recent, and public access.

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-021-98618-0
Published: 11 October 2021

Abstract
We present an updated time frame for the 30 m thick late Miocene
sedimentary Trachilos section from the island of Crete that contains the
potentially oldest hominin footprints. The section is characterized by
normal magnetic polarity. New and published foraminifera biostratigraphy
results suggest an age of the section within the Mediterranean biozone
MMi13d, younger than ~ 6.4 Ma. Calcareous nannoplankton data from
sediments exposed near Trachilos and belonging to the same sub-basin
indicate deposition during calcareous nannofossil biozone CN9bB,
between 6.023 and 6.727 Ma. By integrating the magneto- and
biostratigraphic data we correlate the Trachilos section with normal
polarity Chron C3An.1n, between 6.272 and 6.023 Ma. Using
cyclostratigraphic data based on magnetic susceptibility, we constrain the
Trachilos footprints age at ~ 6.05 Ma, roughly 0.35 Ma older than previously
thought. Some uncertainty remains related to an inaccessible interval
of ~ 8 m
section and the possibility that the normal polarity might represent the
slightly older Chron C3An.2n. Sediment accumulation rate and
biostratigraphic arguments, however, stand against these points and favor
a deposition during Chron C3An.1n.

"These footprints, which possess a suite of characteristic trace fossil
features
including expulsion rims, pull-up structures and toe drag marks, indicate the
track-maker had a distinctive foot morphology. This morphology includes
characters that are currently considered be unique to hominins such as the
presence of a forefoot ball, a non-divergent and robust hallux placed
alongside
digit II on the distal margin of the sole and digits II through IV becoming
progressively shorter. These are combined with generic primate traits such as
the absence of a longitudinal medial arch, a proportionately shorter sole and
a heel that is not bulbous. A straightforward comparative morphological
analysis of the character suite suggests that the track-maker was a primitive
hominin and a strong case has been made for it being phylogenetically basal
to the Laetoli trackmaker, which had a longer, more human-like sole9. The
morphometric analysis of Gierliński et al.6, shows that the Trachilos
footprints
cluster in the same anatomical space with other hominin footprints and are
clearly separated from non-hominin primates.

"This interpretation has been controversial, and several
counter-interpretations
have been made. For example, Meldrum and Sarmiento10 suggested that the
Trachilos tracks may have been made by a non-hominin primate with an
adducted hallux and they illustrated this with reference to a gorilla
footprint.
We believe that this comparison actually reinforces the interpretation of
Gierliński et al.6. The illustrated track lacks a ball print, has a hallux
print set
back from digit II and separated from it by a substantial gap, and the
strongly
oblique concave posterodistal margin of the sole print reflects the length
and
finger-like character of digits II through V. None of these features are
matched
in the Trachilos footprints, which instead resemble the human footprint used
in illustration by Meldrum and Sarmiento10. So, while we are mindful of the
need for caution in the absence of any body fossils, the case that the
Trachilos
track-maker can be identified provisionally as a primitive, bipedal
hominin has
not been disproven.

"The characteristics of these tracks, together with their geographical
location
and supposed age, potentially make them highly informative about early
hominin evolution13,14,15. However, at present their scientific
significance is
limited by the poor age control on the site13. To address properly the exact
importance of these findings and to put them into a global context,
especially
with respect to Africa, absolute ages are vital."

On 2.12.2021. 22:09, Primum Sapienti wrote:
> recent, and public access.
>
> https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-021-98618-0
> Published: 11 October 2021
>
> Abstract
> We present an updated time frame for the 30 m thick late Miocene
> sedimentary Trachilos section from the island of Crete that contains the
> potentially oldest hominin footprints. The section is characterized by
> normal magnetic polarity. New and published foraminifera biostratigraphy
> results suggest an age of the section within the Mediterranean biozone
> MMi13d, younger than ~ 6.4 Ma. Calcareous nannoplankton data from
> sediments exposed near Trachilos and belonging to the same sub-basin
> indicate deposition during calcareous nannofossil biozone CN9bB,
> between 6.023 and 6.727 Ma. By integrating the magneto- and
> biostratigraphic data we correlate the Trachilos section with normal
> polarity Chron C3An.1n, between 6.272 and 6.023 Ma. Using
> cyclostratigraphic data based on magnetic susceptibility, we constrain the
> Trachilos footprints age at ~ 6.05 Ma, roughly 0.35 Ma older than
> previously
> thought. Some uncertainty remains related to an inaccessible interval of
>  ~ 8 m
> section and the possibility that the normal polarity might represent the
> slightly older Chron C3An.2n. Sediment accumulation rate and
> biostratigraphic arguments, however, stand against these points and favor
> a deposition during Chron C3An.1n.
>
>
> "These footprints, which possess a suite of characteristic trace fossil
> features
> including expulsion rims, pull-up structures and toe drag marks,
> indicate the
> track-maker had a distinctive foot morphology. This morphology includes
> characters that are currently considered be unique to hominins such as the
> presence of a forefoot ball, a non-divergent and robust hallux placed
> alongside
> digit II on the distal margin of the sole and digits II through IV becoming
> progressively shorter. These are combined with generic primate traits
> such as
> the absence of a longitudinal medial arch, a proportionately shorter
> sole and
> a heel that is not bulbous. A straightforward comparative morphological
> analysis of the character suite suggests that the track-maker was a
> primitive
> hominin and a strong case has been made for it being phylogenetically basal
> to the Laetoli trackmaker, which had a longer, more human-like sole9. The
> morphometric analysis of Gierliński et al.6, shows that the Trachilos
> footprints
> cluster in the same anatomical space with other hominin footprints and are
> clearly separated from non-hominin primates.
>
> "This interpretation has been controversial, and several
> counter-interpretations
> have been made. For example, Meldrum and Sarmiento10 suggested that the
> Trachilos tracks may have been made by a non-hominin primate with an
> adducted hallux and they illustrated this with reference to a gorilla
> footprint.
> We believe that this comparison actually reinforces the interpretation of
> Gierliński et al.6. The illustrated track lacks a ball print, has a
> hallux print set
> back from digit II and separated from it by a substantial gap, and the
> strongly
> oblique concave posterodistal margin of the sole print reflects the
> length and
> finger-like character of digits II through V. None of these features are
> matched
> in the Trachilos footprints, which instead resemble the human footprint
> used
> in illustration by Meldrum and Sarmiento10. So, while we are mindful of the
> need for caution in the absence of any body fossils, the case that the
> Trachilos
> track-maker can be identified provisionally as a primitive, bipedal
> hominin has
> not been disproven.
>
> "The characteristics of these tracks, together with their geographical
> location
> and supposed age, potentially make them highly informative about early
> hominin evolution13,14,15. However, at present their scientific
> significance is
> limited by the poor age control on the site13. To address properly the
> exact
> importance of these findings and to put them into a global context,
> especially
> with respect to Africa, absolute ages are vital."

