Why are there no human apes alive today?

Hi WK,Probably wasn't clear, but I did try to say that I was looking at the images. That was the only metatarsal comparison I could find, and it included the table of measurements. I did notice that two of the three measurements were within the human range, and that the one that wasn't was extremely close. That the authors thought these measurements important must mean there is evidence that they are critical for a foot to have a high arch.But there are many shapes that can produce the same measurements. That the measurements are close says nothing about the actual appearance, and I didn't think the appearance of the images of the human and A. afarensis tarsals were the same, only similar, just as the article said.I cannot dispute your subtitle. --Percy

I should add that you're the first person I've noticed using the [table] dBCodes. I thought they'd be more popular. Any feedback? I was actually working on them yesterday fixing some bugs that will be released with the PHP version of the board software, so if you have any comments this is a good time.--PercyEdited by Percy, : Fix dBCode.

I'm not sure what your saying exactly. The article said the human and A. afarensis metatarsals look similar, and I agree, they look similar. Are you saying that that is wrong and they actually look the same? That if someone gave Dr. Ward casts (to disguise signs of age) of the human and A. afarensis 4th metatarsal that they'd be indistinguishable and she'd be unable to tell them apart?--PercyEdited by Percy, : Fix dBCode.

I know you have access to the original paper, so while the article said the A. afarensis tarsal was only similar to human tarsals, the paper itself makes it clear that even in appearance it fits within the range of human tarsals. I'll just take your word for it, but do find it very surprising in a tarsal from 3.2 mya.--Percy