A brief moment in the magnificent history of mankind

Posted 27 February 2009 by PZ Myers

Isn't that beautiful? It's an ancient footprint in some lumpy rocks in Kenya…but it is 1½ million years old. It comes from the Koobi Fora formation, familiar to anyone who follows human evolution, and is probably from Homo ergaster. There aren't a lot of them; one series of three hominin trails containing 2-7 prints, and a stratigraphically separate section with one trail of 2 prints and an isolated single print. But there they are, a preserved record of a trivial event — a few of our remote relatives taking a walk across a mudflat by a river — rendered awesome by their rarity and the magnitude of the time separating us.

Here's one of the trails:

(Click for larger image)Tessellated swath of optical laser scans of the main footprint trail on the upper footprint surface at FwJj14E. Color is rendered with 5-mm isopleths.

It's an interesting bridge across time. There they were, a couple of pre-humans out for a stroll, perhaps on their way to find something for lunch, or strolling off to urinate, probably nothing dramatic, and these few footprints were left in drying mud to be found over a million years later, when they would be scanned with a laser, digitized, and analyzed with sophisticated software, and then uploaded to a digital network where everyone in the world can take a look at them. Something so ephemeral can be translated across incomprehensible ages…I don't know about you, but I'm wondering about the possible future fate of the debris of my life that has ended up in landfills, or the other small smudges across the landscape that I've left behind me.

And what have we learned? The analysis has looked at the shape of the foot, the angle of the big toe, the distribution of weight as the hominins walked across the substrate, all the anatomical and physiological details that can be possibly extracted from a few footprints.

(Click for larger image) Optical laser scan images color-rendered with 5-mm isopleths for footprints at both FwJj14E and GaJi10. (A) Isolated left foot (FUI1) on the upper footprint surface at FwJj14E. (B) Photograph of FUI8 on the upper footprint surface at FwJj14E, showing good definition of the toe pads; the second toe is partially obscured by the third toe. (C) Second trail on the upper footprint surface at FwJj14E, showing two left feet. (D) Third trail on the upper footprint surface at FwJj14E, showing a right and a left foot. (E) Print R3 from GaJi10 (22), re-excavated and scanned as part of this investigation. (F) Partial print (FUT1-2) on the upper footprint surface at FwJj14E; the heel area has been removed by a later bovid print. (G) Print FLI1 on the lower footprint surface at FwJj14E, rendered with 5-mm alternating black and white isopleths. (H) Inverted image of the toe area of print FUT1-1 with alternating 5-mm black and white isopleths. Note the locations of the pads of the small toes and the presence of a well-defined ball beneath the hallucial metatarsophalangeal joint. The first, third, and fifth toes are marked D1, D3, and D5, respectively.

The answer is that these beings walked just like us. The tracks are noticeably different from the even older footprints of australopithecines found at Laetoli, from 3.5 million years ago. The foot shape and the stride of Homo ergaster was statistically indistinguishable from those of modern humans, even though we know from the bones associated with these species that they were cranially distinct from us. This is not a surprise; it's been known for a long time that we evolved these bipedal forms long ago, and that the cerebral innovations we regard as so characteristic of humanity are a relative late-comer in our history.

Remember, though, these are 1½ million years old, 250 times older than the age of the earth, according to creationists. That's a lot of wonder and history and evidence to throw away, but they do it anyway.

Bennet MR, Harris JWK, Richmond BG, Braun DR, Mbua E, Kiura P, Olago D, Kibunjia M, Omuombo C, Behrensmeyer AK, Huddart D, Gonzalez S (2009) Early Hominin Foot Morphology Based on 1.5-Million-Year-Old Footprints from Ileret, Kenya. Science 323(5918):1197-1201.

64 Comments

John Kwok · 27 February 2009

Am sure that if P. G. Williamson - who was the invertebrate paleontologist working alongside Richard Leaky back in the 1980s - was still alive, then he'd be elated by this news. Without a doubt, a most impressive hominid paleobiological find which merely emphasizes how early the trait for upright posture and walking did occur for the hominid lineage leading to us.

stevaroni · 27 February 2009

How do you know that a humanlike creature whose foot shape and gait size are statistically indistinguishable from modern humans made these tracks?

Were you there?

It could have been.. er.. dinosaurs dancing. Yeah! that's it. Plant eating dinosaurs dancing in the garden!

