Footprint evidence of early hominin locomotor diversity at Laetoli,
Tanzania.

Abstract

Bipedal trackways discovered in 1978 at Laetoli site G, Tanzania and
dated to 3.66 million years ago are widely accepted as the oldest
unequivocal evidence of obligate bipedalism in the human lineage.
Another trackway discovered two years earlier at nearby site A was
partially excavated and attributed to a hominin, but curious
affinities with bears (ursids) marginalized its importance to the
paleoanthropological community, and the location of these footprints
fell into obscurity. In 2019, we located, excavated and cleaned the
site A trackway, producing a digital archive using 3D photogrammetry
and laser scanning. Here we compare the footprints at this site with
those of American black bears, chimpanzees and humans, and we show
that they resemble those of hominins more than ursids. In fact, the
narrow step width corroborates the original interpretation of a small,
cross-stepping bipedal hominin. However, the inferred foot
proportions, gait parameters and 3D morphologies of footprints at site
A are readily distinguished from those at site G, indicating that a
minimum of two hominin taxa with different feet and gaits coexisted at
Laetoli.

Open access:
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-021-04187-7

Pandora wrote:
> Footprint evidence of early hominin locomotor diversity at Laetoli,
> Tanzania.
>
> Abstract
>
> Bipedal trackways discovered in 1978 at Laetoli site G, Tanzania and
> dated to 3.66 million years ago are widely accepted as the oldest
> unequivocal evidence of obligate bipedalism in the human lineage.
> Another trackway discovered two years earlier at nearby site A was
> partially excavated and attributed to a hominin, but curious
> affinities with bears (ursids) marginalized its importance to the
> paleoanthropological community, and the location of these footprints
> fell into obscurity. In 2019, we located, excavated and cleaned the
> site A trackway, producing a digital archive using 3D photogrammetry
> and laser scanning. Here we compare the footprints at this site with
> those of American black bears, chimpanzees and humans, and we show
> that they resemble those of hominins more than ursids. In fact, the
> narrow step width corroborates the original interpretation of a small,
> cross-stepping bipedal hominin. However, the inferred foot
> proportions, gait parameters and 3D morphologies of footprints at site
> A are readily distinguished from those at site G, indicating that a
> minimum of two hominin taxa with different feet and gaits coexisted at
> Laetoli.
>
> Open access:
> https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-021-04187-7
>

As reported by Ohio University:

<https://www.ohio.edu/news/2021/12/ohio-university-researcher-footprints-site-laetoli-tanzania-are-early-humans-not-bears>

Some good background bits.

On 1.12.2021. 19:12, Pandora wrote:
> Footprint evidence of early hominin locomotor diversity at Laetoli,
> Tanzania.
>
> Abstract
>
> Bipedal trackways discovered in 1978 at Laetoli site G, Tanzania and
> dated to 3.66 million years ago are widely accepted as the oldest
> unequivocal evidence of obligate bipedalism in the human lineage.
> Another trackway discovered two years earlier at nearby site A was
> partially excavated and attributed to a hominin, but curious
> affinities with bears (ursids) marginalized its importance to the
> paleoanthropological community, and the location of these footprints
> fell into obscurity. In 2019, we located, excavated and cleaned the
> site A trackway, producing a digital archive using 3D photogrammetry
> and laser scanning. Here we compare the footprints at this site with
> those of American black bears, chimpanzees and humans, and we show
> that they resemble those of hominins more than ursids. In fact, the
> narrow step width corroborates the original interpretation of a small,
> cross-stepping bipedal hominin. However, the inferred foot
> proportions, gait parameters and 3D morphologies of footprints at site
> A are readily distinguished from those at site G, indicating that a
> minimum of two hominin taxa with different feet and gaits coexisted at
> Laetoli.
>
> Open access:
> https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-021-04187-7

Why everybody neglects Trachilos footprints? What does "unequivocally"
means in paleoanthropology? Or in science? Does it mean that everything
that isn't firmly established can be neglected? Some idiot says that I
don't like this evidence, because it doesn't have the right smell, and
this is the "reason" for you to neglect *any* evidence? How can somebody
write what is written in this abstract, while Trachilos footprints are
around? Is the guy who wrote this an idiot. If he is an idiot, why
aren't his papers neglected? If he is an idiot, why doesn't somebody
tell him so? Are the rest of them any smarter? What doesn't the "Nature"
think about this? Do they even think?