So, they cannot determinate the exact date, like 26th of January
6,053.678 BC, so they will neglect it? Just beautiful.
I mean, what is the reason they are mentioning this date
determination? It is obvious that it is older than 5 mya, and it is on
Crete, they can establish this firmly. Or, is it even controversial that
it is on Crete? Maybe wind from Africa blew it there, who knows? One day
somebody will come with this idea.
My god, whom I am dealing with (if this makes any sense, lol).

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

On Thu, 2 Dec 2021 14:09:48 -0700, Primum Sapienti
<invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote:

>recent, and public access.
>
>https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-021-98618-0
>Published: 11 October 2021
>
>Abstract
>
>We present an updated time frame for the 30 m thick late Miocene
>sedimentary Trachilos section from the island of Crete that contains the
>potentially oldest hominin footprints. The section is characterized by
>normal magnetic polarity. New and published foraminifera biostratigraphy
>results suggest an age of the section within the Mediterranean biozone
>MMi13d, younger than ~6.4 Ma. Calcareous nannoplankton data from
>sediments exposed near Trachilos and belonging to the same sub-basin
>indicate deposition during calcareous nannofossil biozone CN9bB,
>between 6.023 and 6.727 Ma. By integrating the magneto- and
>biostratigraphic data we correlate the Trachilos section with normal
>polarity Chron C3An.1n, between 6.272 and 6.023 Ma. Using
>cyclostratigraphic data based on magnetic susceptibility, we constrain the
>Trachilos footprints age at ~6.05 Ma, roughly 0.35 Ma older than previously
>thought. Some uncertainty remains related to an inaccessible interval
>of ~8 m section and the possibility that the normal polarity might represent the
>slightly older Chron C3An.2n. Sediment accumulation rate and
>biostratigraphic arguments, however, stand against these points and favor
>a deposition during Chron C3An.1n.

Younger than Sahelanthropus.
https://www.pnas.org/content/105/9/3226

> https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-021-98618-0

Of course: the Mesopotamian Seaway closure c 15 Ma split pongids (Indian Ocean coastal forests) & hominids (Mediterranean coastal forests, e.g. Graecopith., Oreopith., Trachilos...).
The Mediterranean hominids that colonised the Red Sea coastal forests survided: australopiths.
Australopiths split c 8 Ma into Gorilla-Praeanthropus (Rift) & Homo-Pan.
Homo-Pan split c 5 Ma into Pan-Australopithecus (S.Africa) & Homo (along Indian Ocean).
Pan & Gorilla evolved in // knuckle-walking etc., whereas Pleistocene Homo remained coastal.
Google:
- ape human evolution made easy PPT verhaegen
- coastal dispersal Pleistocene Homo PPT

On 3.12.2021. 17:06, littor...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>> https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-021-98618-0
>
> Of course: the Mesopotamian Seaway closure c 15 Ma split pongids (Indian Ocean coastal forests) & hominids (Mediterranean coastal forests, e.g. Graecopith., Oreopith., Trachilos...).
> The Mediterranean hominids that colonised the Red Sea coastal forests survided: australopiths.
> Australopiths split c 8 Ma into Gorilla-Praeanthropus (Rift) & Homo-Pan.
> Homo-Pan split c 5 Ma into Pan-Australopithecus (S.Africa) & Homo (along Indian Ocean).
> Pan & Gorilla evolved in // knuckle-walking etc., whereas Pleistocene Homo remained coastal.
> Google:
> - ape human evolution made easy PPT verhaegen
> - coastal dispersal Pleistocene Homo PPT

Hm, all the pongids have the same cranial morphology, all the hominids
also. On what basis?
If you ask me, splitting those two on two different coasts of Red Sea
(NE vs SW coast) has much more sense. If we take that the main predator
of apes on a sea cliffside would be birds of prey, and birds of prey
attack from the direction of sun, and the morphological difference is in
the inclination of stare, then you should easily see my point.
There has to be a force that tilts the inclination of stare, and this
force exists on Red Sea. SW coast hominid (Afro-european), while NE
should be pongid (Asian).