1.5 million years ago.

No, wait, there was no 1.5 million years ago...

Um, I'll get back to you on that.

Oh, no wait - I know the answer! "Here!"

No, No, that doesn't make any sense either. You must be Satan.

stevaroni · 27 February 2009

(I had to get it in before the creobots started commenting)

harold · 27 February 2009

I'm sure that there are equally young dinosaur footprints right beside them, evil-utionist!

KP · 27 February 2009

Any dinosaur prints next to those??

Anyone? Anyone?

fasteddie · 27 February 2009

There's no evolution here! It's still a part of the footprint kind! And what of all the gaps between the footprints! Where is the slow, gradual transformation from one footprint to the other?!?!?!

(this was sarcasm, so back off)

KP · 27 February 2009

harold said: I'm sure that there are equally young dinosaur footprints right beside them, evil-utionist!

Ah, man, I was too slow...

John Kwok · 27 February 2009

Am sure that if P. G. Williamson - who was the invertebrate paleontologist working alongside Richard Leaky back in the 1980s - was still alive, then he’d be elated by this news. Without a doubt, a most impressive hominid paleobiological discovery which merely emphasizes how early the trait for upright posture and walking did occur for the hominid lineage leading to us.

As some of you may know, P. G. identified a classic example of evolutionary stasis in at least one freshwater gastropod lineage that he had studied from the Kobi Fora Formation.

fasteddie · 27 February 2009

More seriously, I love reading about stuff like this. Think of the hundreds or thousands of hours spent digging in the heat -- one grain of dirt at a time -- to make this sort of discovery.

And speaking of discovery, it's interesting that yet again we have another major scientific find which *wasn't* found by the Discovery Institute. Science is a verb. It's not something which happens while blogging or lobbying a school board.

KP · 27 February 2009

fasteddie said: And speaking of discovery, it's interesting that yet again we have another major scientific find which *wasn't* found by the Discovery Institute. Science is a verb. It's not something which happens while blogging or lobbying a school board.

This is the most poignant reality. This is, I think, the third *major* find on *human* evolution alone that I've read about on PT in the last two months. Let alone all the other stuff that is available elsewhere and stuff that none of us have time to read. What new evidence have the ID/creationists developed lately? What predictions have they made that were rewarded with such a dicovery of this caliber? Anyone? Anyone?

KP · 27 February 2009

KP said: ...read about on PT in the last two months.

Um, I meant ONE month

Henry J · 27 February 2009

What predictions have they made

WATERLOO!!!!!!

Mike · 27 February 2009

One of the first gut wrenching pieces of @$*^% I ever saw or heard from scientific creationists was that damn fake human footprints alongside dino footprints @$*^%. Would someone please show the AIG @$*^%s what a fossilized human footprint looks like?

Mike · 27 February 2009

Mike said: fossilized human footprint looks like?

Yeah, that's a mistake. Well, there's the likely propaganda ploy, isn't it? Its not human, but they'll insist that it is. The YECs will just insist that God's changing radioactive decay rates to fool us.

Jedidiah Palosaari · 27 February 2009

Wow. That's amazing. That means these guys must have been walking through outer space, before the Earth was created!!!

KP · 27 February 2009

Mike said: Yeah, that's a mistake. Well, there's the likely propaganda ploy, isn't it? Its not human, but they'll insist that it is. The YECs will just insist that God's changing radioactive decay rates to fool us.

Or that it was the footprint of an individual wiped out in Noah's flood and that all that flood sediment preserved this *perfect* fossil. Let them insist that it's a human footprint. Then, by your statement above, they have to explain EITHER 1) how/why "humans" have been around for 1.5 million years or 2) why God likes to be a Deceiver w/r/t radioactive decay rate measurement.

CJColucci · 27 February 2009

Will someone be marketing casts of this? I'd like to buy one.

Michael Roberts · 27 February 2009

These are the african Paluxy prints

Ravilyn Sanders · 27 February 2009

KP said: What new evidence have the ID/creationists developed lately? What predictions have they made that were rewarded with such a dicovery of this caliber? Anyone? Anyone?

Of course the Distortion Institute does a lot of field research and they do go looking for specimens. Looks like they have unearthed a specimen of nitwit among the Iowa legislators. They got him to introduce "academic freedom" bill there. See? That is the kind of background research they do.

