Ancient Foot Bone Proves Prehuman Lucy Walked Tall…

[kitakaze]

Blue Creek Mtn. Rd and Bluff Creek...

Australopithecus trackways...

Edited February 28, 2011 by kitakaze

[Guest LAL]

Oreopithecus did not have a midtarsal break...

http://www.pnas.org/...4/21/11747.full

? The foot wasn't as flexible as in the arboreal species, but it wasn't rigid.

Oreopithecus was a bipedal ape. The hand was hominid-like. The foot was weird, birdlike, but not too unlike Ardi's.

.

"Much like in the hand, the foot of Ardi suggests that, instead of modifying a foot that looks essentially like a chimpanzee foot, humans, chimpanzees, and gorillas have all taken a generalized Miocene ape foot and done our own special thing to it."

[Guest]

Walking is OK but humans, according to some recent insight, are designed for endurance running. Here's a TEDtalk video that sheds some light on what could our ancestral heritage of endurance running, and how it shaped us, and maybe our common ancestor with BF like creatures if they are in fact relic populations of hominins and not pithecine apes.

[wolftrax]

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

Meldrum's paper does not address this fossil or offer anything to contest that the fossils indicates an arch in afarensis. Meldrum's paper focuses on the Laetoli trackway showing a midtarsal break in the afarensis foot. You can probably find at least 10 different papers written with interpretations of the Laetoli trackway and what it infers about afarensis, but one of the most prominent was written by Tim White and Gen Suwa, White was in the original excavation of the tracks and also with Suwa on the re-excavation. Only a handfull of people have been able to do so, others have to rely on cast copies and photos. White and Suwa maintained that afarensis did have an arch, and that interpretations of a midtarsal break are based off of casts which do not show the different layers of substrate and holes in the substrate from things like a hammer and chisel and degradation of the tracks. That paper can be read here:

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ajpa.1330720409/abstract

[wolftrax]

Bluue Creek Mtn. Rd and Bluff Creek...

Australopithecus trackways...

Yeah, take a good look at those tracks. The Onion Mtn. tracks look nothing like the Laetoli tracks, which even after 3.6 million years still maintain their realism while the Wallace tracks look fake.

Onion Mtn. track on left, Murphy's human foot center, Laetoli track on right:

Edited February 27, 2011 by wolftrax

[BobZenor]

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.

No kidding. That single bone is supposed to demonstrate conclusively that it has an arch. This is the article that says "It shows that our ancestor's shoulder blade" as if it is even established that Kenyanthropus platyops wasn't a better candidate ancestor with its flatter face. I know we can play popularity contest and decide that afarensis is a much better candidate because it is much more popular and someone decided that platyops was an afarensis after all.

The evidence that is supposed to impress me is the bone near the "pinky toe" which I can only assume they mean the outside metatarsal bone. I wouldn't believe them even if they had the whole foot unless it was in immaculate condition. The arch is made by tendons binding the foot. Is that what inspired the statement, "Haile-Selassie said. "But just as important, the fossil remains provide conclusive proof that A. afarensis could walk upright freely without the use of its hands." Excuse me for be skeptical of someone with an obvious agenda making nonsense statements. That certainly isn't saying the same thing as it is proof that it is an arch. It is just irritating when so called scientists make stupid meaningless statements. And no I don't have any doubt that it apparently walked upright just fine. It wasn't the point.

I find it rather hard to explain why floresiensis doesn't have an arch. Frankly that undermines anyone else that assumes an arch before about 2.5 million years. Stretching the ancestry of floresiensis that far based on someones interpretation of how probably largely reconstructed or incomplete bones are bound in an arch by virtually reconstructed tendons isn't very compelling. Even if true, it isn't particularly meaningful if a flatfooted hominid was living until practically modern times and those flat feet logically probably extends to its entire lineage back to the time of the common ancestor and before. It could have obviously lost the arch but it seems more likely for that to happen in a larger animal. There isn't much difference in the bones so it wouldn't be a shocker if true. A smaller animal like floresiensis would gain some efficiency so it seems rather unlikely to lose it. Efficiency alone doesn't drive evolution. Otherwise we wouldn't have a large brain. It still undermines the logical fallacy of equating bipedalism to an arch.

I caught the reference to it being more like a human foot. That is what inspired the anthropomorphizing statement as if that alone is what implied it was bipedal. That sort of logical bias and other stupid statements like absolute proof that it didn't drag its knuckles makes me not really take much of their other opinions very seriously either. Whoever writes the press releases should have taken a biology class at least in high school. Another link from that article said they stopped short from calling "it" a missing link even though it was talking about some another hominid. It is really irritating reading that sort of thing from scientists. It sounds more like a PR firm promoting the bones.