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

Mario Petrinovic wrote:
> On 2.12.2021. 22:09, Primum Sapienti wrote:
>> recent, and public access.
>>
>> https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-021-98618-0
>> Published: 11 October 2021
>>
>> Abstract
>> We present an updated time frame for the 30 m thick late Miocene
>> sedimentary Trachilos section from the island of Crete that contains the
>> potentially oldest hominin footprints. The section is characterized by
>> normal magnetic polarity. New and published foraminifera biostratigraphy
>> results suggest an age of the section within the Mediterranean biozone
>> MMi13d, younger than ~ 6.4 Ma. Calcareous nannoplankton data from
>> sediments exposed near Trachilos and belonging to the same sub-basin
>> indicate deposition during calcareous nannofossil biozone CN9bB,
>> between 6.023 and 6.727 Ma. By integrating the magneto- and
>> biostratigraphic data we correlate the Trachilos section with normal
>> polarity Chron C3An.1n, between 6.272 and 6.023 Ma. Using
>> cyclostratigraphic data based on magnetic susceptibility, we constrain the
>> Trachilos footprints age at ~ 6.05 Ma, roughly 0.35 Ma older than
>> previously
>> thought. Some uncertainty remains related to an inaccessible interval of
>>  ~ 8 m
>> section and the possibility that the normal polarity might represent the
>> slightly older Chron C3An.2n. Sediment accumulation rate and
>> biostratigraphic arguments, however, stand against these points and favor
>> a deposition during Chron C3An.1n.
>>
>>
>> "These footprints, which possess a suite of characteristic trace fossil
>> features
>> including expulsion rims, pull-up structures and toe drag marks,
>> indicate the
>> track-maker had a distinctive foot morphology. This morphology includes
>> characters that are currently considered be unique to hominins such as the
>> presence of a forefoot ball, a non-divergent and robust hallux placed
>> alongside
>> digit II on the distal margin of the sole and digits II through IV becoming
>> progressively shorter. These are combined with generic primate traits
>> such as
>> the absence of a longitudinal medial arch, a proportionately shorter
>> sole and
>> a heel that is not bulbous. A straightforward comparative morphological
>> analysis of the character suite suggests that the track-maker was a
>> primitive
>> hominin and a strong case has been made for it being phylogenetically basal
>> to the Laetoli trackmaker, which had a longer, more human-like sole9. The
>> morphometric analysis of Gierliński et al.6, shows that the Trachilos
>> footprints
>> cluster in the same anatomical space with other hominin footprints and are
>> clearly separated from non-hominin primates.
>>
>> "This interpretation has been controversial, and several
>> counter-interpretations
>> have been made. For example, Meldrum and Sarmiento10 suggested that the
>> Trachilos tracks may have been made by a non-hominin primate with an
>> adducted hallux and they illustrated this with reference to a gorilla
>> footprint.
>> We believe that this comparison actually reinforces the interpretation of
>> Gierliński et al.6. The illustrated track lacks a ball print, has a
>> hallux print set
>> back from digit II and separated from it by a substantial gap, and the
>> strongly
>> oblique concave posterodistal margin of the sole print reflects the
>> length and
>> finger-like character of digits II through V. None of these features are
>> matched
>> in the Trachilos footprints, which instead resemble the human footprint
>> used
>> in illustration by Meldrum and Sarmiento10. So, while we are mindful of the
>> need for caution in the absence of any body fossils, the case that the
>> Trachilos
>> track-maker can be identified provisionally as a primitive, bipedal
>> hominin has
>> not been disproven.
>>
>> "The characteristics of these tracks, together with their geographical
>> location
>> and supposed age, potentially make them highly informative about early
>> hominin evolution13,14,15. However, at present their scientific
>> significance is
>> limited by the poor age control on the site13. To address properly the
>> exact
>> importance of these findings and to put them into a global context,
>> especially
>> with respect to Africa, absolute ages are vital."
>
>         So, they cannot determinate the exact date, like 26th of January

The "exact" dating for anything is not possible.

> 6,053.678 BC, so they will neglect it? Just beautiful.
>         I mean, what is the reason they are mentioning this date
> determination? It is obvious that it is older than 5 mya, and it is on
> Crete, they can establish this firmly. Or, is it even controversial that
> it is on Crete? Maybe wind from Africa blew it there, who knows? One day
> somebody will come with this idea.
>         My god, whom I am dealing with (if this makes any sense, lol).
>