Stevie · 27 February 2009

As nice as this find is (and that strange fish), don't you think it is a bit dishonest not to link your post to the actual researchblogging site?
Why do you have all these peer-reviewed logos for your posts (which are nice) but you don't have a single one registered at the actual site?
http://researchblogging.org/blog/home/id/50
Do you agree that is either sloppy or dishonest?

RBH · 27 February 2009

Stevie said: As nice as this find is (and that strange fish), don't you think it is a bit dishonest not to link your post to the actual researchblogging site? Why do you have all these peer-reviewed logos for your posts (which are nice) but you don't have a single one registered at the actual site? http://researchblogging.org/blog/home/id/50 Do you agree that is either sloppy or dishonest?

This post is cross-posted from PZ Myers' home blog, Pharyngula, which is registered.

Wheels · 27 February 2009

Is it just me, or do the anti-evolutionists tend not to post in threads related to obvious physical evidence and instead only stick with the more ephemeral topics, like anything regarding information theory or law?

Dave Wisker · 27 February 2009

I see evidence of pedicure.

Drew Tatusko · 27 February 2009

"That’s a lot of wonder and history and evidence to throw away, but they do it anyway."

It amazes me how the creationists claim to have an awe about the universe, but only in so far as it fits with in a pre-conceived structure in which to understand it. It is a worldview that does away with so much of our shared history. That is not awe at all, but social control.

KP · 27 February 2009

Wheels said: Is it just me, or do the anti-evolutionists tend not to post in threads related to obvious physical evidence and instead only stick with the more ephemeral topics, like anything regarding information theory or law?

It's not just you. There's physical evidence of novparl being very vocal in the Iowa thread above this one, but not a word here.

mrg · 27 February 2009

It might not be so much that physical evidence is like holding up the crucifix and the wooden stake -- so much as Darwin-bashers are more drawn to political and philosophical controversies.

Speculative but makes sense -- physical evidence is clearly not a matter of significant interest to them, the matter being one of ideology. The evidence is irrelevant at best and an annoyance at worst.

Cheers -- MrG / http://www.vectorsite.net/gblog.html

Frank J · 28 February 2009

The YECs will just insist that God’s changing radioactive decay rates to fool us.
— Mike

But as you probably know, OECs (old-style, like Hugh Ross) will insist that the decay rates are correct, and IDers will simply avoid the subject.

Speculative but makes sense – physical evidence is clearly not a matter of significant interest to them, the matter being one of ideology. The evidence is irrelevant at best and an annoyance at worst.
— mrg

Et tu, Mr. G.? Who is "them"? In case any lurkers are relatively new to anti-evolution antics, on the X axis we have YECs, OECs IDers, etc. On the Y axis we have the activists (professionals, and amateurs like novparl), and the rank and file (~70% of adult Americans, split roughly equally between those who will not accept evolution under any circumstances, those who doubt evolution but might accept it if their misconceptions are cleared up, and those who accept evolution, ususlly in caricature form, but think it's fair to "teach the controversy"). Professionals do care about evidence. Like quotes, it's their raw material to take out of context to perpetrate their scam.

It’s not just you. There’s physical evidence of novparl being very vocal in the Iowa thread above this one, but not a word here.
— KP

But with rare exception, like the occasional Paul Nelson drive-by, the professionals avoid all the threads on pro-science blogs and newsgroups. They prefer their own forums where they can delete inconvenient replies.

ashes · 1 March 2009

Remember, though, these are 1½ million years old, 250 times older than the age of the earth, according to creationists.

As a professor ranting against religion, you should be more precise. There are young earth creationists, gap theory creationists, and old earth creationists.

Frank J · 1 March 2009

ashes said:
Remember, though, these are 1½ million years old, 250 times older than the age of the earth, according to creationists.
As a professor ranting against religion, you should be more precise. There are young earth creationists, gap theory creationists, and old earth creationists.

Thanks. It's tiring being the only one trying to stop the foot-shooting. BTW, don't forget the "don't ask, don't tell" IDers, who mostly (though grudgingly) admit OEC, and sometimes even common descent. I don't know what's more maddening, how anti-evolutionists downplay their irreconcilable differences, or how fellow "Darwinists" refuse to take advantage of it.

Toidel Mahoney · 1 March 2009

The folks who did this could probably make more money if they put together a "footprint-making kit" and marketed it as a toy.

Do you people think Bigfoot is real too based on similar "evidence?"

