This is PHYSICAL evidence, not just-so story suppositions.

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41559-022-01929-2
Published: 05 January 2023

Abstract
The longitudinal arch of the human foot is viewed as
a pivotal adaptation for bipedal walking and running.
Fossil footprints from Laetoli, Tanzania, and Ileret,
Kenya, are believed to provide direct evidence of
longitudinally arched feet in hominins from the
Pliocene and Pleistocene, respectively. We studied
the dynamics of track formation using biplanar X-ray,
three-dimensional animation and discrete element
particle simulation. Here, we demonstrate that
longitudinally arched footprints are false indicators
of foot anatomy; instead they are generated through a
specific pattern of foot kinematics that is
characteristic of human walking. Analyses of fossil
hominin tracks from Laetoli show only partial evidence
of this walking style, with a similar heel strike but
a different pattern of propulsion. The earliest known
evidence for fully modern human-like bipedal kinematics
comes from the early Pleistocene Ileret tracks, which
were presumably made by members of the genus Homo. This
result signals important differences in the foot
kinematics recorded at Laetoli and Ileret and underscores
an emerging picture of locomotor diversity within the
hominin clade.

"The longitudinal arch is often cited as an important
evolutionary innovation of the human foot that contributed
to proficient bipedal walking and adept endurance running
in our fossil relatives..."

"Given the challenges of interpreting arches from fossil
feet, the Laetoli and Ileret tracks are considered the
least equivocal evidence for a deep history of
longitudinally arched foot morphologies in hominin
evolution."

"While isolated analyses of skeletal fossils have
generated conflicting interpretations about whether
the A. afarensis foot functioned like that of a modern
human, our analysis of the arched Laetoli footprints
provides a unique kinematic synthesis. Brought into view
through this new lens is a pattern of foot function and
bipedal locomotion that was human-like in some ways
yet still importantly different."

"In contrast, 1.5 Ma tracks from Ileret, Kenya, preserve
the earliest evidence for a fully human-like pattern of
foot kinematics. Tracks from Ileret (total n = 4 from
three trackways) have RAVs where we would expect similarly
deep modern human tracks to fall (Fig. 4a). These data
provide new evidence to support inferences of human-like
foot kinematics in Homo erectus. We emphasize, however,
that our track ontogeny results simultaneously invalidate
direct association between arched footprint morphology and
arched foot anatomy at Ileret11. In contrast with the
Laetoli examples above, it appears that the Ileret tracks
are fully consistent with not only a heel–sole–toe rollover
pattern but also a pattern of forefoot propulsion closer to
that observed in modern humans."

"The results of our track analyses suggest that important
changes to foot anatomy and function occurred at or before
the emergence of the genus Homo, where a suite of postcranial
changes could correspond to selective influences of locomotor
behaviours such as long-distance walking or endurance running."

Primum Sapienti wrote:

> This is PHYSICAL evidence, not just-so story suppositions.

What do you think this PHYSICAL evidence shows, and why?

It's hard to pinpoint your precise errors when you are so afraid
of voicing them, like you are here.

-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/712026788177592320

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41559-022-01929-2
Nature 5.1.23
The longitudinal arch of the human foot is viewed(yes, typical anthropocentrism: no corsorial mammal has it --mv) as a pivotal adaptation for bipedal walking & running.
Fossil footprints from Laetoli-Tanzania-Pliocene & Ileret-Kenya-Pleistocene are believed to provide direct evidence of longitudinally arched feet in hominins.
We studied the dynamics of track formation, using biplanar X-ray, 3C animation & discrete element particle simulation.
Here we demonstrate:
longitudinally arched footprints are false indicators of foot anatomy;
instead they are generated through a specific pattern of foot kinematics, characteristic of human walking.
Analyses of fossil hominin tracks from Laetoli show only partial evidence of this walking style: similar heel strike, but different pattern of propulsion.
The earliest known evidence for fully Hs-like bipedal kinematics comes from the early-Pleistocene Ileret tracks, presumably made by members of Homo.
This result
-signals important differences in the foot kinematics recorded at Laetoli & Ileret,
-underscores an emerging picture of locomotor diversity within the hominin clade.