On 13.12.2021. 7:32, Primum Sapienti wrote:
> Mario Petrinovic wrote:
>> On 2.12.2021. 22:09, Primum Sapienti wrote:
>>> recent, and public access.
>>>
>>> https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-021-98618-0
>>> Published: 11 October 2021
>>>
>>> Abstract
>>> We present an updated time frame for the 30 m thick late Miocene
>>> sedimentary Trachilos section from the island of Crete that contains the
>>> potentially oldest hominin footprints. The section is characterized by
>>> normal magnetic polarity. New and published foraminifera biostratigraphy
>>> results suggest an age of the section within the Mediterranean biozone
>>> MMi13d, younger than ~ 6.4 Ma. Calcareous nannoplankton data from
>>> sediments exposed near Trachilos and belonging to the same sub-basin
>>> indicate deposition during calcareous nannofossil biozone CN9bB,
>>> between 6.023 and 6.727 Ma. By integrating the magneto- and
>>> biostratigraphic data we correlate the Trachilos section with normal
>>> polarity Chron C3An.1n, between 6.272 and 6.023 Ma. Using
>>> cyclostratigraphic data based on magnetic susceptibility, we
>>> constrain the
>>> Trachilos footprints age at ~ 6.05 Ma, roughly 0.35 Ma older than
>>> previously
>>> thought. Some uncertainty remains related to an inaccessible interval
>>> of  ~ 8 m
>>> section and the possibility that the normal polarity might represent the
>>> slightly older Chron C3An.2n. Sediment accumulation rate and
>>> biostratigraphic arguments, however, stand against these points and
>>> favor
>>> a deposition during Chron C3An.1n.
>>>
>>>
>>> "These footprints, which possess a suite of characteristic trace
>>> fossil features
>>> including expulsion rims, pull-up structures and toe drag marks,
>>> indicate the
>>> track-maker had a distinctive foot morphology. This morphology includes
>>> characters that are currently considered be unique to hominins such
>>> as the
>>> presence of a forefoot ball, a non-divergent and robust hallux placed
>>> alongside
>>> digit II on the distal margin of the sole and digits II through IV
>>> becoming
>>> progressively shorter. These are combined with generic primate traits
>>> such as
>>> the absence of a longitudinal medial arch, a proportionately shorter
>>> sole and
>>> a heel that is not bulbous. A straightforward comparative morphological
>>> analysis of the character suite suggests that the track-maker was a
>>> primitive
>>> hominin and a strong case has been made for it being phylogenetically
>>> basal
>>> to the Laetoli trackmaker, which had a longer, more human-like sole9.
>>> The
>>> morphometric analysis of Gierliński et al.6, shows that the Trachilos
>>> footprints
>>> cluster in the same anatomical space with other hominin footprints
>>> and are
>>> clearly separated from non-hominin primates.
>>>
>>> "This interpretation has been controversial, and several
>>> counter-interpretations
>>> have been made. For example, Meldrum and Sarmiento10 suggested that the
>>> Trachilos tracks may have been made by a non-hominin primate with an
>>> adducted hallux and they illustrated this with reference to a gorilla
>>> footprint.
>>> We believe that this comparison actually reinforces the
>>> interpretation of
>>> Gierliński et al.6. The illustrated track lacks a ball print, has a
>>> hallux print set
>>> back from digit II and separated from it by a substantial gap, and
>>> the strongly
>>> oblique concave posterodistal margin of the sole print reflects the
>>> length and
>>> finger-like character of digits II through V. None of these features
>>> are matched
>>> in the Trachilos footprints, which instead resemble the human
>>> footprint used
>>> in illustration by Meldrum and Sarmiento10. So, while we are mindful
>>> of the
>>> need for caution in the absence of any body fossils, the case that
>>> the Trachilos
>>> track-maker can be identified provisionally as a primitive, bipedal
>>> hominin has
>>> not been disproven.
>>>
>>> "The characteristics of these tracks, together with their
>>> geographical location
>>> and supposed age, potentially make them highly informative about early
>>> hominin evolution13,14,15. However, at present their scientific
>>> significance is
>>> limited by the poor age control on the site13. To address properly
>>> the exact
>>> importance of these findings and to put them into a global context,
>>> especially
>>> with respect to Africa, absolute ages are vital."
>>
>>          So, they cannot determinate the exact date, like 26th of January
>
> The "exact" dating for anything is not possible.

Of course, so why they are saying that fire use started 700kya, or
they have "dates" for acquiring language "that and that", when they even
don't have upper and lower margins? Actually, they always use upper
margins as a rough date.

>> 6,053.678 BC, so they will neglect it? Just beautiful.
>>          I mean, what is the reason they are mentioning this date
>> determination? It is obvious that it is older than 5 mya, and it is on
>> Crete, they can establish this firmly. Or, is it even controversial
>> that it is on Crete? Maybe wind from Africa blew it there, who knows?
