Arched footprints preserve the motions of fossil hominin feet
Kevin G Hatala, Stephen M Gatesy & Peter L Falkingham 2023
Nature Ecology & Evolution 7:32-41

The longitudinal arch of the human foot is viewed as a pivotal adaptation for BP walking & running.
Fossil footprints from Laetoli-Tanzania & Ileret-Kenya are believed to provide direct evidence of longitudinally arched feet in hominins from the Plio- & Pleistocene resp.
We studied the dynamics of track-fm: biplanar X-ray, 3Dl 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 modern human-like BP kinematics comes from the early Pleistocene Ileret tracks,
these were presumably made by members of the genus 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, of course, human walking is very special.
I tried to send a comment, something like this:
- The earliest Hominoidea already had some form of BPity, google "aquarboreal".
- The use of the word "hominin" presupposes australopiths as closer relatives of Homo than of Pan or Gorilla (wrong IMO, e.g. my Hum.Evol.papers 1994 & 1996).
- The Miocene footprints of Trachilos (Medit.Sea-coast) were already BP.
- Hylobatids are (still?) mostly vertical.
- Cursorial mammals don't have longitudinal foot arches AFAIK, but are unguli- or digitigrade.
- There's no evidence of correlation of BPity with longitudinal arches in other tetrapods AFAIK.

How our foot-arches evolved is not so difficult to understand IMO, e.g.
- wading-climbing Mio-Pliocene Hominoidea, google “aquarboreal”
- wading-diving early-Pleistocene Homo, e.g. H.erectus, google “pachyosteosclerosis”
- wading-walking late-Pleistocene Homo, google “gondwanatalks Verhaegen Bonne”

littor...@gmail.com wrote:

> Arched footprints preserve the motions of fossil hominin feet
> Kevin G Hatala, Stephen M Gatesy & Peter L Falkingham 2023
> Nature Ecology & Evolution 7:32-41

I'm going to repeat what I said elsewhere, because this is so important:

People don't seem to be "Getting" this but, there is no real evidence for
this arch until AFTER the chromosome fusion... believed to have
happened less than 2 million years ago.

Now you have to actually know a little something about the good
Doctor's position to grasp what this means. But he makes a great
deal out of erectus and the evidence for diving.

Maybe we can say "Swimming," because underwater swimming is
still swimming.

The good Doctor isn't speculating here, he's pointing to the physical
evidence for this. He's explaining the physical evidence: "Their
remains look this way because they were diving."

AND THIS he's seeing in finds that existed AFTER the chromosome
fusion.

I'm the one making the big deal about the chromosome fusion, not
him. That's what I do. I steal things from different people and merge
them, because the fact that they can and do merge means something.

So what it looks like to me is that our ancestors were waterside.They
lived along the shore. They exploited the sea. The consumed
resources and then moved on. And as they did this, at various points
in time (and places) groups branched off, pushed inland and adapted.
But they would have remained co fertile for quite some time.

The waterside group would have been moderating the adaptations,
the evolution of the inland groups. The inland groups would have been
moderating the evolution of the waterside group...

AFTER THE CHROMOSOME FUSION, all this interbreeding, this
moderation of the evolution just kind of stopped. The chromosome
fusion was a barrier to interbreeding. This allowed the waterside group
to better adapt to the water, as they were no longer being influenced
by the inland populations. AND IT WAS AT THIS POINT where the arch
seems to pop into evidence.

Too complicated for savanna mouth breathers?

No doubt.

But consider also that bipedalism is VASTLY older than is Homo, YES
amongst our ancestors. Starting with us, drawing a line backwards
though all our potential ancestors, most of the history of bipedalism
in our line was already over before Homo arose. So this arch can't be
associated with bipedalism. It wasn't MILLIONS OF YEARS OF
EVOLUTION that produced this arch. It was, at most, a few hundred
thousand years following the chromosome fusion. Which strongly
suggests environment as the factor. We stopped being influenced by
the more primitive inland groups, we adapted more fully to waterside..

