SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Footprints on Greek island are 5.7 million years old
Fossil footprints laid down more than five million years ago in what is now Crete could belong to a previously unknown primate, and perhaps even an ancient hominin — an animal more closely related to humans than to chimps.
Per Ahlberg at Uppsala University in Sweden and his colleagues identified more than 50 fossil traces in an area less than 4 metres square. The animal responsible for the prints — left some 5.7 million years ago — was probably claw-less, bipedal, walked on the soles of its feet, and had other hominin-like characteristics.
Also at Uppsala University:
Human feet have a very distinctive shape, different from all other land animals. The combination of a long sole, five short forward-pointing toes without claws, and a hallux ("big toe") that is larger than the other toes, is unique. The feet of our closest relatives, the great apes, look more like a human hand with a thumb-like hallux that sticks out to the side.
[...] The new footprints, from Trachilos in western Crete, have an unmistakably human-like form. This is especially true of the toes. The big toe is similar to our own in shape, size and position; it is also associated with a distinct 'ball' on the sole, which is never present in apes. The sole of the foot is proportionately shorter than in the Laetoli prints, but it has the same general form. In short, the shape of the Trachilos prints indicates unambiguously that they belong to an early hominin, somewhat more primitive than the Laetoli trackmaker. They were made on a sandy seashore, possibly a small river delta, whereas the Laetoli tracks were made in volcanic ash.
Possible hominin footprints from the late Miocene (c. 5.7 Ma) of Crete? (DOI: 10.1016/j.pgeola.2017.07.006) (DX)
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Runaway1956 on Monday September 04 2017, @10:55AM (10 children)
Just because it walked erect doesn't mean it's homo-anything. We've figured out that man didn't descend from ANY of today's simian families. There was a predecessor common to both the hominids and the simians. Maybe this was the very first homo-something, and maybe it wasn't. They may well be looking at the footprints left by that common ancestor. Monkeys and apes can mostly walk upright, for short distances, right? Maybe they simply reverted after the common ancestor mastered walking upright. Our branch of the family thought it was a great idea, and kept the habit.
It often seems that "researchers" read to much into what they see. Footprints. We at least need a foot that matches the prints.
Ah, from the same site - https://hidden-truth.net/2017/07/everything-taught-human-origins-lie/ [hidden-truth.net]
https://hidden-truth.net/2017/07/tiny-human-fossils-found-antarctica/ [hidden-truth.net]
https://hidden-truth.net/2017/08/infant-skull-last-common-ancestor-apes-unearthed-kenya/ [hidden-truth.net]
This may or may not be a credible site. It would seem a lot more credible if the stories weren't written with such self-assurance. "We found something mysterious, and we're trying to figure things out." Instead, we get dramatic statements, "Everything you've been taught about mankind is wrong!" Bullshit.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by c0lo on Monday September 04 2017, @11:50AM
Same site as what?
TFS has links to 3 sites: nature.com, uu.se and sciencedirect.com, you had me confused claiming that hidden-truth.net is same with any of them.
Here's the PDF article [els-cdn.com], undigested. It's title is "Possible hominin footprints from the late Miocene (c. 5.7 Ma) of Crete?".
You notice that final question mark? Doesn't seem quite as outrageously self-assuring as you accuse it.
Ask aristarchus to show his [soylentnews.org]. I can tell with a high level of self-assurance it is his.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 2) by HiThere on Monday September 04 2017, @05:50PM
Excuse me, but I have trouble taking anything posted on/by hidden-truth.net seriously. Do you have some reason to believe them?
I'm assuming they are affiliated with hidden-truth.org which says:
Revealing Hidden Technologies and Truths on UFO's, Ancient Mysteries...
Now that's all I could see, as neither site will show up without enabling scripts...but it's not something that causes me to take them seriously.
Javascript is what you use to allow unknown third parties to run software you have no idea about on your computer.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 04 2017, @06:04PM
I went to the original article (elsevier journal, let's not talk about that). It's free to read, so you can too.
I wanted to see the pictures, to get an intuitive notion of why they believe they have this result.
In any case, they seem to make a good job of listing their reasons for both the age, and the interpretation of the footprints.
I did not try to follow them, since I don't have the time, and for now my assumption is that there may be something wrong with the dating.
But the main message is that you can look at the original article, and they have original pictures of the site (plus altered to emphasize shapes etc), and you can decide for yourself if/where there's a problem in their argument.
(Score: 3, Informative) by NotSanguine on Monday September 04 2017, @06:24PM
In denial and talking about yourself again, Runaway?
Except that the links in TFA don't come from that site at all. I'd wonder aloud as to you doing a better astroturfing job, but it is you after all.
What's wrong Runaway? Have you not had your booty bump [tweaker.org] today?
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 2) by Joe Desertrat on Monday September 04 2017, @08:56PM
It is a common issue with these "science for the masses" sites. I suppose it is great that they are at least trying to bring science stories to public view, but do they really have to headline every story with National Enquirer style headlines? Some follow the "self assured" route that your linked site does, others present everything as an astonishing new discovery despite the fact the story itself may be old or expected news.
(Score: 2) by PartTimeZombie on Monday September 04 2017, @09:56PM
Come on now, you know hidden-truth.net is not credible, it's just a mish-mash of conspiracy nonsense for the gullible.
I started reading the first link you put up, and it's just a list of assertions about manufactured objects found in lumps of coal, no evidence given.
The picture of the bell supposed to come from a lump of 300 million year old coal looks an awful lot like a cheap souvenir my Mother bought about 30 years ago.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 05 2017, @05:57AM (3 children)
Is there anything you don't fancy yourself an unwaverable authority on? You're insufferable in that regard...well, and others.
Also, you criticising someone else for writing with "such self-assurance" is generating super-massive black holes of irony, my friend.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Tuesday September 05 2017, @10:23AM (2 children)
I have an opinion on almost everything. If you don't like my opinions, why do you read them? You seem to be suffering from one psychoses or another. Do you also self flagellate?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 05 2017, @11:37AM (1 child)
Why did you post links to a site that TFA did NOT link to any part of, then you inferred that these links were to the same site as the TFA links?
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Tuesday September 05 2017, @12:37PM
I found the story after it had gone into the queue for publishing, but before it came up on front page. I googled the title. Found that site, and a couple more that were equally crap. Ehhh - win some, lose some. Next time you have a question, just ask it. Don't beat around the bush like some butthurt schoolkid. You may say I screwed that one up - but I'm still not convinced the scientists know WTF they are talking about. They found footprints where they didn't expect to. My comments in that discussion stand, even if I found a different source than was in original submission.