Lucy - fact or fraud?

From
EvC Forum: Human Life Span & Evolution The purpose of this tread is to discuss whether the fossil in question is fact or fraud.The first thing to address is the source of the claim quoted above.Let the games begin eh?

---

Human OriginsEdited by RAZD, : added link to post in question

---

Join the effort to unravel {AIDSHIV} with Team EvC! (click)

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

​

RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

thank you Ned.

We'll need watzimagiga to provide his source behind his claim. Then we can explore how valid it is.

---

Join the effort to unravel {AIDSHIV} with Team EvC! (click)

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

​

RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

The knee joint in question is shown here:
http://www.mnh.si.edu/anthro/humanorigins/ha/al129.htm

(image copied from original site to save bandwidth) You will notice it is NOT part of the skeleton in the picture you linked above.From Evolution: Humans: Riddle of the Bones BOLD mine for emPHAsis. Note the clear distinction between the Lucy fossil set and the knee joint in question.From
Fossil Hominids: Lucy (AL 288-1) Now it may seem curious to the average layman what those (AL 129-1) and (AL 288-1) numbers mean -- they are the official designations of the fossils, thus clearly showing that the knee and the Lucy fossils were never considered the same individual. You also have enough of the knee on each leg - but not a complete joint - to show that they are from the same species. "AL 288-1" means specimen #1 from Afar Locality #288 -- and here indicating that they are regarded as being from the same individual. That depends on the distance, the number of other bones\fossils found in between and the claims of the finders, etcetera. You can see a little about this on this site down where she talks about the age of the site (shows a 'typical' cross-section not the actual one)
http://www.anthro4n6.net/lucy/ The general site had\has many fossils, but when the one hominid bone was found they would have searched the immediate area around it, not just anywhere on the hillside.On a different but related issue, I thought we also had another picture posted that had a complete composite skeleton of Australopithicus afarensis - using the knee, Lucy, the "first family" fossils, the "Hadar" skull, a nearly complete hand from the same general area (AL 333-105), etc. -- and mirrored parts to fill in the missing elements -- but can't seem to find it now. This was discussed on a previous (now closed) thread:
http://EvC Forum: Lucy and Secular Humanism -->EvC Forum: Lucy and Secular Humanism)The best I can find is on this site (but the picture is small).This clearly shows a combination of bones from several fossil finds. It is also clear that there is plenty of overlap on these bones to justify such an assemblage as being roughly representative of what a complete skeleton would actuall look like.However, no one claims that these are all from one individual eh? You realize of course that the printed off pages are not scientific literature, that any number of false and misleading things can be found on the internet, and that it is the responsibility of people to validate what they read there before using it to make accusations.I also hope you realize that this is a very serious accusation of scientific misconduct and that it should not be made lightly, based more on what you hope is true rather than what you know is true.I think by now you will agree that your claim was made a bit in haste and with incomplete information,BUT: 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, and that the knee joint (AL 129-1) is a separate specimen and that NO scientist has claimed they are from the same individual.Enjoy.Edited by RAZD, : added picture

---

Join the effort to unravel {AIDSHIV} with Team EvC! (click)

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

​

RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

I think that is a bit of a simplification of the evidence for one individual.Let's apply a little logic and see where it takes us:First, would you agree that the bones from any one individual are most likely to be found in the same relative location? Over time some may be lost, but by and large the bones would tend to stay together unless there was some force acting to disperse them (in which case you would not find a group like Lucy).Conversely, where you have conditions that tend to accumulate bones, would you not agree that you are more likely to see evidence of several individuals rather than only one set of bones?Second, would you agree that some parts of skeletons fossilize better than others? Teeth for example are very common, so you should expect to find duplicate teeth if nothing else as evidence of multiple individuals eh?Third, would you agree that two or more individuals would very rarely be the same size and build or sex?Would not this imply that if more than one individual were involved that it would be most likely involve duplicate bones or different sized bones or bones of different "robustness" or strength?Take the "first family" find -- far fewer bones than Lucy, but composed of 13 individuals, identified by the duplications -- and the differences in sizes.The bones from Lucy are all from the same size individual -- based on comparison to the overall composite that Donald Johanson and Tim White assembled.You are left with several separate coincidences to have more than one individual involved: both happen to be the same size, both happen to be the same build, both happened to die in the same area, none of the same bones were preserved, etcetera.Add to this that the scientists were avidly seeking ALL hominid fossils in the area, so they would have been looking nearby for any and all other bones that could have been from another hominid, but they did not find any in that area. Any. Not a tooth, which are (IIRC) the most commonly preserved parts. Enjoy.

---

Join the effort to unravel {AIDSHIV} with Team EvC! (click)

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

​

RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

For you to substantiate your similar claim on your websiteOr to retractEnjoy.

---

Join the effort to unravel {AIDSHIV} with Team EvC! (click)

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

​

RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

and again ...

It seems most of your post was removed because it was against forum rules. "Piltdown man"
"Nebraska man"
Ota BengaCan you demonstrate in what textbookss these are currently presented as evidence of evolution?You of course realize that these hoaxes were uncovered by scientists LONG before creatortionistas started calling them "evolutionist" hoaxes ... why do you suppose that is?You realize that by saying "other hoaxes" you are claiming lucy is a hoax -- please demonstrate this.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.

She isn't.The creatortionista sites that claim it is are conflating two finds into one and then claiming that the result was Lucy.They (creatortionistas) are the hoax, not the fossil.This {faux hoax} is easily disproved by looking at the two fossils in question.

---

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.

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

---

psJust to demonstrate a few of the errors of your post:As far a "knuckle walking" goes you need to look at the Laetoli footprintshttp://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 (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. Homo sapiens sapiens IS classified with Great ApesYour 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.

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.

ModMod,please close this thread to 72 hours to prevent further off-topic discussion and promote {composite\Lucy\Australopithicus} was bipedalthanks,

---

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.