Earliest 'human footprints' found

Earliest 'human footprints' found

news.bbc.co.uk

The earliest footprints showing evidence of modern human foot anatomy and gait have been unearthed in Kenya.

The 1.5-million-year-old footprints display signs of a pronounced arch and short, aligned toes, in contrast to older footprints.

The size and spacing of the Kenyan markings - attributed to Homo erectus - reflect the height, weight, and walking style of modern humans.

(visit the link for the full news article)


Related News Links:
blogs.nature.com

Wow, what an interesting find, the article goes on to mention that these aren't the oldest footprints found:

The footprints are not the oldest belonging to a member of the human lineage. That title belongs to the 3.7 million-year-old Australopithecus afarensis prints found in Laetoli, Tanzania, in 1978.

Those prints, however, showed comparatively flat feet and a significantly higher angle between the big toe and the other toes, representative of a foot still adapted to grasping.

I wonder if this will help clear up a few more unknowns about our ancestors?







news.bbc.co.uk
(visit the link for the full news article)

Great find
I'm pretty sure there will be those who are just typing away to try and debunk the possibility of humans going back that far.

I say we have only really begun to understand just how far back humans go. I would be willing to bet that if we really got into ocean archeology that we would find massive amounts of evidence of human societies on the former coastlines at the height of the ice age when the oceans were as much as 150 feet below current levels and exposed much more coast lines farther out than present day.


[edit on 27-2-2009 by SLAYER69]

i heard of a footprint with a sandal impression that was 300 myo that was in mud so long, it turned to rock.

but this is an exciting find.

to SLAYER69:

you are so right. people naturally settle close to water. and the continental shelf were clearly formed by a lower than now water level. theres got to be tons of evidence there.

edit: oh did you notice the article said animals like to eat hands and feet. makes that chimp case sound normal now i guess...

[edit on 27-2-2009 by mahtoosacks]

reply to post by SLAYER69



I'm sure we would find many new things if we were able to excavate areas of the sea floor.

It's a shame it's near impossible to accomplish.

Another part of the article piqued my interest:

What they found was two sets of footprints, one five metres deeper than the other, separated by sand, silt, and volcanic ash.

Sounds like it was quite a populated area for some time.

Regarding our ancestors, the human genes also show that our common birthplace was in Africa:

In all our cells we have genes. Genes are made up of DNA, the string-like code of life that determines what we are, from our fingernails to our innate potential for playing the piano. By analysing genes, we can trace the geographic route taken by our ancestors back to an ultimate birthplace in Africa, at the dawn of our species. Further, if we take any two individuals and compare their genes, we will find that they share a more recent ancestor - living, in all probability, outside Africa. What is more, I believe that we can now prove where those ancestors lived and when they left their homelands. This remarkable proof has become fully possible only within the last decade, as a result of pioneering work by a number of people.

More interesting reading here:
www.bradshawfoundation.com...

And on a personal note, I find it quite amusing that stupid white racist people have an african ancestor at the root of their family tree. The irony...

reply to post by ziggystar60


Hiya Ziggy!

Thanks for the link, It's quite amazing really, to think 'modern humans' have been around for at least 1.5 million years and we all come from possibly one place.


Is there a garden of Eden in Africa?

[edit on 27-2-2009 by Chadwickus]

Originally posted by ziggystar60

And on a personal note, I find it quite amusing that stupid white racist people have an african ancestor at the root of their family tree. The irony...

Off topic
Now that is funny. I came across a supremacy web page where they were talking that the downfall of the white race can be traced through out history and they gave the Greeks and the Romans as examples of how they were destroyed when inferior races mingled with them.

I laughed because the Greeks well their Greek and the Romans well they look like Sylvester Stallone and Tony Danza not Blond nor Blue eyes.


On topic

I think there will be more revealed in time hopefully sooner than later.

reply to post by SLAYER69


Those aren't Homo sapiens' footprints. Anatomically modern humans could not have possibly existed more than 300,000 years ago. There's nothing that special about this article, except that it provides a confirmation that our closest ancestors walked similarly to us, which was expected. To think that people like us have lived on the Earth for 1.5 million years and only developed agriculture once 10,000 years ago is kind of ridiculous.

[edit on 28-2-2009 by cognoscente]

reply to post by cognoscente


Source?
Also we don't know anything more than what modern academia tells us in schools and over time that has always changed as new discoveries are made so again I say source? and stay tuned.

Those foot prints are from Homo-Erectus NOT Homo-Sapiens like us. The foot had grasping toes more like an ape and less like ours.

Still it is an interesting find about our distant ancestors.

reply to post by cognoscente


How can you say that something like that is ridiculous when you are not even sure of many more factors that could have influenced that in ways we could not even imagine.

All we have is theory , theory is not absolute truth at all , theories are bound to change when new facts are discovered , and not ridicule evidence that might disprove them , or change them completely.

reply to post by ziggystar60


stupid white rascist people?????Not that I have a rascist bone in my body,I feel your statement may be just as ignorant as the people you hope to portray.First of all all humans surviving ice ages would have to travel to Africa to get off the ice,farm and hunt.Just because our extremely limited knowledge of pre-history humanity says it seems we all travelled up from Africa.Does not prove at all that the first humans were black.Something else you might consider before making blanket I told you so statements,It seems scientists in Germany have managed to aquire some neandretal dna,having tested it they have found the old man is not our ancestor.something they thought was true enough to teach me in school.Personally I think the theory of outside intervention is more believable than anything our darwin pushing junkies have put forward.It seems that every step forward proves them wrong,the footprints are another perfect example.

