worlds oldest footprint found in kenya - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

dlish · 02-27-2009, 05:39 AM

worlds oldest footprint found in kenya

this is sure to bring the debate back up again. what does everyone think?

i think this may be one back for those that think that there is a creator and that we didnt evolve from apes.

interesting nonetheless.

Quote:

World's oldest footprint found in Kenya | World News | News.com.au

World's oldest footprint found in Kenya
From correspondents in Washington
Agence France-Presse
February 27, 2009 03:18pm

ANCIENT fossil footprints dating back 1.5 million years have been discovered in Kenya, the oldest evidence yet that our ancestors walked like present-day humans. The footprints were discovered in two sedimentary layers near Ileret in northern Kenya and revealed an essentially modern human-like foot anatomy.

The impressions came from the Homo ergaster, or early Homo erectus, the first hominid whose longer legs and shorter arms corresponded to the body proportions of the modern Homo sapiens, the study's authors said.

The footprints provided information on the soft tissue form and structure that are not usually available in fossilized bones, explained Matthew Bennett of Bournemouth University in Britain, the lead author of the study published in the journal Science.

Professor Bennett scanned and digitized the footprint to make sure that comparisons with modern human and other fossil hominid footprints were objective.

The upper sediment layer contained three footprint trails: two trails of two prints each, a trail of seven prints and several isolated prints.

The other sediment layer, five metres deeper, preserved a trail of two prints and a smaller isolated print that the authors said probably was that of a child.

In all specimens, the big toe was parallel to the other toes, unlike apes, whose big toes are separated to help grasping tree branches. The Ileret footprints also show a pronounced arch and short toes that are human-like and are usually associated with the ability to walk on two feet.

Several Homo ergaster and Homo erectus fossils dating from the same era as the Ileret prints have been found in Tanzania, Ethiopia, Kenya and South Africa.

In 1978, British archeologist and anthropologist Mary Leakey discovered footprints in Laetoli, Tanzania that dated back 3.6 million years. But those prints were attributed to a less advanced creature, the Australopithecus afarensis, that showed a shallower arch and a more ape-like separated big toe

PonyPotato · 02-27-2009, 06:23 AM

How would this be a point for creationists? Or does "one back" mean one point less for them? I'm not sure what you mean.

The Laetoli footprints date to 3.6 million years ago. These more modern footprints are 1.5 million years old. Since when is 2.1 million years NOT long enough for the foot to evolve, along the same lines as the full-body evolution shown in the hominin line?

I studied anthropology in college. I'm a huge proponent of Darwin and evolution. I love studying hominin and hominid fossils.

Sue · 02-27-2009, 06:46 AM

That's really cool. I love hearing about new findings like this

Baraka_Guru · 02-27-2009, 07:13 AM

This is indeed quite fascinating. I love who even today we are still learning more about ourselves and the world. We still know so little.

* * * * *

Quote:

Originally Posted by dlish

this is sure to bring the debate back up again. what does everyone think?

Oh that.

I'm hoping an increasing number of Christians will wake up.

Archbishop: stop teaching creationism | UK news | The Guardian

dlish · 02-27-2009, 07:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PonyPotato

How would this be a point for creationists? Or does "one back" mean one point less for them? I'm not sure what you mean.

The Laetoli footprints date to 3.6 million years ago. These more modern footprints are 1.5 million years old. Since when is 2.1 million years NOT long enough for the foot to evolve, along the same lines as the full-body evolution shown in the hominin line?

I studied anthropology in college. I'm a huge proponent of Darwin and evolution. I love studying hominin and hominid fossils.

i meant one point for creationists.

from what im reading of it, is that this is the oldest footprint of the closest human found. not sure, but are homo ergasters' considered human or sub human? im assuming that the laetoli fossil dating 3.6 million years is considered closer to the ape species and less human?

i really dont know all that much about anthropology. but i would love to hear from a proponent of the creationists point of view as well as from darwinists.

BadNick · 02-27-2009, 08:10 AM

On NPR this morning I heard an interview with the British scientist who lead the discovery team...I think it was Matt Bennett as mentioned above. He was literally giddy with excitement and admitted it excites him ever day.

I love hominds and even married one.

