Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 73 (8962 total)
144 online now:
CosmicChimp, PaulK (2 members, 142 visitors)
Newest Member: Samuel567
Post Volume: Total: 870,726 Year: 2,474/23,288 Month: 665/1,809 Week: 97/225 Day: 0/28 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   {composite\Lucy\Little-Foot\Australopithicus} was bipedal
RAZD
Member
Posts: 20537
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.0


Message 1 of 34 (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/...anaveral/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

Edited by RAZD, : fixed ' mark


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) • • •

Replies to this message:
 Message 28 by RAZD, posted 05-18-2017 10:55 AM RAZD has acknowledged this reply

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 20537
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.0


Message 3 of 34 (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

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 20537
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.0


Message 5 of 34 (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: 20537
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.0


Message 6 of 34 (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

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 20537
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.0


Message 9 of 34 (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: 20537
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.0


Message 10 of 34 (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

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 20537
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.0


Message 12 of 34 (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

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 20537
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.0


Message 15 of 34 (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

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 20537
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.0


Message 16 of 34 (403433)
06-02-2007 5:58 PM


bump for server of allah, BOB, pop, gogo, modi, mohammed etc etc)
Taking up where you left off ...

Enjoy.


Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy 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 17 by ICANT, posted 06-03-2007 4:45 PM RAZD has responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 20537
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.0


Message 18 of 34 (403532)
06-03-2007 7:44 PM
Reply to: Message 17 by ICANT
06-03-2007 4:45 PM


Re: bump for server of allah, BOB, pop, gogo, modi, mohammed etc etc)
Lucy was bipedal, as the evidence above shows.

Lucy is also NOT a fraud, as the evidence above shows.

Any claims to the contrary have been refuted above.

Enjoy.


Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy 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 17 by ICANT, posted 06-03-2007 4:45 PM ICANT has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by anglagard, posted 06-03-2007 9:23 PM RAZD has acknowledged this reply

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 20537
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.0


Message 20 of 34 (446087)
01-04-2008 9:11 PM
Reply to: Message 12 by RAZD
11-16-2006 9:07 PM


More Additions to the Family ... composite knowledge?
Picking up the information on "Little Foot" from message 176 of the "Science Disproves Evolution" thread:

(responding to message 101 of the "Science Disproves Evolution" thread)
... (Little Foot stumbles into the crossfire). ... claiming it must be bipedal from a square bone in its heel. ... im sure evolutionist will have no problem inventing some hypothetical missing link that made the laetoli foot tracks.

Yet your source says:

quote:
... And while the arguments over the creatures apelike characteristics are certain to rage on, Tobias argues that the bones will help solve the mystery of Leakey's Tanzanian imprints. "Little Foot could certainly have made the Laetoli footprints," he says ...

Which would make the owner clearly a preferential bipedal species by definition (no knuckle dragging and clear heel-toe depressions similar to those caused by weight shifts in modern footprints).

Looking further I find this:

Hominid Discovery, Archeology, A publication of the Archaeological Institute of America, Volume 52 Number 2, March/April 1999

quote:
"What is particularly interesting is just how primitive the specimen is," says Clarke, noting the flexibility of the joints in the skeleton's feet. "While we know that australopithecines were bipedal by this date," he adds, "the architecture of StW-573's feet suggests that this individual was also capable of grasping limbs and climbing trees like a chimpanzee."

Intermediate in form with chimps and still able to climb trees, while being adapted for bipedal locomotion, (a form of locomotion that is not inhibited in any way by either the toe or the hand structure of this specimen) ... just as would be expected in an intermediate form. The article goes on to say:

quote:
While taxonomic identification must await the full excavation of the skeleton,... the skeleton may be of the species Australopithecus afarensis, the same as the 3.2 million-year-old Lucy, ... and suggests it may have played a greater role in early hominid evolution than if it were geographically restricted.

If, on the other hand, the specimen belongs to Australopithecus africanus, ... like the 2.3-million-year-old Taung child and a 2.5-million-year-old male from a later stratum at Sterkfontein, it will be the oldest example found to date. A. africanus has been thought to have thrived between 2.5 and 3.0 million years ago.


The age of the specimen appears to be between 2.2 and 4.1 million years, and an accurate date is difficult due to the nature of the deposit.