[bipedalist]

....Stretching the ancestry of floresiensis that far based on someones interpretation of how probably largely reconstructed or incomplete bones are bound in an arch by virtually reconstructed tendons isn't very compelling. Even if true, it isn't particularly meaningful if a flatfooted hominid was living until practically modern times and those flat feet logically probably extends to its entire lineage back to the time of the common ancestor and before. It could have obviously lost the arch but it seems more likely for that to happen in a larger animal. There isn't much difference in the bones so it wouldn't be a shocker if true. A smaller animal like floresiensis would gain some efficiency so it seems rather unlikely to lose it. Efficiency alone doesn't drive evolution. Otherwise we wouldn't have a large brain. It still undermines the logical fallacy of equating bipedalism to an arch.....

How would the possibility of individual variation in a fossil displaying "flat feet" play in here? Just asking?

[Hairy Man]

Meldrum's paper does not address this fossil or offer anything to contest that the fossils indicates an arch in afarensis. Meldrum's paper focuses on the Laetoli trackway showing a midtarsal break in the afarensis foot. You can probably find at least 10 different papers written with interpretations of the Laetoli trackway and what it infers about afarensis, but one of the most prominent was written by Tim White and Gen Suwa, White was in the original excavation of the tracks and also with Suwa on the re-excavation. Only a handfull of people have been able to do so, others have to rely on cast copies and photos. White and Suwa maintained that afarensis did have an arch, and that interpretations of a midtarsal break are based off of casts which do not show the different layers of substrate and holes in the substrate from things like a hammer and chisel and degradation of the tracks. That paper can be read here:

http://onlinelibrary...720409/abstract

Nor will this new fossil paper address Meldrum's Laetoli findings.

Tim White and Gen Suwa's paper is cited extensively throughout Meldrum's - Tim also gets special acknowledgment for giving the writers access to all his material and for insight on their findings. Meldrum's paper wasn't written in a vacuum.

[BobZenor]

How would the possibility of individual variation in a fossil displaying "flat feet" play in here? Just asking?

I am not really sure that I understand what you mean by individual.

We clearly have arches. They are rather precarious in that tendons are what hold them in place so even some modern humans have fallen arches or flat feet. The feet evolved smaller to allow it to be lighter since the compression of the bone in an arch is more efficient. Smaller means that you don't have to swing that big foot around. It is pretty silly to assume that it was required for bipedalism if you assume what I said was true. There is also some spring in the arch but you could have some spring without the arch as well. Arches are more like a refinement. Some hominid would probably have to have larger feet if it lost the arch and/or do something about reinforcing the weak spot of the MT joint. I think that is where people with flat feet hurt themselves, probably the ligaments in there. It certainly doesn't sound like a big deal to lose the arch from an evolutionary perspective.

It bugs me because it is a logical contradiction. Could floresiensis have diverged that long ago? Would an evolved foot with an arch lose it in some very small hominid like floresiensis and if so, why? Saying that you have evidence of an arch 3.5 million years ago means that all early Homo must have had it as well. I guess I am reluctant to extend floresiensis back that far. I have suggested that a very primitive group of hominids likely lived in Asia because of floresiensis. Diverging before 3.5 or 3.9 million years ago is much more extreme than branching off before erectus. Weirder things have happened I suppose.

That would fit anyone's definition of primitive bigfoot ancestor so it certainly isn't about defending any theory. Floresiensis also has the primitive wrist bones and that tiny brain so it isn't out of the question to have diverged that long ago. Either way, it makes little difference with respect to bigfoot. Either a group of rather primitive Asian hominids lost their arch or a very primitive group of Asian hominids never evolved them. Losing it implies that it is no big deal to evolve a more flexible foot. I doubt a flat foot would be perfectly rigid. That would put huge strain on the joint so the question is how flexible would it be.

Edited February 27, 2011 by BobZenor

[Guest]

It bugs me because it is a logical contradiction. Could floresiensis have diverged that long ago? Would an evolved foot with an arch lose it in some very small hominid like floresiensis and if so, why? Saying that you have evidence of an arch 3.5 million years ago means that all early Homo must have had it as well. I guess I am reluctant to extend floresiensis back that far. I have suggested that a very primitive group of hominids likely lived in Asia because of floresiensis. Diverging before 3.5 or 3.9 million years ago is much more extreme than branching off before erectus. Weirder things have happened I suppose.

