There has been some idea that australopithecine feet were fully human, this is in reference to the thread
http://
EvC Forum: Agriculture and cultural ecology -->
EvC Forum: Agriculture and cultural ecology
where a "lively" discussion about the evolution of the human brain was being debated. The thread was closed before I could rebut a point.
The footprints at Laetoli have shown that fully bipedal hominids did indeed have a developed arch, but there is a lack of actual fossil evidence that matches the footprints since there have been few complete feet recovered from any site. This can possibly lead to some mistaken conclusions:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/1304.asp
Where we have:
quote:
We could not wish for clearer evidence from an evolutionist that it is only his (and his colleagues’) evolutionary assumptions that force him to reach evolutionary conclusions. There are many similarities between apes and man, but one of the most distinctive differences is the feet. Ape feet are like our hands, with an opposable big toe (like our thumb). Human feet are different from any in the animal world-no other has feet like ours.
In contrast to the previous site we have:
quote:
Instead, White tried to fit the foot of A.
afarensis to the Laetoli prints. This was very difficult because
no complete foot skeleton of A. afarensis had been found at the
Hadar site. A partial foot skeleton, however, had been recovered.
This was the AL 333-115 foot skeleton, which included only bones
from the front part of the foot--phalanges and metatarsal heads.
According to White, the best tracks at Laetoli were in the G-
1 trail, representing the smallest of the three individuals of
the G group. Even White admitted that the phalanges of AL 333-115
were "obviously incompatible with the G-1 tracks" (White and Suwa
1987, p. 497). Stern and Susman, and Tuttle, found them
incompatible with any of the tracks. White, however, pointed out
that the AL 333-115 individual represented one of the larger,
presumably male, members of the First Family group and proposed
that the foot of Lucy, one of the smaller, female individuals,
might have fitted the G-1 Laetoli prints.
The preceding was from the site:
http://www.anatomy.usyd.edu.au/danny...{Shortened display form of URL, to restore page width to normal - AM}
A reconstruction of the afarensis foot results in an 'foot triangle' of 140 degrees in the 3 points of the ankle axis to the distal metatarsals and the calcaneous tip. A modern human foot has only 110 degrees in this angle. Thus it can be seen that the australopithecine foot arch is an intermediate stage between modern humans and the feet of tree dwelling primates.
------------------
Bringer of fire, trickster, teacher.
[This message has been edited by Speel-yi, 10-13-2003]
[This message has been edited by Adminnemooseus, 10-13-2003]