Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 114 (8795 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 10-18-2017 7:04 AM
352 online now:
granpa, jar, Meddle, PaulK, Pressie (5 members, 347 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: jaufre
Upcoming Birthdays: Astrophile
Post Volume:
Total: 820,788 Year: 25,394/21,208 Month: 1,021/2,338 Week: 142/450 Day: 14/52 Hour: 1/6

Announcements: Reporting debate problems OR discussing moderation actions/inactions


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
1
23456Next
Author Topic:   Lucy (Australopithecus)
Porkncheese
Member
Posts: 72
Joined: 08-25-2017


Message 1 of 88 (819898)
09-14-2017 11:38 PM


From these few bones

Can we really draw this conclusion???


Very speculative
Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by Coyote, posted 09-15-2017 12:13 AM Porkncheese has not yet responded
 Message 7 by RAZD, posted 09-15-2017 8:43 AM Porkncheese has responded
 Message 13 by Taq, posted 09-15-2017 10:37 AM Porkncheese has not yet responded
 Message 38 by anglagard, posted 09-15-2017 7:09 PM Porkncheese has not yet responded

    
AdminNosy
Administrator
Posts: 4753
From: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Joined: 11-11-2003


Message 2 of 88 (819900)
09-14-2017 11:59 PM


Thread Copied from Proposed New Topics Forum
Thread copied here from the Lucy (Australopithecus) thread in the Proposed New Topics forum.
  
Coyote
Member
Posts: 6012
Joined: 01-12-2008
Member Rating: 2.4


(2)
Message 3 of 88 (819901)
09-15-2017 12:13 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Porkncheese
09-14-2017 11:38 PM


Not all guesswork
Yes, experts really can draw some conclusions--its not just wild-ass-guesswork.

They study bones of all sorts of critters for years and can recognize small variations in features and give good estimates on what they are and what they mean.

I studied a lot of this in grad school, so I have seen it first-hand.

With Lucy, start by looking at the innominate, and compare it with both modern humans and chimps.

Try perusing a few issues of American Journal of Physical Anthropology as an example of the detailed analyses that they are using now, which are far better than when I was a student.


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

Belief gets in the way of learning--Robert A. Heinlein

In the name of diversity, college student demands to be kept in ignorance of the culture that made diversity a value--StultisTheFool

It's not what we don't know that hurts, it's what we know that ain't so--Will Rogers

If I am entitled to something, someone else is obliged to pay--Jerry Pournelle

If a religion's teachings are true, then it should have nothing to fear from science...--dwise1

"Multiculturalism" demands that the US be tolerant of everything except its own past, culture, traditions, and identity.

Liberals claim to want to give a hearing to other views, but then are shocked and offended to discover that there are other points of view--William F. Buckley Jr.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Porkncheese, posted 09-14-2017 11:38 PM Porkncheese has not yet responded

  
Pressie
Member
Posts: 1798
From: Pretoria, SA
Joined: 06-18-2010
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 4 of 88 (819903)
09-15-2017 1:00 AM


Are you under the impression that Lucy is the only Australopithecus afarensis fossil ever found?

Well, you're wrong.


Replies to this message:
 Message 5 by Porkncheese, posted 09-15-2017 3:00 AM Pressie has responded

    
Porkncheese
Member
Posts: 72
Joined: 08-25-2017


Message 5 of 88 (819906)
09-15-2017 3:00 AM
Reply to: Message 4 by Pressie
09-15-2017 1:00 AM


quote:
Are you under the impression that Lucy is the only Australopithecus afarensis fossil ever found?

No

https://australianmuseum.net.au/australopithecus-afarensis

quote:
Laetoli footprints
These fossil footprints were discovered in Tanzania, East Africa and date to 3.6 million years ago. Fossil bones from Australopithecus afarensis have been found nearby so it is presumed that they left the tracks.

