|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 57 (9189 total) |
| |
Michaeladams | |
marc9000 | |
Total: 918,975 Year: 6,232/9,624 Month: 80/240 Week: 23/72 Day: 10/13 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 1598 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: {composite\Lucy\Little-Foot\Australopithicus} was bipedal | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1598 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Taking up where you left off ...
Enjoy. compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click) we are limited in our ability to understand by our ability to understand RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ICANT Member (Idle past 220 days) Posts: 6769 From: SSC Joined: |
Taking up where you left off ... Are you looking to discuss was Lucy bipedal or a fraud? "John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1598 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Lucy was bipedal, as the evidence above shows.
Lucy is also NOT a fraud, as the evidence above shows. Any claims to the contrary have been refuted above. Enjoy. compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click) we are limited in our ability to understand by our ability to understand RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
anglagard Member (Idle past 1030 days) Posts: 2339 From: Socorro, New Mexico USA Joined: |
IIRC Pop was expelled for making death threats against the pope.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1598 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Picking up the information on "Little Foot" from message 176 of the "Science Disproves Evolution" thread:
(responding to message 101 of the "Science Disproves Evolution" thread)
... (Little Foot stumbles into the crossfire). ... claiming it must be bipedal from a square bone in its heel. ... im sure evolutionist will have no problem inventing some hypothetical missing link that made the laetoli foot tracks. Yet your source says:
quote: Which would make the owner clearly a preferential bipedal species by definition (no knuckle dragging and clear heel-toe depressions similar to those caused by weight shifts in modern footprints). Looking further I find this:
Hominid Discovery, Archeology, A publication of the Archaeological Institute of America, Volume 52 Number 2, March/April 1999quote: Intermediate in form with chimps and still able to climb trees, while being adapted for bipedal locomotion, (a form of locomotion that is not inhibited in any way by either the toe or the hand structure of this specimen) ... just as would be expected in an intermediate form. The article goes on to say:
quote: The age of the specimen appears to be between 2.2 and 4.1 million years, and an accurate date is difficult due to the nature of the deposit. Then there is
Fossils, feet and the evolution of human bipedal locomotion, Journal of Anatomy, 2004 May; 204(5): 403-416. doi: 10.1111/j.0021-8782.2004.00296.x.quote: Again, a plethora of intermediate forms from ancient species to modern human type feet. But if you think "little foot" was an unexpected find, then compare this 1935 prediction with "little foot" (same article):
quote: A find that matches a prediction based on evolution. Enjoy. The clearest pictures of the Laetoli footprints that I could find are: Another article on matching footprints to fossils is
The Laetoli Footprint Trail: 3D reconstruction from texture; archiving, and reverse engineering of early hominin gait from the University of Liverpool:
quote: Some interesting pictures there too, one with a Australopithecus afarensis skeleton superimposed but not reconstructed like "little foot" although it would better fit the single print above. There seems to be some variation in the footprints, and this leads me to wonder how mobile the toe position was - maybe both are valid? I also found:
"Hallucial convergence in early hominids" Journal of Human Evolution 50 (2006) 534e539: quote: That puts Stw 573 between gorilla and human, again fitting in with Dudley Morton's 1935 prediction. More:
quote: The (12 year old) article on "little foot" (stw 573) also says that more bones were found (including the rest of the foot? with the skull and forearm still in the rock but exposed) but I can't find anything more about any recent results of excavations.. Other foot bones for Australopithecus afarensis that I know of include heel and toe bones from the "first family" group:
PBS "how did they move":
quote: Not fully human, not fully ape -- intermediate. Enjoy. Edited by RAZD, : added end Edited by RAZD, : splng Edited by RAZD, : - changed to - Edited by RAZD, : ” and ’ changed to 'by our ability to understand Rebel☮American☆Zen☯Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1598 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
From message 195 of the "Science Disproves Evolution" thread:
Jason777 writes: Thank you RAZD.I appreciate your interest in discussion.The only hominid that is left open to debate (sort of) is A.Africanus.And i say that because T.C. Partridge gave a date using geomorphological dating of less than 870 k.y. and that was supported by a date of about 1 m.y.a. by thermoluminescence analysis of calcite and uranium-series dates of 942,000 y.a. and 764,000 y.a. on limestone.We certainly know that Homo Erectus was around well before that.The evolutionist in need of a human ancestor reject those dates and gave the taung child a date that fits in with evolution.I call that fraud myself,circular reasoning with a vengance may be a better term.KP 271 is allegedly A.Africanus but all the analysis show it to be anatomicaly indifferent from modern humans,Yet they claim it cant be because of its date of around 4.4 m.y.a..You likely know all of this already,just thought i would share just in case you dont. Thanks Jason777
The only hominid that is left open to debate (sort of) is A.Africanus. The proper form is A. africanus - genus (Australopithecus) capitalized, species lowercase, usually with both italicized. Same with Homo erectus etc. For archaeologists, paleontologist and biologist, etc., all fossils are open for debate. New information is always possible that will refine our understanding of the natural history of life on earth. What is critical is that the whole pattern of life is understood properly, and one of the persistent questions is whether the fossil is a uncle or parent species. An uncle species would still be a descendant from a common ancestor and it would share many hereditary traits, but not be necessarily from the direct lineage of Homo sapiens.
And i say that because T.C. Partridge gave a date using geomorphological dating of less than 870 k.y. and that was supported by a date of about 1 m.y.a. by thermoluminescence analysis of calcite and uranium-series dates of 942,000 y.a. and 764,000 y.a. on limestone. It's hard to validate what you are saying when you don't provide references to show where this information comes from. Even the fossil ID would help. I did a google on "Lower Pliocene Hominid Remains from Sterkfontein" Science 25 April 2003:Vol. 300. no. 5619, pp. 607 - 612 DOI: 10.1126/science.1081651:
quote: StW 573 is also known as "little foot" (see Message 20). I also found this: The Truth About Human Origins, Apologetics Press, 2003 quote: If this is your source then you should know that it is just plain wrong on several counts. (1) "Gracile" refers to several species of australopithecines and distinguishes them from the robust ones, not just A. africanus. (2) The problem in question would be connecting the late appearing fossil with the other existing old ones, yet all it would have done would be to extend the existence of A. africanus, not move the whole lineage up in time. (3) It certainly would not limit evolution of other branches of hominids from the earlier 3 and 4 million year old australopithecines (4) Thus hominid ancestry back to early A. africanus would still be just as possible as it is without this fossil date (just as apes and monkeys still exist), and finally, (5) this information is 30+ years old and they have found out many things in the interim, especially about the age of this fossil and the cave. The age of this fossil is now listed as 2.5 million years, with additional information showing the original dates were in error, and the problem of anomalous age is rectified. Here's Tobias in 1983, in the PROCEEDINGS of A Symposium on HUMAN EVOLUTION, Canadian Journal of Anthropology Volume 3:2 1983 (PDF takes a long time to load):
quote: So the problem was not one for hominid lineage from older hominids, but for how to explain the late appearance of a fossil where the rest are significantly older and there are no intermediates. Let me quote the following particular statement again, as it is a fabrication, a falsehood, and it does not logically follow from the evidence:
quote: If this is your source of information, I suggest you get a different one -- they are not telling you the truth and they have several misconceptions of how science works and tests ideas against reality. If this is not your source of information, but this is what you source is saying, then I still suggest you get a different one. One fossil does not represent the whole species.
We certainly know that Homo Erectus was around well before that.The evolutionist in need of a human ancestor reject those dates and gave the taung child a date that fits in with evolution.I call that fraud myself,circular reasoning with a vengance may be a better term. As pointed out above, it would not matter to human ancestry in the slightest, if the Tuang child date was as late as the initial dates suggested, as there were still plenty of hominids from 3 and 4 million years ago, for ancestors of Homo sapiens. Even suggesting this is a problem shows a misunderstanding of how the biological tree of life works.