>> One day somebody will come with this idea.
>>          My god, whom I am dealing with (if this makes any sense, lol).

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

Mario Petrinovic wrote:
> On 13.12.2021. 7:32, Primum Sapienti wrote:
>> Mario Petrinovic wrote:
>>> On 2.12.2021. 22:09, Primum Sapienti wrote:
>>>> recent, and public access.
>>>>
>>>> https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-021-98618-0
>>>> Published: 11 October 2021
>>>>
>>>> Abstract
>>>> We present an updated time frame for the 30 m thick late Miocene
>>>> sedimentary Trachilos section from the island of Crete that contains the
>>>> potentially oldest hominin footprints. The section is characterized by
>>>> normal magnetic polarity. New and published foraminifera biostratigraphy
>>>> results suggest an age of the section within the Mediterranean biozone
>>>> MMi13d, younger than ~ 6.4 Ma. Calcareous nannoplankton data from
>>>> sediments exposed near Trachilos and belonging to the same sub-basin
>>>> indicate deposition during calcareous nannofossil biozone CN9bB,
>>>> between 6.023 and 6.727 Ma. By integrating the magneto- and
>>>> biostratigraphic data we correlate the Trachilos section with normal
>>>> polarity Chron C3An.1n, between 6.272 and 6.023 Ma. Using
>>>> cyclostratigraphic data based on magnetic susceptibility, we constrain
>>>> the
>>>> Trachilos footprints age at ~ 6.05 Ma, roughly 0.35 Ma older than
>>>> previously
>>>> thought. Some uncertainty remains related to an inaccessible interval
>>>> of  ~ 8 m
>>>> section and the possibility that the normal polarity might represent the
>>>> slightly older Chron C3An.2n. Sediment accumulation rate and
>>>> biostratigraphic arguments, however, stand against these points and favor
>>>> a deposition during Chron C3An.1n.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> "These footprints, which possess a suite of characteristic trace
>>>> fossil features
>>>> including expulsion rims, pull-up structures and toe drag marks,
>>>> indicate the
>>>> track-maker had a distinctive foot morphology. This morphology includes
>>>> characters that are currently considered be unique to hominins such as
>>>> the
>>>> presence of a forefoot ball, a non-divergent and robust hallux placed
>>>> alongside
>>>> digit II on the distal margin of the sole and digits II through IV
>>>> becoming
>>>> progressively shorter. These are combined with generic primate traits
>>>> such as
>>>> the absence of a longitudinal medial arch, a proportionately shorter
>>>> sole and
>>>> a heel that is not bulbous. A straightforward comparative morphological
>>>> analysis of the character suite suggests that the track-maker was a
>>>> primitive
>>>> hominin and a strong case has been made for it being phylogenetically
>>>> basal
>>>> to the Laetoli trackmaker, which had a longer, more human-like sole9. The
>>>> morphometric analysis of Gierliński et al.6, shows that the Trachilos
>>>> footprints
>>>> cluster in the same anatomical space with other hominin footprints and
>>>> are
>>>> clearly separated from non-hominin primates.
>>>>
>>>> "This interpretation has been controversial, and several
>>>> counter-interpretations
>>>> have been made. For example, Meldrum and Sarmiento10 suggested that the
>>>> Trachilos tracks may have been made by a non-hominin primate with an
>>>> adducted hallux and they illustrated this with reference to a gorilla
>>>> footprint.
>>>> We believe that this comparison actually reinforces the interpretation of
>>>> Gierliński et al.6. The illustrated track lacks a ball print, has a
>>>> hallux print set
>>>> back from digit II and separated from it by a substantial gap, and the
>>>> strongly
>>>> oblique concave posterodistal margin of the sole print reflects the
>>>> length and
>>>> finger-like character of digits II through V. None of these features
>>>> are matched
>>>> in the Trachilos footprints, which instead resemble the human
>>>> footprint used
>>>> in illustration by Meldrum and Sarmiento10. So, while we are mindful
>>>> of the
>>>> need for caution in the absence of any body fossils, the case that the
>>>> Trachilos
>>>> track-maker can be identified provisionally as a primitive, bipedal
>>>> hominin has
>>>> not been disproven.
>>>>
>>>> "The characteristics of these tracks, together with their geographical
>>>> location
>>>> and supposed age, potentially make them highly informative about early
>>>> hominin evolution13,14,15. However, at present their scientific
>>>> significance is
>>>> limited by the poor age control on the site13. To address properly the
>>>> exact
>>>> importance of these findings and to put them into a global context,
>>>> especially
>>>> with respect to Africa, absolute ages are vital."
>>>
>>>          So, they cannot determinate the exact date, like 26th of January
>>
>> The "exact" dating for anything is not possible.
>
>         Of course, so why they are saying that fire use started 700kya,
> or they have "dates" for acquiring language "that and that", when they
> even don't have upper and lower margins? Actually, they always use upper
> margins as a rough date.