Hektore · 02-27-2009, 12:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dlish

i meant one point for creationists.

from what im reading of it, is that this is the oldest footprint of the closest human found. not sure, but are homo ergasters' considered human or sub human? im assuming that the laetoli fossil dating 3.6 million years is considered closer to the ape species and less human?

i really dont know all that much about anthropology. but i would love to hear from a proponent of the creationists point of view as well as from darwinists.

The depends on what you mean by human/sub-human and in the spirit of helping you form one (If you haven't already) I'm going to post 3 paragraphs from an essay by Richard Dawkins titled "Gaps in the Mind".

Quote:

Originally Posted by Richard Dawkins

Happenings are sometimes organised at which thousands of people hold hands and form a human chain, say from coast to coast of the United States, in aid of some cause or charity. Let us imagine setting one up along the equator, across the width of our home continent of Africa. It is a special kind of chain, involving parents and children, and we will have to play tricks with time in order to imagine it. You stand on the shore of the Indian Ocean in southern Somalia, facing north, and in your left hand you hold the right hand of your mother. In turn she holds the hand of her mother, your grandmother. Your grandmother holds her mother's hand, and so on. The chain wends its way up the beach, into the arid scrubland and westwards on towards the Kenya border.

How far do we have to go until we reach our common ancestor with the chimpanzees? It is a surprisingly short way. Allowing one yard per person, we arrive at the ancestor we share with chimpanzees in under 300 miles. We have hardly started to cross the continent; we are still not half way to the Great Rift Valley. The ancestor is standing well to the east of Mount Kenya, and holding in her hand an entire chain of her lineal descendants, culminating in you standing on the Somali beach.

The daughter that she is holding in her right hand is the one from whom we are descended. Now the arch-ancestress turns eastward to face the coast, and with her left hand grasps her other daughter, the one from whom the chimpanzees are descended (or son, of course, but let's stick to females for convenience). The two sisters are facing one another, and each holding their mother by the hand. Now the second daughter, the chimpanzee ancestress, holds her daughter's hand, and a new chain is formed, proceeding back towards the coast. First cousin faces first cousin, second cousin faces second cousin, and so on. By the time the folded-back chain has reached the coast again, it consists of modern chimpanzees. You are face to face with your chimpanzee cousin, and you are joined to her by an unbroken chain of mothers holding hands with daughters. If you walked up the line like an inspecting general -past Homo erectus, Homo habilis, perhaps Australopithecus afarensis -and down again the other side (the intermediates on the chimpanzee side are unnamed because, as it happens, no fossils have been found), you would nowhere find any sharp discontinuity. Daughters would resemble mothers just as much (or as little) as they always do. Mothers would love daughters, and feel affinity with them, just as they always And this hand-in-hand continuum, joining us seamlessly to chimpanzees, is so short that it barely makes it past the hinterland of Africa, the mother continent.

The essay if available in full at: Gaps in the Mind, by Richard Dawkins and is well worth the read if/when you have time. I first found it in his book A Devil's Chaplain.

I'm not really sure if this is place to beat this drum or not, but it seems to me as good a place as any. It is getting to the point where I don't feel it is incredibly useful to distinguish fossils in our recent ancestry as non/sub/human. The gaps, or spaces where our fossil records lapse are artifacts of the record itself. The lines between say erectus and habilis are imaginary, if we were fortunate enough to discover many, many fossils in our lineage, even the naming conventions would even cease to apply. Choosing whether fossil 3876 of 6500 in a lineage belonged to erectus or habilis would be nigh impossible, even defining characteristics developed in steps and a person would have no substantial claim to drawing the line at 3876 instead of 3875.

More useful (or entertaining) questions, I think, are how does this evidence from the changing foot relate to our changing lifestyle at that time, and what other evidence can we add to this (such as the climate/environment) that will enhance our understanding of ourselves and how we came to be.

I'm about to marry a hominid as well, strange coincidence.

World's King · 02-27-2009, 12:58 PM

Oldest footprint...

It must belong to Larry King.

