Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 182 (8023 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 04-23-2014 1:25 PM
206 online now:
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: tellmeverbatim
Happy Birthday: AndrewPD
Post Volume:
Total: 724,061 Year: 9,902/28,606 Month: 1,592/2,455 Week: 310/592 Day: 82/59 Hour: 4/14


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
1
2Next
Author Topic:   {composite\Lucy\Little-Foot\Australopithicus} was bipedal
RAZD
Member
Posts: 15471
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 4.4


Message 1 of 27 (336325)
07-29-2006 12:57 PM


From Lucy - fact or fraud?:
pop writes:

Message 29
THE STUDIES DONE ON ITS HANDS BY B.G RICHMOND AND DS. STRAIT CONCLUDED THAT LUCY WAS A KNUCKLE WALKER.


Clark writes:

Message 31

... However their pelvis and leg bones far more closely resemble those of modern man, and leave no doubt that they were bipedal ...
...This link shows a comparison of the pelvis, femur, and foot of australopithecines, chimpanzees, and humans.Link

RAZD writes:

Message 32
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/CapeCanaveral/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.


pop writes:

Message 35
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.


Modulus writes:

Message 38

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.


pop writes:

Message 39
so what are you trying to say that lucy was bipedal I think not .
Because all the evidences I wrote.


Modulus writes:

Message 40

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?

MUTTY6969 writes:

Message 41
Yes, Lucy walked upright. What are you talking about…


pop writes:

Message 42
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


pop writes:

Message 43
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

Now lets use this forum to discuss the evidence and what it shows.

To begin with, there is the evidence of the footprints that show:
(a) bipedal walking with foot placement, spacing, and stride similar to modern humans,
(b) a total lack of knuckle walking.

The Australopithecus foot and hands that are discussed are not from Lucy, but other Australopithecenes, and their classification with Lucy in Australopithecus is NOT disputed in any of the above discussions. We will refer to this total reconstruction as the {composite\Lucy\Australopithecus} (or "{cLA}") below.

This foot fits the {cLA} footprints.

Further, the stride of the footprints matches the bone structure of the {cLA} skeleton articulation.

This evidence not only invalidates (ie "checkmates") any claim that australopithicus was an 'obligate' knucklewalker, it clearly shows that it was a 'preferential' bipedal walker, fully capable of bipedal walking.

To cite evidence that {Lucy\Australopithecus} could climb trees does not refute evidence that {cLA} walked between them.

Other claims on pelvic geometry are likewise refuted by the evidence presented above -- with actual diagrams for comparison rather than bare assertions.

This evidence is like being in check in chess -- you have to answer this evidence before proceeding: you've made a move, it has been checked.

For {pop} or anyone else to {continue to} claim that {cLA} was {NOT} bipedal they need to show that the evidence that shows that {cLA} actually was bipedal is false or erroneous.

They need to show that the foot does NOT fit the footprint ... that has not been done.

Enjoy.


Information on Stw 573 - aka "Little Foot" - is in Message 20.

Edited by RAZD, : added Little-Foot to the title - see Message 20


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more 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.

  
AdminJar
Inactive Member


Message 2 of 27 (336334)
07-29-2006 1:11 PM


Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.
Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by RAZD, posted 07-29-2006 1:14 PM AdminJar has not yet responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 15471
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 4.4


Message 3 of 27 (336342)
07-29-2006 1:14 PM
Reply to: Message 2 by AdminJar
07-29-2006 1:11 PM


wow
Faster than a speeding bit ... it's superJAR ...

(thanks)


This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by AdminJar, posted 07-29-2006 1:11 PM AdminJar has not yet responded

  
MarkAustin
Member (Idle past 98 days)
Posts: 122
From: London., UK
Joined: 05-23-2003


Message 4 of 27 (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.
    
RAZD
Member
Posts: 15471
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 4.4


Message 5 of 27 (347511)
09-08-2006 7:43 AM


for SomeOneWhoCares ... NOT for truth
From Message 138

Actually, reread my essay on evolution there. I did make a few rewordings to make it more proper, just recently.

quote:
Perhaps you like to return to the LUCY thread and deal with your comprehension problems there as well ...

What problems? Lucy was a chimpanzee, nothing more. No human characteristics to make it a hominid.

Perhaps you would like to quote the relevant section from this latest version of your essay that pertains to Lucy an australopithicines here, and we can compare the relative characteristics of australopithicines and chimpanzees as hominids.

Enjoy.


Join the effort to unravel {AIDS/HIV} {Protenes} and {Cancer} 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.


Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by RAZD, posted 09-08-2006 8:51 PM RAZD has acknowledged this reply

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 15471
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 4.4


Message 6 of 27 (347626)
09-08-2006 8:51 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by RAZD
09-08-2006 7:43 AM


for Someone who cares ... but NOT about truth
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! [5] 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.

He has NOT corrected that error "to make it more proper" so it is a valid conclusion that he wants to continue portraying this demonstrated falsehood as what he calls "truth" in his essay.

Perhaps he would like to enlighten us on his reasons for not making a correction to such a blatant error when (a) he had the opportunity (while he was making other changes) and (b) he was aware of the fact that this specific error had been pointed out specifically to him.

The error in his post is also discussed on the (currently) closed Lucy - fact or fraud?, where among other things there is a picture of the Lucy skeleton that does not include the knee joint in question.

Note two things: Lucy doesn't need the knee joint (AL 129-1), because it already has portions of that joint on each leg,

and

the knee joint was found before Lucy (AL 288–1), not after, as the source "Someone who cares" quotes from (Duane T. Gish(1)) implies -- and which he copied without caring to see if it was true or not.

Such trusting naivite can be forgiven once (although when someone claims to be a source of truth one should expect that a number of different sources were reviewed and a conscious effort to find the truth was made), but certainly after the error has been pointed out, and the opportunity to make corrections has passed, naive ignorance can no longer be assumed.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duane_Gish

quote:
Trott has pointed out that Gish has "stated that there are no fossil precursors to the dinosaur Triceratops... for at least 12 years now," but this "is absolutely untrue."

Gish also claimed "Lord Solly Zuckerman, writing in 1970 that Australopithecus was probably not an ancestor of Homo sapiens, had more or less all the evidence that we have today." Trott noted that this statement "showed either incredible ignorance or a stunning lack of integrity"


hmmm ... there's that integrity issue again ...

She did not even walk like humans do.

This of course is another strawman argument. Lucy was bipedal, and had significant morphological changes to better enable bipedalism, from foot to knee to hip to neck.

... most likely related to the pygmy chimpanzee.

Here "Someone who cares" focusses on the differences between Lucy (genus Australopiticus species afarensis) and "human" (genus Homo species sapiens) -- differences that place her not only in a different species but in a different genus -- and ignores the equally significant differences between Lucy and Bonobos (genus Pan species paniscus).

That's another logical fallacy btw -- in addition to denial of what the evidence shows.

Enjoy.


(1) - "5. Gish, Duane T. The Amazing Story of Creation from Science and the Bible El Cajon, CA: Institute for Creation Research, 1990, p.83"


Join the effort to unravel {AIDS/HIV} {Protenes} and {Cancer} 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 5 by RAZD, posted 09-08-2006 7:43 AM RAZD has acknowledged this reply

Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by MarkAustin, posted 09-10-2006 4:43 AM RAZD has responded

  
MarkAustin
Member (Idle past 98 days)
Posts: 122
From: London., UK
Joined: 05-23-2003


Message 7 of 27 (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 responded

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

    
dwise1
Member
Posts: 2049
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 3.3


Message 8 of 27 (347917)
09-10-2006 9:19 AM


What about her pelvis?
I first saw creationists in action one night in 1982 on CBN, where the host of one show would run various debates (I believe it was David Ankerberg). This particular night, a creationist was debating a scientist (kind of looked like Drs. Morris and Awbrey, though I cannot be sure since I didn't knew of either of them at the time). I remember that the scientist showed several slides of hominid fossils, such as knee joints (to show evidence of developing bi-pedalism). Then he showed slides of a human pelvis and chimpanzee pelvis side-by-side. First from the side, then from the top, he pointed out two sets of characteristics that clearly distinguish the one from the other (i.e. whether viewed from the side or from the top, the pelvis could be positively identified as human or chimpanzee). Next he showed the same two views of a hominid pelvis. From the one view it was definitely ape, from the other it was definitely human, thus demonstrating it to be a intermediate form. The creationist then concentrated solely on the view that displayed the ape characteristic and completely ignored the one displaying the human characteristic, and proclaimed the hominid pelvis to be 100% ape and not the least bit human. And he persisted in making that claim despite the scientist repeatedly pointing out to him the obviously human characteristics in the view he was ignoring. Of course, the host declared this to be a creationist victory and threw in the standard gross misinterpretation of punctuated equilibrium for good [?] measure.

This event made a lasting impression on me. The creationist's steadfast ignoring of the blatantly obvious evidence that was repeatedly pointed out to him is a selective blindness that I have found to pervade much of the creationist literature.