--
https://groups.google.com/g/human-evolution
human-evolution@googlegroups.com

On 2.12.2021. 8:03, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
> On 1.12.2021. 19:12, Pandora wrote:
>> Footprint evidence of early hominin locomotor diversity at Laetoli,
>> Tanzania.
>>
>> Abstract
>>
>> Bipedal trackways discovered in 1978 at Laetoli site G, Tanzania and
>> dated to 3.66 million years ago are widely accepted as the oldest
>> unequivocal evidence of obligate bipedalism in the human lineage.
>> Another trackway discovered two years earlier at nearby site A was
>> partially excavated and attributed to a hominin, but curious
>> affinities with bears (ursids) marginalized its importance to the
>> paleoanthropological community, and the location of these footprints
>> fell into obscurity. In 2019, we located, excavated and cleaned the
>> site A trackway, producing a digital archive using 3D photogrammetry
>> and laser scanning. Here we compare the footprints at this site with
>> those of American black bears, chimpanzees and humans, and we show
>> that they resemble those of hominins more than ursids. In fact, the
>> narrow step width corroborates the original interpretation of a small,
>> cross-stepping bipedal hominin. However, the inferred foot
>> proportions, gait parameters and 3D morphologies of footprints at site
>> A are readily distinguished from those at site G, indicating that a
>> minimum of two hominin taxa with different feet and gaits coexisted at
>> Laetoli.
>>
>> Open access:
>> https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-021-04187-7
>
>         Why everybody neglects Trachilos footprints? What does
> "unequivocally" means in paleoanthropology? Or in science? Does it mean
> that everything that isn't firmly established can be neglected? Some
> idiot says that I don't like this evidence, because it doesn't have the
> right smell, and this is the "reason" for you to neglect *any* evidence?
> How can somebody write what is written in this abstract, while Trachilos
> footprints are around? Is the guy who wrote this an idiot. If he is an
> idiot, why aren't his papers neglected? If he is an idiot, why doesn't
> somebody tell him so? Are the rest of them any smarter? What doesn't the
> "Nature" think about this? Do they even think?

Gee, this post has more than the usual amount of mistakes. I
apologize. It must be something in the air, :) :
https://youtu.be/q9tMSfC7E38

--
https://groups.google.com/g/human-evolution
human-evolution@googlegroups.com

On 2.12.2021. 16:26, littor...@gmail.com wrote:
> Op donderdag 2 december 2021 om 08:03:44 UTC+1 schreef Mario Petrinovic:
>
>
>>> https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-021-04187-7
>
>> Why everybody neglects Trachilos footprints?
>
> Neglect Trachilos?? On the contrary, google
> "ape human evolution made easy PPT Verhaegen"

Hm, I said "everybody", not Marc Verheagen, ;). But, thanks for
noticing me, :).
Anyway, isn't it strange? I mean, this was the news from 4 years ago,
everybody should know about it. Controversies? Well, I would really like
to see the guy who puts this in question. It doesn't fit old paradigm?
Well, does this means that we should stay with the old paradigm
infinitely, no matter what new evidence emerges? Why? Because it is
established, and all the scientists, actually, want is to be
established? Who's crazy here? Me? Because I am not established? Jesus,
thankfully, I am dealing with smart humans, what would be if I would
deal with not so smart humans?

--
https://groups.google.com/g/human-evolution
human-evolution@googlegroups.com

Op donderdag 2 december 2021 om 22:51:47 UTC+1 schreef Mario Petrinovic:

> >>> https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-021-04187-7

> >> Why everybody neglects Trachilos footprints?

> > Neglect Trachilos?? On the contrary, google
> > "ape human evolution made easy PPT Verhaegen"

> Hm, I said "everybody", not Marc Verheagen, ;). But, thanks for
> noticing me, :).

Hm, it's Verhaegen, Mario, not Verheagen:
in 16th-cent.Dutch, "vowel + e" indicated vowel lengthening:
"Verhaegen" < van der haegen (cf. Vanderbilt) means "from the hedge".
The name Verhaegen is common here (google),
e.g. the man who founded the university of Brussels.