Then there is

Fossils, feet and the evolution of human bipedal locomotion, Journal of Anatomy, 2004 May; 204(5): 403-416. doi: 10.1111/j.0021-8782.2004.00296.x.

quote:
There has been a considerable degree of debate surrounding locomotor affinities inferred from fossil hominin foot bones. It is well known that geologically more 'recent' hominin species, such as Homo antecessor, H. heidelbergensis, H. neanderthalensis and anatomically modern H. sapiens were fully bipedal (Trinkaus, 1983; Aiello & Dean, 1990; Lorenzo et al. 1999) (Fig. 1). Their feet reflect this bipedalism, although certain aspects of the pedal morphology of H. antecessor, H. heidelbergensis and H. neanderthalensis differ from that of modern humans (Aiello & Dean, 1990; Lorenzo et al. 1999). The functional implications of these differences are currently unknown. Although there are no associated foot bones for one of the earliest members of the genus Homo, H. ergaster (c. 1.8 Ma) we do know from the rest of the postcranial skeleton that this taxon was also fully bipedal (Ruff & Walker, 1993). For other hominins, there is still a large degree of disagreement. The OH 8 H. habilis foot (at 1.8 Ma) was originally suggested to reflect a fully developed bipedal adaptation (Day & Napier, 1964; Leakey et al. 1964) but others have argued that it still retains evidence of an arboreal adaptation (Lewis, 1980b; Oxnard & Lisowski, 1980; Kidd et al. 1996; McHenry & Berger, 1998a; Wood & Collard, 1999). This is consistent with some recent interpretations of other aspects of H. habilis skeletal morphology (e.g. Hartwig-Scherer & Martin, 1991; McHenry & Berger, 1998a; Wood & Collard, 1999).

Similar controversy surrounds the Australopithecus afarensis foot bones from Hadar, Ethiopia (c. 3.0-3.4 Ma) that are described by some as being compliant with full bipedal locomotion (Latimer & Lovejoy, 1982, 1989, 1990a, 1990b; Latimer et al. 1987), whereas others have suggested that the same fossils show traits that indicate a mosaic of terrestrial and arboreal locomotion (Susman & Stern, 1982, 1991;, 1983, 1991;, 1983; Susman et al. 1985; Duncan et al. 1994; Berillon, 1998 Berillon, 1999 Berillon, 2000). Both sides of this controversy can also be supported by the analysis of other aspects of postcranial anatomy (e.g. Stern & Susman, 1983; Lovejoy et al. 2002).

The issue is further complicated by the suggestion that the foot of the important 'Little Foot' specimen (Stw 573), currently assigned to A. africanus, and possibly as old as 3.6 Ma, reflects mosaic locomotor affinities (Clarke & Tobias, 1995), however, there is no agreement as to the nature of this mosaic locomotor adaptation (e.g. Berillon, 1999 Berillon, 2000; Harcourt-Smith, 2002).


Again, a plethora of intermediate forms from ancient species to modern human type feet.

But if you think "little foot" was an unexpected find, then compare this 1935 prediction with "little foot" (same article):

quote:

A find that matches a prediction based on evolution.

Enjoy.

The clearest pictures of the Laetoli footprints that I could find are:

Another article on matching footprints to fossils is

The Laetoli Footprint Trail: 3D reconstruction from texture; archiving, and reverse engineering of early hominin gait from the University of Liverpool:

quote:
Human ancestors, or hominins, have been bipedal for at least four and a half million years. The feet of Ardipithecus already show adaptation for a toe-off mechanism that can have little function in other than terrestrial bipedalism.

When humans walk normally, the forces they exert against the ground show a characteristic double-humped pattern, ... This is associated with pressure propagating from under the heel, down the lateral side of the foot, and, as the foot everts and pronates, across the ball of the foot to the big toe for push-off. In chimpanzees, the flexed knees and hips characteristic of their bipedal walking lead to a flat force curve, ... This is associated with peak pressure in the midfoot and no push-off from the big toe.

Do the 3.6-3.8 mya Laetoli footprints then represent a functionally modern foot, with a fully developed medial arch and eversion/pronation at midstance? ...

Others suggest that this footprint is a good match for a reconstruction of a female Australopithecus afarensis foot skeleton.


