Human ancestor footprint

[edwest2]

Supposedly, 1.5 million years old with anatomically modern feet:

newsdaily.com/stories/tre51p824-us-footprint-ancient/

Peace,
Ed

 

[DavWan]

Supposedly, 1.5 million years old with anatomically modern feet:

newsdaily.com/stories/tre51p824-us-footprint-ancient/

Peace,
Ed

That’s rather interesting. I personally have no idea how ancient feet were supposed to look (most of the debates I hear have to do with skulls), but if they were less “human” looking then it has some ramifications.

I guess the question is whether it is:

• A fraud
• Proof of modern humans existing earlier than thought
• Indication that earlier ancestors were more human than thought

I am sure a scientist would think of more possibilities than these

 

[Squishy]

That’s rather interesting. I personally have no idea how ancient feet were supposed to look (most of the debates I hear have to do with skulls), but if they were less “human” looking then it has some ramifications.

I guess the question is whether it is:

• A fraud
• Proof of modern humans existing earlier than thought
• Indication that earlier ancestors were more human than thought

I am sure a scientist would think of more possibilities than these

If these prove to be authentic then we can start narrowing down when modern feet started to evolve. According to the artical footprints dated at 3.25million years where much more primative. This gives us a much more accurate idea of when modern feet started to evolve. We might even be able to have a bit more reserch on the evolutionary pressures that favoured feet such as ours for an upright bipedal.

 

[Eucharisted]

Maybe it was a time-traveler?

 

[Squishy]

Maybe it was a time-traveler?

This is a little off topic. And was the subject of a late night discussion with my friends around the fire in my garden. But who is to say that the grand designer of life on earth is not human.

 

[Mark77]

“Footprints found in Kenya that resemble those left in wet sand by beach goers today show that 1.5 million years ago a human ancestor walked like we do with anatomically modern feet, scientists said on Thursday.”

I love the certainty, the arrogance we show when we write “show that 1.5 million years ago”.

No matter what the genius scientists, the “brights”, tell us “dulls”, the techniques used for dating these fossils is not exact, only our best educated guess.

It could be correct, but I would say “estimated” to be 1.5 million years old, only God knows for sure!

Sancta Maria, Mater Dei, Ora Pro Nobis Peccatoribus!

 

[Evan]

I wonder… are they all mickey mouse feet? Three little toes and a big toe?

Most humans I know have 4 little toes and a big toe? This may not be human at all. Evolution predicts that over time we would LOSE the little toe, not gain one

 

[edwest2]

If this footprint was made in mud, it is possible that two toeprints merged by mud refilling. However, 1.5 million years? Really? I doubt it.

Peace,
Ed

 

[Sideline]

I wonder… are they all mickey mouse feet? Three little toes and a big toe?

Most humans I know have 4 little toes and a big toe?

You should head on down to some place with mud or wet sand, walk around, and then count how many of your foot steps have perfect images of all five toes.

This may not be human at all. Evolution predicts that over time we would LOSE the little toe, not gain one

?? ??

Where did you get that idea? I’ve studied a lot of evolution in school, and I have never once heard a prediction saying we would loose our little toe.

Evolution is based on random mutation and selection. In order to “predict we would lose our little toe”, we would somehow have to foresee the result of a random occurrence, and somehow foresee that the result of the change would somehow increase the reproductive success of those to whom the mutation occurred.

In other words… no, no it doesn’t.

 

[Evan]

You should head on down to some place with mud or wet sand, walk around, and then count how many of your foot steps have perfect images of all five toes.

Some will show 4, some 5 toes. But I assume the are showing the best picture they could find.

Where did you get that idea? I’ve studied a lot of evolution in school, and I have never once heard a prediction saying we would loose our little toe.

Just the popular media. No science. They like to say things like
“Someday our appendix will disappear because it is useless”
“Someday our wisdom teeth will be gone”
“Someday we will lose our little toes or they will merge into one toe” (like the horse)

Of course you have to say these thing in the deep pontificating voice of someone who wants you to think they know more than you do

 

[Sideline]

Some will show 4, some 5 toes. But I assume the are showing the best picture they could find.

Several points…

1. To me that looks much more like an imperfect cast of a foot with five toes than a foot with four toes.
2. Maybe it was the best picture. Maybe all of the other pictures were garbage. The only other picture I have found was not as good as this one. It was taken from farther away, and had more shadows. That doesn’t mean that the person who left the print doesn’t have five toes.
3. You have admitted that you… a five toed person… would leave some four toed prints. Just because it it possible for a perfect foot print to be achieved doesn’t mean that they were able to find a perfect foot print.

But fine… believe it is a four toed creature if you want.

Just the popular media. No science. They like to say things like
“Someday our appendix will disappear because it is useless”
“Someday our wisdom teeth will be gone”
“Someday we will lose our little toes or they will merge into one toe” (like the horse)

Of course you have to say these thing in the deep pontificating voice of someone who wants you to think they know more than you do

So… okay. You seem to understand that you are wrong in your claim that evolution predicts that we will one day have four toes. Why would you repeat the error as if you believed that’s what evolution would predict? In fact, that seemed to be the basis of your argument that they might not be human footprints.

 

[rossum]

Supposedly, 1.5 million years old with anatomically modern feet:

newsdaily.com/stories/tre51p824-us-footprint-ancient/

Peace,
Ed

It is better to rely on the original paper rather than a second-hand report:Bennet MR, Harris JWK, Richmond BG, Braun DR, Mbua E, Kiura P, Olago D, Kibunjia M, Omuombo C, Behrensmeyer AK, Huddart D, Gonzalez S (2009) Early Hominin Foot Morphology Based on 1.5-Million-Year-Old Footprints from Ileret, Kenya. Science 323(5918):1197-1201.
As I am sure you are aware, not all reports in the news media are completely accurate.

rossum

 

[Evan]

1. You have admitted that you… a five toed person… would leave some four toed prints. Just because it it possible for a perfect foot print to be achieved doesn’t mean that they were able to find a perfect foot print.

