|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 1433 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: {composite\Lucy\Little-Foot\Australopithicus} was bipedal | ||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1433 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
From Lucy - fact or fraud?:
pop writes:
Message 29THE 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.LinkRAZD writes:
Message 32As far a "knuckle walking" goes you need to look at the Laetoli footprints http://www.mnh.si.edu/anthro/humanorigins/ha/laetoli.htmNotice there were NO knuckle impressions even though they - three seperate specimens - were walking leisurely for a significant distance. fromhttp://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 35The 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 38The 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 39so what are you trying to say that lucy was bipedal I think not . Because all the evidences I wrote. Modulus writes:
Message 40so 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?pop writes:
Message 42d'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 43Lucy'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 ' markby 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)
|
||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1433 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Faster than a speeding bit ... it's superJAR ...
(thanks)
|
||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1433 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
From Message 138
Actually, reread my essay on evolution there. I did make a few rewordings to make it more proper, just recently.
quote: 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. 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.
|
||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1433 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
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. Duane Gish - Wikipedia
quote: 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" 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.
|
||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1433 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
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?
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, : '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)
|
||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1433 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
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: 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. 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.
|
||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1433 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Hominid : Web focus : Nature
quote: A juvenile early hominin skeleton from Dikika, Ethiopia | Nature
quote: 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. 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.
|
||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1433 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
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. 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.
|
||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1433 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Taking up where you left off ...
Enjoy. 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.
|
||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1433 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
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. 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.
|
||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1433 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
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: 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 1999quote: 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: 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: 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: 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: That puts Stw 573 between gorilla and human, again fitting in with Dudley Morton's 1935 prediction. More:
quote: 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: 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 '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)
|
||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1433 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
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 "Lower Pliocene Hominid Remains from Sterkfontein" Science 25 April 2003:Vol. 300. no. 5619, pp. 607 - 612 DOI: 10.1126/science.1081651:
quote: StW 573 is also known as "little foot" (see Message 20). I also found this: The Truth About Human Origins, Apologetics Press, 2003 quote: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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. 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 codesby 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)
|
||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1433 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
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: 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 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.
|
||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1433 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
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: 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 by our ability to understand RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share.
|
||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1433 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Science | AAAS
quote: 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: Please ignore the artistic (fanciful) "reconstruction" shown -- what they should show is an updated composite skeleton. Enjoy. Edited by RAZD, : codeby 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) |
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024