Yes, this perfectly confirms what we're saying for ages:
-Pliocene African apiths = wading+climbing, google "aquarboreal",
-Pleist.Homo from SE.Asia->Eurasia+Africa = shallow-diving + wading.

"The longitudinal arch is often cited(cited, yes... :-DDD --mv) as an important evol.innovation of the human foot that contributed to proficient(sic --mv) bipedal walking & adept endurance running(just-so belief --mv) in our fossil relatives..."

Longit.arch = plantigrade relic of wading-swimming feet,
but cursorial mammals are digiti- (carnivores) or even unguligrade (herbivores).

These Santa-Savanna believers reason:
humans can run, humans (vs apes) have longit.foot-arches, "ergo" our foot-arch is for running.
This is a perfect example of illogical thinking.
How stupid can one be??

Moreover, these fantasts still believe humans descend from some sort of chimps:
they believe apiths with incipient-chimplike traits are "human ancestors" (anthropocentrism) with disappearing chimp-like traits.
How stupid can one be??

Other examples of afrocentric & anthropocentric interpretations of Santa-Savanna believers,
(I'm not going to waste my time with indicating the numerous illogical anthropocentrisms - every sensible reader will see these,
(e.g. most sentences with the word "hominin"(assuming that we descend from some sort of chimps) are already wrong):

> "Given the challenges of interpreting arches from fossil feet, the Laetoli & Ileret tracks are considered the least equivocal evidence for a deep history of longitudinally arched foot morphologies in hominin evolution."
> "While isolated analyses of skeletal fossils have generated conflicting interpretations about whether the A.afarensis foot functioned like that of a modern human, our analysis of the arched Laetoli footprints provides a unique kinematic synthesis. Brought into view through this new lens is a pattern of foot function & BP locomotion that was human-like in some ways yet still importantly different."(aquarboreal)
> "In contrast, 1.5 Ma tracks from Ileret preserve the earliest evidence for a fully human-like pattern of foot kinematics. Tracks from Ileret (4 from 3 trackways) have RAVs where we would expect similarly deep modern human tracks to fall (Fig.4a). These data provide new evidence to support inferences of human-like foot kinematics in H.erectus. We emphasize, however, that our track ontogeny results simultaneously invalidate direct association between arched footprint morphology & arched foot anatomy at Ileret. In contrast with the Laetoli examples above, it appears that the Ileret tracks are fully consistent with not only a heel–sole–toe rollover pattern, but also a pattern of forefoot propulsion closer to that observed in modern humans."(wading-swimming feet)
> "The results of our track analyses suggest that important changes to foot anatomy & function occurred at or before the emergence of the genus Homo, where a suite of postcranial changes could correspond to selective influences of locomotor behaviours such as long-distance walking or endurance running."(:-DDD)

Comparative (not-prejudiced=anthropocentric) view:
Miocene Hominoidea were aquarboreal: wading=plantigrade:
-most apes evolved more grasping feet for climbing, rarely wading any more,
-mountain gorillas (heavy, less climbing) still have flat feet, cf. afarensis footrpints,
-from this, Pleist.Homo evolved an arched foot.
Thanks, this confirms our view, google
"GondwanaTalks Verhaegen" :-)

JTEM is so reasonable wrote:
> Primum Sapienti wrote:
>
>> This is PHYSICAL evidence, not just-so story suppositions.
>
> What do you think this PHYSICAL evidence shows, and why?

Footprints are direct physical evidence.