Not really admitted. I don’t deny I could leave 4 toes.

So… okay. You seem to understand that you are wrong in your claim that evolution predicts that we will one day have four toes. Why would you repeat the error as if you believed that’s what evolution would predict? In fact, that seemed to be the basis of your argument that they might not be human footprints.

They might not be human. They could be aliens, primates, other creatures that do not have an immortal soul, or they could be a natural phenomena that looks like footprints. remember the face on mars?

 

[Sideline]

Not really admitted. I don’t deny I could leave 4 toes.

Funny, to me “admit” and “couldn’t deny” mean remarkably similar things… but okay. You don’t deny you could leave a foot print like that with five toes. Great.

They might not be human.

It would be a bit of a problem for biology if they were human. Scientists believe them to be Homo erectus

They could be aliens,

We know Homo erectus was around at that time. There is no evidence to suggest that there are… anywhere… aliens with feet similar to ours. If there were aliens with feet similar to ours, then there is no evidence that they were on Earth in that time period.

Really? That’s what you want to argue? That it could be aliens?

primates,

That*** is*** what is being suggested.

other creatures that do not have an immortal soul,

This one is a joke right? They were measuring foot size and gait… not whether the footprints were left from people with souls.

or they could be a natural phenomena that looks like footprints. remember the face on mars?

Yes, and I can tell you the differences between the face on Mars and this.

1. As the quality of the image improves, these look more like footprints, as opposed to the face which looked less like a face as the quality improved.
2. We know that there are feet of that shape on Earth capable of making those footprints, whereas there was no evidence that there is anyone on Mars.
3. There are many copies of the footprints, whereas there was one photo of a face on Mars.

 

[Evan]

1. We know that there are feet of that shape on Earth capable of making those footprints, whereas there was no evidence that there is anyone on Mars.

Where do you think martians live. I remember one on TV, he lived upstairs in a garage, but I think the rest of the martians live on mars.

Their footprints may look like that, and they may have 4 toes.

Of course they could be God’s footprints. In Genesis it says he walked in the Garden in the cool of the day. (3:8) Does he have 4 toes? Maybe he gave me an extra because he is so generous.

 

[CentralFLJames]

Can some archaeologist here please pray tell how one can correlate the date of the footprint from the date of the soil/rock? It’s not really a fossil that is contained and encapsualted ( since the guys did not die in place as if in quicksand)

I walk on a earth that is supposedly millions of years old and leave footprints every day in ancient dirt. How does one seperate out the date of a print to the date of the soil? Petrification of ancient soil could have taken place pretty much at anytime.

It would be hilarious to find out that a more modern Homo-Sapien and his family just happened to be making sand castles a mere 20 thousand or so years ago and pushing their toes and feet into the ancient sand or even using there feet as an outline and carving out of soft stone their imprints to leave ancient graffeetti (pun intended) to amuse modern man.

James

 

[rossum]

Can some archaeologist here please pray tell how one can correlate the date of the footprint from the date of the soil/rock? It’s not really a fossil that is contained and encapsualted ( since the guys did not die in place as if in quicksand)

Footprins and the like are called “trace fossils”. I do not have access to the full article, (abstract here), but the report on the BBC says:What they found was two sets of footprints, one five metres deeper than the other, separated by sand, silt, and volcanic ash.

Source: news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7913375.stm
Sand and silt are not generally datable, but volcanic ash is. What is usually done is to date layers of volcanic ash below and above any finds to give a range of dates within which the fossils lie. In this case the dates are 1.51 Ma to 1.53 Ma. As with Mount Saint Helens or Yellowstone most volcanos erupt more then once so there will be more than one layers of volcanic ash near any volcano. Just pick the next layer above and the next layer below to get a range of dates for any fossils found.

I walk on a earth that is supposedly millions of years old and leave footprints every day in ancient dirt. How does one seperate out the date of a print to the date of the soil? Petrification of ancient soil could have taken place pretty much at anytime.

You are right, it is not the soil that is dated but the layers of volcanis ash that are dated. For more detail on dating methods read Radiometric Dating - A Christian Perspective.

rossum

 

[CB_Catholic]

I wonder… are they all mickey mouse feet? Three little toes and a big toe?

Most humans I know have 4 little toes and a big toe? This may not be human at all. Evolution predicts that over time we would LOSE the little toe, not gain one

If you look again carefully at the picture, you will see that there are five toes. I missed it at first. Right between the dark areas of the big toe and the second toe is a lighter colored area in the shape of a toe, and it is darker than the background. This toe is longer than the big toe, which is not uncommon in human feet (there are plenty of these in my family). It resembles somewhat the footprint of someone with a slight hammer-toe, where the impression is lighter than the other toes, again a common condition among humans. This does not resemble an animal footprint, and the toe in question is definitely there, making five toes.

 

[The_Barbarian]

The most important aspect of this find (and yes, there are five toes), is that the predictions that H. ergaster would be essentially human in postcranial skeleton, have been confirmed. We hadn’t any direct evidence of what their feet where like, prior to this.

 

[DavWan]

The most important aspect of this find (and yes, there are five toes), is that the predictions that H. ergaster would be essentially human in postcranial skeleton, have been confirmed. We hadn’t any direct evidence of what their feet where like, prior to this.

I wonder if you could simplify your terms a little? Am I correct in assuming you mean that “H. ergaster looks human” or am I completely missing what you mean?