Arched footprints preserve the motions of fossil hominin feet
Kevin G Hatala, Stephen M Gatesy & Peter L Falkingham 2023
Nature Ecology & Evolution 7:32-41
[email protected] wrote:
Arched footprints preserve the motions of fossil hominin feet
Kevin G Hatala, Stephen M Gatesy & Peter L Falkingham 2023
Nature Ecology & Evolution 7:32-41
I'm going to repeat what I said elsewhere, because this is so important: People don't seem to be "Getting" this but, there is no real evidence for this arch until AFTER the chromosome fusion... believed to have
happened less than 2 million years ago.
Now you have to actually know a little something about the good
Doctor's position to grasp what this means. But he makes a great
deal out of erectus and the evidence for diving.
Maybe we can say "Swimming," because underwater swimming is
still swimming.
The good Doctor isn't speculating here, he's pointing to the physical evidence for this. He's explaining the physical evidence: "Their
remains look this way because they were diving."
AND THIS he's seeing in finds that existed AFTER the chromosome
fusion.
I'm the one making the big deal about the chromosome fusion, not
him. That's what I do. I steal things from different people and merge
them, because the fact that they can and do merge means something.
So what it looks like to me is that our ancestors were waterside.They
lived along the shore. They exploited the sea. The consumed
resources and then moved on. And as they did this, at various points
in time (and places) groups branched off, pushed inland and adapted.
But they would have remained co fertile for quite some time.
The waterside group would have been moderating the adaptations,
the evolution of the inland groups. The inland groups would have been moderating the evolution of the waterside group...
AFTER THE CHROMOSOME FUSION, all this interbreeding, this
moderation of the evolution just kind of stopped. The chromosome
fusion was a barrier to interbreeding. This allowed the waterside group
to better adapt to the water, as they were no longer being influenced
by the inland populations. AND IT WAS AT THIS POINT where the arch
seems to pop into evidence.
Too complicated for savanna mouth breathers?
No doubt.
But consider also that bipedalism is VASTLY older than is Homo, YES
amongst our ancestors. Starting with us, drawing a line backwards
though all our potential ancestors, most of the history of bipedalism
in our line was already over before Homo arose. So this arch can't be associated with bipedalism. It wasn't MILLIONS OF YEARS OF
EVOLUTION that produced this arch. It was, at most, a few hundred
thousand years following the chromosome fusion. Which strongly
suggests environment as the factor. We stopped being influenced by
the more primitive inland groups, we adapted more fully to waterside..
It's all actually pretty brilliant. So brilliant that it has been lost entirely
on every last opponent to Aquatic Ape. Not one has read the good
Doctor's words and grasped their significance.
The collective minds of Out of Africa purists across at least three
groups that I follow, and never once has one grasped a word of this
stuff.
Congratulations.
Arched footprints preserve the motions of fossil hominin feet
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41559-022-01929-2
The longitudinal arch of the human foot is viewed as
a pivotal adaptation for bipedal walking and running.
Fossil footprints from Laetoli, Tanzania, and Ileret,
Kenya, are believed to provide direct evidence of
longitudinally arched feet in hominins from the
Pliocene and Pleistocene, respectively. We studied
the dynamics of track formation using biplanar X-ray,
three-dimensional animation and discrete element
particle simulation. Here, we demonstrate that
longitudinally arched footprints are false indicators
of foot anatomy; instead they are generated through a
specific pattern of foot kinematics that is
characteristic of human walking. Analyses of fossil
hominin tracks from Laetoli show only partial evidence
of this walking style, with a similar heel strike but
a different pattern of propulsion. The earliest known
evidence for fully modern human-like bipedal kinematics
comes from the early Pleistocene Ileret tracks, which
were presumably made by members of the genus Homo. This
result signals important differences in the foot
kinematics recorded at Laetoli and Ileret and underscores
an emerging picture of locomotor diversity within the
hominin clade.
"The longitudinal arch is often cited as an important
evolutionary innovation of the human foot that contributed
to proficient bipedal walking and adept endurance running
in our fossil relatives..."
"Given the challenges of interpreting arches from fossil
feet, the Laetoli and Ileret tracks are considered the
least equivocal evidence for a deep history of
longitudinally arched foot morphologies in hominin
evolution."
"While isolated analyses of skeletal fossils have
generated conflicting interpretations about whether
the A. afarensis foot functioned like that of a modern
human, our analysis of the arched Laetoli footprints
provides a unique kinematic synthesis. Brought into view
through this new lens is a pattern of foot function and
bipedal locomotion that was human-like in some ways
yet still importantly different."
"In contrast, 1.5 Ma tracks from Ileret, Kenya, preserve
the earliest evidence for a fully human-like pattern of
foot kinematics. Tracks from Ileret (total n = 4 from
three trackways) have RAVs where we would expect similarly
deep modern human tracks to fall (Fig. 4a). These data
provide new evidence to support inferences of human-like
foot kinematics in Homo erectus. We emphasize, however,
that our track ontogeny results simultaneously invalidate
direct association between arched footprint morphology and
arched foot anatomy at Ileret11. In contrast with the
Laetoli examples above, it appears that the Ileret tracks
are fully consistent with not only a heel–sole–toe rollover
pattern but also a pattern of forefoot propulsion closer to
that observed in modern humans."
"The results of our track analyses suggest that important
changes to foot anatomy and function occurred at or before
the emergence of the genus Homo, where a suite of postcranial
changes could correspond to selective influences of locomotor
behaviours such as long-distance walking or endurance running."
I posted this in March.
Here, we demonstrate that
longitudinally arched footprints are false indicators
of foot anatomy; instead they are generated through a
specific pattern of foot kinematics that is
characteristic of human walking.
"Arched footprints preserve the motions of fossil hominin feet"
Yes, of course, human walking is ex-swimming-wading:
Wading is
Wading is walking in shallow water and has nothing to do with
swimming.
Primum Sapienti wrote:
Wading is
Your own cite proved you wrong. The arched feet wasn't a
result of bipedalism. Our ancestors were walking bipedally
for millions of years prior to arched feet.
So the arched feet needed something else.
JTEM is so reasonable wrote:
Your own cite proved you wrong. The arched feet wasn't a
result of bipedalism. Our ancestors were walking bipedally
for millions of years prior to arched feet.
So the arched feet needed something else.
Walking. Because wading is just walking in shallow
water and thus water isn't needed.
We emphasize, however,
that our track ontogeny results simultaneously invalidate
direct association between arched footprint morphology and
arched foot anatomy at Ileret11.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 715 |
| Nodes: | 16 (0 / 16) |
| Uptime: | 169:49:30 |
| Calls: | 12,097 |
| Calls today: | 5 |
| Files: | 15,003 |
| Messages: | 6,517,844 |