KP 271 is allegedly A.Africanus but all the analysis show it to be anatomicaly indifferent from modern humans, ... Really? This one makes the talkorogins PRATT List -- Claim CC054: The fossil humerus KP 271 is an apparently human fossil from four million years ago, which, according to the standard evolutionary model, is well before the appearance of modern humans.:
quote: From "Morphometric analysis of the distal humerus of some cenozoic catarrhines: The late divergence hypothesis revisited" American Journal of Physical Anthropology Volume 59, Issue 1 , Pages 73 - 95 (abstract):
quote: Conclusion: Australopithecus, not Homo. Conclusion: features intermediate between ape and man. As should be expected. In addition, it is not a "stand-alone" fossil. From Australopithecus anamensis :
quote: When they went back to the site and excavated for more fossils ... all (21) of Australopithecus anamensis and none (0) of Homo.
... anatomicaly indifferent from modern humans,Yet they claim it cant be because of its date of around 4.4 m.y.a..You likely know all of this already,just thought i would share just in case you dont. It is rather indifferent, I agree ... but I don't think that's what you meant. The usual creationist literature uses the word "indistinct" ... but we know from Marc Feldesman that there are differences between the fossil and human bones, while we know from Meave Leakey that the fossil was associated in time and place with 21 Australopithecus anamensis hominids. It looks to me like your "evidence" is more just misrepresented reality by creationists than real problems. Enjoy Edited by RAZD, : message added Edited by RAZD, : cleaned up letter codesby our ability to understand Rebel☮American☆Zen☯Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jason777 Member (Idle past 5064 days) Posts: 69 Joined: |
Hi razd.Great information.Actually i got this info from a book i just finished reading by Marvin L. Lubenow (Bones Of Contention P.52).He is a well respected paleoanthropoligst and isnt known to be a liar or to make up nonsense.Here is a quote from Howells"The humeral fragment from kanapoi,with a date of about 4.4 million,could not be distinguished from Homo sapiens Morphologically or by multivariate analysis by patterson and myself in 1967(or by much more searching analysis by others since then).We suggested that it might represent Australopithicus because at that time allocation to Homo seemed preposterous,although it would be the correct one without the time element.P.57".Basicaly their saying its human and certainly not apelike.The theory of evolution is what decided what it is assigned to.Thank you for sharing info and if you have any cites to check out any actual A.africanus fossils please share.Have a great day.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1598 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Thanks Jason777,
Actually i got this info from a book i just finished reading by Marvin L. Lubenow (Bones Of Contention P.52).He is a well respected paleoanthropoligst and isnt known to be a liar or to make up nonsense. Yet he is listed as the source of the PRATT (Point Refuted a Thousand Times) in my previous post:
quote: They also have a link to this site with more information about it. Notice that in 1965 (and in 1992) they did not have the fossils that they had in 1996 that show "that the specimen is not human and is a good match with Australopithecus anamensis" (see previous post). Thus he is quoting old information that has now been superseded, but superseded after his book was published. I wonder if he has changed his opinion since (certainly I see it still being published on creationist sites).