Originally posted by tweedledee
reply to post by ziggystar60

 

stupid white rascist people?????Not that I have a rascist bone in my body,I feel your statement may be just as ignorant as the people you hope to portray.First of all all humans surviving ice ages would have to travel to Africa to get off the ice,farm and hunt.Just because our extremely limited knowledge of pre-history humanity says it seems we all travelled up from Africa.Does not prove at all that the first humans were black.Something else you might consider before making blanket I told you so statements,It seems scientists in Germany have managed to aquire some neandretal dna,having tested it they have found the old man is not our ancestor.something they thought was true enough to teach me in school.Personally I think the theory of outside intervention is more believable than anything our darwin pushing junkies have put forward.It seems that every step forward proves them wrong,the footprints are another perfect example.

I think he meant the white people that ARE racist , not all the white people.


Edit : I have african ancestors , am white , and not racist. But Brazil is well known for it's mixes of races , you would be amazed to know how many nationalities there are in my family tree =x

[edit on 28-2-2009 by Roufas]

reply to post by Terapin

Gah. Not exactly, but close... The footprint didn't have grasping feet. It had feet like ours, which is why, in combination with its date, lead anthropologists to believe it belonged to a Homo erectus.

www.sciencedaily.com...

Other hominid fossil footprints dating to 3.6 million years ago had been discovered in 1978 by Mary Leakey at Laetoli, Tanzania. These are attributed to the less advanced Australopithecus afarensis, a possible ancestral hominid. The smaller, older Laetoli prints show indications of upright bipedal posture but possess a shallower arch and a more ape-like, divergent big toe.

Here is a similar article to clarify the main points. Where the article mentions a "grasping-like foot", that was in reference to another species A. afarensis, which was only mentioned as a point of comparison, but not a description of the footprint in question.

So we have a 1.5 million year old H. erectus footprint. Awesome! But I don't see what is so remarkable about it. I'm thinking the exciting headline suckered you all in.

Humans, when mentioned in this way, include all members of the genus Homo. All species in Homo, except for us, have been extinct for at least 13,000 years (1), if you believe that H. floresiensis (the "hobbit" men from Indonesia) were actually a separate species, which is surprisingly the consensus today amongst the anthropological community.


reply to post by tweedledee

If all anatomically modern humans can be genetically traced to Africa, which they can, doesn't it just make sense they would be black? All hairless, diurnal animal species that are found closer as opposed to farther from the equator have developed some kind of adaptive physiological trait.


reply to post by Roufas

Maybe I shouldn't have said ridiculous? No one can know for sure, but isn't it kind of odd we have an incredibly long historical record of primitive tool use, but no record whatsoever for agricultural or more advanced technological tool use over the very same time period (except of course for the past 12,000 years)? Maybe those tools break down more easily? If they were using plastics I wouldn't bet on it. Were these other, more advanced humans using energy fields and quantum-invisible tools to survive?

I should have said not plausible, rather than ridiculous. Of course, it's hard to believe academia because they appear so far out of touch with the local community. It would be nice if there was more public interaction between the two. All I can say is that I've held Neandertal tools and I've seen how they're dated, and it's all pretty believable if you ask me.

Sources
1. www.ecotao.com...

[edit on 28-2-2009 by cognoscente]

Originally posted by cognoscente
Maybe I shouldn't have said ridiculous? No one can know for sure, but isn't it kind of odd we have an incredibly long historical record of primitive tool use, but no record whatsoever for agricultural or more advanced technological tool use over the very same time period (except of course for the past 12,000 years)? Maybe those tools break down more easily? If they were using plastics I wouldn't bet on it. Were these other, more advanced humans using energy fields and quantum-invisible tools to survive? I should have said not plausible.

I'm working on a new thread along those very lines say tuned.
I hate shot gun responses but that is it for now.

reply to post by SLAYER69


I'd love to read it/argue it with actual sources this time. Send me a PM when you've posted it.

[edit on 28-2-2009 by cognoscente]

reply to post by SLAYER69


I'll be watching for it too

Originally posted by tweedledee
reply to post by ziggystar60[/url]

 

Something else you might consider before making blanket I told you so statements,It seems scientists in Germany have managed to aquire some neandretal dna,having tested it they have found the old man is not our ancestor.something they thought was true enough to teach me in school.

So your point is...?
Of course Neandertals are not our ancestors (although there is possibly proof that they inter-breeded with humans in SW Europe) but anyway, Neandertals were another breed, race, whatever you want to call it, different from line of humans that we come from. So technically your teachers were right.
But I still don't get your point.

Originally posted by tweedledee

stupid white rascist people?????Not that I have a rascist bone in my body,I feel your statement may be just as ignorant as the people you hope to portray.

Calm down. Sorry that I didn't see your post before, but just to make it perfectly clear, I do not think that all white people are racists. I am Norwegian, as white and blonde as you can possibly get, and I am not a racist.

I was talking about the white people who are racists, not all white people as a whole.

Peace.


Edit for spelling. As I said, I am blonde.


[edit on 1/3/09 by ziggystar60]