    
RAZD
Member
Posts: 15471
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 4.4


Message 9 of 27 (347924)
09-10-2006 10:32 AM
Reply to: Message 7 by MarkAustin
09-10-2006 4:43 AM


the fraud is the fraudulent claim of fraud?
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.

So you're saying that the creationist claim that the Lucy fossil is a fraud is based on their fraudulent portrayal of all Australopithicus fossils as belonging to Lucy, and then pointing out the ones that don't?

Sounds like a typical strawman misrepresentation falsehood of the typical creatortionista type.

S1wc writes:

Lucy's inner ear structure, skull structure, and other bones show ...

That would explain where these inner ear and skull structures came from then eh?


"Someone who cares" specifically states that he is portraying the {truth} in his essay, but it doesn't jibe with the facts. And this once again demonstrates that he (1) doesn't research his data beyond a single source he agrees with, (2) doesn't investigate to see if his source is valid or truthful, (3) doesn't have a clue on what the real science involves and (4) fails to upgrade either his knowledge OR his essay portrayal of {truth} when it is pointed out to be FALSE.

He claims he updated the essay recently and yet this patently false portrayal of Lucy still is included.

Edited by RAZD, : reduced picture size with {thumb} code

Edited by RAZD, : new picture link

Edited by RAZD, : '


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


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by MarkAustin, posted 09-10-2006 4:43 AM MarkAustin has not yet responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 15471
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 4.4


Message 10 of 27 (362716)
11-08-2006 7:57 PM


nemesis_juggernaut repeats Creationist LIE about LUCY ...
I'm not holding nemesis_juggernaut responsible for making this statement or that he is responsible for this intentional misrepresentation of the facts ...

... just of being intellectually LAX on investigating the truth before posting it:

Message 21
Lucy is hardly a worthy example. First of all, she's an extremely incomplete skeleton, secondly, they aren't sure she was in fact female, thirdly, the bones were not found in one location but over a mile stretch. That's quite an amazing feat how bones were dispersed like that. If you want to see an interesting video that brings Lucy into disrepute, start here.

Please NOTE the picture above, and that all those bones were found in ONE site:

quote:
Johanson, along with colleague Tom Gray, had been mapping another locality at the Afar site. Feeling "lucky," Johanson took a short detour into another area later mapped as locality 288 and "noticed something lying on the ground partway up the slope" (Johanson, Edey 1980). This "something" turned out to be the exposed portion of a hominid arm bone.

That afternoon, Johanson and his team sectioned off the site to prepare for the collecting of the remaining bones. After three weeks of work, they had collected several hundred pieces of bone, which represented 40 percent of a single skeleton. The team knew these bones belonged to one single individual because there was no duplication of any one bone (Johanson, Edey 1980).


That is ONE small roped off area with a specific designation that determines the catalogue number of the fossil.

Ignorance can be cured by information.

Enjoy.


Join the effort to unravel {AIDS/HIV} {Protenes} and {Cancer} 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.


Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by RickJB, posted 11-09-2006 2:32 PM RAZD has acknowledged this reply

  
RickJB
Member (Idle past 1273 days)
Posts: 917
From: London, UK
Joined: 04-14-2006


Message 11 of 27 (362914)
11-09-2006 2:32 PM
Reply to: Message 10 by RAZD
11-08-2006 7:57 PM


Re: nemesis_juggernaut repeats Creationist LIE about LUCY ...
RAZD writes:

I'm not holding nemesis_juggernaut responsible for making this statement or that he is responsible for this intentional misrepresentation of the facts ...

Yeah, I noticed that. Jazzns noticed it too, but he hasn't made any great moves on it yet.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by RAZD, posted 11-08-2006 7:57 PM RAZD has acknowledged this reply

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by Jazzns, posted 11-17-2006 11:10 AM RickJB has not yet responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 15471
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 4.4


Message 12 of 27 (364198)
11-16-2006 9:07 PM


New Addition to the Family ...
http://www.nature.com/nature/focus/hominiddevelopment/index.html
quote:
Apart from Neanderthals, growth patterns of prehistoric humans are rarely studied because of the dearth of fossils that combine evidence from the head as well as the body. This is why the 3.3-million-year-old juvenile partial skeleton of Australopithecus afarensis -- the earliest known juvenile hominid skeleton of any kind -- is so important.