That would fit anyone's definition of primitive bigfoot ancestor so it certainly isn't about defending any theory. Floresiensis also has the primitive wrist bones and that tiny brain so it isn't out of the question to have diverged that long ago. Either way, it makes little difference with respect to bigfoot. Either a group of rather primitive Asian hominids lost their arch or a very primitive group of Asian hominids never evolved them. Losing it implies that it is no big deal to evolve a more flexible foot. I doubt a flat foot would be perfectly rigid. That would put huge strain on the joint so the question is how flexible would it be.

In chapter five of the book A New Human, the author goes on to describe the characteristics of Homo Floresiensis. it is pointed out that many traits of LB1 seem to be a mix of Homo and the australopithecines. Because of the collar bone there was too much restriction in the movement of the arms for endurance running. It was also suggested that they evolved longer feet to compensate for their relatively short legs.

[wolftrax]

Nor will this new fossil paper address Meldrum's Laetoli findings.

Sure it will. Having an arch would mean that afarensis didn't have a midtarsal break.

Tim White and Gen Suwa's paper is cited extensively throughout Meldrum's - Tim also gets special acknowledgment for giving the writers access to all his material and for insight on their findings. Meldrum's paper wasn't written in a vacuum.

I didn't say Meldrum's paper was written in a vaccuum. you couldn't write a paper on Laetoli without citing White and Suwa. Tim White was also hoping Meldrum had brought his material on sasquatch to share with his class as well. However that doesn't change that White and Suwa have maintained the Laetoli tracks show an arch, contradicting Meldrum's paper.

[wolftrax]

No kidding. That single bone is supposed to demonstrate conclusively that it has an arch. This is the article that says "It shows that our ancestor's shoulder blade" as if it is even established that Kenyanthropus platyops wasn't a better candidate ancestor with its flatter face. I know we can play popularity contest and decide that afarensis is a much better candidate because it is much more popular and someone decided that platyops was an afarensis after all.

The evidence that is supposed to impress me is the bone near the "pinky toe" which I can only assume they mean the outside metatarsal bone. I wouldn't believe them even if they had the whole foot unless it was in immaculate condition. The arch is made by tendons binding the foot. Is that what inspired the statement, "Haile-Selassie said. "But just as important, the fossil remains provide conclusive proof that A. afarensis could walk upright freely without the use of its hands." Excuse me for be skeptical of someone with an obvious agenda making nonsense statements. That certainly isn't saying the same thing as it is proof that it is an arch. It is just irritating when so called scientists make stupid meaningless statements. And no I don't have any doubt that it apparently walked upright just fine. It wasn't the point.

I find it rather hard to explain why floresiensis doesn't have an arch. Frankly that undermines anyone else that assumes an arch before about 2.5 million years. Stretching the ancestry of floresiensis that far based on someones interpretation of how probably largely reconstructed or incomplete bones are bound in an arch by virtually reconstructed tendons isn't very compelling. Even if true, it isn't particularly meaningful if a flatfooted hominid was living until practically modern times and those flat feet logically probably extends to its entire lineage back to the time of the common ancestor and before. It could have obviously lost the arch but it seems more likely for that to happen in a larger animal. There isn't much difference in the bones so it wouldn't be a shocker if true. A smaller animal like floresiensis would gain some efficiency so it seems rather unlikely to lose it. Efficiency alone doesn't drive evolution. Otherwise we wouldn't have a large brain. It still undermines the logical fallacy of equating bipedalism to an arch.

I caught the reference to it being more like a human foot. That is what inspired the anthropomorphizing statement as if that alone is what implied it was bipedal. That sort of logical bias and other stupid statements like absolute proof that it didn't drag its knuckles makes me not really take much of their other opinions very seriously either. Whoever writes the press releases should have taken a biology class at least in high school. Another link from that article said they stopped short from calling "it" a missing link even though it was talking about some another hominid. It is really irritating reading that sort of thing from scientists. It sounds more like a PR firm promoting the bones.

Have you read the paper and have any idea how these people came to their conclusions?

Also, I'm reading here Floresiensis lacked an arch but still had a rigid foot:

The anatomy of the foot described in the new paper might finally answer the pathological modern vs. primitive population question. Although the foot is characteristic of a biped—being stiff and having no opposable big toe—many other traits fall outside of the range for modern humans.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/05/090506144307.htm

[wolftrax]

It bugs me because it is a logical contradiction. Could floresiensis have diverged that long ago? Would an evolved foot with an arch lose it in some very small hominid like floresiensis and if so, why? Saying that you have evidence of an arch 3.5 million years ago means that all early Homo must have had it as well. I guess I am reluctant to extend floresiensis back that far. I have suggested that a very primitive group of hominids likely lived in Asia because of floresiensis. Diverging before 3.5 or 3.9 million years ago is much more extreme than branching off before erectus. Weirder things have happened I suppose.