Presumptuous indeed


This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by Pressie, posted 09-15-2017 1:00 AM Pressie has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by Pressie, posted 09-15-2017 5:35 AM Porkncheese has responded
 Message 14 by Taq, posted 09-15-2017 10:39 AM Porkncheese has not yet responded

    
Pressie
Member
Posts: 1798
From: Pretoria, SA
Joined: 06-18-2010
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 6 of 88 (819910)
09-15-2017 5:35 AM
Reply to: Message 5 by Porkncheese
09-15-2017 3:00 AM


Now you're trying to change the subject.

Do you think that all our our knowledge of Australopithecus afarensis come from the fossil called Lucy alone?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by Porkncheese, posted 09-15-2017 3:00 AM Porkncheese has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by Porkncheese, posted 09-15-2017 9:17 AM Pressie has responded

    
RAZD
Member
Posts: 19077
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 2.6


Message 7 of 88 (819920)
09-15-2017 8:43 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Porkncheese
09-14-2017 11:38 PM


yes.
From these few bones
Can we really draw this conclusion???

Argument from incredulity?

Yes.

We can make inferences of muscle and skin from our study of anatomy, the same way that forensic scientists reconstruct bodies to help identify victims. This is a very well developed science, particularly related to hominids.

It starts with reconstruction of the skeleton, articulated the way the bones fit together. In this case we have not just Lucy, but Little Foot and the First Family and other fossils of Australopithecus africanus

That gives us a composite skeleton:

The brown areas represent actual fossil elements, the white are from mirroring and extrapolating missing elements from knowledge of other fossils (the ribs and the toes and the finger tips).

Which we can place between a human skeleton and a chimpanzee skeleton for comparison. Note the posture of the chimpanzee is limited by the articulation of the bones, with bent knees and bend at the waist, and bent neck pushing the head forward (the spin connects further back on the head rather than under it as in hominids).

Then the skeleton is "fleshed out" with thicknesses for muscles and skin and organs typical of apes (which includes humans).

quote:
10 ways to improve your human anatomy modelling

01. Always start with good reference

02. Begin with a skeleton model

03. Muscle attachments and insertions

You never really finish a model like this one, anatomy is a complex, endless subject and you could spend a lifetime trying to illustrate all of the systems and structures that make up the human body. Inevitably, you will make mistakes so it’s important to constantly revise your model and strive to make the anatomy as accurate as you can.


Finally the skin, hair, eyes are extrapolated from known living apes (including humans).

Can we really draw this conclusion???

Conclusion? It's a hypothetical reconstruction. For display in a museum, not for scientific study.

Is the skin color and the amount of hair, eyes, etc accurate? No, nor is it claimed to be.

But it is as accurate as we can currently deduct from the evidence -- the actual scientific evidence of the fossil bones.

Do you understand that the science works from the bones not the reconstructions in museums?

Enjoy

ps

See {composite\Lucy\Little-Foot\Australopithicus} was bipedal and The story of Bones and Dogs and Humans for additional discussion.


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆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 1 by Porkncheese, posted 09-14-2017 11:38 PM Porkncheese has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by Porkncheese, posted 09-15-2017 10:48 AM RAZD has responded

  
Porkncheese
Member
Posts: 72
Joined: 08-25-2017


Message 8 of 88 (819928)
09-15-2017 9:17 AM
Reply to: Message 6 by Pressie
09-15-2017 5:35 AM


Dude... Read Message 5 again. I directly answered your question with a no.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by Pressie, posted 09-15-2017 5:35 AM Pressie has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by JonF, posted 09-15-2017 9:22 AM Porkncheese has responded
 Message 11 by Pressie, posted 09-15-2017 9:29 AM Porkncheese has responded

    
JonF
Member
Posts: 3969
Joined: 06-23-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 9 of 88 (819930)
09-15-2017 9:22 AM
Reply to: Message 8 by Porkncheese
09-15-2017 9:17 AM


And you didn't mention any of the other fossils, but instead mentioned the Laetoli footprints. The obvious inference is that you are not aware of the other fossils.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by Porkncheese, posted 09-15-2017 9:17 AM Porkncheese has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by Porkncheese, posted 09-15-2017 9:25 AM JonF has not yet responded