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41559-022-01929-2
Published: 05 January 2023

Abstract
The longitudinal arch of the human foot is viewed as
a pivotal adaptation for bipedal walking and running.
Fossil footprints from Laetoli, Tanzania, and Ileret,
Kenya, are believed to provide direct evidence of
longitudinally arched feet in hominins from the
Pliocene and Pleistocene, respectively. We studied
the dynamics of track formation using biplanar X-ray,
three-dimensional animation and discrete element
particle simulation. Here, we demonstrate that
longitudinally arched footprints are false indicators
of foot anatomy; instead they are generated through a
specific pattern of foot kinematics that is
characteristic of human walking. Analyses of fossil
hominin tracks from Laetoli show only partial evidence
of this walking style, with a similar heel strike but
a different pattern of propulsion. The earliest known
evidence for fully modern human-like bipedal kinematics
comes from the early Pleistocene Ileret tracks, which
were presumably made by members of the genus Homo. This
result signals important differences in the foot
kinematics recorded at Laetoli and Ileret and underscores
an emerging picture of locomotor diversity within the
hominin clade.

"The longitudinal arch is often cited as an important
evolutionary innovation of the human foot that contributed
to proficient bipedal walking and adept endurance running
in our fossil relatives..."

"Given the challenges of interpreting arches from fossil
feet, the Laetoli and Ileret tracks are considered the
least equivocal evidence for a deep history of
longitudinally arched foot morphologies in hominin
evolution."

"While isolated analyses of skeletal fossils have
generated conflicting interpretations about whether
the A. afarensis foot functioned like that of a modern
human, our analysis of the arched Laetoli footprints
provides a unique kinematic synthesis. Brought into view
through this new lens is a pattern of foot function and
bipedal locomotion that was human-like in some ways
yet still importantly different."

"In contrast, 1.5 Ma tracks from Ileret, Kenya, preserve
the earliest evidence for a fully human-like pattern of
foot kinematics. Tracks from Ileret (total n = 4 from
three trackways) have RAVs where we would expect similarly
deep modern human tracks to fall (Fig. 4a). These data
provide new evidence to support inferences of human-like
foot kinematics in Homo erectus. We emphasize, however,
that our track ontogeny results simultaneously invalidate
direct association between arched footprint morphology and
arched foot anatomy at Ileret11. In contrast with the
Laetoli examples above, it appears that the Ileret tracks
are fully consistent with not only a heel–sole–toe rollover
pattern but also a pattern of forefoot propulsion closer to
that observed in modern humans."

"The results of our track analyses suggest that important
changes to foot anatomy and function occurred at or before
the emergence of the genus Homo, where a suite of postcranial
changes could correspond to selective influences of locomotor
behaviours such as long-distance walking or endurance running."

littor...@gmail.com wrote:
>

The REAL link and abstract, not what you made up.

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41559-022-01929-2
Published: 05 January 2023

Abstract
The longitudinal arch of the human foot is viewed as
a pivotal adaptation for bipedal walking and running.
Fossil footprints from Laetoli, Tanzania, and Ileret,
Kenya, are believed to provide direct evidence of
longitudinally arched feet in hominins from the
Pliocene and Pleistocene, respectively. We studied
the dynamics of track formation using biplanar X-ray,
three-dimensional animation and discrete element
particle simulation. Here, we demonstrate that
longitudinally arched footprints are false indicators
of foot anatomy; instead they are generated through a
specific pattern of foot kinematics that is
characteristic of human walking. Analyses of fossil
hominin tracks from Laetoli show only partial evidence
of this walking style, with a similar heel strike but
a different pattern of propulsion. The earliest known
evidence for fully modern human-like bipedal kinematics
comes from the early Pleistocene Ileret tracks, which
were presumably made by members of the genus Homo. This
result signals important differences in the foot
kinematics recorded at Laetoli and Ileret and underscores
an emerging picture of locomotor diversity within the
hominin clade.

"The longitudinal arch is often cited as an important
evolutionary innovation of the human foot that contributed
to proficient bipedal walking and adept endurance running
in our fossil relatives..."

"Given the challenges of interpreting arches from fossil
feet, the Laetoli and Ileret tracks are considered the
least equivocal evidence for a deep history of
longitudinally arched foot morphologies in hominin
evolution."

