Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 63 (9094 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: d3r31nz1g3
Post Volume: Total: 901,942 Year: 13,054/6,534 Month: 337/2,210 Week: 278/390 Day: 0/84 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   {composite\Lucy\Little-Foot\Australopithicus} was bipedal
MarkAustin
Member (Idle past 3249 days)
Posts: 122
From: London., UK
Joined: 05-23-2003


Message 4 of 34 (347213)
09-07-2006 4:50 AM


Hadar knee
Since the premise of this thread is that Lucy is an australopithecus: thus evidence that other australopithecus were bipedal is evidencxe that Lucy was, I introduce the Hadar knee:
This clearly shows bipedal adaptions: it is clearly more human-like than ape-like.
From here, from which I quote:
This discovery was conclusive proof of bipedal walking in early humans as old as 3 million years ago. (More recent finds push that benchmark of human evolution back to at least 4 million years ago.)

For Whigs admit no force but argument.

  
MarkAustin
Member (Idle past 3249 days)
Posts: 122
From: London., UK
Joined: 05-23-2003


Message 7 of 34 (347900)
09-10-2006 4:43 AM
Reply to: Message 6 by RAZD
09-08-2006 8:51 PM


Re: for Someone who cares ... but NOT about truth
Obviously, the Hadar knee joint (found before Lucy BTW) could not be part of Lucy. However, this claim has never been made, despite the lies of creationists.
The problem seem to have arisen after a lecture by Johanson at the University of Missouri on November 20, 1986. In the Q&A session afterwards, the following was recorded:
Q. How far away from Lucy did you find the knee?
A. Sixty to seventy meters lower in the strata and two to three kilometers away.
From context, Johanson was referring to the separate Hadar find, but creationists make the claim that he was referring to Lucy's knee (which is actually incomplete on both legs). The situation is made more complex by the habit of some creationists of using the name Lucy instead of Australopithecus to refer to the whole line. Lucy is one specimin of Australopithecus.
See here for full details.
From the "essay" after he has made a "few rewordings to make it more proper" -- it still says:
"Someone who cares" with no basis on facts writes:
Lucy’s inner ear structure, skull structure, and other bones show that she was most likely related to the pygmy chimpanzee. She did not even walk like humans do. When a knee joint for one find of Lucy was requested, they found one more than about 200 feet lower in the earth and about two miles away from the rest of her! How could that joint have possibly belonged to that particular Lucy find?
It has been pointed out to "Someone who cares" that this is not the truth and that the knee joint was not combined into the Lucy skeleton as part of that find.

For Whigs admit no force but argument.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by RAZD, posted 09-08-2006 8:51 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by RAZD, posted 09-10-2006 10:32 AM MarkAustin has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2022 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.1
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2022