marc verhaegen wrote:


I posted this in April and formatted it better than
you did and the abstract in its entirety which
you apparently were afraid to do.

I also included the link which you seemed also afraid
to do...

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."

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Pro Plyd wrote:

Abstract
The longitudinal arch of the human foot is viewed as
a pivotal adaptation for bipedal walking and running.

Bipedalism stretches back MILLIONS of years prior to the
evolution of the first Homo. The arch is not present until
significantly later. Clearly what is stated here is falsified.

It's bullshit.

What's more: This has been pointed out to you REPEATEDLY.

You are dogmatic. Stupid, yes, but dogmatic. You're not
thinking, you're not "Arguing" you're trying to enforce your
dogma, and looking stupid for the effort.

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.

[...]

Here, we demonstrate that
longitudinally arched footprints are false indicators
of foot anatomy

And I'm not exaggerating here in the least! You're
cite DOES NOT say what you think it says. It's actually
supporting the good Doctor.

It's consistent with the good Doctor's position, and
entirely inconsistent with your own. AND THIS HAS
BEEN POINTED OUT REPEATEDLY, in a number of
threads. You're just too far gone to adapt to reality.

You're a goddamn idiot!

Have a nice day.




-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/719144199654621184

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

An idiot who believes his anestor ran after kudus repeated this nonsense:

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

Arched footprints preserve the motions of fossil hominin feet
Kevin G Hatala cs 2023 Nat.Ecol.Evol.7:32-41
The longitudinal arch of the Hs foot is viewed (:-DDD yes, by kudu runners --mv) as a pivotal adaptation for BP walking & running.
Fossil footprints (Laetoli-Tanzania vs Ileret-Kenya) are believed to provide direct evidence of longitudinally arched feet (Plio- vs Pleist.hominins).
We studied the dynamics of track-fm (biplanar RX, 3Dl animation, discrete element particle simulation):
longitudinally arched footprints are false indicators of foot anatomy:
they are generated thru specific pattern of foot kinematics, characteristic of human walking.
Analyses of Laetoli hominin tracks show only partial evidence of this walking-style: similar heel-strike, but different pattern of propulsion.
The earliest known evidence for Hs-like BP kinematics comes from the early-Pleistocene Ileret tracks, presumably made by Homo.
This result
- signals important differences in the foot kinematics recorded at Laetoli & Ileret,
- underscores an emerging picture of hominin locomotor diversity.
____

Yes, of course, human walking is very special:
- Miocene Hominoidea were already BP aquarboreals. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0169534702024904
- Using the word "hominin" presupposes australopiths as closer relatives of Homo than of Pan or Gorilla = wrong, see my Hum.Evol.papers 1994 & 1996.
https://www.academia.edu/8732353/Marc_Verhaegens_papers_in_Human_Evolution
- The Miocene footprints of Trachilos (Medit.Sea-coast) were already BP. https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-d&q=trachilos+footprints
- Gibbons are still vertical.
- Cursorial mammals never have longitudinal foot arches: they run on nails=hooves or toes.
- There's 0 evidence of correlation of BPity with longitudinal arches in other tetrapods.

The kudu runners neglect all these facts:
they're too stupid to answer these.

How our foot-arch evolved is clear, e.g.
- wading-climbing Mio-Pliocene Hominoidea https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0169534702024904
- wading-diving early-Pleistocene H.erectus 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/

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

marc verhaegen wrote:

An idiot who believes his anestor ran after kudus repeated this nonsense:

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

Arched footprints preserve the motions of fossil hominin feet

Here is the actual abstract


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.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

JTEM is my hero wrote:

Pro Plyd wrote:

Abstract
The longitudinal arch of the human foot is viewed as
a pivotal adaptation for bipedal walking and running.

Bipedalism stretches back MILLIONS of years prior to the

Every bird on the planet is bipedal. Bipedalism goes back to the
Triassic.

You are dogmatic. Stupid, yes, but dogmatic. You're not
thinking, you're not "Arguing" you're trying to enforce your
dogma, and looking stupid for the effort.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Thu, 3 Aug 2023 15:16:20 -0600, the following appeared in
talk.origins, posted by Pro Plyd <invalide@invalid.invalid>:

marc verhaegen wrote:

An idiot who believes his anestor ran after kudus repeated this nonsense:

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

Arched footprints preserve the motions of fossil hominin feet

Here is the actual abstract

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.

