Friday, January 11, 2008

Adding my 2 Cents to the Footprint Debate

I read an article in Nature today called "Fears for Oldest Human Footprints: Fossilized Tracks Pose Preservation Puzzle." http://www.nature.com/news/2008/080109/full/451118a.html. This article made me laugh, cry -- mostly cry laughing -- and shake my head in disbelief. It was the sea of questions and general thoughts that flooded my mind about this unusual dilemma that brought on these emotions.

1) This article's big idea is the conflict scientists are having about how to preserve a 3-million year old footprint. The reason for the sudden threat to the footprints? Local vegetation. Can't they just get little Billy Joe to spritz some Weed B Gone?

2) Why are we still preserving this footprint? What could we possibly get out of it other than its dimensions, which I'm sure we took when we found it in 1973? "Ah, yes, we've come to the conclusion that the ancient hominid had 5 toes, rough soles and an arch support problem."

3) The article says that the footprint was made in volcanic ash. This proves that the hominid was a guy. No girl in her right mind would be silly enough to walk barefoot in volcanic ash.

Feet. Huh.

1 comment:

Renaisauce said...

I think it's great that they're preserving a footprint. I say, if the footprint can last over a million years, then it should be allowed to last forever, as a reward. I fell in some mud once and made a manly-physique-sized impression, but it didn't last a day! Way to go, little print!