Live data from Hacker News

New dating for White Sands footprints confirms controversial theory

arstechnica.com

21–30 of 45 posts

Re: New dating for White Sands footprints confirms controversial theory

#21

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.

This comment made me belly laugh. Wtf?

Look at the feet of a monkey. They're basically long fingers. That's what I'm getting at.

Re: New dating for White Sands footprints confirms controversial theory

#22

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.

23,000 years is really not a meaningful distance at all in terms of evolutionary timescales.

Sure 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.

Re: New dating for White Sands footprints confirms controversial theory

#23

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.

Probably 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 o…

Women'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.

Re: New dating for White Sands footprints confirms controversial theory

#24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

These were anatomically modern humans, essentially identical to you or I.

Maybe 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.

I'm not talking about splay bro. Length. Size matters. bwahaha.

Re: New dating for White Sands footprints confirms controversial theory

#25

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.

Probably 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 o…

> If you’ve never worn shoes your toes are far more splayed.

After 7 years of remote work and living in a warm climate where I rarely wear shoes, I can confirm that my own toes have splayed out.

Re: New dating for White Sands footprints confirms controversial theory

#26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Probably 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 o…

Women'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.

I 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.

Re: New dating for White Sands footprints confirms controversial theory

#27
post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Probably 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 o…

> If you’ve never worn shoes your toes are far more splayed. After 7 years of remote work and living in a warm climate where I rarely wear shoes, I can confirm that my own toes have splayed out.

Yes, I know the splaying is normal for non-shoe wearing folks and not what I'm talking about.

Re: New dating for White Sands footprints confirms controversial theory

#28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Women'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.

I 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 indisti…

If 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.

Re: New dating for White Sands footprints confirms controversial theory

#29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

23,000 years is really not a meaningful distance at all in terms of evolutionary timescales.

Sure 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 lifet…

If true, it might be due to nutrition or a myriad of other factors, not just pure evolution.

Re: New dating for White Sands footprints confirms controversial theory

#30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Probably 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 o…

Women'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.

Wouldn't nutrition, diet, and lifestyle changes be a far more likely explination than evolution? What mechanism within the last 80 years could possibly be the driving factor behind evolutionary changes in peoples feet size? Its not like people in the 1930s were dieing due to overly large feet, nor has foot size been a significant factor in mating sucess. People are taller today too, but that isn't because tall people use to die more often or was once considered unattractive, it is mostly because of better nutrition thanks to far more varied and reliable diets.
Post reply on HN