"While isolated analyses of skeletal fossils have
generated conflicting interpretations about whether
the A. afarensis foot functioned like that of a modern
human, our analysis of the arched Laetoli footprints
provides a unique kinematic synthesis. Brought into view
through this new lens is a pattern of foot function and
bipedal locomotion that was human-like in some ways
yet still importantly different."

"In contrast, 1.5 Ma tracks from Ileret, Kenya, preserve
the earliest evidence for a fully human-like pattern of
foot kinematics. Tracks from Ileret (total n = 4 from
three trackways) have RAVs where we would expect similarly
deep modern human tracks to fall (Fig. 4a). These data
provide new evidence to support inferences of human-like
foot kinematics in Homo erectus. We emphasize, however,
that our track ontogeny results simultaneously invalidate
direct association between arched footprint morphology and
arched foot anatomy at Ileret11. In contrast with the
Laetoli examples above, it appears that the Ileret tracks
are fully consistent with not only a heel–sole–toe rollover
pattern but also a pattern of forefoot propulsion closer to
that observed in modern humans."

"The results of our track analyses suggest that important
changes to foot anatomy and function occurred at or before
the emergence of the genus Homo, where a suite of postcranial
changes could correspond to selective influences of locomotor
behaviours such as long-distance walking or endurance running."

kudu runner:

> The REAL link and abstract, not what you made up.
> https://www.nature.com/articles/s41559-022-01929-2
> Published: 05 January 2023
> The longitudinal arch of the human foot is viewed as a pivotal adaptation for bipedal walking and running.

"viewed" by kudu runners... :-DDD
Only *incredible* idiots believe that you can run faster with flat feet.
Never heard of digitigrade carnivores & unguligrade herbivores??
Plantigrady = slow.

Stupid stupid stupid kudu runners!

somebody:

> https://www.nature.com/articles/s41559-022-01929-2
> Published: 05 January 2023
> Abstract
> The longitudinal arch of the human foot is viewed as
> a pivotal adaptation for bipedal walking and running. ...

I just sent this:

Dear Dr Hatala,

I just read your interesting article, beginning with
"The longitudinal arch of the human foot is viewed as a pivotal adaptation for bipedal walking and running."

IOO, this is confusing cause & consequence:
- runners (bipedal or quadrupedal) are unguli- or digitigrade (incl. e.g. kangaroos),
- walkers (bipedal or quardupedal) are often plantigrade, e.g. humans, sealions...
IOW, a more correct sentence had been:
"The longitudinal arch of the human foot, used for bipedal walking and running today, is a consequence of our waterside past."
Google e.g. "GondwanaTalks Verhaegen".

Best --marc verhaegen

I just sent this:

Dear professors Hatala, Gatesy and Falkingham,

I just read with interest your article
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41559-022-01929-2
"Arched footprints preserve the motions of fossil hominin feet",
beginning with
"The longitudinal arch of the human foot is viewed as a pivotal adaptation for bipedal walking and running."

IOO, this is confusing cause and consequence:
- runners (bipedal or quadrupedal) are unguli- or digitigrade, incl. e.g. kangaroos,
- walkers (bipedal or quadrupedal) are often plantigrade, incl. e.g. humans, sealions.

IOO, a more correct sentence had been:
"The longitudinal arch of the human foot, used today for bipedal walking and running, is a consequence of our waterside past",
google e.g. "GondwanaTalks Verhaegen English".

With best wishes --marc verhaegen

littor...@gmail.com wrote:
> kudu runner:
>
>> The REAL link and abstract, not what you made up.
>> https://www.nature.com/articles/s41559-022-01929-2
>> Published: 05 January 2023
>> The longitudinal arch of the human foot is viewed as a pivotal adaptation for bipedal walking and running.
>
> "viewed" by kudu runners... :-DDD

Viewed by real science, not those who make things up.

