Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 58 (9173 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: Neptune7
Post Volume: Total: 917,575 Year: 4,832/9,624 Month: 180/427 Week: 93/85 Day: 0/10 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

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


Message 16 of 47 (318922)
06-07-2006 10:09 PM
Reply to: Message 15 by RAZD
06-07-2006 9:17 PM


Re: Once more for watzimagiga
RAZD writes:
I think by now you will agree that your claim was made a bit in haste and with incomplete information,
Yes, fair enough.
Here is what i said.
watzimagiga writes:
You have mentioned lucy a couple of times now. Lucy was not found intact in one place. I read that the bones, including the knee (which showed, she was probably bipedal) were not just found in different areas, but actually at different depths, showing different age of bones.
I still hold that the bones that make up the 40% lucy fossil were not all found together, but they are thought to be from the same individual due do no duplication of bones (As I showed in web link in previous post).
I now realise that the knee is not claimed to be a part of the lucy fossil, and that was my mistake due to as you say "incomplete information". I realise now that the info I had about the bones being different ages (im guessing) would have been that the knee was a different age (as it is not from the same individual). NOT that the bones from the 40% lucy fossil were different ages.
RAZD writes:
I think you need to clearly state whether or not you accept that Lucy (AL 288-1) is a "40% complete specimen" of one individual
Im not sure if this is the case. I am not aware of any evidence besides that they didnt find two of the same bone at the site, that suggests that ALL of the bones were from ONE individual.
RAZD writes:
and that the knee joint (AL 129-1) is a separate specimen and that NO scientist has claimed they are from the same individual.
Accepted.
ps still wondering what the background colour you use is.
Matt

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by RAZD, posted 06-07-2006 9:17 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 18 by AdminAsgara, posted 06-07-2006 10:17 PM watzimagiga has not replied
 Message 19 by Belfry, posted 06-07-2006 10:30 PM watzimagiga has not replied
 Message 20 by RAZD, posted 06-07-2006 10:53 PM watzimagiga has not replied
 Message 25 by macaroniandcheese, posted 07-19-2006 4:44 PM watzimagiga has not replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22606
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 4.9


Message 17 of 47 (318926)
06-07-2006 10:17 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by watzimagiga
06-07-2006 9:02 AM


Re: bump for watzimagiga
There's another important point to be made. Because of the public's interest in human origins, the differences and arguments about it are given a lot of attention in the press. The primary players are a combination of researcher, showman and tough competitor. They all claim their own finds to be the most likely human ancestor, and they denigrate the findings of other researchers.
For this reason, were the details behind the discovery of Lucy as shoddy and flimsy as what you've been told, other paleontologists would have brought this out and discredited Lucy long before the creationists. In their desire to put the worst spin possible on Lucy, creationists have gone far beyond anything that could be considered true or honest.
NosyNed alluded to this, too. It's hard to understand how it is that such a large amount of misrepresentation and dissembling eminates from the devoutly religious creationists, on this topic and many others.
My own thoughts on this are that creationists are certain in their hearts that evolution is wrong, in which case the details of how it is wrong are unimportant to them. If the stories about Lucy at creationist websites are full of lies and distortion, they reason, what does it matter? The Bible says that God created man, and therefore Lucy must be a fraud, we just don't yet know the details of how she is a fraud.
But if for no other reason than simple integrity, it is important to make sure what you claim is true. Whether Lucy is a fraud or not (and there's no evidence she is, I hasten to add), the tales told at creationist websites cast a very dim light on what in other regards is one of the world's great religions.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by watzimagiga, posted 06-07-2006 9:02 AM watzimagiga has not replied

AdminAsgara
Administrator (Idle past 2380 days)
Posts: 2073
From: The Universe
Joined: 10-11-2003


Message 18 of 47 (318927)
06-07-2006 10:17 PM
Reply to: Message 16 by watzimagiga
06-07-2006 10:09 PM


Re: Once more for watzimagiga
If you click the "peek" button on the bottom right of RAZD's post you can see exactly how he coded his message.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by watzimagiga, posted 06-07-2006 10:09 PM watzimagiga has not replied

Belfry
Member (Idle past 5163 days)
Posts: 177
From: Ocala, FL
Joined: 11-05-2005


