Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 52 (9178 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: Anig
Upcoming Birthdays: Theodoric
Post Volume: Total: 918,102 Year: 5,359/9,624 Month: 384/323 Week: 24/204 Day: 24/21 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Lucy - fact or fraud?
pop 
Inactive Member


Message 29 of 47 (336022)
07-28-2006 10:41 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by RAZD
06-06-2006 8:54 PM


AUSTRALOPITHECUS ARE APES
Hey guys australopithecus were only extinct apes AND I HAVE EVIDENCES ON WHAT I AM SAYING
.CRANIAL CAPACITIES ABOUT(450-500 CC)
.PROJECTING PARTS IN THEIR HANDS AND FEET TO CLIMB TREES.
.THEIR FEET STRUCTURE WAS BUILT FOR GRASPING TO HOLD ONTO BRANCHES.
.THEY ARE SHORT(130)MAXIMUM.
.THE MALES ARE MUCH BIGGER THAN FEMALES.
.THEIR TEETH WHICH ARE THE SAME AS (GELADA BABOONS)IN ETHIOPIA.
.THE DETAILS IN THEIR SKULLS LOW FLATTENED FORE HEAD/LOE BROW RIDGE/FLAT NOSE / JUTTING JAW.
.THE BACK BONE MEETS ITS HEAD IN AN ANGLE.
.THE TOE BONES OF LUCY RESEMBLE THOSE OF TREE DWELINGS.
.THEY WERE TOO MUCH LIKE TO THE PYGMY CHIMPANZEES.
.THEIR BIG TOES STICKS OUT AN ANGLE WHICH IS USED FOR GRASPING.
.THE STUDIES DONE ON ITS HANDS BY B.G RICHMOND AND DS. STRAIT CONCLUDED THAT LUCY WAS A KNUCKLE WALKER.
.ACCORDING TO OXNARD LUCYS PELVIS IS SIMILAR TO THE ORANGUTANS WHICH ARE TREE DWELLING APES.
.THE TEETH ANALYSIS BY HOLLY SMITH CONCLUDED THAT AUSTRALOPITHECUS SHOULD BE CLASSIFIED WITH GREAT APES.
.ACCORDING TO SPOOR/ZONNEVELD/BERNARD WOOD THE HUMAN MORPHOLOGY BEGINS AT THE HOMO ERECTUS.
.THE FOSSIL 222-1 (A.AFARENSIS JAW) (THEY WERE RECTANGULAR SHAPED NARROW).

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by RAZD, posted 06-06-2006 8:54 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 30 by nwr, posted 07-28-2006 10:50 AM pop has not replied
 Message 31 by Clark, posted 07-28-2006 11:51 AM pop has not replied
 Message 32 by RAZD, posted 07-28-2006 10:05 PM pop has replied
 Message 33 by macaroniandcheese, posted 07-28-2006 10:16 PM pop has not replied
 Message 36 by Lithodid-Man, posted 07-29-2006 6:17 AM pop has replied

pop 
Inactive Member


Message 35 of 47 (336263)
07-29-2006 5:37 AM
Reply to: Message 32 by RAZD
07-28-2006 10:05 PM


Re: AUSTRALOPITHECUS ARE APES
Hey Razd I am not claiming any thing JUST SAYING THE TRUTH for the bipedal walking .The bipedal walking is impossible for australopithecus because it only had the anatomy of normal apes as I am going to explain;
1-For the pelvis I confirm that it is diffirent from greatapes but it is also non suitable for bipedal walking only for tree climbing .The australopithecus pelvis is similar to that of tree dwellings as Oxnard said it is so similar to orangutans.
2-For the fore arms they have the classical knuckle walking anatomy and I am not claiming that but it is being confirmed by the discovery of lucys fore arms by B.G Richmond and D.S STRAIT AND it has been published in NATURE.
3-I am sorry Razd but I do confirm that australopithecus feet bones confirm its knuckle walking anatomy because the big toe sticks out at an angle which is used for grasping in humans the big toe is alinged with the others.
4-The analusis done on the lucy pelvis in 2000 confirmed that the bone is so different from the man and lucy couldnot walk in a way like man.
5-LOrd Solly Zuckerman studied for 15 years the australopithecus species and came out that australopithecus were definetly not bipedal(Solly Zuckerman Beyond The Ivory Tower Top LI nger publications New York 1970 pp.75-94)
6-Professor Charles Oxnard confirmed that australopithecus was similar to orangutans.(Charles E. Oxnard /The place of Australopithecines in human evolution /NATURE vol.258 4 DEcember 1975 p. 389)
7-Fred Spoor/ Bernard Wood / Frans Zonneveld` analysed the balance in the inner ear and concluded that australopithecus could not be bipedal.(Fred Spoor / Bernard Wood /Frans Zonneveld Implications of early hominids labyrenthine morphology of human evolution bipedal locomotion /NATURE vol.369 23 june 1994 p.648)
8-Dr. Robin Crompton made researches about the bipedalism in humans and apes and concluded that the living being can walk on 2 legs or on 4 legs a stride between the two cannot be possible because it would use exessive energy so a creature half bipedal is imaginary.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by RAZD, posted 07-28-2006 10:05 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 38 by Modulous, posted 07-29-2006 6:45 AM pop has replied
 Message 45 by RAZD, posted 07-29-2006 1:03 PM pop has not replied

pop 
Inactive Member


Message 37 of 47 (336268)
07-29-2006 6:28 AM
Reply to: Message 36 by Lithodid-Man
07-29-2006 6:17 AM


Re: AUSTRALOPITHECUS ARE APES
Just confirming they were not bipedal .

