Recently, there's been a lot of hooting and hollering over who is an who isn't an expert on purported BF prints and other evidence. Looking at prints alone, some see clear evidence of dermatoglyphics, toe movement, and flexibility, while others see clear evidence of a flat, rigid, and likely fabricated structure. Can either view be conclusively demonstrated?

A case study of the Laetoli tracksite suggests that we're in for many years of back-and-forth debate with little real progress. In short, the Laetoli tracks have been interpreted by various functional anatomists, ichnologists, paleoanthropologists, and even non-scientific creationists to represent:

1) prints identical to modern humans.
2) prints suggestive of a more ape-like foot with a highly mobile hallux, indistinc toes, and pointed heel.
3) prints similar to orangutans, in which the toes were folded under the foot as the animal progressed.

If any one of these is correct, the others are wrong, and yet each theory has scientific proponents who will gladly sit down and explain in rational, level-headed detail why they're correct and everyone else is not. Anyway, I thought this is kind of interesting and relevant. Here's some more information for anyone who's interested, along with the link:



from the website: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/specimen.html

It is interesting that every theory seems to be highly shaped by the theorist previous notions. What should be good scientific evidence gets transformed into whatever they want it to be. I might make an exception with Johanson because it seems to me that he is exceptionally open to alternatives.

And Meldrum argues that the Laetoli prints provide characteristic evidence of flexibility in the midtarsal joint, comparable to what he describes for possible sasquatch footprints. Perhaps he'll discuss these observations during his Pocatello presentation.

Nice thread idea DY.

I need to refresh my memory on the quality of the Laetoli tracks but my recollection is that the tracks aren't very 'sharp', which, to me, would make a bit of this discussion moot.

It seems to me that dermatoglyphics, toe flexibility etc. should be pretty easy to document in a good track/way without much debate, while flexibility within the foot is a much more challenging proposition.

I'll go get that refresher now.

AM

Exactly my point Apeman!
The quality of Laetoli is wanting, as is true of most purported BF tracks.
The exceptional ones showing dermals, toe flexing, etc...the ones that get scrutinized the most...are very rare. The bulk of prints are of quality lesser than Laetoli, and likewise of much more ambiguous origin. :new_thumbsupsmileyanim:

Perhaps I should clarify my recollection of Meldrum's opinion by stating that he posits that SOME of the Laetoli tracks can be intrepreted as indicating flexibility in the midtarsal joint. His research with chimp tracks demonstrates that even in species known to have a flexible foot, their prints do not necessarily serve to show that characteristic. Logically, this observation should serve to apply to sasquatch prints as well.

magic words those... :wink:

I guess I misunderstood the game. The case study idea seemed to me to imply looking at specific cases rather than the collection of (good and bad) evidence.

Did your original question:

intend to refer to 'across the board' or 'with one really good case?'

I think the 8 zillion posts in this forum answer any question pertaining to the former, right?

Apeman

No game, Apeman. I was just pointing out (or trying to) that while there's very little doubt that the Laetoli prints are natural footprints made by living hominids, their ultimate origin is still very much open to interpretation.

Even more so are BF tracks that along with all the undertainties associated with the Laetoli tracks have the following to contend with:

1) No known North American primates have existed sine the Eocene...with Laetoli, hominids are known from time-equivalent strata in Africa.
2) Human beings are creating fake BF prints...no human beings were trying to make fake hominid tracks 3-4 Ma.



One really good case is all it takes in theory, but since the definition of a really good case varies depending on the researcher, I contend that we'll never have a conclusive demonstration that any trackway, or print was made by a non-human-manufactured foot. If human and near-human locomotion and ichnology are so poorly quantified that the Laetoli tracks can be interpreted in such wildly disparate ways, then there's not much hope in our ability to differentiate between "real" BF prints and those made by someone who knows about where to put dermals and pressure ridges in a convincing manner, and so forth.
I short, I'm saying track evidence will never add up to much of anything in terms of trying to prove the existence BF.

Sorry, but I couldn't resist recounting a cartoon I saw many years ago, that has stuck in my mind,
and this reminded me of ..

It showed these cave-men looking guys up on a scaffold painting pictures on the cave wall.
One guy was saying ..

" There will be all kinds of theories, like we were 9 feet tall, or that the floor sank, etc.. " :icon_mrgreen:

[quote name='Skeptical Greg' date='Jun 27 2006, 12:42 PM' post='324149']


[/quote]

Sorry, but I couldn't resist recounting a cartoon I saw many years ago, that has stuck in my mind,
and this reminded me of ..

It showed these cave-men looking guys up on a scaffold painting pictures on the cave wall.
One guy was saying ..

" There will be all kinds of theories, like we were 9 feet tall, or that the floor sank, etc.. " :icon_mrgreen:
[/quote]

That is a funny one