On 3.12.2021. 17:22, littor...@gmail.com wrote:
> Op donderdag 2 december 2021 om 22:51:47 UTC+1 schreef Mario Petrinovic:
>>>>> https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-021-04187-7
>
>>>> Why everybody neglects Trachilos footprints?
>
>>> Neglect Trachilos?? On the contrary, google
>>> "ape human evolution made easy PPT Verhaegen"
>
>> Hm, I said "everybody", not Marc Verheagen, ;). But, thanks for
>> noticing me, :).
>
> Hm, it's Verhaegen, Mario, not Verheagen:
> in 16th-cent.Dutch, "vowel + e" indicated vowel lengthening:
> "Verhaegen" < van der haegen (cf. Vanderbilt) means "from the hedge".
> The name Verhaegen is common here (google),
> e.g. the man who founded the university of Brussels.

Jesus Christ, I cannot believe this. I know that I am doing this
mistake, and I stared in your name in the address, while typing it, and
I still made the same mistake. There must be something terribly wrong
with me.
Thanks for telling me, and sorry about that.
In Croatian we only have five vowels, a, e, i, o, u. Anything else is
space technology to me, which I don't understand at all. I even cannot
imagine the difference. So, "ae", or "ea", to me is just the same mess.
And I really don't know how to evade this. I mean, you cannot do better
that staring onto the name, and typing it. What else can I do? Jesus. I
mean, from when I was just a little, I always had problems with names.
Everything else functioned well, especially mathematics and physics. But
names I couldn't grasp at all. And still I cannot. I always use
nicknames in everyday life, with nicknames I am alright. Sorry, again.
And if I mess up again, please, just shoot, if you feel like.

--
https://groups.google.com/g/human-evolution
human-evolution@googlegroups.com

Op zaterdag 4 december 2021 om 00:02:38 UTC+1 schreef Mario Petrinovic:

> >>>>> https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-021-04187-7

> >>>> Why everybody neglects Trachilos footprints?

> >>> Neglect Trachilos?? On the contrary, google
> >>> "ape human evolution made easy PPT Verhaegen"

> >> Hm, I said "everybody", not Marc Verheagen, ;). But, thanks for
> >> noticing me, :).

> > Hm, it's Verhaegen, Mario, not Verheagen:
> > in 16th-cent.Dutch, "vowel + e" indicated vowel lengthening:
> > "Verhaegen" < van der haegen (cf. Vanderbilt) means "from the hedge".
> > The name Verhaegen is common here (google),
> > e.g. the man who founded the university of Brussels.

> Jesus Christ, I cannot believe this. I know that I am doing this
> mistake, and I stared in your name in the address, while typing it, and
> I still made the same mistake. There must be something terribly wrong
> with me.

I'm sure of that... :-)

> Thanks for telling me, and sorry about that.
> In Croatian we only have five vowels, a, e, i, o, u. Anything else is
> space technology to me, which I don't understand at all. I even cannot
> imagine the difference. So, "ae", or "ea", to me is just the same mess.
> And I really don't know how to evade this. I mean, you cannot do better
> that staring onto the name, and typing it. What else can I do? Jesus. I
> mean, from when I was just a little, I always had problems with names.
> Everything else functioned well, especially mathematics and physics. But
> names I couldn't grasp at all. And still I cannot. I always use
> nicknames in everyday life, with nicknames I am alright. Sorry, again.
> And if I mess up again, please, just shoot, if you feel like.

:-) No problem, Mario, such mistakes (ea instead of ae) are common.
BTW, Dutch has 13 plain vowels (+ a number of diphtongs).

Op zaterdag 4 december 2021 om 00:02:38 UTC+1 schreef Mario Petrinovic:

> >>>>> https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-021-04187-7

> >>>> Why everybody neglects Trachilos footprints?

> >>> Neglect Trachilos?? On the contrary, google
> >>> "ape human evolution made easy PPT Verhaegen"

> >> Hm, I said "everybody", not Marc Verheagen, ;). But, thanks for
> >> noticing me, :).

Trachilos & Oreopithecus show that there were Miocene hominoids (probably hominids) on Mediterranean islands.
Non-human hominoids today live only in SE.Asia & C.Africa, but hominoid fossils are found at different places in Europe, Med.islands, Turkey, Africa, India etc.
How did Miocene hominoids spread?
No doubt at least partly in warm coastal forests: frequently wading bipedally & climbing arms overhead, as still seen sometimes in orangs, bonobos & lowland gorillas.
Hylobatids are still predom.vertical: brachiating/arm-hanging & often walking/running bipedally over branches.
IOW, some sort of bipedality is as old as the hominoids.