Some interesting pictures there too, one with a Australopithecus afarensis skeleton superimposed but not reconstructed like "little foot" although it would better fit the single print above. There seems to be some variation in the footprints, and this leads me to wonder how mobile the toe position was - maybe both are valid?

I also found:
"Hallucial convergence in early hominids" Journal of Human Evolution 50 (2006) 534e539:

quote:
The first report on the discovery of the foot of the Stw 573 skeleton emphasized the apparent transitional nature of its great toe [Clarke, R.J., Tobias, P.V., 1995. Sterkfontein Member 2 foot bones of the oldest South African hominid. Science 269, pp. 521e524]. The hallux appeared to be intermediate in its divergence between human-like adduction and ape-like abduction. A major part of this evidence is the medial encroachment of the metatarsal I facet on the medial cuneiform. This study quantifies the variability of this feature in extant hominoids and fossil hominids. The results are consistent with the view that all currently known hominids were specialized for bipedality and lacked the ape-like ability to oppose the great toe.

A key primitive feature stressed by Clarke and Tobias (1995) is the partially abducted hallux of Stw 573. Several features of the fossil appear to indicate a divergent great toe, but of particular significance is the extent to which the facet for the first metatarsal extends proximally over the medial surface of the medial cuneiform.

The original description reported this as proximal encroachment of the metatarsal one facet on the medial cuneiform that extended 33% (projected distance) of the proximodistal surface diameter. In a small sample of gorillas, the value was 35% to 40% and nearly 50% in Pan. Clarke and Tobias (1995) note that "OH 8 and humans show virtually no such encroachment" (p. 524).


That puts Stw 573 between gorilla and human, again fitting in with Dudley Morton's 1935 prediction. More:

quote:
At this writing, its limbs and skull await preparation and analysis (Clarke, 1998, 1999). There is no exact match among extant humans of its foot morphology. The results of this study are consistent with the view that it does share with all known hominids the convergent great toe specialized for bipedal striding that lacks the ability to abduct and grasp like apes.

The (12 year old) article on "little foot" (stw 573) also says that more bones were found (including the rest of the foot? with the skull and forearm still in the rock but exposed) but I can't find anything more about any recent results of excavations..

Other foot bones for Australopithecus afarensis that I know of include heel and toe bones from the "first family" group:

PBS "how did they move":

quote:
First Family: heel bones
The broad heels of this creature could withstand the pressure of walking upright. Like human heels, they are filled with shock-absorbing "spongy" bone, rather than the more solid bone found in the heels of other apes.

First Family: toe bones
Toe bones found among the First Family are long compared to those of humans, but they don't curve forward toward the heel as they do in modern tree-climbing primates.


Not fully human, not fully ape -- intermediate.

Enjoy.

Edited by RAZD, : added end

Edited by RAZD, : splng

Edited by RAZD, : – changed to -

Edited by RAZD, : ‘ and ’ changed to '


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 12 by RAZD, posted 11-16-2006 9:07 PM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 21 by RAZD, posted 01-24-2008 2:44 PM RAZD has acknowledged this reply

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 20537
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.0


Message 21 of 34 (450877)
01-24-2008 2:44 PM
Reply to: Message 20 by RAZD
01-04-2008 9:11 PM


And even More Additions to the Family ... bumping for Jason777 ...
From message 195 of the "Science Disproves Evolution" thread:

Jason777 writes:

Thank you RAZD.I appreciate your interest in discussion.The only hominid that is left open to debate (sort of) is A.Africanus.And i say that because T.C. Partridge gave a date using geomorphological dating of less than 870 k.y. and that was supported by a date of about 1 m.y.a. by thermoluminescence analysis of calcite and uranium-series dates of 942,000 y.a. and 764,000 y.a. on limestone.We certainly know that Homo Erectus was around well before that.The evolutionist in need of a human ancestor reject those dates and gave the taung child a date that fits in with evolution.I call that fraud myself,circular reasoning with a vengance may be a better term.KP 271 is allegedly A.Africanus but all the analysis show it to be anatomicaly indifferent from modern humans,Yet they claim it cant be because of its date of around 4.4 m.y.a..You likely know all of this already,just thought i would share just in case you dont.

Thanks Jason777

The only hominid that is left open to debate (sort of) is A.Africanus.

