Lucy and Secular Humanism

There is another aspect to bring up.Every time there is a mistake or a misrepresentation of information, whether it is one of the infamous ones like piltdown man or the lesser ones like Haeckle's drawings, it has NOT been creationists that have exposed them, but scientists. And they are then removed from the science except as a footnote.Compare this to creatiortionista sites that continue to display exhibits that have been exposed as frauds (like paluxy river tracks).The issue of Lucy's hands and feet have been discussed before. This is not a matter of "putting hands on lucy" but of assembling a composite skeleton from all the known Australopithicus afarensis fossils (making some adjustments for sizes of bones in common or fit to joints). Another good set of bones comes from what is known as the "first family" -- a set of 13 individual skeletons all found together -- but there are many (hundreds?) fossils from this time period that all reinforce each other (rather than contradict).There is another piece of information from the same time period as Lucy, and that is the set of footprints from Laetoli discovered by Mary Leakey. The footprints match the size and gait of Australopithicus afarensis, but more than that: they do NOT show the gait of a chimpanzee OR any "knuckle" walking.see this site for some more information:
Evolution: Humans: Riddle of the BonesNote in particular the parallel tracks on the first page, one larger than the other and consistent with the sexual dimorphism in size of other fossils from this period.Note too that Lucy has one wrist bone and one hand bone in the set, that can be related to the same bones in the other fossil sets which includes a more complete hand that is the main basis for that part of the reconstruction. If this was a mis-matched hand to the lucy base, then these two bones would not agree in relative size\shape with the ones from the specimen known as AL 333-105, a nearly complete hand from the same time period and general area.
see http://www.fortunecity.com/victorian/palette/100/aafar61.jpgThe assembled skeleton is a composite based on the best scientific information available, and I don't believe it is presented as anything more than that.Many reconstruction exhibits have gone through changes when new evidence shows that errors were made: the t-rex and others are typical examples.That doesn't make early exhibit frauds, just that they were based on insufficient information.Finally there is an analysis of Australopithicus afarensis hands at Entrez PubMed Abstract: Morphological affinities of the Australopithecus afarensis hand on the basis of manual proportions and relative thumb length (click).Don't look for the exhibit hands (or feet) to change significantly as more information becomes available.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

Hello Tom\Bret\Charlie\Craig\Tim\...\Whatever, the reconstructed skeleton with the feet, ankles, legs and hips all based on fossil evidence matches the gait, size and shape of the Laetoli footprints.Unfortunately there were no hand prints made when the footprints were made -- unfortunately for you: if Lucy were a knuckle walker there would have been handprints (and the gait would have been different too, having to do with the angle of the knee bones -- as already pointed out).see Message 46 for more. Actually they are intermediate and closer to human than to chimp. Having a scientist say that they are not like human hands does not make them like chimpanzee hands.See http://www.fortunecity.com/victorian/palette/100/aafar61.jpg -- a fairly complete Australopithicus afarensis (not Homo sapiens) hand specimen known as AL 333-105enjoy

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}