  
Porkncheese
Member
Posts: 72
Joined: 08-25-2017


Message 10 of 88 (819931)
09-15-2017 9:25 AM
Reply to: Message 9 by JonF
09-15-2017 9:22 AM


If you look at the link I posted on message 5 you will see that I'm well aware of all the fossils found on Australopithecus afarensis
This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by JonF, posted 09-15-2017 9:22 AM JonF has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by dwise1, posted 09-15-2017 10:28 AM Porkncheese has responded
 Message 15 by NosyNed, posted 09-15-2017 10:48 AM Porkncheese has not yet responded

    
Pressie
Member
Posts: 1798
From: Pretoria, SA
Joined: 06-18-2010
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 11 of 88 (819932)
09-15-2017 9:29 AM
Reply to: Message 8 by Porkncheese
09-15-2017 9:17 AM


Nope. You didn't answer the question. Do you think that everyting we know about Australopithecus afarensis came from Lucy?
This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by Porkncheese, posted 09-15-2017 9:17 AM Porkncheese has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by Porkncheese, posted 09-15-2017 10:56 AM Pressie has not yet responded

    
dwise1
Member
Posts: 2970
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 3.6


(2)
Message 12 of 88 (819934)
09-15-2017 10:28 AM
Reply to: Message 10 by Porkncheese
09-15-2017 9:25 AM


Posting a bare link is not a response and is against forum rules, as you've already been informed.

You also need to tell us what is at that link in your own words. Failure to do so will get you the disrespect that you earn from such misbehavior.

The reason for that rule is because we have seen too many creationists link to a source that is either a creationist source (as you have already done) or else it says the opposite of what they think it does because they don't understand it (or else lifted part of it out of context in order to misquote it).

As a result, we do not waste our time chasing your rabbits down your rabbit holes. Say what you intend to say and provide the link as support -- or provide a quote from that link along with the link so that we can verify the quote. But don't discredit yourself by posting a bare link.

Edited by dwise1, : rabbit holes


This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by Porkncheese, posted 09-15-2017 9:25 AM Porkncheese has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 20 by Porkncheese, posted 09-15-2017 11:24 AM dwise1 has responded

    
Taq
Member
Posts: 7192
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 3.1


(2)
Message 13 of 88 (819935)
09-15-2017 10:37 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Porkncheese
09-14-2017 11:38 PM


Porkncheese writes:

From these few bones

So you knew that there were more bones than this which went into the reconstruction, but you failed to mention them. Do you see the problem here?

With Lucy, we have a nearly complete skeleton from the neck down, assuming that one side is a mirror image of the other side. We also have numerous A. afarensis skulls that are nearly complete and match up with the pieces from Lucy.

How is this speculative?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Porkncheese, posted 09-14-2017 11:38 PM Porkncheese has not yet responded

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 7192
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 3.1


Message 14 of 88 (819936)
09-15-2017 10:39 AM
Reply to: Message 5 by Porkncheese
09-15-2017 3:00 AM


Porkncheese writes:

Presumptuous indeed

That has nothing to do with the opening post. You are trying to change the subject now that you have been caught misrepresenting the evidence.

Also, we find fossils of a bipedal ape from the same time period and same geographic area. What is wrong with saying that A. afarensis is the top suspect for leaving those footprints?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by Porkncheese, posted 09-15-2017 3:00 AM Porkncheese has not yet responded

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8800
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003
Member Rating: 10.0


(1)
Message 15 of 88 (819937)
09-15-2017 10:48 AM
Reply to: Message 10 by Porkncheese
09-15-2017 9:25 AM


Aware?
If you look at the link I posted on message 5 you will see that I'm well aware of all the fossils found on Australopithecus afarensis

If that is the case then the question:
"From these few bones can we really draw this conclusion?" Doesn't make any sense.
Since you knew there were many other bones.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by Porkncheese, posted 09-15-2017 9:25 AM Porkncheese has not yet responded

  
1
23456Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017