Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 58 (9173 total)
2 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?
Clark
Inactive Member


Message 31 of 47 (336042)
07-28-2006 11:51 AM
Reply to: Message 29 by pop
07-28-2006 10:41 AM


Australopithecus Afarensis are apes that could walk bipedally.
A. afarensis existed between 3.9 and 3.0 million years ago. Afarensis had an apelike face with a low forehead, a bony ridge over the eyes, a flat nose, and no chin. They had protruding jaws with large back teeth. Cranial capacity varied from about 375 to 550 cc. The skull is similar to that of a chimpanzee, except for the more humanlike teeth. The canine teeth are much smaller than those of modern apes, but larger and more pointed than those of humans, and shape of the jaw is between the rectangular shape of apes and the parabolic shape of humans. However their pelvis and leg bones far more closely resemble those of modern man, and leave no doubt that they were bipedal (although adapted to walking rather than running (Leakey 1994)). Their bones show that they were physically very strong. Females were substantially smaller than males, a condition known as sexual dimorphism. Height varied between about 107 cm (3'6") and 152 cm (5'0"). The finger and toe bones are curved and proportionally longer than in humans, but the hands are similar to humans in most other details (Johanson and Edey 1981). Most scientists consider this evidence that afarensis was still partially adapted to climbing in trees, others consider it evolutionary baggage.
So yes, Australopithecines were apes, but they had some human characteristics as well.
This link shows a comparison of the pelvis, femur, and foot of australopithecines, chimpanzees, and humans. Link

This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by pop, posted 07-28-2006 10:41 AM pop has not replied

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


Message 32 of 47 (336219)
07-28-2006 10:05 PM
Reply to: Message 29 by pop
07-28-2006 10:41 AM


Re: AUSTRALOPITHECUS ARE APES
pop, welcome to the fray, and thanks for the PRATTS (points refuted a thousand times).
see Evolution: Humans: Riddle of the Bones
for some material on what the differences and similarities mean.
http://www.geocities.com/...anaveral/Hangar/2437/hominid.htm
exposes some of these PRATTS (but they are off topic eh?)
This topic is about whether Lucy is a fraud or not:
- What is the evidence that this fossil set is a fraud?
- Do the bones come from the same source or not?
- Are they accurately portrayed or misrepresented?
These are topical questions.
Enjoy


ps
Just to demonstrate a few of the errors of your post:
As far a "knuckle walking" goes you need to look at the Laetoli footprints
http://www.mnh.si.edu/anthro/humanorigins/ha/laetoli.htm
Notice there were NO knuckle impressions even though they - three seperate specimens - were walking leisurely for a significant distance.
from
http://www.geocities.com/...anaveral/Hangar/2437/hominid.htm
Confirmation that the early Australopithecines were efficient bipedal walkers came when Mary Leaky discovered a set of hominid footprints pressed into a layer of wet volcanic ash some three and a half million years ago near Laetoli in Africa. Three individual bipeds left their prints, apparently a male, a female and a juvenile. The outlines of their footprints, sharply preserved in the hardened ash, clearly showed that the animal that left these prints was an efficient bipedal walker, like a human--there was not a trace of a divergent big toe such as found in apes, and a very humanlike arch was present. A composite A. afarensis foot, assembled from recovered fossil bones, fits the Laetoli footprints exactly.
(bold mine for empHASis)
This refutes you claim of knucklewalking -- and this makes your other claims highly questionable if they came from the same source.
Note that LUCY had neither hand nor foot bones, that these are found on other australopithicus fossils that overlap the bones for Lucy - and that to claim australopithicus was a knuckle walker (however false the claim is based on all the evidence) is also to tacitly accept that the hands and feet in question do belong to the same species as Lucy, and thus that the fit of those bones in the footprints is valid.
AUSTRALOPITHECUS SHOULD BE CLASSIFIED WITH GREAT APES.
Homo sapiens sapiens IS classified with Great Apes
Your impression that the bones being different from human is something significant is erroneous -- the issue is whether those bones fall close to chimpanzee bones or human bones, or somewhere in between (thus demonstrating transition). What is significant is how they fit into the overall picture, how they are similar as well as different.
Follow the links and look at the whole story.

