So? Now what about the feet? Do you have a match or not? Ha.
The dates are based on a belief the past nature and laws were the same. You must prove they were or you may not use that belief for dates.
So what is left? The article admits that the functional and phylogenetic affinities are controversial. So what DO you know???
That has what to do with feet?
Not people though.
Sorry to disappoint you, but science of evolution accepts the evidence from the
science of physics that the laws of nature have remained constant for the last 13 billion years since the Big Bang. If you have objections to the established conclusions of physics regarding this matter, please create a separate thread explaining your reasons.
I will comment there and refute your reasons. In evolutionary biology, scientists simply use the conclusions made by the more fundamental science of physics to establish dates.
As the article regarding Ororin shows, bipedal hominins were living 6 million years ago and hence were one of the candidate living species that could have made those prints
. What makes it a transitional species between humans and apes is the fact that it contains a mixture of ape-like and human-like skeletal features. Thus, as Wikipedia says, it's teeth were a mixture of ape features and human features. It was bipedal on ground but climbed trees like apes.
Orrorin had small teeth relative to its body size. Its dentition differs from that found in
Australopithecus in that its
cheek teeth are smaller and less elongated
mesiodistally and from
Ardipithecus in that its
enamel is thicker. The dentition differs from both these species in the presence of a mesial groove on the upper canines.
The canines are ape-like but reduced, like those found in Miocene apes and female chimpanzees.
Orrorin had small post-canines and was microdont, like modern humans, whereas robust australopithecines were
megadont.
[4]In the femur, the
head is spherical and rotated anteriorly; the
neck is elongated and oval in section and the
lesser trochanter protrudes medially.
While these suggest that Orrorin was bipedal, the rest of the postcranium indicates it climbed trees. While the proximal phalanx is curved, the distal
pollical phalanx is of human proportions and has thus been associated with toolmaking, but should probably be associated with grasping abilities useful for tree-climbing in this context.
[4]
--------------------
Next the evidence of the prints themselves establish that they were indeed made by bipedal hominins... not other apes or man or bears. Here is the paper again
Possible hominin footprints from the late Miocene (c. 5.7 Ma) of Crete?
The comparative analysis is shown
Comparison with different trackmakers. Comparison of Trachilos footprint with bears (top), non-hominin primates (middle), and hominins (bottom). (a) Brown bear manus print, photo by A.A. (b) Cast of grizzly bear manus print, photo by M.L. In bears (and other Carnivora) the hallux is morphologically similar to digit 2. (c) Vervet monkey pes print, photo by G.G. (d) Lowland gorilla pes and knuckle prints, photo by Julie Dewilde. (e) chimpanzee pes print, from
Meldrum et al. (2011). In non-hominin primates the hallux is morphologically distinctive but separated from the other digits by a wide gap. (f) modern human pes print, photo by G.N. (g) Trachilos footprint shown in
Fig. 9b. (h) modern human foot, photo by P.E.A. (i) Archaic
Homo footprint from Ileret, from
Bennett et al. (2009). In hominins, the hallux is large and morphologically distinctive but positioned close to digit 2; there is also a distinct ball.
What are the conclusions?
1)
The big toe of the footprint is near the front of the feet like hominins and modern humans and unlike apes and monkeys. Thus the footprints were not made by apes or monkeys. As the paper says
"The hind feet of non-hominin primates have strongly divergent thumb-like halluces, always set back from the relatively long lateral digits. Chimpanzees (
Fig. 12e) produce characteristic L-shaped footprints with a wide gap between the hallux and curled lateral digits".
2)
The footprints are similar to footprints found in hominins as it has a well developed Big Toe and it walked on the soles of its feet. As the paper says:
"The Trachilos tracks resemble hominin prints (
Leakey and Hay, 1979;
Harcourt-Smith and Aiello, 2004;
Bennett et al., 2009;
Bennett et al., 2016a;
Bennett et al., 2016b ;
Lockley et al., 2016) due to their plantigrade and entaxonic nature."
When compared quantitavely with footprints of Australopithecus hominins, modern humans and apes it was found that the footprints are similar in structure to other hominin footprints and different from apes and modern humans. As the paper says :-
To explore the morphology of the tracks, they were compared using a landmark-based approach with both non-hominin primate and hominin tracks....
The implication is that there are greater anatomical similarities between the Trachilos tracks and those of hominins than there are with the non-hominin primate control group.
That depends what made the prints.
A lot more than that if it was man.
No, it was not made by man. Again the footprint itself shows this. As the paper says:-
"compared to a modern human sole print it is proportionately shorter, with a narrow tapering heel, and lacks a permanent arch.. the tracks would represent a small, primitive, habitually bipedal hominin with
hominin-like pedal digits and ball combined with
an ape-like sole lacking a bulbous heel. "
So we have a small bipedal animal whose feet had a mixture of ape and human features. And do we know such animals existing 6 million years ago. YES. We know that Ororin, a hominin, was such a creature.. transitional between modern man and ancient ape, as shown earlier.
Hence we, and paper, concludes that these footprints were not made by man, nor apes, but a Ororin like hominin. As it says:-
" The age of the Trachilos footprints, though strikingly early,
is not problematic for this hypothesis: assuming an age of slightly more than 5.6 Ma (Fig. 14), they are approximately coeval with Orrorin and somewhat younger than Sahelanthropus (
Sénut et al., 2001;
Brunet et al., 2002 ;
Almécija et al., 2013). "
As the comparison between hominin fossils and footprints shows, these add to the evidence for early bipedalism evolution of hominins like Ororin and strengthens the evidence for established science of human evolution.
And if it was NOT man, which you have not even addressed yet, your dates are wrong anyhow.
Please create a separate thread providing your reasons for your claim that laws of physics were different in the past and I will respond. Evolutionary biologists depend on physics scientists for measuring dates and evidence for uniformity of laws since the Big Bang throughout the universe will take us into Physics. So make a separate thread. I will respond there.