Fremen · 02-27-2009, 06:07 PM

I hope the footprint wasn't in cryptogamic soil, but if it was, it's had time to grow more crust.

gardens · 02-27-2009, 10:58 PM

am I the only one who when I see or hear about a footprint I always wonder what were they doing when they left it

what bothers me is the whole issue of defining "God" to linear time whose to say that the method "he" used/ is using isn't evolution

never could see why the RR wacko fundies feel that any mortal danger could threaten their "God"s existence

murp0434 · 03-01-2009, 01:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gardens

am I the only one who when I see or hear about a footprint I always wonder what were they doing when they left it

what bothers me is the whole issue of defining "God" to linear time whose to say that the method "he" used/ is using isn't evolution

never could see why the RR wacko fundies feel that any mortal danger could threaten their "God"s existence

That's what I always wonder! and did he step in the mud that he made the print in, lift up his foot and go DAMMIT! before proceeding? whooptie doo if it was a sub human or a super ape I'd like to know what they were up to

Teufel Hunden · 03-01-2009, 06:17 PM

I think it's awesome things like this can be preserved for so long. Historical discoveries are always cool.

Willravel · 03-01-2009, 06:38 PM

This is really cool. Look at the toe location along the top. It almost seems as if the second toe were sitting on top of the first and third does, like there may have been some sort of injury that didn't heal correctly. And the arc is really abrupt. I couldn't even begin to guess if sediment could have formed on top, but if it didn't this particular hominid could have had much larger arches or may not have even walked heel to toe.

You can see Homo ergaster and Homo erectus towards the bottom right.

02-27-2009, 06:23 AM	#2 (permalink)
PonyPotato Soaring Location: Ohio!	How would this be a point for creationists? Or does "one back" mean one point less for them? I'm not sure what you mean. The Laetoli footprints date to 3.6 million years ago. These more modern footprints are 1.5 million years old. Since when is 2.1 million years NOT long enough for the foot to evolve, along the same lines as the full-body evolution shown in the hominin line? I studied anthropology in college. I'm a huge proponent of Darwin and evolution. I love studying hominin and hominid fossils. __________________ "Without passion man is a mere latent force and possibility, like the flint which awaits the shock of the iron before it can give forth its spark." — Henri-Frédéric Amiel

02-27-2009, 06:46 AM	#3 (permalink)
Sue Teufel Hunden's Freundin Location: Westminster, CO	That's really cool. I love hearing about new findings like this __________________ Teg yw edrych tuag adref.

02-27-2009, 12:58 PM	#8 (permalink)
World's King Here Location: Denver City Denver	Oldest footprint... It must belong to Larry King. __________________ heavy is the head that wears the crown

02-27-2009, 06:07 PM	#9 (permalink)
Fremen With a mustache, the cool factor would be too much Location: left side of my couch, East Texas	I hope the footprint wasn't in cryptogamic soil, but if it was, it's had time to grow more crust. __________________ Google

02-27-2009, 08:10 AM	#6 (permalink)
BadNick Riding the Ocean Spray Location: S.E. PA in U Sofa	On NPR this morning I heard an interview with the British scientist who lead the discovery team...I think it was Matt Bennett as mentioned above. He was literally giddy with excitement and admitted it excites him ever day. I love hominds and even married one.

02-27-2009, 10:58 PM	#10 (permalink)
gardens Tilted Location: Kolob	am I the only one who when I see or hear about a footprint I always wonder what were they doing when they left it what bothers me is the whole issue of defining "God" to linear time whose to say that the method "he" used/ is using isn't evolution never could see why the RR wacko fundies feel that any mortal danger could threaten their "God"s existence

03-01-2009, 06:17 PM	#12 (permalink)
Teufel Hunden Upright Location: Lafayette, CO	I think it's awesome things like this can be preserved for so long. Historical discoveries are always cool.

03-01-2009, 06:38 PM	#13 (permalink)
Willravel ... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.	This is really cool. Look at the toe location along the top. It almost seems as if the second toe were sitting on top of the first and third does, like there may have been some sort of injury that didn't heal correctly. And the arc is really abrupt. I couldn't even begin to guess if sediment could have formed on top, but if it didn't this particular hominid could have had much larger arches or may not have even walked heel to toe. You can see Homo ergaster and Homo erectus towards the bottom right.