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41559-022-01929-2
Published: 05 January 2023

Abstract
The longitudinal arch of the human foot is viewed as
a pivotal adaptation for bipedal walking and running.
Fossil footprints from Laetoli, Tanzania, and Ileret,
Kenya, are believed to provide direct evidence of
longitudinally arched feet in hominins from the
Pliocene and Pleistocene, respectively. We studied
the dynamics of track formation using biplanar X-ray,
three-dimensional animation and discrete element
particle simulation. Here, we demonstrate that
longitudinally arched footprints are false indicators
of foot anatomy; instead they are generated through a
specific pattern of foot kinematics that is
characteristic of human walking. Analyses of fossil
hominin tracks from Laetoli show only partial evidence
of this walking style, with a similar heel strike but
a different pattern of propulsion. The earliest known
evidence for fully modern human-like bipedal kinematics
comes from the early Pleistocene Ileret tracks, which
were presumably made by members of the genus Homo. This
result signals important differences in the foot
kinematics recorded at Laetoli and Ileret and underscores
an emerging picture of locomotor diversity within the
hominin clade.

"The longitudinal arch is often cited as an important
evolutionary innovation of the human foot that contributed
to proficient bipedal walking and adept endurance running
in our fossil relatives..."

"Given the challenges of interpreting arches from fossil
feet, the Laetoli and Ileret tracks are considered the
least equivocal evidence for a deep history of
longitudinally arched foot morphologies in hominin
evolution."

"While isolated analyses of skeletal fossils have
generated conflicting interpretations about whether
the A. afarensis foot functioned like that of a modern
human, our analysis of the arched Laetoli footprints
provides a unique kinematic synthesis. Brought into view
through this new lens is a pattern of foot function and
bipedal locomotion that was human-like in some ways
yet still importantly different."

"In contrast, 1.5 Ma tracks from Ileret, Kenya, preserve
the earliest evidence for a fully human-like pattern of
foot kinematics. Tracks from Ileret (total n = 4 from
three trackways) have RAVs where we would expect similarly
deep modern human tracks to fall (Fig. 4a). These data
provide new evidence to support inferences of human-like
foot kinematics in Homo erectus. We emphasize, however,
that our track ontogeny results simultaneously invalidate
direct association between arched footprint morphology and
arched foot anatomy at Ileret11. In contrast with the
Laetoli examples above, it appears that the Ileret tracks
are fully consistent with not only a heel–sole–toe rollover
pattern but also a pattern of forefoot propulsion closer to
that observed in modern humans."

"The results of our track analyses suggest that important
changes to foot anatomy and function occurred at or before
the emergence of the genus Homo, where a suite of postcranial
changes could correspond to selective influences of locomotor
behaviours such as long-distance walking or endurance running."

> Only *incredible* idiots believe that you can run faster with flat feet.

We don't have flat feet. We have arches. Even you.

> Never heard of digitigrade carnivores & unguligrade herbivores??
> Plantigrady = slow.

THose are not bipeds.

> Stupid stupid stupid kudu runners!
>

Found those nostrils on the tip of your nose?

kudu runner with nostrils on the tip of his nose :-DDD:

> Found those nostrils on the tip of your nose?

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/317336008_Not_Homo_but_Pan_or_Australopithecus_naledi

Primum Sapienti wrote:

> The longitudinal arch of the human foot is viewed as

...magic?

It *Magically* ended our dependence on DHA for our brains?

It *Magically* removed the Chromosome 11 insert, the "Nuclear
DNA iInsert" of Eurasian origins that is very much older than any
Mitochondrial Eve?

It *Magically* erased Coastal Dispersal?

It *Magically* shot back into time and removed the Retro Virus
outbreak which has left evidence in African apes but not Asian
apes and humans?

Oo! I am all A-Tingle to find out which of these this magic
accomplishes... could it be all?

You are certifiably insane, no doubt about it, and you earned all
the negative attention you crave, just like mom used to give you!

Congratulations.

-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/713876271508193280