Dave Luckett · 1 March 2009

Troll alert.

Torbjörn Larsson, OM · 2 March 2009

Toidel Mahoney said: Do you people think Bigfoot is real too based on similar "evidence?"

Fossilized "evidence"? My big foot.

Toidel Mahoney · 2 March 2009

Torbjörn Larsson, OM said:
Toidel Mahoney said: Do you people think Bigfoot is real too based on similar "evidence?"
Fossilized "evidence"? My big foot.

You said. Piltdown Man, Nebraska Man, the Feejee mermaid and countless others were all exposed as frauds. How can we be sure these other so-called transitionals are real? How do you know they just haven't been exposed. I bet if you showed evolutionists a bunch of "real" fossils and a bunch of known fakes right next to them they would be unable to tell the difference since the "real" ones are fake too. Has anybody tried that experiment?

Stanton · 2 March 2009

Toidel Mahoney said:
Torbjörn Larsson, OM said:
Toidel Mahoney said: Do you people think Bigfoot is real too based on similar "evidence?"
Fossilized "evidence"? My big foot.
You said. Piltdown Man, Nebraska Man, the Feejee mermaid and countless others were all exposed as frauds. How can we be sure these other so-called transitionals are real? How do you know they just haven't been exposed. I bet if you showed evolutionists a bunch of "real" fossils and a bunch of known fakes right next to them they would be unable to tell the difference since the "real" ones are fake too. Has anybody tried that experiment?

It was scientists, specifically "evolutionists" (sic), who realized that Piltdown Man was a fraud. Nebraska Man was a peccary tooth, a realization also made by "evolutionists" (sic). And the Fiji Mermaid was a circus attraction. PT Barnum never billed her as a transitional fossil in the first place. So, why don't you name some more of these countless other frauds? Perhaps you can point out to us why you think some verifiably known transitional fossils, like, say, Tiktaalik or Archaeopteryx or Pezosiren are actually fraudulent?

stevaroni · 2 March 2009

Piltdown Man, Nebraska Man, the Feejee mermaid and countless others were all exposed as frauds. How can we be sure these other so-called transitionals are real?

Fascinating. A bunch of hoaxes is discovered by the pesky tendency of science to constantly question accepted dogma and insist on evidence. And this is a problem. And, um, how many issues of, oh, how shall we say this - missing and incomplete details - have the dedicated fact-checking branches worlds organized religions turned up in the last 3000? Oh yeah - none. Because they don't. Because they're simply not interested in testing anything. Because they've got nothing that can survive testing, or they would have done it long ago and been gloating ever since. Once again, For accuracy of investigation, Science, 1: everything else, 0.

Troll alert.

Yeah, and not even a good one this time. Geeze, everything had been hit in this downturn, even the quality of global trolling is noticeably off. Torb, Trolls are from your neck of the woods, is there anything we can do about this tragedy before it's too late and there are no good trolls left?

stevaroni · 2 March 2009

A bunch of hoaxes is are discovered by the pesky tendency of science to constantly question accepted dogma and insist on evidence. And this is a problem.

And, um, how many issues of, oh, how shall we say this - missing and incomplete details - have the dedicated fact-checking branches of the worlds organized religions turned up in the last 3000?

Geeze, Steve, proofread your rants once in a while.

stevaroni · 2 March 2009

turned up in the last 3000 years?

Geeze, Steve, proofread your proofreading of your rants once in a while.

Sorry guys. Long day. On the other hand, I'm leaving on a business trip this evening, and my rants get to go off and rest for a week.

Stanton · 2 March 2009

stevaroni said: turned up in the last 3000 years? Geeze, Steve, proofread your proofreading of your rants once in a while. Sorry guys. Long day. On the other hand, I'm leaving on a business trip this evening, and my rants get to go off and rest for a week.

I wish you the best. Hopefully, we'll have a superior batch of trolls next week for you to stomp. Or Chinese donuts.

KP · 2 March 2009

stevaroni said: A bunch of hoaxes is discovered by the pesky tendency of science to constantly question accepted dogma and insist on evidence. And this is a problem.

Yeah, really... And supposedly it's the "evolutionists" (sic) who need to have "critical analysis" added to their program.

Stanton · 2 March 2009

KP said:
stevaroni said: A bunch of hoaxes is discovered by the pesky tendency of science to constantly question accepted dogma and insist on evidence. And this is a problem.
Yeah, really... And supposedly it's the "evolutionists" (sic) who need to have "critical analysis" added to their program.

