Bigger Than Bigfoot

[Guest LAL]

Keep looking further down that page you cited, and you'll find a lot more ooparts, including confirmed human footprints may millions years older than the "accepted" date. And the sources are top notch, journals and such, including Smithsonian articles.

I did read further down. One of those "footprints" appears to be obviously carved. Excuse me but I'm not buying that confirmed humans were leaving footprints millions of years before they evolved.

At least the site gave sources and cited articles.

[Guest HairyGreek]

Since everyone is having such fun with the debate, I have something to stir the pot a little more on the topic of footprints. I will state clearly this article was written from the view of a Creationist, and thus, I have deleted references to the Bible. Also, I am only putting the article and not the link as I don't really feel like hearing I am promulgating one side or the other. I had not heard of the guys who published this until I searched on more info for the original article I posted which they, like LAL, also disagree with the conclusions of. LAL, I know has heard of these guys, but I had not. If anyone wants the direct link, I will provide it in PM. This is actually a great time for me to hear the arguments as this is what is being covered right now in my Biology class. Sharpen your claws and your wits boys and girls...

Laetoli Footprints Out of Step with Evolution

by Brian Thomas, M.S. *

Something or someone supposedly walked across volcanic mud 3.66 million years ago, leaving behind footprints discovered in modern-day Laetoli, Tanzania.1 Many who think modern humans evolved only about two million years ago have resisted interpreting these as human prints, because they are found in sediments that are "too old."

But a new analysis is again challenging the evolutionary interpretation of these prints. Were the tracks made by man, ape…or something strangely in between?

Repeated examinations of the biomechanics required to make this famous set of tracks have consistently shown that they must have been made by something almost exactly identical to modern human feet. An exhaustive study published in 1990, for example, found the "footprint trails at Laetoli site G resemble those of habitually unshod modern humans."2 And a 2010 analysis similarly showed that the Laetoli track maker (or makers) "walked with weight transfer most similar to the economical extended limb bipedalism of humans."3

In a recent study published online in Journal of the Royal Society Interface, researchers compared impressions made by modern man and modern apes with the Laetoli tracks, finding "strong support to those previous studies which have interpreted the G-1 prints as generally modern in aspect."1 That is, the tracks looked like they were produced by modern human feet. Creation researcher John Mackay said, "If these footprints had been found on a beach today no-one would identify them as anything but human."4

If the tracks look like they were made by man, and if study after study repeatedly concludes that the tracks are indistinguishable from those of a human, then why are researchers still questioning their origin? The only reason is that these tracks are out of step with the evolutionary story.

If humans made these tracks, then all the textbooks will have to be re-written to say that humans evolved a million and a half years earlier in evolutionary "time." How embarrassing that would be, especially because these older layers contain fossils of the candidate ape forms from which modern man supposedly evolved. Many evolutionists will not consider that the Laetoli tracks were left by a fully developed Homo sapiens, since that would mean that modern man descended from an ape-like creature that existed after modern man was already alive and walking!

To continue to fit these footprints into an evolutionary scenario, it would seem that the tracks would have had to be made by a creature that was human from the waist down, but ape-like from the waist up. Evolutionary baggage, not scientific data, has forced this warped and imaginative interpretation, for which there is little or no scientific support. Extinct ape-like creatures collectively called australopiths are routinely invoked as the real Laetoli print makers, but none of these fossil forms show feet, legs, or hips the same size and shape as those of humans.

Australopiths were very likely able to "walk" on two legs (i.e., they were bipedal), but they were probably better-suited for living in trees. Their fossilized skeletal remains clearly show that they did not walk with the uniquely human gait that characterizes the Laetoli tracks. For example, one technical review of the subject stated:

Australopithecine bipedalism was more similar to the way a chimp would walk upright than it was to the way a human does….It appears as if they moved their pelvis and lower limbs differently than we do, waddling as they walked.5

Like the human foot bone found in australopith layers,6 the human Laetoli footprints show that modern humans did not evolve millions of years after the earth was formed, but instead have coexisted with animals from the start, including extinct animals like australopiths. (edited the ending out to delete Christian conclusion)

References

1 Crompton, R. H. Human-like external function of the foot, and fully upright gait, confirmed in the 3.66 million year old Laetoli hominin footprints by topographic statistics, experimental footprint-formation and computer simulation. Journal of the Royal Society Interface. Published online before print July 20, 2011.

2 Tuttle, R. H. 1990. The Pitted Pattern of Laetoli Feet. Natural History. 99: 64.

3 Raichlen, D. A. et al. 2010. Laetoli Footprints Preserve Earliest Direct Evidence of Human-Like Bipedal Biomechanics. PLoS One. 5 (3): e9769.