But all you have are evidence, studies, and rigorous
analysis. He has *conviction*! And a *superiority complex*!
And a *medical doctor* (IOW. a bio-mechanic)! There's simply
no contest!

--

Bob C.

"The most exciting phrase to hear in science,
the one that heralds new discoveries, is not
'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'"

- Isaac Asimov

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Gee whiz, exact same stupid mistake, based on the exact same
lack of reading comprehension, coming from more than one
alter... as if the same mentally ill moron is behind the different
handles...

Bob Casanova wrote:

Abstract
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.

Wow. You quoted proof that the good Doctor is right, that
bipedalism can't explain "longitudinally arched footprints"
as they only appear in our ancestors after MILLIONS OF
YEARS of bipedal locomotion.




-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/724915878503858176

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Pro Plyd wrote:

[...]

According to you, in this thread, you can't follow a conversation, the
context is lost on you immediately i..e. never grasped in the first
place.

And you can't read your own cite! It's supporting the good Doctor,
and you think it's refuting him, you're such an idiot!

Stop trying.





-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/724915878503858176

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Pro Plyd wrote:

Here is the actual abstract https://www.nature.com/articles/s41559-022-01929-2
Published: 05 January 2023

: Here, we demonstrate that
: longitudinally arched footprints are false indicators
: of foot anatomy

There. Your own cite disproves you.

Your own cite proves you're an idiot.

Your own cite supports the good Doctor and thoroughly
refutes you.

...you're just too far gone to grasp a word of it.




-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/724915878503858176

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Op donderdag 3 augustus 2023 om 23:21:01 UTC+2 schreef Pro Plyd:

marc verhaegen wrote:

An idiot who believes his anestor ran after kudus repeated this nonsense:

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

Arched footprints preserve the motions of fossil hominin feet

Somebody who doesn't understand the word "viewed":
"The longitudinal arch of the human foot is viewed as a pivotal adaptation for bipedal walking & running."
:-DDD
Only incredible imbeciles believe that flat feet + short toes are for running. They confuse cause & consequence:
we sometimes try to run fast *in spite of* our flat feet.
Ostriches & kangaroos run & jump on their toes.
Hooved mammals run fast (>2x as fast as Hs) on their hooves = nails!
Carnivores need claws: they don't run on their nails, but on their digits. Swimming & wading tetrapods have flat feet = plantigrady.
This beautifully confirms: we evolved from aquarboreal->littoral->wading-walking:
https://www.gondwanatalks.com/l/the-waterside-hypothesis-wading-led-to-upright-walking-in-early-humans/

______

Prejudiced paper from people who believe they descend from Lucy:
:-DDD

Here is the actual abstract 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.
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.

Retroviral DNA shows Pliocene human ancestors were not even in Africa, as everybody knows!
Lucy Praeanthropus afarensis was a fossil relative of Gorilla, of course, e.g. • “Incisal dental microwear in A.afarensis is most similar to that observed in Gorilla”. Ryan & Johanson 1989.
• The composite skull reconstructed mostly from A.L.333 spms “looked very much like a small female gorilla”. Johanson & Edey 1981:351.
• “Other primitive [= advanced gorilla-like --mv] features found in KNM-WT 17000, but not know or much discussed for A.afarensis, are: very small cranial capacity; low posterior profile of the calvaria; nasals extended far above the frontomaxillar
suture and well onto an uninflated glabella; and extremely convex inferolateral margins of the orbits such as found in some gorillas”. Walker cs 1986.
• As for the maximum parietal breadth & the biauriculare in O.H.5 & KNM-ER 406 “the robust australopithecines have values near the Gorilla mean: both the pongids and the robust australopithecines have highly pneumatized bases”. Kennedy 1991.
• In O.H.5, “the curious and characteristic features of the Paranthropus skull... parallel some of those of the gorilla”. Robinson 1960.
• The A.boisei “lineage has been characterized by sexual dimorphism of the degree seen in modern Gorilla for the length of its known history”. Leakey & Walker 1988.
• A.boisei teeth showed “a relative absence of prism decussation”; among extant hominoids, “Gorilla enamel showed relatively little decussation ...”. Beynon & Wood 1986.
etc.etc.etc.
Only incredible imbeciles still believe they descend from Lucy.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Thursday, 10 August 2023 at 11:21:09 UTC+3, marc verhaegen wrote:

Op donderdag 3 augustus 2023 om 23:21:01 UTC+2 schreef Pro Plyd:

marc verhaegen wrote:

An idiot who believes his anestor ran after kudus repeated this nonsense:

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

Arched footprints preserve the motions of fossil hominin feet

Somebody who doesn't understand the word "viewed":
"The longitudinal arch of the human foot is viewed as a pivotal adaptation for bipedal walking & running."
:-DDD
Only incredible imbeciles believe that flat feet + short toes are for running.
They confuse cause & consequence:
we sometimes try to run fast *in spite of* our flat feet.
Ostriches & kangaroos run & jump on their toes.
Hooved mammals run fast (>2x as fast as Hs) on their hooves = nails! Carnivores need claws: they don't run on their nails, but on their digits. Swimming & wading tetrapods have flat feet = plantigrady.
This beautifully confirms: we evolved from aquarboreal->littoral->wading-walking:
https://www.gondwanatalks.com/l/the-waterside-hypothesis-wading-led-to-upright-walking-in-early-humans/

______

Prejudiced paper from people who believe they descend from Lucy:
:-DDD

So nature.com are prejudiced people and full truth is from
sole person blogging on gondwanatalks.com? Possible, but
unlikely.

Here is the actual abstract 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.
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.

Retroviral DNA shows Pliocene human ancestors were not even in Africa, as everybody knows!

Who are those everybody and how they know? Do retroviruses
always infect all species on same continent?

Lucy Praeanthropus afarensis was a fossil relative of Gorilla, of course, e.g.
• “Incisal dental microwear in A.afarensis is most similar to that observed in Gorilla”. Ryan & Johanson 1989.
• The composite skull reconstructed mostly from A.L.333 spms “looked very much like a small female gorilla”. Johanson & Edey 1981:351.

Dental microwear indicates diet not specie and looking at 7 pieces
with most of actual skull missing leave too lot to imagination: <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lucy_(Australopithecus)#/media/File:Lucy_(Frankfurt_am_Main).jpg>
Does someone say that Selam's skull <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Selam_(Australopithecus)#/media/File:SelamAustralopithecus.jpg>
or Taung Child's <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taung_Child#/media/File:Australopithecus_africanus_-_Cast_of_taung_child_Face.jpg>
skull looks very much like gorilla?

• “Other primitive [= advanced gorilla-like --mv] features found in KNM-WT 17000, but not know or much discussed for A.afarensis, are: very small cranial capacity; low posterior profile of the calvaria; nasals extended far above the frontomaxillar

suture and well onto an uninflated glabella; and extremely convex inferolateral margins of the orbits such as found in some gorillas”. Walker cs 1986.

• As for the maximum parietal breadth & the biauriculare in O.H.5 & KNM-ER 406 “the robust australopithecines have values near the Gorilla mean: both the pongids and the robust australopithecines have highly pneumatized bases”. Kennedy 1991.
• In O.H.5, “the curious and characteristic features of the Paranthropus skull... parallel some of those of the gorilla”. Robinson 1960.
• The A.boisei “lineage has been characterized by sexual dimorphism of the degree seen in modern Gorilla for the length of its known history”. Leakey & Walker 1988.
• A.boisei teeth showed “a relative absence of prism decussation”; among extant hominoids, “Gorilla enamel showed relatively little decussation ...”. Beynon & Wood 1986.
etc.etc.etc.
Only incredible imbeciles still believe they descend from Lucy.

You can only discredit yourself by making such immature remarks.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Thu, 10 Aug 2023 02:41:12 -0700 (PDT), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by �� Tiib <ootiib@hot.ee>:

On Thursday, 10 August 2023 at 11:21:09 UTC+3, marc verhaegen wrote:

Op donderdag 3 augustus 2023 om 23:21:01 UTC+2 schreef Pro Plyd:

marc verhaegen wrote:

An idiot who believes his anestor ran after kudus repeated this nonsense:

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

Arched footprints preserve the motions of fossil hominin feet

Somebody who doesn't understand the word "viewed":
"The longitudinal arch of the human foot is viewed as a pivotal adaptation for bipedal walking & running."
:-DDD
Only incredible imbeciles believe that flat feet + short toes are for running.
They confuse cause & consequence:
we sometimes try to run fast *in spite of* our flat feet.
Ostriches & kangaroos run & jump on their toes.
Hooved mammals run fast (>2x as fast as Hs) on their hooves = nails!
Carnivores need claws: they don't run on their nails, but on their digits. >> Swimming & wading tetrapods have flat feet = plantigrady.
This beautifully confirms: we evolved from aquarboreal->littoral->wading-walking:
https://www.gondwanatalks.com/l/the-waterside-hypothesis-wading-led-to-upright-walking-in-early-humans/

______

Prejudiced paper from people who believe they descend from Lucy:
:-DDD

So nature.com are prejudiced people and full truth is from
sole person blogging on gondwanatalks.com? Possible, but
unlikely.