The proper form is A. africanus - genus (Australopithecus) capitalized, species lowercase, usually with both italicized. Same with Homo erectus etc.

For archaeologists, paleontologist and biologist, etc., all fossils are open for debate. New information is always possible that will refine our understanding of the natural history of life on earth. What is critical is that the whole pattern of life is understood properly, and one of the persistent questions is whether the fossil is a uncle or parent species. An uncle species would still be a descendant from a common ancestor and it would share many hereditary traits, but not be necessarily from the direct lineage of Homo sapiens.

And i say that because T.C. Partridge gave a date using geomorphological dating of less than 870 k.y. and that was supported by a date of about 1 m.y.a. by thermoluminescence analysis of calcite and uranium-series dates of 942,000 y.a. and 764,000 y.a. on limestone.

It's hard to validate what you are saying when you don't provide references to show where this information comes from. Even the fossil ID would help. I did a google on

. . . "T.C. Partridge" "A. africanus" date . . . . . . .
and the first result was:

"Lower Pliocene Hominid Remains from Sterkfontein" Science 25 April 2003:Vol. 300. no. 5619, pp. 607 - 612 DOI: 10.1126/science.1081651:

quote:
Cosmogenic aluminum-26 and beryllium-10 burial dates of low-lying fossiliferous breccia in the caves at Sterkfontein, South Africa, show that associated hominid fossils accumulated in the Lower Pliocene. These dates indicate that the skeleton StW 573 and newly discovered specimens from Jacovec Cavern have much the same age: approximately 4 million years. These specimens are thus of an age similar to Australopithecus anamensis from East Africa.

StW 573 is also known as "little foot" (see Message 20).

I also found this: The Truth About Human Origins, Apologetics Press, 2003

quote:
In 1973, a geologist from South Africa, T.C. Partridge, used thermoluminescence analysis of calcite, as well as uranium dating methods, to date the cave from which the Taung skull had come (1973, 246:75-79; see also Tattersall, et al., 1988, p. 571; Klein, 1989, p. 113). Whereas the Taung child had been dated at somewhere between two and three millions years old, Dr. Partridge’s data indicated that the cave could not have been any older than about 0.87 million years old—which meant that the age of the Taung discovery would have to be decreased to no older than 0.87 million years. And therein is the controversy.

As anatomist Phillip Tobias (also of the University of Witwatersrand at the time) admitted: "…[T]he fact remains that less than one million years is a discrepant age for a supposed gracile australopithecine in the gradually emerging picture of African hominid evolution" (see Butzer, 1974, 15[4]:411). That is to say, if Australopithecus africanus was the direct ancestor of humans, and was dated at only 0.87 million years, that became problematic, since no one would believe that it was possible to go africanus from Australopithecus africanus to modern humans in the "short" time span of just a little over three-quarters of a million years.

Further compounding the problem was the fact that modern humans already had been documented as being on the scene in Africa 0.75 million years ago. Karl W. Butzer of the University of Chicago recognized the problem immediately, and wrote in Current Anthropology:

If the Taung specimen is indeed no older than the youngest robust australopithecines of the Transvaal, then such a late, local survival of the gracile (a term used to describe Australopithecus africanus—BH/BT) lineage would seem to pose new evolutionary…problems (1974, 15[4]:382).

If this is your source then you should know that it is just plain wrong on several counts. (1) "Gracile" refers to several species of australopithecines and distinguishes them from the robust ones, not just A. africanus. (2) The problem in question would be connecting the late appearing fossil with the other existing old ones, yet all it would have done would be to extend the existence of A. africanus, not move the whole lineage up in time. (3) It certainly would not limit evolution of other branches of hominids from the earlier 3 and 4 million year old australopithecines (4) Thus hominid ancestry back to early A. africanus would still be just as possible as it is without this fossil date (just as apes and monkeys still exist), and finally, (5) this information is 30+ years old and they have found out many things in the interim, especially about the age of this fossil and the cave. The age of this fossil is now listed as 2.5 million years, with additional information showing the original dates were in error, and the problem of anomalous age is rectified.

