StormanNorman

How so??? And BK, walk it through with me ....how would the speed of light effect the geometric measurements of that light source? And what do you think they are measuring when calculating parallax? I have a feeling this will go the way of the statistical confidence interval discussion....

Trigonometric measurements???? What does that have to do with the speed of light???

I didn't say that GPS or TDOA proves the one-way speed of light; they just offer lots and lots of observational evidence for it....to the point where opining vastly different speeds as a function of direction is very, very wishful thinking. We had a big discussion over on the Lisle's Anisotropic Synchrony Convention (ASC) thread and I walked through the calculations for TDOA. So, say, you have 4 aircraft detecting an enemy emitter....c for all speeds provides an accurate emitter location for all geometries. But, for a given geometry, there is a bigger solution space or manifold of potential speed combinations within four-space. However, as you change geometries, the solution space changes as well. And the only solution in common with all geometries is when all four speeds (from emitter to aircraft) = c. It just seems exceedingly fortuitous that these variable speeds light based on direction (w/o any formulation as far as I can tell) always gives us the right answer using calculations based exclusively on the one-way speed of light = c independent of direction. If I recall, someone tried to contact Lisle to have him discuss it with us and, in particular, with me in that thread. But, he refused and instead offered us an offhand insult. He could've discussed his calculations with a legit mathematician, but he didn't seem interested. Oh well....

It's also observed during time difference of arrival calculations for emitters...

I don't buy it. GPS uses a constant velocity for light, c, in all calculations. And these calculations apply to an infinite set of geometries and directions. Do these guys have a formulation for the speed of light as a function of direction??.

ASC is a solution to the distant starlight problem only for the true believers; but, unfortunately, it doesn't t match our real world observations...

Actually, I think there is....I remember reading about a field study where scientists tested the mating potential between peacocks with large plumes and those with plumes that had been trimmed. And, those with the plumes did much better in terms of getting a mate. I'll look around on the internet and see if I can find it.

Your first question is a similar question I've seen posed for male peacocks, etc. For them, it's not so much survival of the fittest, but reproduction of the fittest. The more colorful guys get the females; they may not live as long, but they mate more. BTW, welcome to the forum...

The fossil from which you got the wiki image of its foot is known as Little Foot from South Africa; and as far as I know it has not been classified, yet. The Dikika fossil also known as Selam has been classified as afarensis. However, you seem to have your chronologies a little off. Salem and Lucy are about the same age, e.g., 3.2 million years for Lucy and about 3.3 million years for Salem. The ages for Little Foot seem to be all over the place. Your wiki link has it from 2.2 - 3.3 million years whereas the link below dates it at 3.67 million years. I guess it was found in a cave or something which makes it harder to date. And I don't know what the confidence bounds are for these age estimates. But, at any rate, I don't think you can really say which one is younger than that one, etc. So, do you have a diagram of Selam's foot? That would probably be more relevant to the Laetoli tracks discussion. https://www.iflscience.com/plants-and-animals/little-foot-skeleton-dated-be-367-million-years-old-older-lucy/ I think you are projecting a little bit here, Dave. I'm not emotionally invested in any answer...old earth, young earth, middle-aged earth. I don't care; I'd just like to know the answers just out of sheer curiosity. I mean it's not like my salvation depends on it, right??

Dave, accept my apologies as I did not see this graphic you posted. And I agree with you that Little Feet probably could not have made those footprints. So, I went to the Little Foot wiki page and found a couple of interesting things. There seems to be some disagreement as to its classification. The discoverer believes that it is a new species of Australopithecus and that it is neither an afarensis nor africanus. If that is true, then the question remains as to what kind of feet afarensis had.

Sure thing. But, remember, Dave, I'm not the one here making definitive statements and using phrases like "it proves..." So, most of the burden is on you at this point. So, why exactly is not possible for afarensis to have made the Laetoli footprints? Give me a diagram of an adult afarensis foot while walking and show me how it could not possibly make those footprints. I ask this, Dave, because at least in my mind, there's a lot of uncertainty here. So, at this point, what do we have? We have this infant fossil foot that based on what I have read indicates that it had more horizontal mobility (for grasping) than previously thought....do we have a diagram of what it would like while walking? We have an adult fourth metatarsal which (and I kind of agree with you here) is kind of scant; but, the authors claim that it indicates a human-like arch that other apes don't have. And, finally, in those same sediments in Laetoli as the footprints, we have found several afarensis fossils....but no humans....no human artifacts...nothing. Now, maybe we just haven't found them, yet. There's a lot of dirt out there....I don't know; but that's where things stand. Oh, and one last thing, I think based on the pelvis and knee joints, the leading inference is that afarensis walked upright and were bipedal. It seems to me that being able to align your big toe with your other toes at least while walking would come in handy. But, at the end of the day, I don't know what their feet looked like. And, until I get more tangible information, it will be hard to convince me of anything...either way.

I see absolutely no way you can make such definitive claims based on the information at hand.....although I'm sure that won't stop you. And unless you yourself have analysed the Laetoli tracks up close an personal and not just from a picture of them, then this is all just internet speculation. I'd be far more interested in the people who have actually analysed the tracks, took the measurements, etc. and what they have to say about them in terms of comparing them to the human foot, etc. At any rate, there are not very many foot-related fossils for adult australopithecines...at least that I could find. I found one (see the article below). Based on a complete fourth metatarsal, the authors claim that A. afarensis foot was functionally like that of modern humans. Why....I guess you need to read the paper. http://science.sciencemag.org/content/331/6018/750 I have a full-time job that keeps me more than busy. So, I readily admit that I don't and haven't kept up on EFF discussions.

I believe that Malachite Man would represent human bones non-intrusively buried in dinosaur layers. Appears to be very much in doubt. http://paleo.cc/paluxy/moab-man.htm I don't think your statement in bold is true. Everything I've read about australopithecus afarensis suggests that they did not have opposable big toes and, instead, had big toes like ours. I see no reason why they could not have made the Laetoli tracks. This article suggests that australopithecus afarensis (or at least their young) had more lateral movement in their big toe than we do; but still not an opposable big toe. https://cosmosmagazine.com/palaeontology/early-hominid-tot-had-ape-like-feet Maybe you are referring to the fossil find in the article below, but I don't see its species classification. However, it does state that it is not australopithecus afarensis. https://www.nature.com/news/ancient-human-ancestor-had-feet-like-an-ape-1.10342

Hey Dave, I don't know what they have found in terms of australopithecine foot-related fossils. I remember reading that some bones that have been found indicate that they did not have a splayed big toe. Anyway, my focus was more on the pelvis which strongly shows that they were far more bipedal than chimps. In fact, I would say they were bipedal. Now, as far as asserting the fact the modern humans lived alongside Lucy.....well, they don't assert it because there is really no evidence for it. Footprints in mud by themselves don't prove anything. Where are the human bones? Based on the current fossil record, the only candidate for those footprints is Lucy's kind. And until we find another candidate, that will continue to be the leading theory.

That's 100% fine, Cal. This is very important to you and it is more than your right to become emotional over it. But, BK was inferring that we (me, piasan, Goku, popoi, etc.) are the "emotional" ones in this debate....which is obviously not true. Just tally up the insults by poster.....