It's all actually pretty brilliant. So brilliant that it has been lost entirely
on every last opponent to Aquatic Ape. Not one has read the good
Doctor's words and grasped their significance.

The collective minds of Out of Africa purists across at least three
groups that I follow, and never once has one grasped a word of this
stuff.

Congratulations.

-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/722829763403743232

Op zaterdag 15 juli 2023 om 04:17:42 UTC+2 schreef JTEM is so reasonable:
> littor...@gmail.com wrote:

> > Arched footprints preserve the motions of fossil hominin feet
> > Kevin G Hatala, Stephen M Gatesy & Peter L Falkingham 2023
> > Nature Ecology & Evolution 7:32-41

> I'm going to repeat what I said elsewhere, because this is so important:
> People don't seem to be "Getting" this but, there is no real evidence for
> this arch until AFTER the chromosome fusion... believed to have
> happened less than 2 million years ago.
> Now you have to actually know a little something about the good
> Doctor's position to grasp what this means. But he makes a great
> deal out of erectus and the evidence for diving.
> Maybe we can say "Swimming," because underwater swimming is
> still swimming.
> The good Doctor isn't speculating here, he's pointing to the physical
> evidence for this. He's explaining the physical evidence: "Their
> remains look this way because they were diving."
> AND THIS he's seeing in finds that existed AFTER the chromosome
> fusion.
> I'm the one making the big deal about the chromosome fusion, not
> him. That's what I do. I steal things from different people and merge
> them, because the fact that they can and do merge means something.
> So what it looks like to me is that our ancestors were waterside.They
> lived along the shore. They exploited the sea. The consumed
> resources and then moved on. And as they did this, at various points
> in time (and places) groups branched off, pushed inland and adapted.
> But they would have remained co fertile for quite some time.
> The waterside group would have been moderating the adaptations,
> the evolution of the inland groups. The inland groups would have been
> moderating the evolution of the waterside group...
> AFTER THE CHROMOSOME FUSION, all this interbreeding, this
> moderation of the evolution just kind of stopped. The chromosome
> fusion was a barrier to interbreeding. This allowed the waterside group
> to better adapt to the water, as they were no longer being influenced
> by the inland populations. AND IT WAS AT THIS POINT where the arch
> seems to pop into evidence.
> Too complicated for savanna mouth breathers?

And also too complicated for the "good doctor"?? :-D
You're referring to Hs having 2 chromosomes less than apes?
Where do we see chromo-fusions in other animals? correlation with lifestyle changes?
e.g. correlation with island-living?? cause of consequence of lifestyle change??
But wasn't the foot-arch much older? e.g. Trachilos??
In any case, foot-arches are NOT for running, of course: cursorial mammals are unguli- or digitigrade.
In any case, interesting thinking: I'll forward this to aat@groups.io

> No doubt.
> But consider also that bipedalism is VASTLY older than is Homo, YES
> amongst our ancestors. Starting with us, drawing a line backwards
> though all our potential ancestors, most of the history of bipedalism
> in our line was already over before Homo arose. So this arch can't be
> associated with bipedalism. It wasn't MILLIONS OF YEARS OF
> EVOLUTION that produced this arch. It was, at most, a few hundred
> thousand years following the chromosome fusion. Which strongly
> suggests environment as the factor. We stopped being influenced by
> the more primitive inland groups, we adapted more fully to waterside..

Interesting. Possible.
(Hominoid "BPism" is at least early-Miocene (>25 Ma?) IMO, google "aquarboreal".)

> It's all actually pretty brilliant. So brilliant that it has been lost entirely
> on every last opponent to Aquatic Ape. Not one has read the good
> Doctor's words and grasped their significance.
> The collective minds of Out of Africa purists across at least three
> groups that I follow, and never once has one grasped a word of this
> stuff.
> Congratulations.