Of course, all evolution-deniers are totally infallible in their judgment, and they are beyond reproach. In fact, to suggest that an evolution-denier educate him, her or itself about the facts of the situation, or, God forbid, about basic science, is an utterly unspeakable crime on par with eating babies.

Henry J · 2 March 2009

In fact, to suggest that an evolution-denier educate him, her or itself about the facts of the situation, ...

And never mind of course that their entire argument is based on accusing the majority of tens of thousands of scientists of routinely overlooking something basic that is somehow obvious to a few amateurs who only coincidentally have a strong dislike of the scientists' conclusions. Henry

mrg · 3 March 2009

Henry J said: And never mind of course that their entire argument is based on accusing the majority of tens of thousands of scientists of routinely overlooking something basic that is somehow obvious to a few amateurs who only coincidentally have a strong dislike of the scientists' conclusions.

But but but ... they have a STRONG DISLIKE of them because they're so OBVIOUSLY wrong! I was reading a novel with a conversation that hit the lunatic fringer mentality on the head: "But there's a lot going on that we don't know about!" "Really? So can you tell me precisely what things are happening that you don't know anything about?" Cheers -- MrG / http://www.vectorsite.net/gblog.html

David Fickett-Wilbar · 3 March 2009

stevaroni said: A bunch of hoaxes is are discovered by the pesky tendency of science to constantly question accepted dogma and insist on evidence. And this is a problem. Geeze, Steve, proofread your rants once in a while.

It could be argued that "is" is appropriate here, since the subject of the sentence is "bunch," which is a singular noun.

Toidel Mahoney · 3 March 2009

Stanton said:
Toidel Mahoney said:
Torbjörn Larsson, OM said:
Toidel Mahoney said: Do you people think Bigfoot is real too based on similar "evidence?"
Fossilized "evidence"? My big foot.
You said. Piltdown Man, Nebraska Man, the Feejee mermaid and countless others were all exposed as frauds. How can we be sure these other so-called transitionals are real? How do you know they just haven't been exposed. I bet if you showed evolutionists a bunch of "real" fossils and a bunch of known fakes right next to them they would be unable to tell the difference since the "real" ones are fake too. Has anybody tried that experiment?
It was scientists, specifically "evolutionists" (sic), who realized that Piltdown Man was a fraud. Nebraska Man was a peccary tooth, a realization also made by "evolutionists" (sic). And the Fiji Mermaid was a circus attraction. PT Barnum never billed her as a transitional fossil in the first place.

Other evolutionists did, however. The Barnum exhibit was the primary evidence for the so-called "aquatic ape" theory. Its picture appeared in high school textbooks as "evidence" people came from swimming monkeys.

So, why don't you name some more of these countless other frauds? Perhaps you can point out to us why you think some verifiably known transitional fossils, like, say, Tiktaalik or Archaeopteryx or Pezosiren are actually fraudulent?

Because Satan is the father of lies, and evolutionism is Satan's religion. Those are no less "verifiably known" than Piltdown Man and Nebraska Man were in their day. They are merely frauds that have yet to be exposed, and the reason they have not been already is because Christians have been denied access to the specimens.

Mike Elzinga · 3 March 2009

Because Satan is the father of lies, and evolutionism is Satan’s religion. Those are no less “verifiably known” than Piltdown Man and Nebraska Man were in their day. They are merely frauds that have yet to be exposed, and the reason they have not been already is because Christians have been denied access to the specimens.
— Toidel Mahoney

Good grief! If you “don’t have access to them”, how do you know they are frauds? You are just making up crap as you go. Whoever is teaching you to think like this is the true “father of lies”. Are you so dependent on your religious handlers that you can no longer think for yourself? Do you even know that, with a little effort on your part, you could actually learn about reality?

GuyeFaux · 3 March 2009

Because Satan is the father of lies, and evolutionism is Satan’s religion.

I though the Church of Satan was Satan's religion. But seriously, if someone hasn't done it yet, I call Poe's Law.

