Lucy (Australopithecus)

From these few bones Can we really draw this conclusion??? Very speculative

Thread copied here from the Lucy (Australopithecus) thread in the Proposed New Topics forum.

Yes, experts really can draw some conclusions--its not just wild-ass-guesswork.They study bones of all sorts of critters for years and can recognize small variations in features and give good estimates on what they are and what they mean.I studied a lot of this in grad school, so I have seen it first-hand.With Lucy, start by looking at the innominate, and compare it with both modern humans and chimps.Try perusing a few issues of American Journal of Physical Anthropology as an example of the detailed analyses that they are using now, which are far better than when I was a student.

Are you under the impression that Lucy is the only Australopithecus afarensis fossil ever found?Well, you're wrong.

quote:

---

Are you under the impression that Lucy is the onlyAustralopithecus afarensisfossil ever found?

---

NoAustralopithecus afarensis - The Australian Museum

quote:

---

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

---

Presumptuous indeed

Now you're trying to change the subject.Do you think that all our our knowledge of Australopithecus afarensis come from the fossil called Lucy alone?

Argument from incredulity?Yes.We can make inferences of muscle and skin from our study of anatomy, the same way that forensic scientists reconstruct bodies to help identify victims. This is a very well developed science, particularly related to hominids.It starts with reconstruction of the skeleton, articulated the way the bones fit together. In this case we have not just Lucy, but Little Foot and the First Family and other fossils of Australopithecus africanusThat gives us a composite skeleton: The brown areas represent actual fossil elements, the white are from mirroring and extrapolating missing elements from knowledge of other fossils (the ribs and the toes and the finger tips).Which we can place between a human skeleton and a chimpanzee skeleton for comparison. Note the posture of the chimpanzee is limited by the articulation of the bones, with bent knees and bend at the waist, and bent neck pushing the head forward (the spin connects further back on the head rather than under it as in hominids). Then the skeleton is "fleshed out" with thicknesses for muscles and skin and organs typical of apes (which includes humans).

quote:

---

10 ways to improve your human anatomy modelling

​

01. Always start with good reference

​

​

02. Begin with a skeleton model

​

​

03. Muscle attachments and insertions

​

​

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

​

---

Finally the skin, hair, eyes are extrapolated from known living apes (including humans). 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?EnjoypsSee {composite\Lucy\Little-Foot\Australopithicus} was bipedal and The story of Bones and Dogs and Humans for additional discussion.

Dude... Read Message 5 again. I directly answered your question with a no.

And you didn't mention any of the other fossils, but instead mentioned the Laetoli footprints. The obvious inference is that you are not aware of the other fossils.

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

Nope. You didn't answer the question. Do you think that everyting we know about Australopithecus afarensis came from Lucy?

Posting a bare link is not a response and is against forum rules, as you've already been informed.You also need to tell us what is at that link in your own words. Failure to do so will get you the disrespect that you earn from such misbehavior.The reason for that rule is because we have seen too many creationists link to a source that is either a creationist source (as you have already done) or else it says the opposite of what they think it does because they don't understand it (or else lifted part of it out of context in order to misquote it).As a result, we do not waste our time chasing your rabbits down your rabbit holes. Say what you intend to say and provide the link as support -- or provide a quote from that link along with the link so that we can verify the quote. But don't discredit yourself by posting a bare link.Edited by dwise1, : rabbit holes

So you knew that there were more bones than this which went into the reconstruction, but you failed to mention them. Do you see the problem here?With Lucy, we have a nearly complete skeleton from the neck down, assuming that one side is a mirror image of the other side. We also have numerous A. afarensis skulls that are nearly complete and match up with the pieces from Lucy.How is this speculative?

That has nothing to do with the opening post. You are trying to change the subject now that you have been caught misrepresenting the evidence.Also, we find fossils of a bipedal ape from the same time period and same geographic area. What is wrong with saying that A. afarensis is the top suspect for leaving those footprints?

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