Ancient Foot Bone Proves Prehuman Lucy Walked Tall…

[kitakaze]

The conclusion that it takes an arch to be bipedal is simple minded and it ignores hominids that don't have an arch. It isn't just simple minded from ignoring actual hominids that don't have an arch, it is like the author with that opinion has no comprehension about the subject that they are discussing and see the single model of the human foot as the only model that could work. With all the other feet out there in the animal world, that is amazingly narrow minded. It reminds me of some scientist quoted on the old BFF that said something to the effect that bigfoot would have the same problems that modern humans with fallen arches would have if it had flat feet. That was supposed to be an argument against the existence of sasquatch. It is like those people have zero comprehension of basic biology and no clue how evolution works. I am trying to cut them some slack but frankly it sounds to me like someone trying to make a big deal out of his fossil by seeing or inventing something that isn't even there. Either that or they lack the capacity to understand basic biology and simple mechanics. Sorry, I guess I am getting irritated by "scientists" with agendas. The part that really irritates me is the silly notion that an arch on the foot is what defines bipedalism and without it, it is a tree dweller. They are anthropomorphizing all hominid feet as if they are just underdeveloped modern human feet.

I'm a giant flailing paleoanthropology geek. Can you list for me a bipedal hominid species that does not have an arch? I don't want to ignore anything important like that.

[Guest LAL]

It seems Australopithecus afarensis was more upright than previously thought, with or without an arch:

"An exceptionally petite female—her estimated height was 3.5 feet (1.1 meters)—Lucy's small frame has been interpreted as not being totally adapted for human-like, upright walking.(See: "6-Million-Year-Old Human Ancestor 1st to Walk Upright?")

But the discovery of the 3.6-million-year-old male disproves that idea, said study co-author Yohannes Haile-Selassie, curator of physical anthropology at the Cleveland Museum of Natural History.

"As a result of this discovery, we can now confidently say that 'Lucy' and her relatives were almost as proficient as we are walking on two legs, and that the elongation of our legs came earlier in our evolution than previously thought," Haile-Selassie said in a statement.

"Big Man" A. Afarensis Fossil Similar to Humans

Scientists nicknamed the new A. afarensis fossil "Kadanuumuu," which means "big man" in the Afar language of central Ethiopia, where the fossil was found in 2005.

The name refers to the fossil's height, which scientists estimate is between 5 and 5.5 feet (1.5 and 1.8 meters) tall.

In addition to being much bigger than Lucy, the new fossil contains a more complete shoulder blade than previously known, a major portion of the rib cage, and pelvis fragments that shed new light on how A. afarensis moved.

Kadanuumuu's skeletal features are surprisingly similar to those of modern humans, Haile-Selassie said in an interview.

This supports recent findings that suggest chimpanzees are not good models for the study of our early human ancestors, he added. (See a map of where human ancestors are found around the world.)

For example, the team also argues that Kadanuumuu's shoulder bone, or scapula, is much less ape-like than previously thought based on Lucy's small shoulder bone fragment.

"Until now, most scientists presumed that our ancestors' shoulders were more like those of chimpanzees," Haile-Selassie said.

Based on their preliminary analysis of the male fossil's scapula, the team argues A. afarensis was no better or worse at tree climbing than modern humans.

"Its anatomy wouldn't allow it to be [primarily] a tree-climber, as claimed by some people," Haile-Selassie said.

The human-like physique supports other recent findings that suggest bipedalism was a very early development in the human lineage"

http://news.national...pright-science/

[Guest LAL]

I'm a giant flailing paleoanthropology geek. Can you list for me a bipedal hominid species that does not have an arch? I don't want to ignore anything important like that.

Ardipithecus ramidus and stw 573 for starters.

[gigantor]

yaaawn...

Wake me up when they find enough bones to make a definitive statement.

[wolftrax]

Ardi didn't have an arch but also did not have a flexible midfoot:

Foot skeleton of Ar. ramidus (bottom; reconstruction based on computed tomography rendering shown) lacked many features that have evolved for advanced vertical climbing and suspension in extant chimpanzees (pan, top left). Chimpanzees have a highly flexible midfoot and other adaptations that improve their ability to grasp substrates. These are absent in Ar. ramidus.

[Guest LAL]

"Hmmm Lucy - Patty - Lucy - Patty - Lucy"

[wolftrax]

This just proves one thing... Once a skeptic there is no turning back, no matter the evidence that is put forward... So regardless of the post, picture, or video the skeptic will always claim something is tainted... regardless if it is science fact or not the very subject of having a unknown Bipedal walking creature in the woods is just to much for them to except like an ostrich sticks their head in the sand pretending to not see what is in their face...

