Humans learned to grip and use their hands before they learned to walk upright on two feet, according to a study conducted by the RIKEN Brain Science Institute, reports the National Monitor.

The study consisted of examining 'the hand and feet bones of a 4.4 million year-old skeleton and the quadruped hominid Ardipithecus ramidus,' which showed that early humans had developed dexterity and the ability to use tools before they developed 'bipedal locomotion,' or the ability to walk and move on two feet.

The study is important because it discredits the common assumption that bipedal locomotion came first before hand control development. Researchers used data pertaining to monkey and human behaviour, as well as brain imaging and fossil evidence in determining their hypothesis and in scientifically negating the belief that hominids needed to first be liberated from using their hands for walking in order to use their hands for gripping and utilizing tools.

The research team's discovery points to new evidence 'that monkey toes are combined into a single map, while human toes are also combined into a single map, but with the important exemption of the big toe, which has its own map not observed in monkeys.' This explains the reason why early humans were capable of developing finger dexterity before developing bipedal locomotion, while they were still quadrupeds, reports Red Orbit. Of course, monkeys failed to develop hand control while humans evolved fine finger control.

The authors of the study revealed in a statement that, "In early quadruped hominids, finger control and tool use were feasible, while an independent adaptation involving the use of the big toe for functions like balance and walking occurred with bipedality," according to Science Codex.

Published in the journal, "Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society," the study implies that early humans needed to develop hand control and finger dexterity out of the need to adapt.

The study also proves that evolution may now be studied competently within the confines of a laboratory, and not necessarily out on the field, as Charles Darwin did. Noted neurobiologist Dr. Atsushi Iriki, one of the authors of the study, said that, "Evolution is not usually thought of as being accessible to study in the laboratory; but our new method of using comparative brain physiology to decipher ancestral traces of adaptation may allow us to re-examine Darwin's theories," according to the National Monitor.