Carloton Coon in 1954 (The Story of Man) already knew
- fetal chimps have humanlike feet with adducted big toes,
- but human fetuses never have apelike feet.

IOW, only complete idiots still believe we evolved flat feet to run after antelopes.

Pandora wrote:

> Footprint evidence of early hominin locomotor diversity at Laetoli,
> Tanzania.

The funny thing is, it really doesn't look like a hominin and would
any of us choose a North American black bear for comparison?

Bears frequently step into their own footprints, so it can look like
a bipedal animal left the tracks. With millions of years to sort
through, it's hard to believe that bears could be unique.

> Here we compare the footprints at this site with
> those of American black bears, chimpanzees and humans, and we show
> that they resemble those of hominins more than ursids.

Actually they do look a lot like bear tracks, which is why it was necessary
to subject them to all kinds of hocus pocus in order to find any resemblance
to a hominin.

Honestly. That's the story here: They so NOT look like a hominin that they
needed to resort to some pretty funky equipment in order glimpse anything
that might look like a hominin.

NOTE: Bears are extinct in Africa but they did exist. I was going to say into
"Roman Times" but a quick Google thing says the last one died in 1870.

That was north Africa.

But bears doo go back millions of years, including in sub saharan Africa, so
the "Bear Track" idea is not as crazy as it might sound.

They have actual bear fossils...

-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/669255436558581760

On 4.12.2021. 10:36, littor...@gmail.com wrote:
> Op zaterdag 4 december 2021 om 00:02:38 UTC+1 schreef Mario Petrinovic:
>>>>>>> https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-021-04187-7
>
>>>>>> Why everybody neglects Trachilos footprints?
>
>>>>> Neglect Trachilos?? On the contrary, google
>>>>> "ape human evolution made easy PPT Verhaegen"
>
>>>> Hm, I said "everybody", not Marc Verheagen, ;). But, thanks for
>>>> noticing me, :).
>
>>> Hm, it's Verhaegen, Mario, not Verheagen:
>>> in 16th-cent.Dutch, "vowel + e" indicated vowel lengthening:
>>> "Verhaegen" < van der haegen (cf. Vanderbilt) means "from the hedge".
>>> The name Verhaegen is common here (google),
>>> e.g. the man who founded the university of Brussels.
>
>> Jesus Christ, I cannot believe this. I know that I am doing this
>> mistake, and I stared in your name in the address, while typing it, and
>> I still made the same mistake. There must be something terribly wrong
>> with me.
>
> I'm sure of that... :-)
>
>> Thanks for telling me, and sorry about that.
>> In Croatian we only have five vowels, a, e, i, o, u. Anything else is
>> space technology to me, which I don't understand at all. I even cannot
>> imagine the difference. So, "ae", or "ea", to me is just the same mess.
>> And I really don't know how to evade this. I mean, you cannot do better
>> that staring onto the name, and typing it. What else can I do? Jesus. I
>> mean, from when I was just a little, I always had problems with names.
>> Everything else functioned well, especially mathematics and physics. But
>> names I couldn't grasp at all. And still I cannot. I always use
>> nicknames in everyday life, with nicknames I am alright. Sorry, again.
>> And if I mess up again, please, just shoot, if you feel like.
>
> :-) No problem, Mario, such mistakes (ea instead of ae) are common.
> BTW, Dutch has 13 plain vowels (+ a number of diphtongs).

Gee, this would send me directly to a sanatorium, lol.