For the above reason I really would like a section dedicated to the constructive conversation of the species known as Sasquatch where we believers can finally speak without being ridiculed or steered in the conversation by someone who really has no business being here other than to disrupt the train of thought for those that do...

It would simply put those that believe in their own sub-forum with a Moderator that has the ability to decide who is a non believing disruptive person and show them the door back to the forum... This is really not much that I am asking, totally feasible and non discriminative yet keeps a realm of cohesive conversation going without the disruptive nay sayers...

Dont know who you have a problem with but this is the discussion of this paper and what it has to do with sasquatch. This is a forum devoted to the discussion of sasquatch, isn't it?

[wolftrax]

The conclusion that it takes an arch to be bipedal is simple minded and it ignores hominids that don't have an arch. It isn't just simple minded from ignoring actual hominids that don't have an arch, it is like the author with that opinion has no comprehension about the subject that they are discussing and see the single model of the human foot as the only model that could work. With all the other feet out there in the animal world, that is amazingly narrow minded. It reminds me of some scientist quoted on the old BFF that said something to the effect that bigfoot would have the same problems that modern humans with fallen arches would have if it had flat feet. That was supposed to be an argument against the existence of sasquatch. It is like those people have zero comprehension of basic biology and no clue how evolution works. I am trying to cut them some slack but frankly it sounds to me like someone trying to make a big deal out of his fossil by seeing or inventing something that isn't even there. Either that or they lack the capacity to understand basic biology and simple mechanics. Sorry, I guess I am getting irritated by "scientists" with agendas. The part that really irritates me is the silly notion that an arch on the foot is what defines bipedalism and without it, it is a tree dweller. They are anthropomorphizing all hominid feet as if they are just underdeveloped modern human feet.

No, afraid not, this is saying that this bone was found that is afarensis and has indications of an arch, as it resembles a humans more than an apes, which are shaped differently because of the arch and/or lack of an arch.

[wolftrax]

Meldrum et al just published a paper that contradicts the paper cited above. It can be found here in full, since I still can't upload things.

Edit: Big thumbs up BobZenor!

This paper doesn't contradict the paper in the opening post, this paper by Meldrum predates the finding of this fossil and only examines casts of the Laetoli tracks, not this particular fossil, and therefore does not come to a different conclusion on this fossil.

[kitakaze]

Ardipithecus ramidus and stw 573 for starters.

Ardi didn't have an arch but also did not have a flexible midfoot:

Thanks. Ardi was the one I was thinking of. There is nothing in your link LAL that says Little Foot did not have an arch. Only that the hallux was adbducted.

Edited February 27, 2011 by kitakaze

[Guest LAL]

Ardi didn't have an arch but also did not have a flexible midfoot:

Kit didn't ask for flexible - just archless. Oreopithecus bambolli would qualify for both but it's a hominoid and he wanted hominids.

[wolftrax]

You know he was talking about the midtarsal break. Good thing some people actually read the stuff that is presented here.

Edited February 27, 2011 by wolftrax

[Hairy Man]

This paper doesn't contradict the paper in the opening post, this paper by Meldrum predates the finding of this fossil and only examines casts of the Laetoli tracks, not this particular fossil, and therefore does not come to a different conclusion on this fossil.

Meldrum's paper contradicts that A. afarensis had an arched foot. The OP paper didn't find the fossil last week - they published the findings last week. It doesn't state when the fossil was found, but it does say:

Later excavations by an international team between 2005 and 2008 turned up an upper arm, collarbone, neck bones, ribs, pelvis, sacrum, a thighbone, a shinbone and the shoulder blade. The discoveries came as part of the Woranso-Mille Project that has been ongoing since 2004.

No find is ever published immediately. Meldrum's paper is dated 1.3.2011. Based on recent discussions, Meldrum is sticking with his conclusion.

[Guest LAL]

Thanks. Ardi was the one I was thinking of. There is nothing in your link LAL that says Little Foot did not have an arch. Only that the hallux was adbducted.

How technical do you want to get?

Did you catch the part about Little Foot's feet being a good match for the Laetoli trackway?

More on Lucy's feet.

"This study finds that the rearfoot arch was present in the genus Australopithecus. However, the female Australopithecus afarensis “Lucy†has an ankle morphology consistent with non-pathological flat-footedness. This study suggests that, as in humans today, there was variation in arch development in Plio-Pleistocene hominins."

http://www.plosone.o...al.pone.0014432

[kitakaze]

Kit didn't ask for flexible - just archless. Oreopithecus bambolli would qualify for both but it's a hominoid and he wanted hominids.

Oreopithecus did not have a midtarsal break...

http://www.pnas.org/content/94/21/11747.full