Did you look at the paper? Ranges are given, for example, in statements
like this:

"Gierliński et al. constrained the youngest possible age by stratigraphic
relationship with the overlying conglomerate, which they interpreted as
the Hellenikon Group, deposited during the Messinian Salinity Crisis (MSC)
between 5.60 and 5.53 Ma."

"This leaves planktonic foraminifera as the remaining constraining factor
for the age of the Trachilos footprints with a rather large range between
8.5 and 3.5 Ma."

>>> 6,053.678 BC, so they will neglect it? Just beautiful.
>>>          I mean, what is the reason they are mentioning this date
>>> determination? It is obvious that it is older than 5 mya, and it is on
>>> Crete, they can establish this firmly. Or, is it even controversial
>>> that it is on Crete? Maybe wind from Africa blew it there, who knows?
>>> One day somebody will come with this idea.
>>>          My god, whom I am dealing with (if this makes any sense, lol).
>

On 22.12.2021. 21:08, Primum Sapienti wrote:
> Mario Petrinovic wrote:
>> On 13.12.2021. 7:32, Primum Sapienti wrote:
>>> Mario Petrinovic wrote:
>>>> On 2.12.2021. 22:09, Primum Sapienti wrote:
>>>>> recent, and public access.
>>>>>
>>>>> https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-021-98618-0
>>>>> Published: 11 October 2021
>>>>>
>>>>> Abstract
>>>>> We present an updated time frame for the 30 m thick late Miocene
>>>>> sedimentary Trachilos section from the island of Crete that
>>>>> contains the
>>>>> potentially oldest hominin footprints. The section is characterized by
>>>>> normal magnetic polarity. New and published foraminifera
>>>>> biostratigraphy
>>>>> results suggest an age of the section within the Mediterranean biozone
>>>>> MMi13d, younger than ~ 6.4 Ma. Calcareous nannoplankton data from
>>>>> sediments exposed near Trachilos and belonging to the same sub-basin
>>>>> indicate deposition during calcareous nannofossil biozone CN9bB,
>>>>> between 6.023 and 6.727 Ma. By integrating the magneto- and
>>>>> biostratigraphic data we correlate the Trachilos section with normal
>>>>> polarity Chron C3An.1n, between 6.272 and 6.023 Ma. Using
>>>>> cyclostratigraphic data based on magnetic susceptibility, we
>>>>> constrain the
>>>>> Trachilos footprints age at ~ 6.05 Ma, roughly 0.35 Ma older than
>>>>> previously
>>>>> thought. Some uncertainty remains related to an inaccessible
>>>>> interval of  ~ 8 m
>>>>> section and the possibility that the normal polarity might
>>>>> represent the
>>>>> slightly older Chron C3An.2n. Sediment accumulation rate and
>>>>> biostratigraphic arguments, however, stand against these points and
>>>>> favor
>>>>> a deposition during Chron C3An.1n.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> "These footprints, which possess a suite of characteristic trace
>>>>> fossil features
>>>>> including expulsion rims, pull-up structures and toe drag marks,
>>>>> indicate the
>>>>> track-maker had a distinctive foot morphology. This morphology
>>>>> includes
>>>>> characters that are currently considered be unique to hominins such
>>>>> as the
>>>>> presence of a forefoot ball, a non-divergent and robust hallux
>>>>> placed alongside
>>>>> digit II on the distal margin of the sole and digits II through IV
>>>>> becoming
>>>>> progressively shorter. These are combined with generic primate
>>>>> traits such as
>>>>> the absence of a longitudinal medial arch, a proportionately
>>>>> shorter sole and
>>>>> a heel that is not bulbous. A straightforward comparative
>>>>> morphological
>>>>> analysis of the character suite suggests that the track-maker was a
>>>>> primitive
>>>>> hominin and a strong case has been made for it being
>>>>> phylogenetically basal
>>>>> to the Laetoli trackmaker, which had a longer, more human-like
>>>>> sole9. The
>>>>> morphometric analysis of Gierliński et al.6, shows that the
>>>>> Trachilos footprints
>>>>> cluster in the same anatomical space with other hominin footprints
>>>>> and are
>>>>> clearly separated from non-hominin primates.
>>>>>
>>>>> "This interpretation has been controversial, and several
>>>>> counter-interpretations
>>>>> have been made. For example, Meldrum and Sarmiento10 suggested that
>>>>> the
>>>>> Trachilos tracks may have been made by a non-hominin primate with an
>>>>> adducted hallux and they illustrated this with reference to a
>>>>> gorilla footprint.
>>>>> We believe that this comparison actually reinforces the
>>>>> interpretation of
>>>>> Gierliński et al.6. The illustrated track lacks a ball print, has a
>>>>> hallux print set
>>>>> back from digit II and separated from it by a substantial gap, and
>>>>> the strongly
>>>>> oblique concave posterodistal margin of the sole print reflects the
>>>>> length and
>>>>> finger-like character of digits II through V. None of these
>>>>> features are matched
>>>>> in the Trachilos footprints, which instead resemble the human
>>>>> footprint used
>>>>> in illustration by Meldrum and Sarmiento10. So, while we are
>>>>> mindful of the
>>>>> need for caution in the absence of any body fossils, the case that
>>>>> the Trachilos
>>>>> track-maker can be identified provisionally as a primitive, bipedal
>>>>> hominin has
>>>>> not been disproven.
>>>>>
>>>>> "The characteristics of these tracks, together with their
>>>>> geographical location
>>>>> and supposed age, potentially make them highly informative about early
>>>>> hominin evolution13,14,15. However, at present their scientific
>>>>> significance is
>>>>> limited by the poor age control on the site13. To address properly
>>>>> the exact
>>>>> importance of these findings and to put them into a global context,
>>>>> especially
>>>>> with respect to Africa, absolute ages are vital."
>>>>
>>>>          So, they cannot determinate the exact date, like 26th of
>>>> January
>>>
>>> The "exact" dating for anything is not possible.
>>
>>          Of course, so why they are saying that fire use started
>> 700kya, or they have "dates" for acquiring language "that and that",
>> when they even don't have upper and lower margins? Actually, they
>> always use upper margins as a rough date.
>
> Did you look at the paper? Ranges are given, for example, in statements
> like this:
>
> "Gierliński et al. constrained the youngest possible age by
> stratigraphic relationship with the overlying conglomerate, which they
> interpreted as the Hellenikon Group, deposited during the Messinian
> Salinity Crisis (MSC) between 5.60 and 5.53 Ma."
>
> "This leaves planktonic foraminifera as the remaining constraining
> factor for the age of the Trachilos footprints with a rather large range
> between 8.5 and 3.5 Ma."