Here's Tobias in 1983, in the PROCEEDINGS of A Symposium on HUMAN EVOLUTION, Canadian Journal of Anthropology Volume 3:2 1983 (PDF takes a long time to load):

quote:
Tobias: As far as Taung is concerned, it is still a very difficult problem. Professor Cooke said its dating is uncertain. Partridge, on the one hand, by one set of techniques, and Butzer, from Chicago, on the other hand, by another set of techniques, have both come up with a very young age which may be one and a half million years or less. If that is so, the problem is that we have no other example of Australopithecus africanus, as such surviving SO late. This is a problem which isn't yet resolved. Some years ago, I stuck my neck out, and said that if it is really only one million years old, then it couldn't be the same thing as Sterkfontein and Makapansgat. Or at least it was doubtful whether it would have grown up to be a "Mr. Ples." It could well have to be considered as a possible youngster of the robust lineage, without our worrying about the name for a minute. That's another complication. We will have a Diamond Jubilee of Taung in early 1985 and I hope by that stage our total restudy of the Taung child and its dating will have been completed, and that we may be able to answer it then. I can't give a final answer on that one, at the moment.

So the problem was not one for hominid lineage from older hominids, but for how to explain the late appearance of a fossil where the rest are significantly older and there are no intermediates.

Let me quote the following particular statement again, as it is a fabrication, a falsehood, and it does not logically follow from the evidence:

quote:
... since no one would believe that it was possible to go africanus from Australopithecus africanus to modern humans in the "short" time span of just a little over three-quarters of a million years.

If this is your source of information, I suggest you get a different one -- they are not telling you the truth and they have several misconceptions of how science works and tests ideas against reality. If this is not your source of information, but this is what you source is saying, then I still suggest you get a different one.

One fossil does not represent the whole species.

We certainly know that Homo Erectus was around well before that.The evolutionist in need of a human ancestor reject those dates and gave the taung child a date that fits in with evolution.I call that fraud myself,circular reasoning with a vengance may be a better term.

As pointed out above, it would not matter to human ancestry in the slightest, if the Tuang child date was as late as the initial dates suggested, as there were still plenty of hominids from 3 and 4 million years ago, for ancestors of Homo sapiens. Even suggesting this is a problem shows a misunderstanding of how the biological tree of life works.

KP 271 is allegedly A.Africanus but all the analysis show it to be anatomicaly indifferent from modern humans, ...

Really? This one makes the talkorogins PRATT List -- Claim CC054: The fossil humerus KP 271 is an apparently human fossil from four million years ago, which, according to the standard evolutionary model, is well before the appearance of modern humans.:

quote:
Even a humerus from a chimpanzee looks similar to a human humerus; it should not be surprising that the humerus from a closer relative would look even more similar. However, the anatomical evidence strongly indicates that the specimen is not human and is a good match with Australopithecus anamensis (Lague and Jungers 1996).

From "Morphometric analysis of the distal humerus of some cenozoic catarrhines: The late divergence hypothesis revisited" American Journal of Physical Anthropology Volume 59, Issue 1 , Pages 73 - 95 (abstract):

quote:
... Multivariate analysis of distal humerus metrics, corrected for the within-groups distortion of shape by size, was used to compare a broad sample of 22 modern anthropoid taxa with 15 fossils from the Fayum, Rusinga Island, Ft. Ternan, Neudorf an der March, Kanapoi, Kromdraai, Lake Turkana, and Hadar. ... Specifically, the distal humeri of the large hominoids are very distinct from those of other anthropoids; ... The Kanapoi distal humerus (KP 271), far from being more human-like than Australopithecus, clearly associates with the hyperrobust Australopithecines from Lake Turkana. ...

Conclusion: Australopithecus, not Homo. Conclusion: features intermediate between ape and man. As should be expected.

In addition, it is not a "stand-alone" fossil. From Australopithecus anamensis :

quote:
This species was initially discovered (but not identified) in 1965, by a Harvard expedition led by B. Patterson. A distal end of a humerus (KNM-KP 271) was recovered from a site on the west side of Lake Turkana in Kenya, a site called Kanapoi. For years the specimen's species was debated by those who saw it as Australopithecus, due to its age of approximately 4 myr, and those who saw it as Homo. Fieldwork was not conducted at the site for nearly 30 years, until work began by Meave Leakey et al. The renewed work provided dates, faunal remains, environmental reconstruction, and nine new hominid specimens. The material was given the name Australopithecus anamensis, because of several important differences with A. afarensis that seem to distinguish it as a separate species.