Torbjörn Larsson, OM · 3 March 2009

Heh, I find it ironic, nay childish actually, that someone rants or trolls about fossilization in these days, when you can follow many explorations in near real time and see excellent photographic documentation of, say, fossils in various stages as they are extracted. [For example, a few weeks ago we could follow a meteorite search in the summer of Antarctica via a blog tied to the Planetary Organization site. It was both fascinating and educational to actually see meteorites in their natural environment among other rocks scoped up and catabatically exposed on the ice.] In fact, I think the Tiktaalik site has such an exposition of the many specimen found. Now, if the blatherers were up to the task to explain exactly how each and every photo and professional extraction is faked, they would be welcome to it. They should also explain why their modern supposed fakes often are multiple finds, while the actual revealed scams are AFAIU singular fakes.

stevaroni said: Torb, Trolls are from your neck of the woods, is there anything we can do about this tragedy before it's too late and there are no good trolls left?

Yes, we have our own several versions of trolls. Well, at least one troll mother had as many as eleven small troll children; to keep them safe at night she bound their tails together [and then sang to them, at least according to this old children's carol]. (Btw, what do you call a family of trolls - The Ancestor's Tail? A Disco group? The edge of the Wedge? Bueller?... Bueller?... Bueller?) Seems like good precautionary advice we can all use. Also, they shouldn't be exposed to the light of day.

Stanton · 3 March 2009

Toidel Mahoney said: Other evolutionists did, however. The Barnum exhibit was the primary evidence for the so-called "aquatic ape" theory. Its picture appeared in high school textbooks as "evidence" people came from swimming monkeys.

Given as how you never bothered to name the alleged evolutionists or highschool textbook authors who used the Fiji Mermaid as evidence for the aquatic ape theory, you're actually lying out of your ass. Didn't the Bible say something about lying, and didn't Jesus say that he really didn't like it when people sinned in His name?

So, why don't you name some more of these countless other frauds? Perhaps you can point out to us why you think some verifiably known transitional fossils, like, say, Tiktaalik or Archaeopteryx or Pezosiren are actually fraudulent?
Because Satan is the father of lies, and evolutionism is Satan's religion. Those are no less "verifiably known" than Piltdown Man and Nebraska Man were in their day. They are merely frauds that have yet to be exposed, and the reason they have not been already is because Christians have been denied access to the specimens.

So an impotent fire and brimstone rant is all you can do instead of presenting evidence? You're either a snivelling idiot, or a moronic Poe.

Richard Simons · 3 March 2009

Toidel Mahoney said: The Barnum exhibit was the primary evidence for the so-called "aquatic ape" theory. Its picture appeared in high school textbooks as "evidence" people came from swimming monkeys.

Please give a citation to the Barnum exhibit being used as primary evidence for the aquatic ape theory in a scientific publication. I think you are just making stuff up. Even if it were used in a textbook, textbooks are not always reliable guides to the evidence.

CanonicalKoi · 3 March 2009

Other evolutionists did, however. The Barnum exhibit was the primary evidence for the so-called "aquatic ape" theory. Its picture appeared in high school textbooks as "evidence" people came from swimming monkeys.

Now that's an interesting claim. The "Fiji (or Fejee or Feejee, take your pick) Mermaid" was exhibited by P.T. Barnum starting about 1842. The "mermaid" was destroyed by fire either at Barnum's museum (1865) or the museum of the "mermaid's" actual owner, Moses Kimball (1880's). The only picture of it is in Barnum's autobiography. The so-called "Aquatic Ape" theory didn't really get kicked off until Sir Alister Hardy publicized his idea in a speech in 1960. For the most part, scientists said it was a sizeable load of hogwash. The closest it came to any positive reviews was in Desmond Morris' "The Naked Ape" (Morris was also the first person to use the phrase, "Aquatic Ape" in print). So, you're telling me that a theory (hypothesis, really, but let's not split hairs) first made mention of in 1960, garnering little support from the scientific community at large, was written up in science text books and, not only that, the image chosen to illustrate this grand new "theory" was a photo from the autobiography of a man who made his living hoaxing people--is that really what you're trying to say? Having gone through junior high and high school during the period of 1972 to 1977 (which would seem to be a prime time period to read about a hypothesis first stated in 1960) and having never even heard of the whole "aquatic ape" nonsense until I read "The Naked Ape", I'd really like to know what textbook it was in.

DS · 3 March 2009

Toidel wrote:

"They are merely frauds that have yet to be exposed, and the reason they have not been already is because Christians have been denied access to the specimens."