I was talking about range of the start of using fire.

>>>> 6,053.678 BC, so they will neglect it? Just beautiful.
>>>>          I mean, what is the reason they are mentioning this date
>>>> determination? It is obvious that it is older than 5 mya, and it is
>>>> on Crete, they can establish this firmly. Or, is it even
>>>> controversial that it is on Crete? Maybe wind from Africa blew it
>>>> there, who knows? One day somebody will come with this idea.
>>>>          My god, whom I am dealing with (if this makes any sense, lol).

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

On Wednesday, December 22, 2021 at 3:24:09 PM UTC-5, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
> On 22.12.2021. 21:08, Primum Sapienti wrote:
> > Mario Petrinovic wrote:
> >> On 13.12.2021. 7:32, Primum Sapienti wrote:
> >>> Mario Petrinovic wrote:
> >>>> On 2.12.2021. 22:09, Primum Sapienti wrote:
> >>>>> recent, and public access.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-021-98618-0
> >>>>> Published: 11 October 2021
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Abstract
> >>>>> We present an updated time frame for the 30 m thick late Miocene
> >>>>> sedimentary Trachilos section from the island of Crete that
> >>>>> contains the
> >>>>> potentially oldest hominin footprints. The section is characterized by
> >>>>> normal magnetic polarity. New and published foraminifera
> >>>>> biostratigraphy
> >>>>> results suggest an age of the section within the Mediterranean biozone
> >>>>> MMi13d, younger than ~ 6.4 Ma. Calcareous nannoplankton data from
> >>>>> sediments exposed near Trachilos and belonging to the same sub-basin
> >>>>> indicate deposition during calcareous nannofossil biozone CN9bB,
> >>>>> between 6.023 and 6.727 Ma. By integrating the magneto- and
> >>>>> biostratigraphic data we correlate the Trachilos section with normal
> >>>>> polarity Chron C3An.1n, between 6.272 and 6.023 Ma. Using
> >>>>> cyclostratigraphic data based on magnetic susceptibility, we
> >>>>> constrain the
> >>>>> Trachilos footprints age at ~ 6.05 Ma, roughly 0.35 Ma older than
> >>>>> previously
> >>>>> thought. Some uncertainty remains related to an inaccessible
> >>>>> interval of  ~ 8 m
> >>>>> section and the possibility that the normal polarity might
> >>>>> represent the
> >>>>> slightly older Chron C3An.2n. Sediment accumulation rate and
> >>>>> biostratigraphic arguments, however, stand against these points and
> >>>>> favor
> >>>>> a deposition during Chron C3An.1n.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> "These footprints, which possess a suite of characteristic trace
> >>>>> fossil features
> >>>>> including expulsion rims, pull-up structures and toe drag marks,
> >>>>> indicate the
> >>>>> track-maker had a distinctive foot morphology. This morphology
> >>>>> includes
> >>>>> characters that are currently considered be unique to hominins such
> >>>>> as the
> >>>>> presence of a forefoot ball, a non-divergent and robust hallux
> >>>>> placed alongside
> >>>>> digit II on the distal margin of the sole and digits II through IV
> >>>>> becoming
> >>>>> progressively shorter. These are combined with generic primate
> >>>>> traits such as
> >>>>> the absence of a longitudinal medial arch, a proportionately
> >>>>> shorter sole and
> >>>>> a heel that is not bulbous. A straightforward comparative
> >>>>> morphological
> >>>>> analysis of the character suite suggests that the track-maker was a
> >>>>> primitive
> >>>>> hominin and a strong case has been made for it being
> >>>>> phylogenetically basal
> >>>>> to the Laetoli trackmaker, which had a longer, more human-like
> >>>>> sole9. The
> >>>>> morphometric analysis of Gierliński et al.6, shows that the
> >>>>> Trachilos footprints
> >>>>> cluster in the same anatomical space with other hominin footprints
> >>>>> and are
> >>>>> clearly separated from non-hominin primates.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> "This interpretation has been controversial, and several
> >>>>> counter-interpretations
> >>>>> have been made. For example, Meldrum and Sarmiento10 suggested that
> >>>>> the
> >>>>> Trachilos tracks may have been made by a non-hominin primate with an
> >>>>> adducted hallux and they illustrated this with reference to a
> >>>>> gorilla footprint.
> >>>>> We believe that this comparison actually reinforces the
> >>>>> interpretation of
> >>>>> Gierliński et al.6. The illustrated track lacks a ball print, has a
> >>>>> hallux print set
> >>>>> back from digit II and separated from it by a substantial gap, and
> >>>>> the strongly
> >>>>> oblique concave posterodistal margin of the sole print reflects the
> >>>>> length and
> >>>>> finger-like character of digits II through V. None of these
> >>>>> features are matched
> >>>>> in the Trachilos footprints, which instead resemble the human
> >>>>> footprint used
> >>>>> in illustration by Meldrum and Sarmiento10. So, while we are
> >>>>> mindful of the
> >>>>> need for caution in the absence of any body fossils, the case that
> >>>>> the Trachilos
> >>>>> track-maker can be identified provisionally as a primitive, bipedal
> >>>>> hominin has
> >>>>> not been disproven.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> "The characteristics of these tracks, together with their
> >>>>> geographical location
> >>>>> and supposed age, potentially make them highly informative about early
> >>>>> hominin evolution13,14,15. However, at present their scientific
> >>>>> significance is
> >>>>> limited by the poor age control on the site13. To address properly
> >>>>> the exact
> >>>>> importance of these findings and to put them into a global context,
> >>>>> especially
> >>>>> with respect to Africa, absolute ages are vital."
> >>>>
> >>>> So, they cannot determinate the exact date, like 26th of
> >>>> January
> >>>
> >>> The "exact" dating for anything is not possible.
> >>
> >> Of course, so why they are saying that fire use started
> >> 700kya, or they have "dates" for acquiring language "that and that",
> >> when they even don't have upper and lower margins? Actually, they
> >> always use upper margins as a rough date.
> >
> > Did you look at the paper? Ranges are given, for example, in statements
> > like this:
> >
> > "Gierliński et al. constrained the youngest possible age by
> > stratigraphic relationship with the overlying conglomerate, which they
> > interpreted as the Hellenikon Group, deposited during the Messinian
> > Salinity Crisis (MSC) between 5.60 and 5.53 Ma."
> >
> > "This leaves planktonic foraminifera as the remaining constraining
> > factor for the age of the Trachilos footprints with a rather large range
> > between 8.5 and 3.5 Ma."
> I was talking about range of the start of using fire.

Because the Trachilos footprints are obviously associated with firewalking.

> >>>> 6,053.678 BC, so they will neglect it? Just beautiful.
> >>>> I mean, what is the reason they are mentioning this date
> >>>> determination? It is obvious that it is older than 5 mya, and it is
> >>>> on Crete, they can establish this firmly. Or, is it even
> >>>> controversial that it is on Crete? Maybe wind from Africa blew it
> >>>> there, who knows? One day somebody will come with this idea.
> >>>> My god, whom I am dealing with (if this makes any sense, lol).
> --
> https://groups.google.com/g/human-evolution
> human-e...@googlegroups.com

