quote:Laetoli footprints These fossil footprints were discovered in Tanzania, East Africa and date to 3.6 million years ago. Fossil bones from Australopithecus afarensis have been found nearby so it is presumed that they left the tracks.
We can make inferences of muscle and skin from our study of anatomy, the same way that forensic scientists reconstruct bodies to help identify victims. This is a very well developed science, particularly related to hominids.
It starts with reconstruction of the skeleton, articulated the way the bones fit together. In this case we have not just Lucy, but Little Foot and the First Family and other fossils of Australopithecus africanus
That gives us a composite skeleton:
The brown areas represent actual fossil elements, the white are from mirroring and extrapolating missing elements from knowledge of other fossils (the ribs and the toes and the finger tips).
Which we can place between a human skeleton and a chimpanzee skeleton for comparison. Note the posture of the chimpanzee is limited by the articulation of the bones, with bent knees and bend at the waist, and bent neck pushing the head forward (the spin connects further back on the head rather than under it as in hominids).
Then the skeleton is "fleshed out" with thicknesses for muscles and skin and organs typical of apes (which includes humans).
You never really finish a model like this one, anatomy is a complex, endless subject and you could spend a lifetime trying to illustrate all of the systems and structures that make up the human body. Inevitably, you will make mistakes so it’s important to constantly revise your model and strive to make the anatomy as accurate as you can.
Finally the skin, hair, eyes are extrapolated from known living apes (including humans).
Can we really draw this conclusion???
Conclusion? It's a hypothetical reconstruction. For display in a museum, not for scientific study.
Is the skin color and the amount of hair, eyes, etc accurate? No, nor is it claimed to be.
But it is as accurate as we can currently deduct from the evidence -- the actual scientific evidence of the fossil bones.
Do you understand that the science works from the bones not the reconstructions in museums?
Posting a bare link is not a response and is against forum rules, as you've already been informed.
You also need to tell us what is at that link in your own words. Failure to do so will get you the disrespect that you earn from such misbehavior.
The reason for that rule is because we have seen too many creationists link to a source that is either a creationist source (as you have already done) or else it says the opposite of what they think it does because they don't understand it (or else lifted part of it out of context in order to misquote it).
As a result, we do not waste our time chasing your rabbits down your rabbit holes. Say what you intend to say and provide the link as support -- or provide a quote from that link along with the link so that we can verify the quote. But don't discredit yourself by posting a bare link.
So you knew that there were more bones than this which went into the reconstruction, but you failed to mention them. Do you see the problem here?
With Lucy, we have a nearly complete skeleton from the neck down, assuming that one side is a mirror image of the other side. We also have numerous A. afarensis skulls that are nearly complete and match up with the pieces from Lucy.