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 29 by pop, posted 07-28-2006 10:41 AM pop has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 35 by pop, posted 07-29-2006 5:37 AM RAZD has replied

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


Message 33 of 47 (336223)
07-28-2006 10:16 PM
Reply to: Message 29 by pop
07-28-2006 10:41 AM


Re: AUSTRALOPITHECUS ARE APES
THEY WERE TOO MUCH LIKE TO THE PYGMY CHIMPANZEES.
and that means exactly what?
"too much like" means nothing. imprecise and subjective terminology. you know who is too much like pygmy chimpanzees? modern humans. hardly different at all. we should be classified as merely a subspecies of chimp.
if humans are raised climbing trees, their bodies develop accordingly. they grow longer fingers and different strong muscles. we grow according to our conditions... and now we grow with large fat deposits around our middles. we are still tree climbers. we just don't actually have to anymore.
Edited by brennakimi, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by pop, posted 07-28-2006 10:41 AM pop has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 34 by arachnophilia, posted 07-29-2006 1:26 AM macaroniandcheese has not replied

arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1421 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 34 of 47 (336241)
07-29-2006 1:26 AM
Reply to: Message 33 by macaroniandcheese
07-28-2006 10:16 PM


Re: AUSTRALOPITHECUS ARE APES
uh, that's not entirely accurate. there are many morpoholical differences between humans and pygmy chimps. tree-raised humans still would have human anatomy and skeletal structure.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by macaroniandcheese, posted 07-28-2006 10:16 PM macaroniandcheese has not 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

Lithodid-Man
Member (Idle past 3008 days)
Posts: 504
From: Juneau, Alaska, USA
Joined: 03-22-2004


Message 36 of 47 (336266)
07-29-2006 6:17 AM
Reply to: Message 29 by pop
07-28-2006 10:41 AM


Re: AUSTRALOPITHECUS ARE APES
I apologize in advance for replying to an OT post, but happened to be reviewing stuff for my Human Evolution class this semester and ran across one of 'pop's supposed sources
pop writes:
ACCORDING TO SPOOR/ZONNEVELD/BERNARD WOOD THE HUMAN MORPHOLOGY BEGINS AT THE HOMO ERECTUS
You are referring to: Spoor F, Wood B, and Zonneveld F (1994) Implications of Early Hominid Labyrinthine Morphology for Evolution of Human Bipedal Locomotion, Nature 369: 645-648.
As I have the paper in front of me, and I know you must have read it (unless you just c&p from another creationist website, weren't you banned for that?). So I want to hear your opinion on what the authors believe to be a switch from facualtive versus obligate bipedalism. What changes in the anterior and posterior labyrinthine canals do you think are relevant to the question of australopithecines being apes instead of human? Your cite. I have the others as well. Just picked this one because it is fun.
To return to the topic, Lucy is an absolutely remarkeble find. To claim fraud is ridiculous. We have ~40% of a skeleton of a very old hominid. Plus representatives of many more of her conspecifics.

Doctor Bashir: "Of all the stories you told me, which were true and which weren't?"
Elim Garak: "My dear Doctor, they're all true"
Doctor Bashir: "Even the lies?"
Elim Garak: "Especially the lies"

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

Replies to this message:
 Message 37 by pop, posted 07-29-2006 6:28 AM Lithodid-Man 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

Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 38 of 47 (336269)
07-29-2006 6:45 AM
Reply to: Message 35 by pop
07-29-2006 5:37 AM