4 Mackay, J. Laetoli Footprints "Surprisingly Modern." Evidence News. Creation Research. Posted on creationresearch.net August 3, 2011, accessed August 5, 2011.

5 Murdock, M. 2006. These apes were made for walking: the pelves of Australopithecus afarensis and

Australopithecus africanus. Journal of Creation. 20 (2): 104-112.

6 Thomas, B. 2011. "Lucy's" New Foot Bone Is Actually Human. Acts & Facts. 40 (4): 17.

[Guest]

It was probably a Sleestak.

[Guest bsruther]

It was probably a Sleestak.

I think you're on to something. Sleestaks lived side by side with the dinosaurs and were bipedal. Where would they fit into the evolutionary chain though?

[Guest HairyGreek]

It was probably a Sleestak.

ROFL...just had a Saturday morning flashback...

[Guest]

I think you're on to something. Sleestaks lived side by side with the dinosaurs and were bipedal. Where would they fit into the evolutionary chain though?

Yes, they are now the basis of the Lizard Man sightings in the Carolinas!

[Guest LAL]

"AbstractThe history of discovery and interpretation of primate footprints at the site of Laetoli in northern Tanzania is reviewed. An analysis of the geological context of these tracks is provided. The hominid tracks in Tuff 7 at Site G in the Garusi River Valley demonstrate bipedality at a mid-Pliocene datum. Comparison of these tracks and the Hadar hominid foot fossils by Tuttle has led him to conclude that Australopithecus afarensis did not make the Tanzanian prints and that a more derived form of hominid is therefore indicated at Laetoli. An alternative interpretation has been offered by Stern and Susman who posit a conforming “transitional morphology†in both the Tanzanian prints and the Ethiopian bones. The present study examines both hypotheses and shows that neither is likely to be entirely correct. To illustrate this point, a reconstruction of the foot skeleton of a female A. afarensis is undertaken, and the results are compared to the Laetoli tracks. We conclude that A. afarensis represents the best candidate for the maker of the Laetoli hominid trails."

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

[Guest HairyGreek]

"AbstractThe history of discovery and interpretation of primate footprints at the site of Laetoli in northern Tanzania is reviewed. An analysis of the geological context of these tracks is provided. The hominid tracks in Tuff 7 at Site G in the Garusi River Valley demonstrate bipedality at a mid-Pliocene datum. Comparison of these tracks and the Hadar hominid foot fossils by Tuttle has led him to conclude that Australopithecus afarensis did not make the Tanzanian prints and that a more derived form of hominid is therefore indicated at Laetoli. An alternative interpretation has been offered by Stern and Susman who posit a conforming “transitional morphology†in both the Tanzanian prints and the Ethiopian bones. The present study examines both hypotheses and shows that neither is likely to be entirely correct. To illustrate this point, a reconstruction of the foot skeleton of a female A. afarensis is undertaken, and the results are compared to the Laetoli tracks. We conclude that A. afarensis represents the best candidate for the maker of the Laetoli hominid trails."

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

So...where did they get the foot bones to reconstruct it? Here is Lucy, the most complete fossil find of a Australopithecus afarensis...

[Guest]

I think you're on to something. Sleestaks lived side by side with the dinosaurs and were bipedal. Where would they fit into the evolutionary chain though?

There is no fossil record to prove it but then we barely have enough complete fossils to document every hominid that we know existed, much less what might have existed. There is no telling what rose up out of the primordial ooze before we arrived on the scene. It's either the lizard man, a.k.a. Sleestak, or a time traveler.

Y'all need to read Kage Baker's series that deals with The Company who develop cyborgs that travel back in time to retrieve extinct species of plants and animals, lost documents, art work, and anything else deemed valuable in the future. Great series!!

[Guest LAL]

So...where did they get the foot bones to reconstruct it? Here is Lucy, the most complete fossil find of a Australopithecus afarensis...

Lucy is one of over 300 individuals represented in the fossil record. A. afarensis is the best known of the ancient hominids. No remains of any other hominid have been found in the area so it might be reasonable to assume the trackways were left by A. afarensis. Since McKay seems to have been paraphrasing Dr. White I thought you might like to know what Dr. White had to say. The quote is as follows:

" 'Make no mistake about it.' says Tim. 'Thev are like modern footprints. If one were left in the sand of a California beach today, and a four-year-old were asked what it was, he would instantly say that somebody had walked there. He wouldn't be able to tell it from a hundred other prints on the beach, nor would you. The external morphology is the same. There is a well-shaped modern heel with a strong arch and a good ball of the foot in front of it. The big toe is straight in line. It doesn't stick out to the side like an ape toe, or like the big toe in so many drawings you see of australopithecines in books. I don't mean to say that there may not have been some slight differences in the foot bones; that's to be expected. But to all intents and purposes, those Laetoli hominids walked like you and me, and not in a shuffling run, as so many people have claimed for so long. Owen Lovejoy deduced all that from studying the Hadar bones. Now the footprints prove him right. I think they rank with the most wonderful and illuminating discoveries in decades. Although it didn't end too happily for me, I'm still grateful that. I was lucky enough to have participated in the work on them.' "

http://www.ntz.info/gen/n01243.html#id03281

"Australopithecus appears in the record at about 4 million years ago, but slightly older jaw and limb fragments may also belong to the genus. The youngest Australopithecus specimens are from deposits a little beyond one million years ago and are contemporary with Homo erectus. Comparisons between the DNA of modern humans and living great apes of Africa (the chimpanzees and the gorilla) have shown that these creatures, the pongids, are our closest living relatives. Australopithecus was neither an ape nor a human. All Australopithecus species had skeletons consistent with upright, striding bipedalism, and this unique hominid mode of locomotion is indicated in many parts of the skeleton. The fossilized Laetoli footprints attributed to this species are consistent with this interpretation of the skeletal anatomy. The genus is therefore included in our own zoological family, the Hominidae. Virtually all bones of the body are known for A. afarensis and A. africanus, but skeletal parts for A. robustus and A. boisei are more poorly known, and A. aethiopicus is unknown below the cranium." - Tim D. White

Read more: Australopithecus and Homo Habilis - History of Discovery and Interpretation, Australopithecus Today, Australopithecus, Homo habilis, Australopithecus africanus, Paranthropus robustus, Australopithecus robustus http://www.jrank.org/history/pages/5925/Australopithecus-Homo-Habilis.html#ixzz1UxkeZkaQ"

[Guest HairyGreek]

Since McKay seems to have been paraphrasing Dr. White I thought you might like to know what Dr. White had to say. The quote is as follows:

Very interesting information! Thanks for sharing. I really appreciate you always providing links for research instead of just posting aimless speculation or opinion. This is good stuff.

BTW - I still cannot find any of the A.A.s they have found to have any more than Lucy who included one toe bone (i.e. - she is still out of over the 300 the most complete). They rely heavily on computer modeling to create the foot they are talking about. They do the same to finish the skull/skeleton and look of the full body model. I am sorry, but some of this stuff is really hard for me to accept as science once I read how they do this. It just seems like best guesses based on presuppositions. Like anything you put into a computer, you add what you expect to see in it...what you want to see. Artist renditions do the same.

Also, the other A.A.s they have found are sometimes single bones that simply fit into a certain size, in a certain geography, in a certain time period from carbon dating. This is very hard for me to swallow sometimes that this stuff is true; not individual parts of it, just the whole of it. I don't know...gotta keep studying all of this stuff. The more I study either view, I am left with more questions than answers. Again, I thank you for trying to help me answer some of them. These links are great for class.

[Guest LAL]

Again, I thank you for trying to help me answer some of them. These links are great for class.

You're welcome. Carbon14 dating isn't used on anything that old. Fossils are dated using six different methods so there's little chance for error. For some really good information on how reconstruction is done see

The Last Human: A Guide to Twenty-Two Species of Extinct Humans.

You may have seen Dr. Sarmiento on Monster Quest or Sasquatch: Legend Meets Science.

Edited August 14, 2011 by LAL

[Doc Holliday]

It was probably a Sleestak.

thanks jodie, now ive got the theme song,link here stuck in my head

[Guest wild eyed willy]

http://simonthongwh.wordpress.com/2011/05/24/man-to-apes-lucy-australopethicus-afarensis/

This says it all concerning Lucy

[Guest wild eyed willy]

Jodie,

you seem to be hooked on time travel, so here is a possible reason why the footprints found all over the place arent time travelers.

Any time travelers would be very carfull not to leave signs they were there. this would be a given.

time travelers would be wearing footwear with traction soles.. Not barefeet or sandles.

Time travelers would have to be certain they did not change any occurance that took place or the entire future could be drastically changed.

Last the air was different back in time, a different make up of oxigen, nitrogen and carbondioxide.. I'm not sure, but I don't think modern humans could breath it. gravity may have also been different back then.

As tempting as it might be to think about going back in time, there would be too much risk involved and any intelligent person would know the risks were too great and would certainly forgo the mission. simply put, one would have to be a complete idiot to travel back in time and anyone smart enough to build a time machine wouldn't be an idiot. so no time machines, sorry, not now, not ever.