Register | Sign In

Understanding through Discussion

EvC Forum active members: 60 (9125 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: GenomeOfEden
Post Volume: Total: 909,614 Year: 6,495/14,231 Month: 42/368 Week: 3/93 Day: 3/11 Hour: 0/1

Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Author Topic:   {composite\Lucy\Australopithicus} was bipedal
Member (Idle past 1107 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004

Message 1 of 3 (336326)
07-29-2006 12:57 PM

From Lucy - fact or fraud?:
pop writes:
Message 29
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
Notice there were NO knuckle impressions even though they - three seperate specimens - were walking leisurely for a significant distance.
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:
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.

Human Origins and Evolution please

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

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

Inactive Member

Message 2 of 3 (336335)
07-29-2006 1:11 PM

Thread copied to the {composite\Lucy\Australopithicus} was bipedal thread in the Human Origins forum, this copy of the thread has been closed.

Administrator (Idle past 2004 days)
Posts: 2073
From: The Universe
Joined: 10-11-2003

Message 3 of 3 (336336)
07-29-2006 1:11 PM

Thread copied to the {composite\Lucy\Australopithicus} was bipedal thread in the Human Origins forum, this copy of the thread has been closed.

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:

Copyright 2001-2022 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2023