Here is the actual abstract
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.
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.

Retroviral DNA shows Pliocene human ancestors were not even in Africa, as everybody knows!

Who are those everybody and how they know? Do retroviruses
always infect all species on same continent?

Lucy Praeanthropus afarensis was a fossil relative of Gorilla, of course, e.g.
� �Incisal dental microwear in A.afarensis is most similar to that observed in Gorilla�. Ryan & Johanson 1989.
� The composite skull reconstructed mostly from A.L.333 spms �looked very much like a small female gorilla�. Johanson & Edey 1981:351.

Dental microwear indicates diet not specie and looking at 7 pieces
with most of actual skull missing leave too lot to imagination: ><https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lucy_(Australopithecus)#/media/File:Lucy_(Frankfurt_am_Main).jpg>
Does someone say that Selam's skull ><https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Selam_(Australopithecus)#/media/File:SelamAustralopithecus.jpg>
or Taung Child's ><https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taung_Child#/media/File:Australopithecus_africanus_-_Cast_of_taung_child_Face.jpg>
skull looks very much like gorilla?

� �Other primitive [= advanced gorilla-like --mv] features found in KNM-WT 17000, but not know or much discussed for A.afarensis, are: very small cranial capacity; low posterior profile of the calvaria; nasals extended far above the frontomaxillar

suture and well onto an uninflated glabella; and extremely convex inferolateral margins of the orbits such as found in some gorillas�. Walker cs 1986.

� As for the maximum parietal breadth & the biauriculare in O.H.5 & KNM-ER 406 �the robust australopithecines have values near the Gorilla mean: both the pongids and the robust australopithecines have highly pneumatized bases�. Kennedy 1991.
� In O.H.5, �the curious and characteristic features of the Paranthropus skull... parallel some of those of the gorilla�. Robinson 1960.
� The A.boisei �lineage has been characterized by sexual dimorphism of the degree seen in modern Gorilla for the length of its known history�. Leakey & Walker 1988.
� A.boisei teeth showed �a relative absence of prism decussation�; among extant hominoids, �Gorilla enamel showed relatively little decussation ...�. Beynon & Wood 1986.
etc.etc.etc.
Only incredible imbeciles still believe they descend from Lucy.

You can only discredit yourself by making such immature remarks.

Just a note: Adding "further" after "yourself" would make
your comment more accurate. Discrediting him is similar to
making the ocean wet.

--

Bob C.

"The most exciting phrase to hear in science,
the one that heralds new discoveries, is not
'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'"

- Isaac Asimov

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Bob Casanova wrote:

On Thu, 3 Aug 2023 15:16:20 -0600, the following appeared in
talk.origins, posted by Pro Plyd <invalide@invalid.invalid>:

marc verhaegen wrote:

An idiot who believes his anestor ran after kudus repeated this nonsense: >>>

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

Arched footprints preserve the motions of fossil hominin feet

Here is the actual abstract


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.

But all you have are evidence, studies, and rigorous
analysis. He has *conviction*! And a *superiority complex*!
And a *medical doctor* (IOW. a bio-mechanic)! There's simply
no contest!

gasp, a touch, I do confess!

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

JDUM is my hero wrote:


Not now, jon jon, adults are talking.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

JTEM is a zero wrote:

Pro Plyd wrote:

Here is the actual abstract
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41559-022-01929-2
Published: 05 January 2023

: Here, we demonstrate that
: longitudinally arched footprints are false indicators
: of foot anatomy

There. Your own cite disproves you.

Your own cite proves you're an idiot.

Your own cite supports the good Doctor and thoroughly
refutes you.