Basicaly their saying its human and certainly not apelike.The theory of evolution is what decided what it is assigned to.Thank you for sharing info and if you have any cites to check out any actual A.africanus fossils please share.Have a great day. They are ... were ... saying that it was closer to human than what was known for ape and hominid at the time. We now have additional information of 21 fossil hominids from the same site that show it was Australopithecus anamensis. Try Human Ancestors Hall, Smithsonian Institute, Australopithecus africanus. Note the tentative relationships on the page. Also see this chart of hominid relationships (revised and updated recently) and this chart for an alternate view. Notice that on both of them the dotted lines representing hypothetical relationships don't always start at the end of one species. Enjoy. Edited by RAZD, : redundant repetition we are limited in our ability to understand by our ability to understand RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jason777 Member (Idle past 5064 days) Posts: 69 Joined: |
Hi razd.I may be wrong,but all of those A.anamensis fossils are all comprised of upper and lower jaws,cranial fragments,and the upper and lower parts of a single leg.Your source says KP-271 is a good match for A.anamensis,yet they dont have a complete A.anamensis(correct me if im wrong)fossil to compare it to.I recently found out Marvin L. Lubenow has a revised and updated version out(2004).I may keep an eye on ebay to see if i can pick up a cheap copy(HaHaHa).Anyway have a great weekend.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17884 Joined: Member Rating: 7.7 |
quote: You've not got it quite right. The site states that KP-271 is attributable to A.anamesis. The evidence is that the bone is probably from a robust australopithicine (as the analysis shows) and the A.anamesis name was coined to refer to the Australopithicine remains from that site and of the same age. There's no mention of any direct comparison between KP-271 and a humerus from A.anamesis. Obviously it makes sense to conclude that KP-271 is of the same species as the other remains, rather than assume that it is from a different australopithecine.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1598 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Thanks Jason777,
I may be wrong,but all of those A.anamensis fossils are all comprised of upper and lower jaws,cranial fragments,and the upper and lower parts of a single leg.Your source says KP-271 is a good match for A.anamensis,yet they dont have a complete A.anamensis(correct me if im wrong)fossil to compare it to. They don't need a complete fossil for comparison, just another humerus. As I noted in Message 21 (emphasis added):
quote: The first reference says that they compared humeri with other samples from Lake Turkana, and the second reference says that all Lake Turkana samples are all classed Australopithecus anamensis, so that seems fairly cut and dried (as much as one can get in science) - there were other humeri from Lake Turkana used in the comparison.
I recently found out Marvin L. Lubenow has a revised and updated version out(2004).I may keep an eye on ebay to see if i can pick up a cheap copy(HaHaHa). You also might want to try the library before investing. If he hasn't updated the information then I wouldn't buy the book. Enjoy. Edited by RAZD, : word change Edited by RAZD, : humeris me by our ability to understand RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1598 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Science | AAAS
quote: Note that the writer confuses one set of fossils with the composite view of Australopithecus afarensis -- the Lucy fossil set is not updated, the composite concept of the species is updated.
quote: Please ignore the artistic (fanciful) "reconstruction" shown -- what they should show is an updated composite skeleton. Enjoy. Edited by RAZD, : codeby our ability to understand Rebel☮American☆Zen☯Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1598 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined:
|
Here are pictures of the fully reconstructed Australopithicine, the second in comparison to humans and chimps:
Enjoyby our ability to understand Rebel☮American☆Zen☯Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10249 Joined: Member Rating: 7.1
|
Other than knowing when hominids were first bipedal, the question of bipedalism in Australopithecines is rather irrelevant to the question of human evolution. Australopithecines had adaptations for bipedalism seen in modern humans, whether they used them all of the time, some of the time, or only rarely. That's what matters in the larger discussion.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2299 days) Posts: 6117 Joined:
|
In your second picture, the differences in pelvis morphology is very striking. If you group them into two groups by shape you must group the chimp pelvis by itself and the other two together.
In fact, the first time I taught Introduction to Physical Anthropology I was warned about possible creationists in the class. On the first day I brought in a human innominate (half the pelvis), an Australopithecus innominate, and a chimp innominate. I asked the class to arrange them into two groups, and they all agreed that the chimp was the odd "man" out. I had no problems with creationists after that. Of course, this was a few years back.Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge. Belief gets in the way of learning--Robert A. Heinlein In the name of diversity, college student demands to be kept in ignorance of the culture that made diversity a value--StultisTheFool It's not what we don't know that hurts, it's what we know that ain't so--Will Rogers If I am entitled to something, someone else is obliged to pay--Jerry Pournelle If a religion's teachings are true, then it should have nothing to fear from science...--dwise1 "Multiculturalism" demands that the US be tolerant of everything except its own past, culture, traditions, and identity. Liberals claim to want to give a hearing to other views, but then are shocked and offended to discover that there are other points of view--William F. Buckley Jr.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024