--
https://groups.google.com/g/human-evolution
human-evolution@googlegroups.com

On 4.12.2021. 11:01, littor...@gmail.com wrote:
> Op zaterdag 4 december 2021 om 00:02:38 UTC+1 schreef Mario Petrinovic:
>>>>>>> https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-021-04187-7
>
>>>>>> Why everybody neglects Trachilos footprints?
>
>>>>> Neglect Trachilos?? On the contrary, google
>>>>> "ape human evolution made easy PPT Verhaegen"
>
>>>> Hm, I said "everybody", not Marc Verheagen, ;). But, thanks for
>>>> noticing me, :).
>
> Trachilos & Oreopithecus show that there were Miocene hominoids (probably hominids) on Mediterranean islands.
> Non-human hominoids today live only in SE.Asia & C.Africa, but hominoid fossils are found at different places in Europe, Med.islands, Turkey, Africa, India etc.
> How did Miocene hominoids spread?
> No doubt at least partly in warm coastal forests: frequently wading bipedally & climbing arms overhead, as still seen sometimes in orangs, bonobos & lowland gorillas.
> Hylobatids are still predom.vertical: brachiating/arm-hanging & often walking/running bipedally over branches.
> IOW, some sort of bipedality is as old as the hominoids.
>
> Carloton Coon in 1954 (The Story of Man) already knew
> - fetal chimps have humanlike feet with adducted big toes,
> - but human fetuses never have apelike feet.
>
> IOW, only complete idiots still believe we evolved flat feet to run after antelopes.

As far as I know, apes were the predominant type of life in Miocene
(in the Old World). The whole planet was forest, all the life was in
canopy, and there apes were the strongest. So, it was logical that apes
spread all over. But then came fire, and all those apes (except the ones
that we know today) went extinct. Apes survived only where fire cannot
reach, because of great precipitation.
And, of course, us, the ones that are bipedal, and who are, actually,
using fire habitually.

--
https://groups.google.com/g/human-evolution
human-evolution@googlegroups.com

On 4.12.2021. 11:01, littor...@gmail.com wrote:
> How did Miocene hominoids spread?
> No doubt at least partly in warm coastal forests: frequently wading bipedally & climbing arms overhead, as still seen sometimes in orangs, bonobos & lowland gorillas.
> Hylobatids are still predom.vertical: brachiating/arm-hanging & often walking/running bipedally over branches.
> IOW, some sort of bipedality is as old as the hominoids.

BTW, orangs never go down to the ground (and gibbons, too), but
African apes are mostly living on the ground. They can climb trees
quickly by the way of having short legs and long arms:
https://youtu.be/YZauU9Bnm0U

--
https://groups.google.com/g/human-evolution
human-evolution@googlegroups.com

On 4.12.2021. 21:46, I Envy JTEM wrote:
> Pandora wrote:
>> Footprint evidence of early hominin locomotor diversity at Laetoli,
>> Tanzania.
>
> The funny thing is, it really doesn't look like a hominin and would
> any of us choose a North American black bear for comparison?
>
> Bears frequently step into their own footprints, so it can look like
> a bipedal animal left the tracks. With millions of years to sort
> through, it's hard to believe that bears could be unique.
>
>> Here we compare the footprints at this site with
>> those of American black bears, chimpanzees and humans, and we show
>> that they resemble those of hominins more than ursids.
>
> Actually they do look a lot like bear tracks, which is why it was necessary
> to subject them to all kinds of hocus pocus in order to find any resemblance
> to a hominin.
>
> Honestly. That's the story here: They so NOT look like a hominin that they
> needed to resort to some pretty funky equipment in order glimpse anything
> that might look like a hominin.
>
> NOTE: Bears are extinct in Africa but they did exist. I was going to say into
> "Roman Times" but a quick Google thing says the last one died in 1870.
>
> That was north Africa.
>
> But bears doo go back millions of years, including in sub saharan Africa, so
> the "Bear Track" idea is not as crazy as it might sound.
>
> They have actual bear fossils...

Lol, here we go again.
Do you really think that scientists get their conclusions by looking
at photographs? "This lamp looks like flying saucer, so it is, actually,
NLO."

--
https://groups.google.com/g/human-evolution
human-evolution@googlegroups.com

Mario Petrinovic wrote:

> I Envy JTEM wrote:
> > The funny thing is, it really doesn't look like a hominin and would
> > any of us choose a North American black bear for comparison?
> >
> > Bears frequently step into their own footprints, so it can look like
> > a bipedal animal left the tracks. With millions of years to sort
> > through, it's hard to believe that bears could be unique.
> >
> >> Here we compare the footprints at this site with
> >> those of American black bears, chimpanzees and humans, and we show
> >> that they resemble those of hominins more than ursids.
> >
> > Actually they do look a lot like bear tracks, which is why it was necessary
> > to subject them to all kinds of hocus pocus in order to find any resemblance
> > to a hominin.
> >
> > Honestly. That's the story here: They so NOT look like a hominin that they
> > needed to resort to some pretty funky equipment in order glimpse anything
> > that might look like a hominin.
> >
> > NOTE: Bears are extinct in Africa but they did exist. I was going to say into
> > "Roman Times" but a quick Google thing says the last one died in 1870.
> >
> > That was north Africa.
> >
> > But bears doo go back millions of years, including in sub saharan Africa, so
> > the "Bear Track" idea is not as crazy as it might sound.
> >
> > They have actual bear fossils...