Message 19 of 47 (318931)
06-07-2006 10:30 PM
Reply to: Message 16 by watzimagiga
06-07-2006 10:09 PM


Re: Once more for watzimagiga
watzimagiga writes:
Im not sure if this is the case. I am not aware of any evidence besides that they didnt find two of the same bone at the site, that suggests that ALL of the bones were from ONE individual.
There is also the fact that the bones are all consistent with each other, in terms of size and shape, as coming from the same individual. Or, as the website you linked says:
quote:
The bones all come from an individual of a single species, a single size, and a single developmental age.
It's possible that the bones come from more than one individual of the same size and age, but there is no evidence of that (such as duplicate bones).

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by watzimagiga, posted 06-07-2006 10:09 PM watzimagiga has not replied

RAZD
Member (Idle past 1482 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 20 of 47 (318938)
06-07-2006 10:53 PM
Reply to: Message 16 by watzimagiga
06-07-2006 10:09 PM


Re: Once more for watzimagiga
Im not sure if this is the case. I am not aware of any evidence besides that they didnt find two of the same bone at the site, that suggests that ALL of the bones were from ONE individual.
I think that is a bit of a simplification of the evidence for one individual.
Let's apply a little logic and see where it takes us:
First, would you agree that the bones from any one individual are most likely to be found in the same relative location? Over time some may be lost, but by and large the bones would tend to stay together unless there was some force acting to disperse them (in which case you would not find a group like Lucy).
Conversely, where you have conditions that tend to accumulate bones, would you not agree that you are more likely to see evidence of several individuals rather than only one set of bones?
Second, would you agree that some parts of skeletons fossilize better than others? Teeth for example are very common, so you should expect to find duplicate teeth if nothing else as evidence of multiple individuals eh?
Third, would you agree that two or more individuals would very rarely be the same size and build or sex?
Would not this imply that if more than one individual were involved that it would be most likely involve duplicate bones or different sized bones or bones of different "robustness" or strength?
Take the "first family" find -- far fewer bones than Lucy, but composed of 13 individuals, identified by the duplications -- and the differences in sizes.
The bones from Lucy are all from the same size individual -- based on comparison to the overall composite that Donald Johanson and Tim White assembled.
You are left with several separate coincidences to have more than one individual involved: both happen to be the same size, both happen to be the same build, both happened to die in the same area, none of the same bones were preserved, etcetera.
Add to this that the scientists were avidly seeking ALL hominid fossils in the area, so they would have been looking nearby for any and all other bones that could have been from another hominid, but they did not find any in that area. Any. Not a tooth, which are (IIRC) the most commonly preserved parts.
ps still wondering what the background colour you use is.
If you use "Peek Mode" when replying you can see the coding. I used tan for blockcolor and navy for text color.
Enjoy.

Join the effort to unravel {AIDSHIV} with Team EvC! (click)

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by watzimagiga, posted 06-07-2006 10:09 PM watzimagiga has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 21 by Chiroptera, posted 06-07-2006 10:58 PM RAZD has not replied

Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 21 of 47 (318940)
06-07-2006 10:58 PM
Reply to: Message 20 by RAZD
06-07-2006 10:53 PM


Re: Once more for watzimagiga
To someone who believes in miracles, extraordinary coincidences probably don't seem far-fetched.

"We must respect the other fellow's religion, but only in the same sense and to the extent that we respect his theory that his wife is beautiful and his children smart."
-- H. L. Mencken (quoted on Panda's Thumb)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by RAZD, posted 06-07-2006 10:53 PM RAZD has not replied

RAZD
Member (Idle past 1482 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 22 of 47 (319794)
06-09-2006 10:44 PM


BUMP for Someone_Who_Cares
For you to substantiate your similar claim on your website
Or to retract
Enjoy.

