Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

New dating for White Sands footprints confirms controversial theory

arstechnica.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 45 posts

Re: New dating for White Sands footprints confirms controversial theory

#31

Post by quantadev »

nurettin wrote: post #29
quantadev wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

We're living in the age of Google/AI/LLMs, so anyone can verify my facts.

Re: New dating for White Sands footprints confirms controversial theory

#32

Post by m0llusk »

AlotOfReading wrote: post #10
m0llusk wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is genetic evidence linking these very old inhabitants to Pacific Islanders of that time and there were more islands at that time because of lower sea levels.

It's really confusing to use the term pacific islanders here. The farthest humans had reached was the Solomon Islands, what we call "near Oceania". The places people think of when they say "Pacific Islands", namely Remote Oceania (Melanesia), Micronesia, and Polynesia were all uninhabited. Those early Papuans weren't especially closely related to the founding populations of the Americas, though they're closer than yo…

Yes, that is a really extreme simplification. There were at least three major groups of early humans around Southeast Asia and the Pacific Islands 20k+ years ago. The main point of interest is that all of these groups were genetically differentiated from the Siberians who migrated along the vicinity of the Alaskan coast later and who left a genetic trace on native populations that is still observable today.

Re: New dating for White Sands footprints confirms controversial theory

#33

Post by kcplate »

quantadev wrote: post #27
kcplate wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

Well I regularly walk barefoot in wet sand and I don’t see any noticeable difference between my footprints and those in the article. I can assure you I am not simian.

Re: New dating for White Sands footprints confirms controversial theory

#34

Post by quantadev »

kcplate wrote: post #33
quantadev wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Well I regularly walk barefoot in wet sand and I don’t see any noticeable difference between my footprints and those in the article. I can assure you I am not simian.

Sure, there's all kinds of reasons the fossil footprints might have long looking toe marks. Heck it could've been toenails. Not sure what they used for nail clippers back then. haha.

Re: New dating for White Sands footprints confirms controversial theory

#35

Post by quantadev »

AngryData wrote: post #30
quantadev wrote: post #23

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.

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…

It's very likely that there's a simple switch (i.e. not much more than a couple of mutations required) which governs finger/toe length in primates. For example, did you know all the DNA for growing a "Lizard Leg" (the ENTIRE leg) is still in all snakes, but just just not activated, because one other mutation is blocking it?

There are many known genetic conditions that we see even in modern times, caused by one or two mutations which can cause very long fingers/toes, and people in this thread are arguing that even in 23000 years nature can't land on that mutation and stick to it, _especially_ when we _know_ the DNA for it is likely still there because we're all apes 98% identical to monkeys for example, which have the long toe thing.

Re: New dating for White Sands footprints confirms controversial theory

#36

Post by speakspokespok »

quantadev wrote: post #11

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.

A 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-abor...

Re: New dating for White Sands footprints confirms controversial theory

#37

Post by quantadev »

speakspokespok wrote: post #36
quantadev wrote: post #11

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.

A 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…

We'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%.

Re: New dating for White Sands footprints confirms controversial theory

#38

Post by nurettin »

quantadev wrote: post #31
nurettin wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

We're living in the age of Google/AI/LLMs, so anyone can verify my facts.

Yes 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).

Re: New dating for White Sands footprints confirms controversial theory

#39

Post by quantadev »

nurettin wrote: post #38
quantadev wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We're living in the age of Google/AI/LLMs, so anyone can verify my facts.

Yes 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).

Rapid 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).

Re: New dating for White Sands footprints confirms controversial theory

#40

Post by nurettin »

quantadev wrote: post #39
nurettin wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes 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).

Rapid 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).

Very dubious. Maybe you can ask your LLM about evolution without natural selection.
Post reply on HN