This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by Lithodid-Man, posted 07-29-2006 6:17 AM Lithodid-Man has not replied

pop 
Inactive Member


Message 39 of 47 (336273)
07-29-2006 7:08 AM
Reply to: Message 38 by Modulous
07-29-2006 6:45 AM


Re: AUSTRALOPITHECUS ARE APES
so what are you trying to say that lucy was bipedal I think not .
Because all the evidences I wrote.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by Modulous, posted 07-29-2006 6:45 AM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 40 by Modulous, posted 07-29-2006 7:40 AM pop has replied
 Message 41 by MUTTY6969, posted 07-29-2006 7:57 AM pop has not replied

pop 
Inactive Member


Message 42 of 47 (336288)
07-29-2006 9:54 AM
Reply to: Message 40 by Modulous
07-29-2006 7:40 AM


Re: bipedality
d'Anthropologie, Faculte de Medecine-Secteur Nord, Universite de la Mediterranee Aix-Marseille II, Boulevard Pierre Dramard, Marseille cedex 20, 13916, France.This study is based upon a new morphometric technique providing both size and shape variables. It has been applied to 189 pelvic bones of extant humans and African apes as well as to 13 hominid pelvic bones of various taxonomic status. The main aim of this work is to include such fossil bones in the same study in order to set a synthetic comparison of their shape in the light of the yardstick given by the African ape/human pelvic bone comparison. To do so, ratio diagrams are chosen because they are simple and very expressive tools with which to present such comparisons. Shape differences are very well illustrated and quantified by this technique. The ilium appears to be the most different of the three parts of the pelvic bone. Compared to these differences, discrepancies between fossil hominid and extant human bones are of a totally different scale. This shows the architectural unity related to the acquisition of bipedalism by hominids. It is nonetheless possible to detect two levels of difference. The first separates Australopithecus from Homo and could be seen as reflecting locomotor differences between both genera. The second splits both Homo erectus and Neanderthal from modern human pelvic bones. It appears from the hominid fossil record of pelvic bones that two periods of stasis exist and are separated by a period of very rapid evolution corresponding to the emergence of the genus Homo. We are of the opinion that the same could be true for the split between African ape and hominid lineages at the end of the Miocene. Copyright 2000 Academic Press.PMID: 10683305 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE] Display Show

This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by Modulous, posted 07-29-2006 7:40 AM Modulous has not replied

pop 
Inactive Member


Message 43 of 47 (336290)
07-29-2006 10:11 AM
Reply to: Message 40 by Modulous
07-29-2006 7:40 AM


Re: bipedality
Lucy’s pelvis and gender
Lawrence asks the important question of how Lucy’s discoverers knew she was female, and informs us that her (Lawrence’s) qualifications in obstetrics and gynaecology have helped her ”to appreciate birth mechanisms’. From the diminutive size of the pelvis, Donald Johanson and others interpreted Lucy (fossil designation AL 288-1) as being a female.4 But as Hausler and Schmid discovered: ”The sacrum and the auricular region of the ilium are shattered into numerous small fragments, such that the original form is difficult to elucidate. Hence, it is not surprising that the reconstructions by Lovejoy and Schmid show marked differences.’5
In regard to Lucy’s pelvis, Johanson affirmed: ”Lucy’s wider sacrum and shallower pelvis gave her a smaller, kidney-shaped birth canal, compared to that of modern females. She didn’t need a large one because her newborn infant’s brain wouldn’t have been any larger than a chimpanzee infant’s brain.’6 That admission begs the question as to why this fossil was not categorized within the chimp family. But this gender declaration poses additional problems for Lucy. As Hausler and Schmid noted: ”If AL 288-1 was female, then one can exclude this species from the ancestors of Homo because its pelvis is certainly less primitive than the pelvis of Sts 14 [designation for a specific Australopithecus africanus fossil that is supposedly a descendant from Lucy, emphasis added].’7 Both of the pelvises mentioned displayed some degree of damage, and both were missing critical parts. However, it should be noted that, in regard to the Lucy fossil, more than one attempt was made at reconstruction.
The reconstructions of the inlet and midplane of Lucy’s pelvis, and comparisons to other fossils and modern humans, reveals that the shape of Lucy’s pelvis was not structured correctly to give birth. The pelvis was just too narrow to accommodate an australopithecine fetus. Hausler and Schmid noted that Lucy’s pelvis was ridgeless and heart-shaped, which means that ”she’ was more likely a ”he’. They noted:
”Contrary to Sts 14, delivery in AL 288-1 would have been more complicated than in modern humans, if not impossible, due to the protruding promontorium . . Consequently, there is more evidence to suggest that AL 288-1 was male rather than female. A female of the same species as AL 288-1 would have had a pelvis with a larger sagittal diameter and a less protruding sacral promontorium . . Overall, the broader pelvis and the more laterally oriented iliac blades of AL 288-1 would produce more favourable insertion sites for the climbing muscles in more heavily built males . with such a pelvis, ”Lucy’ would apparently have been the last of her species [emphasis added].’8
This declaration has received an enormous reaction from the evolutionist community, as many scientists work diligently to defend Lucy. If Hausler and Schmid’s conclusion is correct, then the equivalent female of this species would have been even smaller”something unheard of in trying to compare this creature to modern humans! Lucy’s pelvis is not what it should be for an upright-walking hominid”but the dimensions do fall within primates found among the ape family. Why was this scientific truth ignored

This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by Modulous, posted 07-29-2006 7:40 AM Modulous has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 44 by AdminModulous, posted 07-29-2006 10:24 AM pop has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024