Re: AUSTRALOPITHECUS ARE APES
The australopithecus pelvis is similar to that of tree dwellings as Oxnard said it is so similar to orangutans.
Forget what Oxnard said - he work has been criticized. Look at the comparisons for yourself. Better images can be found here:
australopithecus
Orangutan
Human (diag)
If you would like to discuss, in any more detail, the bipediality of these creatures - it should be done in a different thread since this one is dedicated to discussions about the fraudulent nature of Lucy. You don't seem to be questioning the Fraud side of things.
Please propose a new topic on this theme if you wish to continue its discussion - I'd be interested in reading it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by pop, posted 07-29-2006 5:37 AM pop has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 39 by pop, posted 07-29-2006 7:08 AM Modulous has 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

Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 40 of 47 (336274)
07-29-2006 7:40 AM
Reply to: Message 39 by pop
07-29-2006 7:08 AM


bipedality
so what are you trying to say that lucy was bipedal
No, I'm not. I'm saying that your source is demonstratably wrong about the pelvis of Australopithecus being more similar to an orangutan than it is to a human.
I think we both agree that Lucy in herself, was not a fraud like Piltdown man was. As such posting in this thread is not on topic, unless you are suggesting that fraud has taken place somewhere.
Because all the evidences I wrote
The bipediality of Lucy and her kin is irrelevant to my life, but I find the topic of interest for debate. How about you propose a new topic on the subject. We should probably focus on contemporary evidence where possible. How about it?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by pop, posted 07-29-2006 7:08 AM pop has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 42 by pop, posted 07-29-2006 9:54 AM Modulous has not replied
 Message 43 by pop, posted 07-29-2006 10:11 AM Modulous has not replied

MUTTY6969
Member (Idle past 6268 days)
Posts: 65
From: ARIZONA
Joined: 05-20-2006


Message 41 of 47 (336276)
07-29-2006 7:57 AM
Reply to: Message 39 by pop
07-29-2006 7:08 AM


Re: AUSTRALOPITHECUS ARE APES
Yes, Lucy walked upright. What are you talking about .

Steve Rushin: "By the age of 18, the average American has witnessed 200,000 acts of violence on television, most of them occurring during Game 1 of the NHL playoff series."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by pop, posted 07-29-2006 7:08 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

AdminModulous
Administrator
Posts: 897
Joined: 03-02-2006


Message 44 of 47 (336293)
07-29-2006 10:24 AM
Reply to: Message 43 by pop
07-29-2006 10:11 AM


you have been warned
You were warned about cut & pastes here. You ignored the warning and got suspended for 48 hours.
You have now posted another cut & paste from AiG. The crime is doubly worse because it was not attributed, trebly worse because it is off topic.
So, welcome a 72 hour suspension. If you want to discuss the bipedality of Australopithecus when you return, please propose a new topic to do so - I'm sure it will be very interesting.
Edited by AdminModulous, : now has a 'w' at the end of it, so I thought I'd put it there.

New Members should start HERE to get an understanding of what makes great posts.
Comments on moderation procedures (or wish to respond to admin messages)? - Go to:
General discussion of moderation procedures
Thread Reopen Requests
Considerations of topic promotions from the "Proposed New Topics" forum
Other useful links:
Forum Guidelines, Observations about Evolution and This could be interesting....

This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by pop, posted 07-29-2006 10:11 AM pop has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 46 by RAZD, posted 07-29-2006 1:05 PM AdminModulous has not replied

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


Message 45 of 47 (336328)
07-29-2006 1:03 PM
Reply to: Message 35 by pop
07-29-2006 5:37 AM


off topic - use new thread to discuss further.
I am not claiming any thing JUST SAYING THE TRUTH for the bipedal walking.
When you deny, ignore and fail to refute evidence that invalidated your position you are not promulgating "truth" but just your opinion.
This is still off topic and needs to be addressed on this {composite\Lucy\Australopithicus} was bipedal when it is promoted.
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 35 by pop, posted 07-29-2006 5:37 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