Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

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


Message 6 of 47 (318660)
06-07-2006 9:02 AM
Reply to: Message 5 by RAZD
06-07-2006 8:04 AM


Re: bump for watzimagiga
I read what I said in the previous thread about a year ago (during human evolution section of 7th form bio). A friend had printed off about 10 pages of info of arguments that went through objections to many of the major findings (ie the different types of homo species). Lucy was mentioned somewhere in there. It said that lucy's bones were found in different areas (I dont mean Km's away, more like metres) and it claimed (from memory) that the knee was found 2 metres below the the skull.
I also watched a video where they re-enacted the lucy finding, and it showed them finding the bones over a period of two weeks. They stumbled across a hominid bone in a site which also contained hundreds of other animal bones including elephants etc. They continued looking/excavating around the site and found the pieces which make up lucy.
I am not sure if
  1. This is what actually happened
  2. If the bones being found seperate from each other is important
And no I dont have the paper my friend let me read (I will ask him if he has it now but I doubt it) and I sadly cant remember where i saw the video. So I probably dont have much to go on here. (exams in a week, dont have alot of time to do internet research into it)
Here is a site that I read over before my previous post.
How do we know that her skeleton is from a single individual?
Although several hundred fragments of hominid bone were found at the Lucy site, there was no duplication of bones. A single duplication of even the most modest of bone fragments would have disproved the single skeleton claim, but no such duplication is seen in Lucy
(what is the colour that you use for websites, it looks better than what I used)
Notice it says the Lucy "site".
There she blows!
Matt

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by RAZD, posted 06-07-2006 8:04 AM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by Mespo, posted 06-07-2006 2:36 PM watzimagiga has not replied
 Message 9 by NosyNed, posted 06-07-2006 3:39 PM watzimagiga has not replied
 Message 11 by iano, posted 06-07-2006 4:20 PM watzimagiga has not replied
 Message 15 by RAZD, posted 06-07-2006 9:17 PM watzimagiga has replied
 Message 17 by Percy, posted 06-07-2006 10:17 PM watzimagiga has not replied

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

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024