The news of the day in the field of paleoanthropology is that the first known hominids, who were about 7 million years old, walked on two legs, not four.

To be honest from the beginning, we tell you that this is just a reconfirmation. The idea of ​​bipedalism in these people has been confirmed for about 20 years.

By 2002, a joint team of archaeologists from France and Chad discovered the oldest known hominid.

The problem isn’t that it comes with reheated soup. May they be healthy! The main question is how it helps us and how we can apply it to what we already know about our evolutionary past. Well, this is where the problems and question marks start to appear.

To begin with, so that everyone understands the situation, let’s say that sometime in 2002, a mixed team of archaeologists from France and Chad occupied the headlines of all the specialized publications of the world with an exceptional discovery. Accordingly, the oldest known hominid.

They named it Sahelanthropus tchadensis to make it easy for everyone to remember, and then cataloged it as a putative human ancestor. The claim we made on the basis of enthusiasm, we know because, in fact, they have no clear evidence that these people didn’t end up in some silly way like a genetic dead end.

Well, another aspect that caused a stir back then was the aspect confirmation of bipedalism in these very strong and apparently very primitive individuals.

How did you come to this conclusion? simply! The skull, which was almost completely discovered at the time, was digitally reconstructed and it became clear that the occipital foramen (foramen magnun, if you prefer) is located at the base of the skull, perpendicular to where it should have joined the spine, a feature of bipeds creatures

What’s new? this latest news what once again confirms bipedalism in these people? New analysis of some of the forearm bones and some of the legs showed us that these specimens were indeed bipedal, they were not perfectly adapted to life in trees.

But the individuals in question used their hands to grab and pull tree branches, most likely in search of food, the study said.

What’s interesting again, and what’s been known for about two decades, is that another hominid species, this time younger, only about 6 million years old, called Orrorin tugenensis, discovered in Kenya, was also bipedal. Baska, where do you say that their features are morphologically closer to humans than to modern primates.

Well, one might say, even than Australopithecus, a genus that, in theory, makes the evolutionary transition from such archaic individuals to the genus Homo.

Come on, everything was clear as day so far

The problem, as I said, is what we do from now on. I mean we have bipeds at 6 million and 7 million respectively. By the way, we forgot to say that they lived in a wooded area.

So the hypothesis that two-legged people appeared in the savanna, that they have nothing to cling to, is a little worse than a meteorite. So there we have it at the beginning. In addition, there is a period about 5-3 million years ago when the Australopithecines proliferated. And australopithecines were half-tree, half-bipedal creatures, so some kind of evolutionary step back.

We overlook the fact that some species of Australopithecus eventually became contemporary with the first members of the genus Homo, and some even evolved into the genus Paranthropus, which was parallel to Homo erectus until about a million years ago. Simple, right?

Can we say with confidence that Australopithecus are really the ancestors of the genus Homo?

Well, based on these ideas, can we talk about the certainty that Australopithecus are really the ancestors of the genus Homo? So are they part of the evolutionary line that led to us humans today? Or can the idea of ​​a genetic dead end be taken into account in their case?

What prevents us from hypothesizing the existence of a not yet discovered, insufficiently studied evolutionary line that would establish a direct connection between Sahelanthropus tchadensis, with which we began the discussion, and Homo erectus, the first absolutely vertical individual in this world?

Such an idea is attractive. With many risks, but attractive. In fact, a whole evolution parallel to that of the Australopithecines can be assumed, but of which we now have only two parts, the beginning and, of course, the end. Might as well stick with what we know now. That is, the evolution from sachelanthropes to australopithecines and from australopithecines to early humans.

Obviously, there are many unknowns in the equation. What we can do is not rule out any of the options.

And the truth is that, hiding behind supposed postulates in science, which are more promoted by mass media, paleontologists know very little about human evolution.

Not because they are slower or because, say, they are more agitated, there will be no evolution either. But because it is based on tiny sets of fossils, scattered, extremely fragmented, etc. Consider that we as a species have been studying mathematics for about 6,000 years, perhaps more. Paleoanthropology is a new science. He is not even 150 years old.

As much as we’d like to think we’ve evolved in this regard, we haven’t gotten very far in research

So, to conclude, bipedalism in those primitive species is a discovery. No objections. But one that leaves you in a fog as it raises many question marks.

And if the suspicions are confirmed, we will have to rewrite everything we know about ancient human history. But no, that’s why science is beautiful. That the only absolute truth is that there is no absolute truth.