It's your groomer's cite. LOL

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

marc verhaegen wrote:

Op donderdag 3 augustus 2023 om 23:21:01 UTC+2 schreef Pro Plyd:

marc verhaegen wrote:

An idiot who believes his anestor ran after kudus repeated this nonsense: >>>

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

Arched footprints preserve the motions of fossil hominin feet

Somebody who doesn't understand the word "viewed":
"The longitudinal arch of the human foot is viewed as a pivotal adaptation for bipedal walking & running."
:-DDD
Only incredible imbeciles believe that flat feet + short toes are for running.

We don't have flat feet.

They confuse cause & consequence:
we sometimes try to run fast *in spite of* our flat feet.

We don't have flat feet.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Pro Plyd wrote:

Check it out, retard, your own cite supports the good Doctor:

: Here, we demonstrate that
: longitudinally arched footprints are false indicators
: of foot anatomy

So the actual evidence for "Longitudinally arched" feet is *Way*
younger than bipedalism, like the good Doctor's model would
require.

***
Under his model, either the lack of these longitudinally arched
feet is due to their failure to evolve until a much more recent
point, or they are associated with a population not represented
in the sampling ("aquatic ape"). Either way, the longitudinally
arched feet aren't associated with bipedalism but something
else.
***

This is childishly simple: Seeing how bipedalism is conventionally
dated to as much as five million years earlier than these
longitudinally arched feet, it would be reasonable to expect them
to have evolved much early if they were a result of bipedalism, and unreasonable to insist that one was the consequence of the
other.

Again, incredible simple here... overly simplistic.

Your own cite proves the good Doctor has a point.




-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/726385068482936832

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Pro Plyd wrote:

We don't have flat feet.

Our ancestors did, even after MILLIONS of years of
bipedalism, you idiot.

What part of "HUMAN ORIGINS" are you having difficulty
grasping?




-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/726385068482936832

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

You're not brite, not one wit, and your own cite establishes
that your "Longitudinal Arched Feet" aren't associated with
bipedalism..while the good Doctor posits a precursor &
you can't.

This is why you went mental..are still going mental.

Doesn't matter how much or little you like the good Doctors
ideas, you literally have no alternative. None. And further
acting out like a child is never ever going to change this.



-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/727585508731092992

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Pro Plyd wrote:

We don't have flat feet.

We're talking about our ancestor, you nimrod, and they did
have flat feet.

Nice of you to "Keep up" with things..mighty white of you.




-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/727585508731092992

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

JTEM is my hero wrote:

Pro Plyd wrote:

We don't have flat feet.

Our ancestors did, even after MILLIONS of years of
bipedalism, you idiot.

And the fossil evidence for that is ->

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

JTEM is my hero wrote:

Pro Plyd wrote:

We don't have flat feet.

We're talking about our ancestor, you nimrod, and they did
have flat feet.

Replying twice? Maybe you should see if they make a
child's dosage version of Prevagen...

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

JTEM is my hero wrote:

Pro Plyd wrote:

[...]

According to you, in this thread, you can't follow a conversation, the context is lost on you immediately i..e. never grasped in the first
place.

And you can't read your own cite! It's supporting the good Doctor,
and you think it's refuting him, you're such an idiot!

Stop trying.

It's your groomer's cite.

https://groups.google.com/g/talk.origins/c/VIXZN0Uzijo

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Sat, 9 Sep 2023 20:59:06 -0600, the following appeared in
talk.origins, posted by Pro Plyd <invalide@invalid.invalid>:

JTEM is my hero wrote:

Pro Plyd wrote:

[...]

According to you, in this thread, you can't follow a conversation, the
context is lost on you immediately i..e. never grasped in the first
place.

And you can't read your own cite! It's supporting the good Doctor,
and you think it's refuting him, you're such an idiot!

Stop trying.

It's your groomer's cite.

https://groups.google.com/g/talk.origins/c/VIXZN0Uzijo

"groomer's cite"? As contrasted with his and his groomer's
Site?:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OALXV8Jlevo

--

Bob C.

"The most exciting phrase to hear in science,
the one that heralds new discoveries, is not
'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'"

- Isaac Asimov

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Pro Plyd wrote:

And the fossil evidence for that is ->

Your. Our. Goddamn. Cite.

Try reading it..for the first time ever.

There are fossilized footprints. They do NOT show the
arched feet that you pretend to show. YOUR OWN CITE
SAYS IT!

Well, on the bright side, at least you idiotically
inappropriate response wasn't "You first." Not this
time.




-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/728024793991069696

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)