The article points out that footprints in the 3.5 million years old range have been found, these are just the oldest footprints of Stone Age humans.
-- Only two things are infinite, the universe and human
stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former. (Einstein)
Re:Actually ...
by
reverseengineer
·
· Score: 3, Informative
Well, they're footprints of a recent precursor to modern humans, Homo heidelbergensis, which is believed to be the forerunner of both H. neanderthalensis and H. sapiens There are some paleoanthropologists, however, who think that H. heidelbergensis (I just love that name) might only be the direct ancestor of Neanderthals and that the break between H. neanderthalensis and H. sapiens occurred earlier.
It is also interesting to note that these footprints indicate that they were made by beings which were approximately 4.5ft (1.5m) tall, though H. heidelbergensis remains suggest that adults of the species may have been as tall as 6 feet (1.9m). Thus, as the article suggests, these footprints may have been made by children- or they made be from a completely different hominid species.
-- "FDA staff reviewers expressed concern about the number of patients who were left out of the study because they died."
You can tell a lot from the footprints, such as the shape of pelvis bones, relative age and weight of the print maker, frequently the gender of the print-maker... all from the angle of the foot prints. If the prints are the correct proportions for 'human' and have the correct angles for a human walker, then scientists can probably narrow it down to being human prints with great accuracy.
-- The next Slashdot story will be ready soon, but subscribers can beat the rush and slashdot the links early!
Re:How old are they?
by
fluffy666
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
But given that K-Ar dating is typically used for age ranges in the 10s or 100s of millions of years, these results show that the uncertanty due to primordial argon is small, and hence the method is accurate. Thanks for demonstrating that radiometric dating is reliable.
Slashdot Mirror
This is obviously wrong, the earth is only a little more than 5000 years old.
I've had enough abrasive sigs. Kittens are cute and fuzzy.
The Onion reports the oldest evidence ever found for athlete's foot.
They found a strange building they've called "the worlds oldest Chinese Mann's Theatre", and also in the ground they found the cryptic words:
"Charles Heston"
and two handprints.
Scientists are trying to decode this strange oddity.
~ kjrose
The article points out that footprints in the 3.5 million years old range have been found, these are just the oldest footprints of Stone Age humans.
Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former. (Einstein)
see here.
...the equivalent of the first post!
Who can argue with that?
You can tell a lot from the footprints, such as the shape of pelvis bones, relative age and weight of the print maker, frequently the gender of the print-maker... all from the angle of the foot prints. If the prints are the correct proportions for 'human' and have the correct angles for a human walker, then scientists can probably narrow it down to being human prints with great accuracy.
The next Slashdot story will be ready soon, but subscribers can beat the rush and slashdot the links early!
But given that K-Ar dating is typically used for age ranges in the 10s or 100s of millions of years, these results show that the uncertanty due to primordial argon is small, and hence the method is accurate. Thanks for demonstrating that radiometric dating is reliable.