An additional twelve fossil specimens from Allia Bay, on the eastern shores of Lake Turkana, has also been placed within the species anamensis along with the Kanapoi material.


When they went back to the site and excavated for more fossils ... all (21) of Australopithecus anamensis and none (0) of Homo.

... anatomicaly indifferent from modern humans,Yet they claim it cant be because of its date of around 4.4 m.y.a..You likely know all of this already,just thought i would share just in case you dont.

in·dif·fer·ent -adj. 1. Having no particular interest or concern; apathetic: indifferent to the sufferings of others.
2. Having no marked feeling for or against: She remained indifferent toward their proposal.
3. Not mattering one way or the other: It's indifferent to me which outfit you choose.
4. Characterized by a lack of partiality; unbiased: an indifferent judge.
5. Being neither too much nor too little; moderate.
6. Being neither good nor bad; mediocre: an indifferent performance. See Synonyms at average.
7. Being neither right nor wrong.
8. Not active or involved; neutral: an indifferent chemical in a reaction.
9. Biology Undifferentiated, as cells or tissue.
(American Heritage Dictionary, 2007)

It is rather indifferent, I agree ... but I don't think that's what you meant. The usual creationist literature uses the word "indistinct" ... but we know from Marc Feldesman that there are differences between the fossil and human bones, while we know from Meave Leakey that the fossil was associated in time and place with 21 Australopithecus anamensis hominids.

It looks to me like your "evidence" is more just misrepresented reality by creationists than real problems.

Enjoy

Edited by RAZD, : message added

Edited by RAZD, : cleaned up letter codes


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 20 by RAZD, posted 01-04-2008 9:11 PM RAZD has acknowledged this reply

Replies to this message:
 Message 22 by Jason777, posted 01-24-2008 6:32 PM RAZD has responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 20537
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.0


Message 23 of 34 (450917)
01-24-2008 8:49 PM
Reply to: Message 22 by Jason777
01-24-2008 6:32 PM


"Bones of Contention" has out of date information
Thanks Jason777,

Actually i got this info from a book i just finished reading by Marvin L. Lubenow (Bones Of Contention P.52).He is a well respected paleoanthropoligst and isnt known to be a liar or to make up nonsense.

Yet he is listed as the source of the PRATT (Point Refuted a Thousand Times) in my previous post:

quote:
Source:
Lubenow, Marvin L. 1992. Bones of Contention: A creationist assessment of the human fossils. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, pp. 54-58.

They also have a link to this site with more information about it.

Notice that in 1965 (and in 1992) they did not have the fossils that they had in 1996 that show "that the specimen is not human and is a good match with Australopithecus anamensis" (see previous post). Thus he is quoting old information that has now been superseded, but superseded after his book was published. I wonder if he has changed his opinion since (certainly I see it still being published on creationist sites).

Basicaly their saying its human and certainly not apelike.The theory of evolution is what decided what it is assigned to.Thank you for sharing info and if you have any cites to check out any actual A.africanus fossils please share.Have a great day.

They are ... were ... saying that it was closer to human than what was known for ape and hominid at the time. We now have additional information of 21 fossil hominids from the same site that show it was Australopithecus anamensis.

Try Human Ancestors Hall, Smithsonian Institute, Australopithecus africanus. Note the tentative relationships on the page.

Also see this chart of hominid relationships (revised and updated recently) and this chart for an alternate view. Notice that on both of them the dotted lines representing hypothetical relationships don't always start at the end of one species.

Enjoy.

Edited by RAZD, : redundant repetition


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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by Jason777, posted 01-24-2008 6:32 PM Jason777 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 24 by Jason777, posted 01-27-2008 12:57 AM RAZD has responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 20537
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.0


Message 26 of 34 (451345)
01-27-2008 11:31 AM
Reply to: Message 24 by Jason777
01-27-2008 12:57 AM


Thanks Jason777,

I may be wrong,but all of those A.anamensis fossils are all comprised of upper and lower jaws,cranial fragments,and the upper and lower parts of a single leg.Your source says KP-271 is a good match for A.anamensis,yet they dont have a complete A.anamensis(correct me if im wrong)fossil to compare it to.

They don't need a complete fossil for comparison, just another humerus.

