The mainstream consensus is that around 8 million years ago the earliest ancestors of
humans diverged from apes. There are at least a dozen human-like species,
called hominids, which have lived on Earth. It is thought that these evolved in Africa
and Migrated outwards from there but a recent finding turns this idea completely on its head
and once more shows the extent scientists will go to to protect their old theories.
In order to determine the evolution of any species they must first establish
what sort of animal it evolved from. For humans this required that they attempt
to reconstruct the Last Common Ancestor of humans and chimpanzees. Hominins are species
on our branch of the hominoid tree after the split from chimpanzees & bonobo line.
Changes from an ape like anatomy are discernible in hominoid fossils from the late Miocene in
Africa. Some hominid species from this period exhibit traits that are typical of humans
but are not seen in the other living apes. The first traits to appear were bipedal walking
and smaller, blunt canines.
Around 4 million years ago we find members of the genus Australopithecus
the first of which was discovered in South Africa back in 1924.
Many more fossils found in these regions painted a picture that humans seem to have evolved here
from tree dwellers to land walkers and then slowly migrate outwards across the globe.
This has become so ingrained that any evidence to the contrary is ignored or buried. So when
paleontologist Gerhard Gielinski, on his summer holiday, came across a footprint
he was not prepared for the violent denials he would receive from the paleontological community.
He had asked some of his colleagues for their opinions on what he felt was a very human-like
footprint and had somehow made its way into a flat rock along the shore. The team came
to the conclusions that the impressions had been made by ancient human ancestors
a staggering 5.6 million years ago. Making them the oldest footprints ever discovered in Europe.
These footprints had been laid down during the Miocene era.
During this time there was no water in the Meditarranean sea.
The scientific world was now faced with the rather uncomfortable notion that these footprints on this
small greek island were not the earliest known human like footprints in the world.
Far older that the prints previously found in Africa.
It may come as no surprise then that this find was made back in 2002
and it took them over 6 and a half years of living hell to try and get the paper published.
Finally the paper was published in 2017 but was largely ignored by the paleontological community.
One other group also took notice and started to find similar fossil fragments that supported
the idea that there was an early presence of hominins in Europe and possibly even the origin.
They too struggled to get any of their work published as the scientific community
clung to the old narrative.
Another related story to this concerns the supposed migration of Homo Sapiens out of Africa.
In a new analysis conducted on a series of footprints left in the mud of a bygone body
of water has identified 7 which might belong to humans. If the find is confirmed it would place
these footprints as the oldest traces of Homo sapiens ever found on the Arabian Peninsula.
The mainstream idea of human migration is that humans initially started on the African continent
and then migrated outwards from there. It is believed that most non=African people
alive today have ancestors who departed the continent en masse some 60,000 years ago.
It is argued that it is possible that smaller
groups may have migrated out much earlier than this.
Amongst the find they also discovered a trove of 233 fossils. These paint a picture of a much
greener and wetter climate than exists there today. This would make this an ideal hunting
ground for Humans and hence an possible reason for their migration to here. They have however
not found any evidence of stone tools or animal bones bearing the telltale marks of butchery.
They claim that it is unlikely that these footprints were made by Neanderthals
as they only migrated into this area after the date
they identified for the sediment where they found the footprints.
Many fossil and artifact finds have come from situations like this special lakebed
in northern Saudi Arabia. Archaeologists uncovered the site, deep in the Nefud Desert
at a location nicknamed ‘the trace’ in Arabic.
In the paper the scientist discuss how unlikely it is to find these footprints stating:
An experimental study of modern human footprints in mud flats
found that fine detail was lost within 2 days and prints were rendered unrecognisable within four,
and similar observations have been made for other non-hominin mammal tracks.
The mainstream concept for the formation of these types of fossil footprints in mud is that the
footprint needs to be made in damp mud and then the footprint has to dry out. As stated in their
analysis this must occur within 2 days. Once dried out it hardens and locks the footprint in place.
Further layers of sediment are laid down on top and this compresses the sediment to form rock
thereby preserving the footprint. This process takes 10’s of thousands of years if not more.
The footprints present a different case, as normal fossils are a process whereby the chemicals in the
original bones and tissue are replaced with other chemicals forming a rock-like material.
There are no bones or tissues left to replace in the case of the footprint. All we are dealing
with is a depression left in the mud. The chances of them happening would appear to be very rare…
yet a cursory search reveals quite the opposite, they would appear to be
rather common. In fact there are examples of this happening with modern footprints. The big question
is how easy it would be for that imprint to survive across 10,000 years or even 100,000 years
let alone millions of years. Again here we can find an extensive catalogue
of all types of animal imprints, perfectly preserved in stone.
Now I will admit that I am no expert in Geology but when I look at these footprints and look at
the explanation of how they are formed to me the only way these could be preserved
for such a long time and then be uncovered as they are, requires something rather unique.
Assuming that the footprint is made in mud of just the right consistency, which is then baked
dry over weeks or months. It then needs to be compressed by additional layers of material
that get deposited on top of this. This additional material would surely need to be of a softer
composition compared to the original mud in order for it to not fuse with the original sample.
This would then allow this material to then break off, or wear away,
some time in the future and reveal only the footprint.
This in essence also comes back to the whole question around sedimentation and whether it
is possible for the process to be sped up or done in a different way than conventionally suggested.
So what I am trying to suggest is that if there is an alternative process that allows
rapid sedimentation and rapid transformation of sands and other softer materials into harder rock
that this may be why we see so many footprints which are so exquisitely preserved.
This would also fit with the ideas put forward by Peter Mungo Jupp
around instant fossilization. Now these are connected with a catastrophic event
like I cover in the Earth in Upheaval series and I would argue that the footprints we
see are not directly related to these events as there are no fossilised remains found.
Lithification is the process in which sediments compact under pressure, expel fluids and
gradually become solid rock. Petrifaction is the replacement of organic material by silica
in the formation of fossils. This process requires pressure and time. Sandstone is formed from this
process. This can then be converted into other rock types via metamorphism where it changes to
metamorphic rocks. This usual requires both a temperature greater than 200C and a large
pressure. Some of the footprints we have looked at are clearly in harder rock than sandstone.
Is it possible that a similar process can occur on a smaller scale locally?
Can an electrical event either through lightning or a solar flare or something similar trigger
the sudden hardening of the mud and possibly even the transformation of it into harder rock?
As I state I am no expert here but feel this is something worth
exploring further especially as I see the overlap with the Earth in Upheaval series..
We have the work of Guy Berhault who demonstrated that sedimentation can occur much much quicker
than previously thought and then there is the work of both Peter Mungo Jupp and Andrew Hall
There is evidence that this fossilisation process can occur
almost instantaneously preserving the animals in contorted shapes.
We see examples of fossils in Verona Italy which show animals preserved in contorted positions.
We have examples of fossilised trees that seem to intersect many different strata and still stand
upright. And then the very strange petrified crabs found in spherical basalt boulders.