You do understand that floresiensis lacking an arch has meant that it could have diverged that long ago right? This was thought before this afarensis foot bone was found:

"The fossil record continues to surprise us," says William Jungers, Chairman of the Department of Anatomical Sciences at Stony Brook University Medical Center, and an author on the study. "H. floresiensis is either an island-dwarfed descendant of H. erectus that not only underwent body-size reduction but also extensive evolutionary reversals, or, as our analysis suggests, it represents a new species full of primitive retentions from an ancestor that dispersed out of Africa much earlier than anyone would have predicted. Either way, the implications for human evolution are profound."

Criticism of research based on favoritism for erectus and not the work itself tends to confuse others.

[BobZenor]

You do understand that floresiensis lacking an arch has meant that it could have diverged that long ago right? This was thought before this afarensis foot bone was found:

That is true but it seemed to be rather ignored by their saying that it was an erectus that shrank because of island dwarfism. That seemed to be an effort to make it much more human. They said it made tools comparable to modern humans and hunted pygmy elephants with spears. I have long stated that I don't accept that and thought they were far more primitive and modern humans or our immediate ancestors were likely responsible for the tools. The same story line continues even after they found a very primitive wrist bone that indicates a lack of dexterity needed to make tools. They based that on lack of evidence of modern humans like no paintings in the cave. That is what I am doing. There is a lack of evidence of a much more primitive hominid living in Asia. There must have been a much more primitive lineage in Asia if floresiensis diverged that long ago. I don't mind the lack of evidence as much as most paleontologists do but it would sound rather crack-pot to suggest a lineage that diverged over 3.5 million years lived in Asia. I have made a graph suggesting floresiensis diverging before 2 million years ago. I cut the bottom off because I felt it was controversial at 2 million years. I thought it was actually a conservative estimate but I haven't seen anybody else suggesting it yet. They certainly haven't suggested anything as distantly related as 3.5 million years ago. I think they don't want to stick their necks out even if the evidence suggests it. Also, that might be a thorn in the side of the "Out of Africa" crowd. Someone with the name of a former Ethiopian leader, Haile-Selassie, likely occupies a political position like Leaky (the son) did for Kenya. They favor interpretation that keep their hominids as human ancestors so I am even more skeptical of what they say. It isn't that I doubt African origin. I just see a lot of manipulation and politics. I wouldn't trust a Chinese guy much if he was talking about an ancient erectus.

Criticism of research based on favoritism for erectus and not the work itself tends to confuse others.

I am not sure I understand the point but it seems to be agreeing with my problem about what people were calling erectus. They were assuming that they were all far more closely related to us than the evidence suggested just because someone called them erectus. It clearly went back to the notion that erectus first evolved efficient walking and was thus the first to make it to Asia. It seemed like a very strong bias that wasn't based on anything but speculation. It probably became self-fulfilling. I have only been on the sidelines but have seen interpretations of many of the Asian erectus fossils. It seemed like quite a stretch to assume some of the differences in such a short time. I was just left to question the logic of it all as it didn't really seem to add up. It makes me cynical about their opinions because they seemed to often use circular reasoning to prove their points even when they don't make sense.

Mike Morwood made his bias very plain in the book A New Human and he was so honest he even spelled it out. He was trying to make sure that it wasn't called Australopithecus and largely forgotten like the robust australopithecines in Africa were when they were classified as a different "non-human" genus. He wanted to continue research and the label Homo made that easier.

[Guest vilnoori]

OK have a look at this comparison I made, using photos of footprints online. Some have been "mirrored" so as to all show the left foot, and they have been changed in size to all look the same. However the Laetoli tracks were very small (a small parent and even smaller child, actually) while the Gray's Harbor, WA bigfoot track is very large, over 14 inches and still retains an arch. Mr. V is a size 10. I in no way confirm that the purported Bigfoot tracks are of a real Bigfoot but they look pretty good, better than what is being used by others to represent Bigfoot tracks on this thread.

Keep in mind that humans have a natural arch at certain times in life, and lose it at other times in life, and also it varies with individuals and weights. I would assume the same to be true of other humanlike creatures. We can't assume anything. The neanderthal footprint was large and wide, and yet clearly shows an arch, while the Laetoli track was small and slim, but does not show an obvious arch. In fact it is a very unusual type of foot with the big toe diverging from the rest of the toes and a very pronounced left side to right side arch (and not very much back to front).

My apologies if I have not cited properly, I sometimes pick up these pics online without noting where they are from. Please feel free to fill in the missing info. I'm not sure where the first BF print is from.

Edited February 28, 2011 by vilnoori