Earliest 'human footprints' found ?

[Fisherking]

Earliest 'human footprints' found

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7913375.stm

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

Now not to through cold water on these guys, but Homo erectus‘ foot bones could not make this print.

Who made it?

I am not going to guess, but anatomy says it wasn‘t Homo erectus who died out long after this print was made and still had a foot like a chimp.

[Ibrahim]

Earliest 'human footprints' found

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7913375.stm

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

Now not to through cold water on these guys, but Homo erectus‘ foot bones could not make this print.

Who made it?

I am not going to guess, but anatomy says it wasn‘t Homo erectus who died out long after this print was made and still had a foot like a chimp.


oh boy..where do I begin?

study this skeleton, of a homo Ergaster from Africa:

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/2d/Turkana_Boy.jpg/210px-Turkana_Boy.jpg

this fellow is clearly not built for hobbling on trees..instead he is built like we are, designed to walk, not amble in trees. granted he hardly has feet left, but ape feet clearly do not belong to this fellow-simply not physiologically efficient on a person otherwise perfectly designed to walk-like us. this raises the question: where the heck did you get the bold part from??:inquisitive: especially when what few foot bones found suggest modern human feet (there are just a few isolated bones; no complete or even semi complete foot was found from this species.)

secondly, this species is the species that lived in africa at around that time. It can be considered as an Erectus. logically, its the species that made this footprint. judging from track proportions as well, its perfect for an average sized Ergaster, which must have had modern feet (for the reason stated above)

lastly, if you are wondering why I mention this instead of Erectus, that's because Ergaster is sometimes referred to as a subspecies of Erectus. both names are valid for this hominid.

then I must go into the logic of the bold part: if an animal died out after it left its footprint, then how does that exclude it as the maker of this print? that is illogical. again, I reinterate that ergaster (or Erectus, doesn't matter), lived in Africa at the very time he left these prints (1.5 million. the last recorded Ergaster is 1.4 million years ago.), and was the only one of the right size, seeing the rest of the hominid branch in 1.5 million BP africa were 3-4 ft ape like australopithicenes (robust form).

EDIT: ergaster was the same size as modern man BTW. should have mentioned that.

[Fisherking]

I was not arguing the footprint could not be made by a species before it died out. What I was asking was how did a spices that didn’t evolve the correct foot bones have made the print. Obviously some spices had to evolve the correct foot.
Over generalization of a number of potential candidates into one group was the problem I was having…

We are no more than 350,000 years old as a spices. Something with our foot structure must predate us.
Most of the foot bones found for Erectus would not fit the print. Using a more specific name of a subspecies would have been more enlightening, though a subspecies with a different foot construction might rate it’s own spices name, wouldn’t you think?

[Ibrahim]

a)I was not arguing the footprint could not be made by a species before it died out. b)What I was asking was how did a spices that didn’t evolve the correct foot bones have made the print. Obviously some spices had to evolve the correct foot.

a) I know that-I'm just pointing out the logical fallacy of that statement. that is because you wriote that in defence of your argumanet in your first post. see for yourself.

b)again, I ask: where did you get the info on Homo Erectus' Feet? because honestly, I have not found a scrap indicating a foot other than the modern shape, or thereabouts. and everything I have read from lucy to language, the smithsonian, and I daresay, wikipedia, says otherwise to what you say.


Over generalization of a number of potential candidates into one group was the problem I was having…

there was no real overgeneralizing-there were only 2 (1 if you follow the alternate classification) of species living 1.5 million years ago capable of producing that print: H.erectus and H.ergaster. H.ergaster is slightly older than H.erectus, and lived only in Africa until about 1.8 million years ago, when it spread from Africa and eveolved into erectus. ergaster lived on in Africa till about 1.4 million years ago. so logically, only an ergaster or erectus made those prints (or just H.erectus if you follow alternate classification). Its clear the newspeople picked the simpler, 1 species classification, and went with it.


a)We are no more than 350,000 years old as a spices. b)Something with our foot structure must predate us.

a-no older than 200,000 years, though our line split off heidelbergensis and neandertals neandertals c.615,000 years ago.

b-look, the cursorial adaptiations on the human legs and foot are all traced back to at least ergaster, if not even the Australopithecines, who did walk upright for sure. the leg proportions are in fact essentially similar to ergaster's, though we as a species are more slender than ergaster. again, I cite turkana boy (an ergaster) and his foot bones. and implying that a later species has a more primitivefootbone than its ancestor/predecessor, by re-evolving the ape foot, makes no sense, in light of the tendency towards cursorial living.


Most of the foot bones found for Erectus would not fit the print. Using a more specific name of a subspecies would have been more enlightening, though a subspecies with a different foot construction might rate it’s own spices name, wouldn’t you think?

a) do you even know what foot bones were found of erectus? if you can produce a fossil picture or recommend me a source, I'll look at it. but until then, the only foot bones I know of belonging to the ankle area, not the toes. and those look perfectly normal. I can cite lucy to language, plus that skeleton up there.

b)I already told you who was the most want to make those prints: H.ergaster, which, as I have said for the 3rd or 4th time now, is often considered a variety of H.erectus.



i have to go now. I'll add more later.