Join the effort to unravel {AIDSHIV} with Team EvC! (click)

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by RAZD, posted 06-10-2006 10:06 PM RAZD has not replied

RAZD
Member (Idle past 1482 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 23 of 47 (320273)
06-10-2006 10:06 PM
Reply to: Message 22 by RAZD
06-09-2006 10:44 PM


Re: BUMP for Someone_Who_Cares
and again ...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by RAZD, posted 06-09-2006 10:44 PM RAZD has not replied

smegma
Inactive Member


Message 24 of 47 (333408)
07-19-2006 3:45 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by RAZD
06-06-2006 8:54 PM


"The purpose of this tread is to discuss whether the fossil in question is fact or fraud."
there are also other evolution hoaxes like this.
evolutiondeceit.com is for sale | HugeDomains
{added by Edit - Please do not post huge cut and pastes from websites. We do not debate websites. Please state your argument in your own words and use weblinks as support. - The Queen}
Edited by AdminAsgara, : took out long cut and paste

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 26 by RAZD, posted 07-19-2006 7:09 PM smegma has not replied

macaroniandcheese 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4005 days)
Posts: 4258
Joined: 05-24-2004


Message 25 of 47 (333443)
07-19-2006 4:44 PM
Reply to: Message 16 by watzimagiga
06-07-2006 10:09 PM


Re: Once more for watzimagiga
Im not sure if this is the case. I am not aware of any evidence besides that they didnt find two of the same bone at the site, that suggests that ALL of the bones were from ONE individual.
tell me you don't think they come wrapped in a pretty little package that says "lucy" or "linus"?
generally, bones are found in close proximity to each other. and if they are consisten in size, shape, and abuse level, they are considered to be tha same ndividual.
imagine if you lay out a small dead rat and a large dead rat for a couple years. they're going to rot and wash clean eventually. the wind, the rain, other animals, etc are going to move them around a bit. but you'll still have a dead small rat and a big rat relatively in proximity to themselves. but even after just a couple years, they probably won't be laid out like you see those pretty frescos of dinosaurs all laid out like a perfect xray. almost never happens.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by watzimagiga, posted 06-07-2006 10:09 PM watzimagiga has not replied

RAZD
Member (Idle past 1482 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 26 of 47 (333497)
07-19-2006 7:09 PM
Reply to: Message 24 by smegma
07-19-2006 3:45 PM


It seems most of your post was removed because it was against forum rules.
there are also other evolution hoaxes like this.
"Piltdown man"
"Nebraska man"
Ota Benga
Can you demonstrate in what textbookss these are currently presented as evidence of evolution?
You of course realize that these hoaxes were uncovered by scientists LONG before creatortionistas started calling them "evolutionist" hoaxes ... why do you suppose that is?
You realize that by saying "other hoaxes" you are claiming lucy is a hoax -- please demonstrate this.
Enjoy.

Join the effort to unravel {AIDSHIV} 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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by smegma, posted 07-19-2006 3:45 PM smegma has not replied

Clark
Inactive Member


Message 27 of 47 (333554)
07-19-2006 10:06 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by RAZD
06-06-2006 8:54 PM


The Cleveland Museum of Natural History.
I just saw Lucy about a half hour ago. I live about 5 minutes away from the museum responsible for finding her. Pretty cool sight.
There was no indication at the museum that she is a hoax.

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 28 by RAZD, posted 07-20-2006 7:06 AM Clark has not replied

RAZD
Member (Idle past 1482 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 28 of 47 (333631)
07-20-2006 7:06 AM
Reply to: Message 27 by Clark
07-19-2006 10:06 PM


Re: The Cleveland Museum of Natural History.
There was no indication at the museum that she is a hoax.
She isn't.
The creatortionista sites that claim it is are conflating two finds into one and then claiming that the result was Lucy.
They (creatortionistas) are the hoax, not the fossil.
This {faux hoax} is easily disproved by looking at the two fossils in question.

Join the effort to unravel {AIDSHIV} 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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by Clark, posted 07-19-2006 10:06 PM Clark has not replied

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

nwr
Member
Posts: 6418
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005
Member Rating: 5.5


Message 30 of 47 (336024)
07-28-2006 10:50 AM
Reply to: Message 29 by pop
07-28-2006 10:41 AM


Re: AUSTRALOPITHECUS ARE APES
Hey guys australopithecus were only extinct apes AND I HAVE EVIDENCES ON WHAT I AM SAYING
Humans are apes, too. What point are you making?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by pop, posted 07-28-2006 10:41 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