That's very funny. So no Christian ever discovered any important fossil? What, are they all completely incompetent? And every time someone asked to examne a fossil in a museum they were asked to first provide evidence of their religious beliefs? Right. Why don't you think about that for just one minute.

Translation: I can easily discount anything that I don't want to beleivee in as a fraud, even if I have no idea what I am talking about. Everyone will certainly be fooled by my awesome diplay of ignorance, combined with my almost unbelieveable arrrogance.

Even the Poes are of low quality around here.

Richard Simons · 3 March 2009

CanonicalKoi said: The so-called "Aquatic Ape" theory didn't really get kicked off until Sir Alister Hardy publicized his idea in a speech in 1960. For the most part, scientists said it was a sizeable load of hogwash.

I know this is the general view but I've never understood why. What are the objections? I think most of the other evidence in its favour could be explained by other means but as I understand it, humans are the only primate to have the diving reflex. How is this explained?

KP · 3 March 2009

Mike Elzinga said: Are you so dependent on your religious handlers that you can no longer think for yourself? Do you even know that, with a little effort on your part, you could actually learn about reality?

Is it possible that this is someone just trying to bait us with absurdity? Based on some of Toidel's rantings, I can't imagine that he seriously thinks that Satan planted Tiktaalik and Archaeopteryx for researchers to find. Toidel: If Satan really existed, don't you think he could find better and infinitely more evil ways to f&@k with the human population as a whole rather than focusing on deceiving a few scientists into presenting "fraudulent" evidence that most of the public never sees/hears about anyway?

Stanton · 3 March 2009

KP said:
Mike Elzinga said: Are you so dependent on your religious handlers that you can no longer think for yourself? Do you even know that, with a little effort on your part, you could actually learn about reality?
Is it possible that this is someone just trying to bait us with absurdity? Based on some of Toidel's rantings, I can't imagine that he seriously thinks that Satan planted Tiktaalik and Archaeopteryx for researchers to find.

If that's so, then, is FL an absurdity-baiting Poe, too, given as how he claims that "we, evolutionists" use a 100+ year old corpse as a holy book?

Henry J · 3 March 2009

If Satan really existed, don’t you think he could find better and infinitely more evil ways to f&@k with the human population as a whole rather than focusing on deceiving a few scientists into presenting “fraudulent” evidence that most of the public never sees/hears about anyway?

The devil made you say that!!!111!!eleven!!

Dan · 4 March 2009

Toidel Mahoney said: Satan is the father of lies, and evolutionism is Satan's religion.

Wow! Does that mean that "evolutionism" gets a tax break??

eric · 4 March 2009

DS said: So no Christian ever discovered any important fossil?

Well, Toidel basically said that all fossil evidence falls into two categories - fraud, and fraud yet to be discovered. Given that style of reasoning I would not be surprised at all if his response to your statement, DS, was to say that anyone who has had access to the specimens (or discovered any) and concluded they aren't fraudulent, is obviously not Christian. Mmmm, that's good circularity...

KP · 4 March 2009

eric said: Well, Toidel basically said that all fossil evidence falls into two categories - fraud, and fraud yet to be discovered.

Now might be a good time to remind our creationist friends that finding a few fraudulent fossils does not negate the entire theory of evolution. If all the Tiktaalik specimens were fakes, there's still Acanthostega, Panderichthys, etc. etc. that need to be explained. If all those fossils were fakes there is still plenty of evidence from biochemistry, molecular genetics, and comparative anatomy for a common ancestry of tetrapods. Too many facts out there that require a unifying theory to explain them... Good luck with that. Oh, and finding a few fake fossils also does not, suddenly, make the default assumption that Goddidit into truth.

Stanton · 4 March 2009

KP said:
eric said: Well, Toidel basically said that all fossil evidence falls into two categories - fraud, and fraud yet to be discovered.
Now might be a good time to remind our creationist friends that finding a few fraudulent fossils does not negate the entire theory of evolution. If all the Tiktaalik specimens were fakes, there's still Acanthostega, Panderichthys, etc. etc. that need to be explained. If all those fossils were fakes there is still plenty of evidence from biochemistry, molecular genetics, and comparative anatomy for a common ancestry of tetrapods. Too many facts out there that require a unifying theory to explain them... Good luck with that. Oh, and finding a few fake fossils also does not, suddenly, make the default assumption that Goddidit into truth.

What are you trying to do: break the poor, godbotting troll's little heart in two?