On 22.12.2021. 23:40, DD'eDeN aka note/nickname/alas_my_loves wrote:
> On Wednesday, December 22, 2021 at 3:24:09 PM UTC-5, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
>> On 22.12.2021. 21:08, Primum Sapienti wrote:
>>> Mario Petrinovic wrote:
>>>> On 13.12.2021. 7:32, Primum Sapienti wrote:
>>>>> Mario Petrinovic wrote:
>>>>>> On 2.12.2021. 22:09, Primum Sapienti wrote:
>>>>>>> recent, and public access.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-021-98618-0
>>>>>>> Published: 11 October 2021
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Abstract
>>>>>>> We present an updated time frame for the 30 m thick late Miocene
>>>>>>> sedimentary Trachilos section from the island of Crete that
>>>>>>> contains the
>>>>>>> potentially oldest hominin footprints. The section is characterized by
>>>>>>> normal magnetic polarity. New and published foraminifera
>>>>>>> biostratigraphy
>>>>>>> results suggest an age of the section within the Mediterranean biozone
>>>>>>> MMi13d, younger than ~ 6.4 Ma. Calcareous nannoplankton data from
>>>>>>> sediments exposed near Trachilos and belonging to the same sub-basin
>>>>>>> indicate deposition during calcareous nannofossil biozone CN9bB,
>>>>>>> between 6.023 and 6.727 Ma. By integrating the magneto- and
>>>>>>> biostratigraphic data we correlate the Trachilos section with normal
>>>>>>> polarity Chron C3An.1n, between 6.272 and 6.023 Ma. Using
>>>>>>> cyclostratigraphic data based on magnetic susceptibility, we
>>>>>>> constrain the
>>>>>>> Trachilos footprints age at ~ 6.05 Ma, roughly 0.35 Ma older than
>>>>>>> previously
>>>>>>> thought. Some uncertainty remains related to an inaccessible
>>>>>>> interval of  ~ 8 m
>>>>>>> section and the possibility that the normal polarity might
>>>>>>> represent the
>>>>>>> slightly older Chron C3An.2n. Sediment accumulation rate and
>>>>>>> biostratigraphic arguments, however, stand against these points and
>>>>>>> favor
>>>>>>> a deposition during Chron C3An.1n.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "These footprints, which possess a suite of characteristic trace
>>>>>>> fossil features
>>>>>>> including expulsion rims, pull-up structures and toe drag marks,
>>>>>>> indicate the
>>>>>>> track-maker had a distinctive foot morphology. This morphology
>>>>>>> includes
>>>>>>> characters that are currently considered be unique to hominins such
>>>>>>> as the
>>>>>>> presence of a forefoot ball, a non-divergent and robust hallux
>>>>>>> placed alongside
>>>>>>> digit II on the distal margin of the sole and digits II through IV
>>>>>>> becoming
>>>>>>> progressively shorter. These are combined with generic primate
>>>>>>> traits such as
>>>>>>> the absence of a longitudinal medial arch, a proportionately
>>>>>>> shorter sole and
>>>>>>> a heel that is not bulbous. A straightforward comparative
>>>>>>> morphological
>>>>>>> analysis of the character suite suggests that the track-maker was a
>>>>>>> primitive
>>>>>>> hominin and a strong case has been made for it being
>>>>>>> phylogenetically basal
>>>>>>> to the Laetoli trackmaker, which had a longer, more human-like
>>>>>>> sole9. The
>>>>>>> morphometric analysis of Gierliński et al.6, shows that the
>>>>>>> Trachilos footprints
>>>>>>> cluster in the same anatomical space with other hominin footprints
>>>>>>> and are
>>>>>>> clearly separated from non-hominin primates.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "This interpretation has been controversial, and several
>>>>>>> counter-interpretations
>>>>>>> have been made. For example, Meldrum and Sarmiento10 suggested that
>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>> Trachilos tracks may have been made by a non-hominin primate with an
>>>>>>> adducted hallux and they illustrated this with reference to a
>>>>>>> gorilla footprint.
>>>>>>> We believe that this comparison actually reinforces the
>>>>>>> interpretation of
>>>>>>> Gierliński et al.6. The illustrated track lacks a ball print, has a
>>>>>>> hallux print set
>>>>>>> back from digit II and separated from it by a substantial gap, and
>>>>>>> the strongly
>>>>>>> oblique concave posterodistal margin of the sole print reflects the
>>>>>>> length and
>>>>>>> finger-like character of digits II through V. None of these
>>>>>>> features are matched
>>>>>>> in the Trachilos footprints, which instead resemble the human
>>>>>>> footprint used
>>>>>>> in illustration by Meldrum and Sarmiento10. So, while we are
>>>>>>> mindful of the
>>>>>>> need for caution in the absence of any body fossils, the case that
>>>>>>> the Trachilos
>>>>>>> track-maker can be identified provisionally as a primitive, bipedal
>>>>>>> hominin has
>>>>>>> not been disproven.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "The characteristics of these tracks, together with their
>>>>>>> geographical location
>>>>>>> and supposed age, potentially make them highly informative about early
>>>>>>> hominin evolution13,14,15. However, at present their scientific
>>>>>>> significance is
>>>>>>> limited by the poor age control on the site13. To address properly
>>>>>>> the exact
>>>>>>> importance of these findings and to put them into a global context,
>>>>>>> especially
>>>>>>> with respect to Africa, absolute ages are vital."
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So, they cannot determinate the exact date, like 26th of
>>>>>> January
>>>>>
>>>>> The "exact" dating for anything is not possible.
>>>>
>>>> Of course, so why they are saying that fire use started
>>>> 700kya, or they have "dates" for acquiring language "that and that",
>>>> when they even don't have upper and lower margins? Actually, they
>>>> always use upper margins as a rough date.
>>>
>>> Did you look at the paper? Ranges are given, for example, in statements
>>> like this:
>>>
>>> "Gierliński et al. constrained the youngest possible age by
>>> stratigraphic relationship with the overlying conglomerate, which they
>>> interpreted as the Hellenikon Group, deposited during the Messinian
>>> Salinity Crisis (MSC) between 5.60 and 5.53 Ma."
>>>
>>> "This leaves planktonic foraminifera as the remaining constraining
>>> factor for the age of the Trachilos footprints with a rather large range
>>> between 8.5 and 3.5 Ma."
>> I was talking about range of the start of using fire.
>
> Because the Trachilos footprints are obviously associated with firewalking.

No, I just mentioned them as an example of scientific dating. You have
the lower limit, you have the higher limit. That's all.
But, in the things where you have, like, connection between
intelligence, you know, the things that differentiate humans from other
animals, suddenly you take into account only the closer limit. And what
about the distanced limit?
For example, we started agriculture at the closest possible proved
date, 10 kya. We started to use fire at the closest possible date, 700
kya. And so on...
No, the right scientific approach should be, we started agriculture no
later than 10 kya, we started to use fire no later than 700 kya.
For example, see those Greek footprints. They happened no later than
this date, and no earlier than this date. So, somewhere in-between. In
human matters there is never somewhere in-between, it is always the
closest date that is in question. And what about the other limit? And,
what is even more interesting is that science knows, because of the
nature of evidence preservation, that the closest limit isn't for sure,
because they, for sure, don't have the earliest possible date, because
it would be very low chance that you stepped upon the evidence that
proves the earliest occurrence of something.
So, while in matters regarding other animals science behaves
scientifically, in matters regarding humans science suddenly loses all
the logic. It starts to behave like somebody has to push the science
deeper and deeper in time, because it accepts only the closest time.
Why? It may have its own reason, only, this isn't the scientific
procedure, suddenly science finds the reason not to follow scientific
procedure.