wow,
a wall of cut and paste with no comment,
this most heinous of crimes fails to show any Australopithecus feet fossils that someone claimed existed up thread ,
but more than that the above cut and paste crime shows very little of anything except a classification frenzy of dead monkeys that "maybe", "could have", "possibly", "suspected" ect.
your cut and paste asks for suspended disbelief,
a desperate miss mash of bits here and bits there that are shoe horned into supporting the macro evolution narrative,
I guess you cant teach those that refuse to learn and there are none so blind as those that refuse to see.
But, for the good of my own conscience:
1. If you look at some of those papers, as well as some of the links below, you'll find diagrams and photos of early hominid, ape and human anatomy, including comparisons of their foot morphology. You might have to scratch around for free access, but they're there;
2. Australopithecus was not a "dead monkey", and to claim this suggests either deep ignorance of the subject matter or deliberate distortion. The Homo genus is a direct descendant of the australopithecines;
3. Its not just these papers that show the evolutionary links between hominini feet, adapted for aboreal dwelling, and later hominid feet, adapted for ground dwelling, and the 'mosaic' transitionary forms.
To whit, some more papers, for those that actually have an interest in learning:
Sterkfontein member 2 foot bones of the oldest South African hominid. Clarke RJ1, Tobias PV:
Four articulating hominid foot bones have been recovered from Sterkfontein Member 2, near Johannesburg, South Africa. They have human features in the hindfoot and strikingly apelike traits in the forefoot. While the foot is manifestly adapted for bipedalism, its most remarkable characteristic is that the great toe (hallux) is appreciably medially diverged (varus) and strongly mobile, as in apes. Possibly as old as 3.5 million years, the foot provides the first evidence that bipedal hominids were in southern Africa more than 3.0 million years ago. The bones probably belonged to an early member of Australopithecus africanus or another early hominid species.
The locomotor anatomy of Australopithecus afarensis. Stern JT Jr, Susman RL.:
The postcranial skeleton of Australopithecus afarensis from the Hadar Formation, Ethiopia, and the footprints from the Laetoli Beds of northern Tanzania, are analyzed with the goal of determining (1) the extent to which this ancient hominid practiced forms of locomotion other than terrestrial bipedality, and (2) whether or not the terrestrial bipedalism of A. afarensis was notably different from that of modern humans. It is demonstrated that A. afarensis possessed anatomic characteristics that indicate a significant adaptation for movement in the trees. Other structural features point to a mode of terrestrial bipedality that involved less extension at the hip and knee than occurs in modern humans, and only limited transfer of weight onto the medial part of the ball of the foot, but such conclusions remain more tentative than that asserting substantive arboreality.
Metatarsophalangeal joint function and positional behavior in Australopithecus afarensis. Duncan AS1, Kappelman J, Shapiro LJ:
Recent discussions of the pedal morphology of Australopithecus afarensis have led to conflicting interpretations of australopithecine locomotor behavior. We report the results of a study using computer aided design (CAD) software that provides a quantitative assessment of the functional morphology of australopithecine metatarsophalangeal joints. The sample includes A. afarensis, Homo sapiens, Pan troglodytes, Gorilla gorilla, and Pongo pygmaeus. Angular measurements of the articular surfaces relative to the long axes of the metatarsals and phalanges were taken to determine whether the articular surfaces are plantarly or dorsally oriented. Humans have the most dorsally oriented articular surfaces of the proximal pedal phalanges. This trait appears to be functionally associated with dorsiflexion during bipedal stride. Pongo has the most plantarly oriented articular surfaces of the proximal pedal phalanges, probably reflecting an emphasis on plantarflexion in arboreal positional behaviors, while the African hominoids are intermediate between Pongo and Homo for this characteristic.
Talocrural joint in African hominoids: implications for Australopithecus afarensis. Latimer B1, Ohman JC, Lovejoy CO:
Talocrural joints of the African apes, modern humans, and A.L.288-1 are compared in order to investigate ankle function in the Hadar hominids. Comparisons between the hominids and African pongids clearly illustrate the anatomical and mechanical changes that occurred in this joint as a consequence of the evolutionary transition to habitual bipedality.
Like I said,
not for you, but for those with eyes that are open enough to learn.