> Lol, here we go again.

If by "again" you mean that the consensus has long been "Bear," yes. Again.
> Do you really think that scientists get their conclusions by looking
> at photographs?

Were you not aware that this is a BRAND NEW proposal far from widely
accepted much less a fact?

> "This lamp looks like flying saucer, so it is, actually,
> NLO."

So you never actually read what I said. You're just "Disagreeing" with whatever
is in your head because... because... I dunno.

-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/669683901835460608

On 5.12.2021. 6:20, I Envy JTEM wrote:
> Mario Petrinovic wrote:
>> I Envy JTEM wrote:
>>> The funny thing is, it really doesn't look like a hominin and would
>>> any of us choose a North American black bear for comparison?
>>>
>>> Bears frequently step into their own footprints, so it can look like
>>> a bipedal animal left the tracks. With millions of years to sort
>>> through, it's hard to believe that bears could be unique.
>>>
>>>> Here we compare the footprints at this site with
>>>> those of American black bears, chimpanzees and humans, and we show
>>>> that they resemble those of hominins more than ursids.
>>>
>>> Actually they do look a lot like bear tracks, which is why it was necessary
>>> to subject them to all kinds of hocus pocus in order to find any resemblance
>>> to a hominin.
>>>
>>> Honestly. That's the story here: They so NOT look like a hominin that they
>>> needed to resort to some pretty funky equipment in order glimpse anything
>>> that might look like a hominin.
>>>
>>> NOTE: Bears are extinct in Africa but they did exist. I was going to say into
>>> "Roman Times" but a quick Google thing says the last one died in 1870.
>>>
>>> That was north Africa.
>>>
>>> But bears doo go back millions of years, including in sub saharan Africa, so
>>> the "Bear Track" idea is not as crazy as it might sound.
>>>
>>> They have actual bear fossils...
>
>> Lol, here we go again.
>
> If by "again" you mean that the consensus has long been "Bear," yes. Again.
>
>> Do you really think that scientists get their conclusions by looking
>> at photographs?
>
> Were you not aware that this is a BRAND NEW proposal far from widely
> accepted much less a fact?
>
>> "This lamp looks like flying saucer, so it is, actually,
>> NLO."
>
> So you never actually read what I said. You're just "Disagreeing" with whatever
> is in your head because... because... I dunno.

You said that those footprints look like bear footprints and that
photo. Or something like that.

--
https://groups.google.com/g/human-evolution
human-evolution@googlegroups.com

Mario Petrinovic wrote:

> You said that those footprints look like bear footprints

No, they DO look like bear footprints. I didn't invent bears, footprints
nor any similarities to bears in this case. They are all external to me.

If you read for comprehension, the cite is claiming to have made a
determination, which means prior to this work there was no
determination.

Get it?

If something "Proves" hominin footprints now that means before now
there was no proof, that nobody saw unambiguous hominin prints.

So once you get this far, grasp this much, you've got to ask yourself
pertinent questions such as, "Are North American black bears really
the best model for comparison?"

If you want something a great deal more nuanced:

The claim here is that they see more similarities with [A] than they
do with [B], AFTER THEY EMPLOY THEIR HOCUS POCUS.

So test the hocus pocus. And we can start with the bears:

The North American black bear is not only a different species than
anything that might've lived there at the time, it is classified as a
different Genus!

So what you need to do is test bear prints from the same time period,
associated with the same Genus at least, and compare THAT to
hominin prints which are it's contemporary.

THAT is a test. What they do here is NOT a test. It a a pile of assumptions.

