 5" wide, these aren't even 3 inches wide.

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

They then studied further (rather than guess) and concluded definitely human. That's how science works.

They aren't trackers, what they know about prints in mud?

Tracking is as much an art as it is science and trained ecologists aren't even taught the rudiments.

originally posted by: 3daysgone

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?

Not much because there's no artifacts.

BTW. it's actually the paleontologists who would deal with this, not anthropologists. And paleontology has had its say at this point (which is the field that would deal with footprints) - hominid, species not known. It will remain unknown until someone turned up some bones.

originally posted by: Byrd

originally posted by: 3daysgone

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?

Not much because there's no artifacts.

BTW. it's actually the paleontologists who would deal with this, not anthropologists. And paleontology has had its say at this point (which is the field that would deal with footprints) - hominid, species not known. It will remain unknown until someone turned up some bones.

Yeah. That makes sense. They would have nothing to compare it with. Maybe core samples from around the area would turn up something.

originally posted by: Asktheanimals

originally posted by: intrptr

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.

Bears have a largest toe on the outside of the foot, opposite of us humans.
Small Black bear size is about 5" wide, these aren't even 3 inches wide.

It was an example, any animal leaves an elongated track in lots of circumstances, especially in mud or snow.
The apparent claw marks (or toes) will be deformed too depending, again especially in mud and double especially, after some weathering.

Not all tracks are perfect examples of the feet of the animal that made them.

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: punkinworks10

Even if they had fossil feet in the foot prints, they aren't able to accurately date those either, for the tissue has long been replaced by minerals. Not only, but foot prints are laid down in presumably soft wet mud, and that is comprised of you guessed it, minerals.

Dating material around footprints isn't a sciene, more a guessing game.

So the prints 'lookalike' humanoid and are 'sortof' dateable.

The evolv-ists love to run with stuff like that.

They usually date the layers the material is found in taking into account sedimentary buildup processes because of what you are describing. It is still an inexact Science but more reliably than carbon dating this footprint could be. Often we see areas under hundreds of ft of soil. Places like Jerusalem, the further they dig the older the site appears to be the case.

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.

Now, now, Albert was the genius after all. So was Tesla.

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: punkinworks10

Even if they had fossil feet in the foot prints, they aren't able to accurately date those either, for the tissue has long been replaced by minerals. Not only, but foot prints are laid down in presumably soft wet mud, and that is comprised of you guessed it, minerals.

Dating material around footprints isn't a sciene, more a guessing game.
So the prints 'lookalike' humanoid and are 'sortof' dateable.
The evolv-ists love to run with stuff like that.

Keep believing what the government feed you.
I believe 5m years.
I believe humans have built up and died down many many times.
and will Keep doing that.

maybe those Aliens are from some that got away!
humans are so stupid. you can not see that.
as you dont mix with all the groups.
I have see it.

thing is white scientist say white skin is a mutation , which would mean it came from a different skin type

a reply to: punkinworks10

Thank you for the link. That did answer my question very well

On the other, I'll leave that out of this thread other than even in the best of circumstances, clear footprints almost never are the case. In fact a very clear footprint followed by another would always be suspect as the chances of that are nearly non-existent. You get a series of footprints with clear edges, you're likely looking at someones hoax.

In most cases in real life, mud causes mostly unidentifiable footprints due to the slump. Damp, not wet sand gives the best impressions, but are short lived. Clear tracks in the wild, where you have plants, plant parts and rock must be very rare, even from commonly seen animals.

ETA: For others -

4.1. Comparative analysis
The Trachilos tracks appear to have been made by a bipedal
trackmaker with plantigrade, entaxonic,
five-toed feet that did not
leave claw impressions. The
first digit of the foot was bulbous
whereas digits II–V were slender, with no significant gap between
the hallux and digit II. A well-developed ball was present. Certain
potential interpretations can be ruled out because of gross
morphological differences: these include artiodactyls, perissodactyls,
and digitigrade carnivores such as cats and dogs. However,
some plantigrade pentadactyl mammals could in principle
produce tracks similar to those from Trachilos. The main
alternatives that need to be considered, given the Neogene Old
World context of the tracks, are monkeys, apes and bears

originally posted by: Asktheanimals

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

They then studied further (rather than guess) and concluded definitely human. That's how science works.

They aren't trackers, what they know about prints in mud?

Tracking is as much an art as it is science and trained ecologists aren't even taught the rudiments.

Amen to that. Even with a lot of experience and good teaching when I was young, the actual act of tracking and knowing what the tracks are is hit and miss at best. Only when lucky enough to find what is usually a single clear track is it easy in my experience.