Dan · 4 March 2009

KP said: Now might be a good time to remind our creationist friends that finding a few fraudulent fossils does not negate the entire theory of evolution. If all the Tiktaalik specimens were fakes, there's still Acanthostega, Panderichthys, etc. etc. that need to be explained. If all those fossils were fakes there is still plenty of evidence from biochemistry, molecular genetics, and comparative anatomy for a common ancestry of tetrapods. Too many facts out there that require a unifying theory to explain them... Good luck with that. Oh, and finding a few fake fossils also does not, suddenly, make the default assumption that Goddidit into truth.

Don't forget biogeography, particularly island biogeography. Much of the evidence in Origin of Species is derived from biogeography.

KP · 4 March 2009

Dan said: Don't forget biogeography, particularly island biogeography. Much of the evidence in Origin of Species is derived from biogeography.

Good point!

KP said: Now might be a good time to remind our creationist friends that finding a few fraudulent fossils does not negate the entire theory of evolution. If all the Tiktaalik specimens were fakes, there's still Acanthostega, Panderichthys, etc. etc. that need to be explained. If all those fossils were fakes there is still plenty of evidence from biochemistry, molecular genetics, biogeography, and comparative anatomy for a common ancestry of tetrapods. Too many facts out there that require a unifying theory to explain them... Good luck with that. Oh, and finding a few fake fossils also does not, suddenly, make the default assumption that Goddidit into truth.

There, Toidel, one more corroborating discipline to get educated in before declaring it all a fraud.

Henry J · 4 March 2009

If all the Tiktaalik specimens were fakes, there’s still Acanthostega, Panderichthys, etc. etc. that need to be explained. If all those fossils were fakes there is still plenty of evidence from biochemistry, molecular genetics, and comparative anatomy for a common ancestry of tetrapods. Too many facts out there that require a unifying theory to explain them… Good luck with that.

Yep. Support of a theory isn't based on the individual finds taken one at a time, it's based on the overall patterns (nested hierarchy, geographic clustering, fossil series, lots of varieties of the same basic parts, etc.); patterns that are logical consequences of the core premises of the theory. Those patterns were noted and explained quite a while before the mechanisms of heredity were understood, and then it was noted that the way heredity works makes evolution pretty much inevitable unless there's something wrong with scientists' understanding of genetics. IMO, discussions of why scientists accept the theory should focus on those overall patterns; descriptions of known mechanisms are part of the theory, but they aren't the primary reason the theory is accepted. Henry

KP · 5 March 2009

Henry J said: IMO, discussions of why scientists accept the theory should focus on those overall patterns; descriptions of known mechanisms are part of the theory, but they aren't the primary reason the theory is accepted. Henry

Indeed, this has proven most effective with some very religious close friends of mine. They have been fairly convinced by the arguments for a young earth, for example. So rather than argue that these are bogus pseudoscience (which they are, but that's beside the point), I will do what I did above. "Ok, let's concede for a minute that the earth might be young/certain fossils might be fake/whatever. The burden is then on creation scientists to explain ALL THIS OTHER EVIDENCE OUT THERE!" That evidence doesn't go away even if you successfully refute part of Darwin's theory. So getting back to the original thread, 1.5 million year old footprints are an amazing find. By themselves they say a modest amount, but in the context of other evidence showing transition between early hominids and ourselves, they strengthen the theory immensely. Suppose next month _Science_ publishes a retraction that the footprints were fake or mis-identified stratigraphically. There is still other evidence out there that H. erectus 1) existed, 2) was different from us, but 3) walked like us (obligate bipedalism; see Spoor et al's semicircular canal work). That last bit is further fodder for our creationist friends.

Virgina · 16 November 2009

I believe God made things so fast that (similar to the speed of light that he did create everything in six days and the earth aged accordingly. Science will figure it out and then amit God is real, but they still won't know him because they don't want to serve him. stevaroni said: How do you know that a humanlike creature whose foot shape and gait size are statistically indistinguishable from modern humans made these tracks? Were you there? It could have been.. er.. dinosaurs dancing. Yeah! that's it. Plant eating dinosaurs dancing in the garden! 1.5 million years ago. No, wait, there was no 1.5 million years ago... Um, I'll get back to you on that. Oh, no wait - I know the answer! "Here!" No, No, that doesn't make any sense either. You must be Satan.