3 ms·
You can tell those feet had toes that were much longer and stronger than modern toes are. Makes sense since these creatures were closer back to when we were lik
by quantadev 1y ago
You can tell those feet had toes that were much longer and stronger than modern toes are. Makes sense since these creatures were closer back to when we were like monkeys climbing thru trees.
- speakspokespok 1y agoA similar topic but not this link[0] was mentioned here on HN awhile back. An aboriginal man had a lock of hair which had passed down over many generations, and some of which was allowed to be carbon dated. It was old, I don't remember the specific age, but it was at least BC old. And this lock of hair had been passed down from one generation to the next. It showed his people had been in Aus for a very long time and they predate first humans in North America. Just looking at this article Aborigines had been in Australia for 20k - 30k years before the White Sands footprints were made. I'm sure there's footprints of similar "vintage" there. It would be curious to compare them. [0] - https://theworld.org/stories/2016/08/01/lock-hair-dates-aboriginal-arrival-australia https://theworld.org/stories/2016/08/01/lock-hair-dates-abor...
- quantadev 1y agoWe're 98% genetically identical to all other primates, so a gene combination controlling lengths of appendages is buried probably in just a handful of mutations embedded in that 2%.
- binary132 1y ago23,000 years is really not a meaningful distance at all in terms of evolutionary timescales.
- quantadev 1y agoSure it is. Especially when talking about relative sizes of existing anatomy rather than completely new anatomy. For example: Women's feet have gotten considerably larger over the past several decades. For example, in the 1960s, the average size was around a 6.5, in the 1970s it was 7.5, and today it's often cited as between 8.5 and 9. That's a whopping 30% (according to Gemini) increase in them whoppers, in my lifetime alone. I think it's well know also that when there's a certain type of environmental condition that puts different stressors on something evolution can happen only in a few generations. Look it up. There's countless examples of rapid evolution that's well known to happen.
- nurettin 1y agoIf true, it might be due to nutrition or a myriad of other factors, not just pure evolution.
- quantadev 1y agoWe're living in the age of Google/AI/LLMs, so anyone can verify my facts.
- nurettin 1y agoYes we live in a society, and 50-100 years is not significant in an evolutionary scale (unless you are breeding artificially en-masse which would be funny in case of women with giant feet).
- quantadev 1y agoRapid Evolution _does_ happen also. Foster's Rule can happen in under 100 years. "Evolutionary Scale" time ranges is normally what we associate with the ability to evolve entirely new body morphologies. However, for simple changes in length of existing structures often only several generations is required (a few decades).
- AlotOfReading 1y agoThese were anatomically modern humans, essentially identical to you or I.
- IncreasePosts 1y agoMaybe ultra modern humans have toes stunted from non-stop shoe wearing. You definitely splay your toes more if you're accustomed to walking bare foot than you do if you're accustomed to walking in shoes.
- quantadev 1y agoI'm not talking about splay bro. Length. Size matters. bwahaha.
- speakspokespok 1y agoProbably not. :) However, I do notice the pronounced gaps between the toes. My parents generation grew up in Melanesia starting around the 1950’s and many of them have commented on the distinctly different footprint profiles of the local people who never had worn shoes and the western newcomers. If you’ve never worn shoes your toes are far more splayed. I don’t know about lenght of toe. So really I don’t think your observation is related to their genetic proximity and more to do with bodily adaptation. Perhaps an anthropological podiatrist can comment. For context, how old are the oldest Egyptian pyramids?
- quantadev 1y agoWomen's feet have grown 30% since 1960. Look it up. Doesn't mean the trend will continue, it just means evolution can indeed happen very rapidly under certain circumstances, and for primates to keep long toes for a very long time even after coming down from the trees makes some sense. Probably much more efficient to run thru mud, etc.
- AlotOfReading 1y agoI don't know why you're on about this, but our foot shape has been essentially static across the entirety of genus Homo. The difference in time between us and them is an imperceptible rounding error compared to the many millions of years since bipedalism evolved. These people looked like us, wore clothes, spoke languages, etc. If you teleported one of their infants forward and raised it, it would be virtually indistinguishable from a modern person until you did genetic testing.
- quantadev 1y agoIf feet can change 30% in 50 years then toes can certainly change that much in thousands. And I'm not even saying it was worldwide, just the people who made those mud footprints. And that 30% isn't even all humans either, it's bizarrely only women. Evolution can happen rapidly sometimes. Lookup "island rule" or "Foster's rule", which is also about this. Changing environmental conditions can rapidly increase evolution rates, specifically for "size" attribute.
- MangoToupe 1y agoThis comment made me belly laugh. Wtf?
- quantadev 1y agoLook at the feet of a monkey. They're basically long fingers. That's what I'm getting at.