:-)

littor...@gmail.com wrote:
> Arched footprints preserve the motions of fossil hominin feet

I posted this in March. Here is the REAL abstract and
some excerpts...

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."

"Arched footprints preserve the motions of fossil hominin feet"

Yes, of course, human walking is ex-swimming-wading:
- The earliest Hominoidea were already BP=aquarboreal = vertical BP.wading+vert.climbing+arm-hanging
https://www.gondwanatalks.com/l/the-waterside-hypothesis-wading-led-to-upright-walking-in-early-humans/
- The use of the word "hominin" wrongly presupposes australopiths as closer relatives of Homo than of Pan or Gorilla
https://www.academia.edu/8732353/Marc_Verhaegens_papers_in_Human_Evolution
- The Miocene hominid footprints of Trachilos (Medit.Sea-coast) were already BP.
- Hylobatids are (still) mostly vertical.
- Cursorial tetrapods don't have longitudinal foot arches, most are unguli- or digitigrade, never plantigrade.
- There's 0 evidence of correlation of BPity with longitudinal arches in other tetrapods.

How human foot-arches evolved is not so difficult to understand IMO, e.g.
- wading-climbing Mio-Pliocene Hominoidea https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0169534702024904
- wading-diving early-Pleistocene Homo https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/21741646/
- wading-walking late-Pleistocene Homo
https://www.gondwanatalks.com/l/the-waterside-hypothesis-wading-led-to-upright-walking-in-early-humans/

> https://www.nature.com/articles/s41559-022-01929-2
> 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:

> I posted this in March.

And has been REPEATEDLY pointed out, it supports the good Doctor's
views...

> 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.

You being an idiot, they're saying that your "longitudinally
arched footprints" are NOT longitudinally arched footprints.

So, MILLIONS OF YEARS of bipedal evolution amongst our
ancestors, and these longitudinally arched feet don't appear
to be associated with any of it. No, they appear to have
evolved for some other reason.

The good Doctor is right. And you've proven him right a very
many times... only you're too stupid to know it.

-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/724367398494437376

littor...@gmail.com wrote:
> "Arched footprints preserve the motions of fossil hominin feet"
>
> Yes, of course, human walking is ex-swimming-wading:

Wading is walking in shallow water and has nothing to do with
swimming.

Primum Sapienti wrote:

> Wading is

Your own cite proved you wrong. The arched feet wasn't a
result of bipedalism. Our ancestors were walking bipedally
for millions of years prior to arched feet.
So the arched feet needed something else.

-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/725326422014640128

somebody:

> Wading is walking in shallow water and has nothing to do with
> swimming.

??
Most wading tetrapods also swim...
Flat feet are advantageous for swimming (paddle) as well as for wading (mud).

But only incredible imbeciles believe that horses & antelopes & deer run with flat feet.

JTEM is so reasonable wrote:
> Primum Sapienti wrote:
>
>> Wading is
>
> Your own cite proved you wrong. The arched feet wasn't a
> result of bipedalism. Our ancestors were walking bipedally
> for millions of years prior to arched feet.
> So the arched feet needed something else.

Walking. Because wading is just walking in shallow
water and thus water isn't needed.

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:

> JTEM is so reasonable wrote:

> > Your own cite proved you wrong. The arched feet wasn't a
> > result of bipedalism. Our ancestors were walking bipedally
> > for millions of years prior to arched feet.
> > So the arched feet needed something else.

> Walking. Because wading is just walking in shallow
> water and thus water isn't needed.

Again, because your religion is blocking you from seeing it,
you "Longitudinal Arched Feet" don't actually appear until
after at least 5 million years of bipedal locomotion. So,
they are not the product of bipedalism.

Your own cite:

> We emphasize, however,
> that our track ontogeny results simultaneously invalidate
> direct association between arched footprint morphology and
> arched foot anatomy at Ileret11.

So the selective pressure wasn't bipedal locomotion, as you
keep establishing. The good Doctor has a great point.

-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/726557549488439296