-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/669795532019990528

On 6.12.2021. 8:13, I Envy JTEM wrote:
> Mario Petrinovic wrote:
>
>> You said that those footprints look like bear footprints
>
> No, they DO look like bear footprints. I didn't invent bears, footprints
> nor any similarities to bears in this case. They are all external to me.
>
> If you read for comprehension, the cite is claiming to have made a
> determination, which means prior to this work there was no
> determination.
>
> Get it?
>
> If something "Proves" hominin footprints now that means before now
> there was no proof, that nobody saw unambiguous hominin prints.
>
> So once you get this far, grasp this much, you've got to ask yourself
> pertinent questions such as, "Are North American black bears really
> the best model for comparison?"
>
> If you want something a great deal more nuanced:
>
> The claim here is that they see more similarities with [A] than they
> do with [B], AFTER THEY EMPLOY THEIR HOCUS POCUS.
>
> So test the hocus pocus. And we can start with the bears:
>
> The North American black bear is not only a different species than
> anything that might've lived there at the time, it is classified as a
> different Genus!
>
> So what you need to do is test bear prints from the same time period,
> associated with the same Genus at least, and compare THAT to
> hominin prints which are it's contemporary.
>
> THAT is a test. What they do here is NOT a test. It a a pile of assumptions.

Ok, I didn't read the paper, I have no idea what is going on. And, I
am not interested.

--
https://groups.google.com/g/human-evolution
human-evolution@googlegroups.com

Mario Petrinovic wrote:

> Ok, I didn't read the paper, I have no idea what is going on. And, I
> am not interested.

My only interest is in examining the claims -- what passes for "Science"
in this post democracy world.

I really don't give a shit what the true answer is. There's nothing interesting
here. It looks like a bear print. Add some hocus pocus and it may look
closer to a chimp. Well Ardi was around back then, bears were around back
then, probably some flavor of Australopithecus was around back then...

There's nothing exciting here. In fact, the dating is about when the Pan line
split off from the Homo line... according to the laughing stock that is paleo
anthropology to two OR MORE millions of years after the split...

No, this seems like another POLITICAL story. And the fact that it has
absolutely devoured search engines kind says that it is. A political story.

It's like all the fake "History" or "Archaeology" stories that find a Roman
knife or villa "Dating to the time of Christ." The story is confirming the
bible. That is it's purpose.

"Thience thays BIBLE REAL!"

And this idiotic footprint babble is just propping up out of Africa purity.

-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/669795532019990528

I Envy JTEM wrote:
> Pandora wrote:
>
>> Footprint evidence of early hominin locomotor diversity at Laetoli,
>> Tanzania.
>
> The funny thing is, it really doesn't look like a hominin and would
> any of us choose a North American black bear for comparison?
>
> Bears frequently step into their own footprints, so it can look like
> a bipedal animal left the tracks. With millions of years to sort
> through, it's hard to believe that bears could be unique.
>
>> Here we compare the footprints at this site with
>> those of American black bears, chimpanzees and humans, and we show
>> that they resemble those of hominins more than ursids.
>
> Actually they do look a lot like bear tracks, which is why it was necessary
> to subject them to all kinds of hocus pocus in order to find any resemblance
> to a hominin.

To the ill educated it probably would be seen as "hocus pocus"

> Honestly. That's the story here: They so NOT look like a hominin that they
> needed to resort to some pretty funky equipment in order glimpse anything
> that might look like a hominin.
>
> NOTE: Bears are extinct in Africa but they did exist. I was going to say into
> "Roman Times" but a quick Google thing says the last one died in 1870.
>
> That was north Africa.
>
> But bears doo go back millions of years, including in sub saharan Africa, so
> the "Bear Track" idea is not as crazy as it might sound.
>
> They have actual bear fossils...

But no bear prints...