As I noted in Message 21 (emphasis added):

quote:
From "Morphometric analysis of the distal humerus of some cenozoic catarrhines: The late divergence hypothesis revisited" American Journal of Physical Anthropology Volume 59, Issue 1 , Pages 73 - 95 (abstract):

quote:
... Multivariate analysis of distal humerus metrics, corrected for the within-groups distortion of shape by size, was used to compare a broad sample of 22 modern anthropoid taxa with 15 fossils from the Fayum, Rusinga Island, Ft. Ternan, Neudorf an der March, Kanapoi, Kromdraai, Lake Turkana, and Hadar. ... Specifically, the distal humeri of the large hominoids are very distinct from those of other anthropoids; ... The Kanapoi distal humerus (KP 271), far from being more human-like than Australopithecus, clearly associates with the hyperrobust Australopithecines from Lake Turkana. ...

Conclusion: Australopithecus, not Homo. Conclusion: features intermediate between ape and man. As should be expected.

In addition, it is not a "stand-alone" fossil. From Australopithecus anamensis :

quote:
This species was initially discovered (but not identified) in 1965, by a Harvard expedition led by B. Patterson. A distal end of a humerus (KNM-KP 271) was recovered from a site on the west side of Lake Turkana in Kenya, a site called Kanapoi. For years the specimen's species was debated by those who saw it as Australopithecus, due to its age of approximately 4 myr, and those who saw it as Homo. Fieldwork was not conducted at the site for nearly 30 years, until work began by Meave Leakey et al. The renewed work provided dates, faunal remains, environmental reconstruction, and nine new hominid specimens. The material was given the name Australopithecus anamensis, because of several important differences with A. afarensis that seem to distinguish it as a separate species.

An additional twelve fossil specimens from Allia Bay, on the eastern shores of Lake Turkana, has also been placed within the species anamensis along with the Kanapoi material.


When they went back to the site and excavated for more fossils ... all (21) of Australopithecus anamensis and none (0) of Homo.


The first reference says that they compared humeri with other samples from Lake Turkana, and the second reference says that all Lake Turkana samples are all classed Australopithecus anamensis, so that seems fairly cut and dried (as much as one can get in science) - there were other humeri from Lake Turkana used in the comparison.

I recently found out Marvin L. Lubenow has a revised and updated version out(2004).I may keep an eye on ebay to see if i can pick up a cheap copy(HaHaHa).

You also might want to try the library before investing. If he hasn't updated the information then I wouldn't buy the book.

Enjoy.

Edited by RAZD, : word change

Edited by RAZD, : humeris me



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.


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by Jason777, posted 01-27-2008 12:57 AM Jason777 has not yet responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 20537
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.0


Message 27 of 34 (707204)
09-24-2013 3:00 PM


update
http://news.sciencemag.org/.../scienceshot-lucys-svelte-look

quote:
The famous skeleton Lucy has had a makeover, thanks to newly discovered fossils. A reconstruction of the 3.2-million-year-old hominin emerged Friday with a trimmer figure, showing off a distinct neck, a narrower waistline, and arched foot. Earlier reconstructions, relying on scanty fossil rib bones and living African apes such as chimpanzees and gorillas, had given her a cone-shaped thorax and potbelly. That implied that her species, Australopithecus afarensis, had retained adaptations for moving in the trees a lot like chimps. But in the past few years, researchers have found additional ribs and a new foot bone of A. afarensis. The ribs are curved, which translates to a barrel-shaped thorax like modern humans, paleoanthropologist Carol Ward of the University of Missouri, Columbia, showed in a symposium on Friday. And the foot bone shows a distinct arch. This suggests that Lucy and her kin spent plenty of time on the ground, although they probably still climbed and slept in trees. ...

Note that the writer confuses one set of fossils with the composite view of Australopithecus afarensis -- the Lucy fossil set is not updated, the composite concept of the species is updated.

quote:
... The reconstruction, overseen by paleoanthropologist Yohannes Haile-Selassie of the Cleveland Museum of Natural History and created by artist John Gurche, was unveiled Friday as part of an exhibit on human evolution at the museum.

Please ignore the artistic (fanciful) "reconstruction" shown -- what they should show is an updated composite skeleton.

Enjoy.

Edited by RAZD, : code


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) • • •

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2020