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v443/n7109/abs/nature05047.html

quote:
Here we describe a well-preserved 3.3-million-year-old juvenile partial skeleton of Australopithecus afarensis discovered in the Dikika research area of Ethiopia. The skull of the approximately three-year-old presumed female shows that most features diagnostic of the species are evident even at this early stage of development. The find includes many previously unknown skeletal elements from the Pliocene hominin record, including a hyoid bone that has a typical African ape morphology. The foot and other evidence from the lower limb provide clear evidence for bipedal locomotion, but the gorilla-like scapula and long and curved manual phalanges raise new questions about the importance of arboreal behaviour in the A. afarensis locomotor repertoire.

Tree climbing arms and hands, land walking legs and feet, clearly ... a species intermediate between arboreal and terrestrial.

And the more we find out about the habitat of Australopithecus afarensis and earlier hominids the more we find bipedal adaptation linked to life along the boundaries between forest and open areas -- places with lots of opportunities. This also places a pre-adapted bipedal ape with means and motive (heh) to move from the forest boundaries into a more permanent stay in the open when the conditions change - when the Savannah spreads to cover more land as the forests decline due to climate changes.

The evidence increasingly suggests that man did not adapt to bipedal existence because of this climate change, but that he was ready and able to take advantage of it when it occurred.

Enjoy.


Join the effort to unravel {AIDS/HIV} {Protenes} and {Cancer} 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.


Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by Omnivorous, posted 11-16-2006 10:12 PM RAZD has acknowledged this reply
 Message 20 by RAZD, posted 01-04-2008 9:11 PM RAZD has responded

  
Omnivorous
Member
Posts: 3211
From: Adirondackia
Joined: 07-21-2005
Member Rating: 8.7


Message 13 of 27 (364231)
11-16-2006 10:12 PM
Reply to: Message 12 by RAZD
11-16-2006 9:07 PM


Re: New Addition to the Family ...
Tree climbing arms and hands, land walking legs and feet, clearly ... a species intermediate between arboreal and terrestrial.

And the more we find out about the habitat of Australopithecus afarensis and earlier hominids the more we find bipedal adaptation linked to life along the boundaries between forest and open areas -- places with lots of opportunities. This also places a pre-adapted bipedal ape with means and motive (heh)

The trees were Eden.


Drinking when we are not thirsty and making love at any time, madam, is all that distinguishes us from the other animals.

-Pierre De Beaumarchais (1732–1799)

Save lives! Click here!
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC!
---------------------------------------


This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by RAZD, posted 11-16-2006 9:07 PM RAZD has acknowledged this reply

    
Jazzns
Member (Idle past 194 days)
Posts: 2657
From: A Better America
Joined: 07-23-2004


Message 14 of 27 (364329)
11-17-2006 11:10 AM
Reply to: Message 11 by RickJB
11-09-2006 2:32 PM


Re: nemesis_juggernaut repeats Creationist LIE about LUCY ...
Yeah, I noticed that. Jazzns noticed it too, but he hasn't made any great moves on it yet.

NJ brought up so much to talk about, I thought about making a big deal about it but decided against. There are much more convincing arguments than defending the lucy knee find. Any one of the subtopics could drag us into a wild array of arguments all of which are IMO off topic for that thread. We were supposed to be talking about NJ's claim of alternate interpretations.

Of course it was a different knee and of course there is equivocation going on between Lucy the particular find and Lucy the short name for the whole species. Hopefully NJ will see this and correct is misunderstanding silently. Beyond that there is more important things to discuss in that thread.


Of course, biblical creationists are committed to belief in God's written Word, the Bible, which forbids bearing false witness; --AIG (lest they forget)
This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by RickJB, posted 11-09-2006 2:32 PM RickJB has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by RAZD, posted 11-17-2006 1:53 PM Jazzns has not yet responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 15471
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 4.4


Message 15 of 27 (364381)
11-17-2006 1:53 PM
Reply to: Message 14 by Jazzns
11-17-2006 11:10 AM


Re: nemesis_juggernaut repeats Creationist LIE about LUCY ...
I thought about making a big deal about it but decided against. There are much more convincing arguments than defending the lucy knee find.

This calls into question the sources nemesis_juggernaut is using. If he is using a source that has a known falsehood on it that has not been corrected even though the evidence is readily available, then anything else from that site is highly questionable at best: it cannot be trusted.

Hopefully NJ will see this and correct is misunderstanding silently.

Or remain silent and repeat it at some later date.

I agree that your debate should not be side-tracked on this issue as it CAN be discussed here.


Join the effort to unravel {AIDS/HIV} {Protenes} and {Cancer} 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 14 by Jazzns, posted 11-17-2006 11:10 AM Jazzns has not yet responded

  
1
2Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2014 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2014