On 13.12.2021. 7:47, Primum Sapienti wrote:
> I Envy JTEM wrote:
>> Pandora wrote:
>>
>>> Footprint evidence of early hominin locomotor diversity at Laetoli,
>>> Tanzania.
>>
>> The funny thing is, it really doesn't look like a hominin and would
>> any of us choose a North American black bear for comparison?
>>
>> Bears frequently step into their own footprints, so it can look like
>> a bipedal animal left the tracks. With millions of years to sort
>> through, it's hard to believe that bears could be unique.
>>
>>>   Here we compare the footprints at this site with
>>> those of American black bears, chimpanzees and humans, and we show
>>> that they resemble those of hominins more than ursids.
>>
>> Actually they do look a lot like bear tracks, which is why it was
>> necessary
>> to subject them to all kinds of hocus pocus in order to find any
>> resemblance
>> to a hominin.
>
> To the ill educated it probably would be seen as "hocus pocus"
>
>> Honestly. That's the story here:  They so NOT look like a hominin that
>> they
>> needed to resort to some pretty funky equipment in order glimpse anything
>> that might look like a hominin.
>>
>> NOTE:  Bears are extinct in Africa but they did exist. I was going to
>> say into
>> "Roman Times" but a quick Google thing says the last one died in 1870.
>>
>> That was north Africa.
>>
>> But bears doo go back millions of years, including in sub saharan
>> Africa, so
>> the "Bear Track" idea is not as crazy as it might sound.
>>
>> They have actual bear fossils...
>
> But no bear prints...

You are wrong here, they have all kinds of prints, in all possible
qualities. Just take a stroll through woods and you'll find prints
whichever you like.

--
https://groups.google.com/g/human-evolution
human-evolution@googlegroups.com

Primum Sapienti wrote:

> To the ill educated it probably would be seen as "hocus pocus"

To the religiously devout it's their High Priests in the media revealing the
Truth as passed down by paleo anthropology, or at least the self proclaimed
god who run it.

Now take your fingers out of your mouth as try to respond to what I pointed
out.If you can.

> > They have actual bear fossils...

> But no bear prints...

Are you sure? How do you know? Or are you just being a dogmatic twat again?

-- --

https://rumble.com/vqo5n4-a-padded-envelope-from-madrid.html

Mario Petrinovic wrote:
> On 13.12.2021. 7:47, Primum Sapienti wrote:
>> I Envy JTEM wrote:
>>> Pandora wrote:
>>>
>>>> Footprint evidence of early hominin locomotor diversity at Laetoli,
>>>> Tanzania.
>>>
>>> The funny thing is, it really doesn't look like a hominin and would
>>> any of us choose a North American black bear for comparison?
>>>
>>> Bears frequently step into their own footprints, so it can look like
>>> a bipedal animal left the tracks. With millions of years to sort
>>> through, it's hard to believe that bears could be unique.
>>>
>>>>   Here we compare the footprints at this site with
>>>> those of American black bears, chimpanzees and humans, and we show
>>>> that they resemble those of hominins more than ursids.
>>>
>>> Actually they do look a lot like bear tracks, which is why it was
>>> necessary
>>> to subject them to all kinds of hocus pocus in order to find any
>>> resemblance
>>> to a hominin.
>>
>> To the ill educated it probably would be seen as "hocus pocus"
>>
>>> Honestly. That's the story here:  They so NOT look like a hominin that
>>> they
>>> needed to resort to some pretty funky equipment in order glimpse anything
>>> that might look like a hominin.
>>>
>>> NOTE:  Bears are extinct in Africa but they did exist. I was going to
>>> say into
>>> "Roman Times" but a quick Google thing says the last one died in 1870.
>>>
>>> That was north Africa.
>>>
>>> But bears doo go back millions of years, including in sub saharan
>>> Africa, so
>>> the "Bear Track" idea is not as crazy as it might sound.
>>>
>>> They have actual bear fossils...
>>
>> But no bear prints...
>
>          You are wrong here, they have all kinds of prints, in all
> possible qualities. Just take a stroll through woods and you'll find
> prints whichever you like.
>

No bear prints at the site we're talking about...not the woods somewhere...

I Envy JTEM wrote:
> Primum Sapienti wrote:
>
>> To the ill educated it probably would be seen as "hocus pocus"
>
> To the religiously devout it's their High Priests in the media revealing the
> Truth as passed down by paleo anthropology, or at least the self proclaimed
> god who run it.
>
> Now take your fingers out of your mouth as try to respond to what I pointed
> out.If you can.
>
>>> They have actual bear fossils...
>
>> But no bear prints...
>
> Are you sure? How do you know? Or are you just being a dogmatic twat again?

No bear prints reported at the site.

Primum Sapienti wrote:

> No bear prints at the site

Certainly no black bears. In fact black bears aren't even in the same Genus
of any bears that lived in Africa. But, they pretend to have ruled out bears
by a ridiculous comparison to black bears.

Another "Ah, science" moment...

-- --

https://rumble.com/register/JTEM/