Talk:Laetoli

Reference

Our only online reference is from Encarta? Yuck! violet/riga (t) 19:31, 28 July 2006 (UTC) http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8&q=laetoli+footprints&qscrl=1Asdfjkl1235 (talk) 00:11, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Well, it appears to have been given more online references now: including one to The Hitchhiker's Guide... a reliable reference for any Wikipedia article. 118.93.212.198 (talk) 08:30, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Date of discovery

The date of discovery was not 1976-1977, it was 1978. The encarta source says this, and so does the textbook "Introduction to Physical Anthropology" by Robert Jurmain et al (page 271). According to talkorigins.org, a reputable source, there were two sets of footprints found. The more significant find was in 1978, although there was one in 1976 belonging to animals. I have changed the date. Here are the links http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/mleakey.html http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/specimen.html#laetoli

The footprints were discovered by Mary Leakey in September 1976. I arrived overland from Rwanda, via Mwanza, the following May (1977). She was short handed due to a border dispute between Kenya and Tanzania that prevented a team of researchers and Kenyan workers who were to work the site from crossing. She asked me to stay around and supervise the setting up of the Laetoli camp, which I did over the next month with some 20 of her regular Mkumba crew from Olduvai. She provided detailed sketches of the location of the creek bed, with each set of footprints marked (most were still covered with branches just as she had left them the year before). The men and I painstakingly cleared then cairn-marked a ca 35-mile earth road out to the site then moved & set up the tents and all the cooking, sleeping & logistical gear. I personally drove Mary out in her white Pugeot to inspect the camp once we had it up. There were a few discrepancies, which we corrected under her watchful eye, before returning to Olduvai. A few days later I continued on to Nairobi, returning in July for a short visit. The site was by then up and running, although with a skeleton crew since most of the Kenyans still had not received their temporary work permits. Sandy McMath, sandymcmath@aol.com., 4/21/12. See my full account in Africa Alone, Odyssey of an American Traveler, August House 1983; Columbus & Co. 1988, ISBN 13-0935304527.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Sam hogg (talk • contribs) 01:21, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

According to the book Ancestral Passions page 475, the actual discoverer of the bipedal prints was Peter Jones. Upon discovery he brought the site directory Mary Leakey to the find and I quote "But Mary wasn't convinced. 'She didn't like them,' said Jones. They were ambiguous and there weren't many of them.'"

So rather than being the discoverer, you could call her the first critic and skeptic of the prints!

The man who discovered the tuff layer with animal prints was Andrew Hill (Ancestral Passions, page 473).173.173.20.99 (talk) 04:10, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Deleting section "Controversy of the Footprints"

The section "Controversy of the Footprints" is largely lifted from one web page. I find the section unencyclopedic - first and foremost because it doesn't clearly define the dispute. In order to present a controversy you need to present two competing hypotheses and explain the arguments for one hypothesis against the other and vice versa. The "controversy" as explained in the current text is merely two points of view from people (creationists vs palaeoanthropologists) who usually disagree with each other generally speaking. So I'm going to delete it. If anyone wants to reinstate it, please explain the specific points of contention between the two sides. Alfons Åberg (talk) 21:56, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Some people just like to follow the data. As documented, the trackways look exactly like human footprints in appearance and gait measurements. Perhaps the most likely explanation is that they are human footprints. There is only controversy because, as usual, the evidence is not consistent with neo-darwinian historical claims. 184.153.187.119 (talk) 21:59, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Have you read Evidence of common descent and followed the references and article links? The evidence is overwhelming... But you might also want to learn about the Scientific method and what a Scientific theory really is, we're not talking about religion, hypotheses or opinions here, but of explanatory models of observed evidence by consensus, allowing to make and fulfill predictions quite reliably, again and again (also see Evolution as fact and theory and List_of_misconceptions#Evolution). I think that the Objections to evolution article already covers this alleged debate. 76.10.128.192 (talk) 18:33, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Some people just like to follow the data. Yes, but those people are scientists; Creationists never follow the data. look exactly like -- that's not data. Perhaps the most likely explanation is that they are human footprints. -- and perhaps the moon is made of green cheese. There is only controversy because, as usual, the evidence is not consistent with neo-darwinian historical claims. -- There is only controversy because religious ideologues reject science and lie about what the evidence shows. -- 184.189.217.91 (talk) 20:14, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Furthermore, this is not only "two points of view from people...who usually disagree with each other", as this has nothing to do with what creationists and evolutionists generally argue about. This is about the means used to date things which are largely disputed (see the page on atomic isotopes to determine datation). In absence of other means of dating the footprints, one must wonder if they were not made much more recently. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.65.82.195 (talk) 23:44, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

this has nothing to do with what creationists and evolutionists generally argue about -- of course it does. And there isn't really an argument between Creationists and "evolutionists" ... there is science, and there are religious ideologues who reject it. Few scientists pay much attention to the latter. In absence of other means of dating the footprints -- there's no such absence. one must wonder if they were not made much more recently -- one can wonder all one wants, but the footprints are ~ 3.7 million years old nonetheless. -- 184.189.217.91 (talk) 20:22, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

C-Class

Is this article still considered a Start Class? Sputink (talk) 16:33, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Laetoli. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070717190906/http://www.liv.ac.uk/premog/premog-sup-info-Laetoli.htm to http://www.liv.ac.uk/premog/premog-sup-info-Laetoli.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:13, 15 December 2017 (UTC)