Does evidence of transitional forms exist ? (Hominid and other)

Pathetic, Ahmad. You didn't read the article you cite at all!The new study, however, debunks that theory. Richmond's team examined the wrist bones of two Australopithecus species: anamensis and afarensis. They found that the wrist joints of these ancestors were stable and resembled the wrist joints of modern chimpanzees and gorillas, the only living mammals that walk on their knuckles.

​

While they had wrist joints that would have been ideal for knuckle walking, these species, however, walked upright. Some of the best evidence for this came from the famous fossil named Lucy. She had relatively long lower legs compared to chimps, a big toe that did not stick out such as it does in chimps, and she had a curvature in her spine that strongly suggests she walked upright. So the knuckle-walking-type wrist joints were left over from an early ancestor, one that came down from the trees and was adapted to walking on the ground like modern-day chimpanzees.
The second article says exactly the same thing. Lucy was BIPEDAL but retained knuckle walking features from her ancestry. So do we, I understand.You're going to have to do better than that. Like read and find out whether the articles you are citing actually say what you want them to say.

Erm - are you confused? You seem to be dividing Lucy from other Australopithecines. Lucy was an Australopithecine.A quick search on Google reveals the reasons Australopithecines, including Lucy, are considered to be bipedal. I'm not a hominid evolution expert, so I'd rather leave it to those who are.

Except that they said that Lucy wasn't a knuckle walker. You can't base a conclusion about an animal's gate on a single piece of evidence. There are knuckle-walking adaptations in the forearm. The rest of the animal is adapted for a form of bipedalism.Your conjecture about the toe is pointless. We have the footprints - we know the shape of the australopithecine foot.

The aliens articles Google will find you do not refer to peer-reviewed material.I am glad you understand that Lucy is an Australopithecine. Some of your phrasing implied you didn't: "I don't recall mentioning anything about the quadripedality of Lucy but australopithecines(AUST). "

You have evidence that they are deceptive and not australopithicene?

Ahmad, I've done a lot of searching for information on A. afarensis' feet. I've come to the conclusion we don't actually have any fossils of them. So I would be interested to know how this 'multivariate analysis' was done that indicated the foot was like that of a chimpanzee.However, Australopithecus Afarensis - Modern Human Origins lists the following features that indicate A. afarensis was bipedal:

*The gluteal tuberosity (attachment locus for the gluteus maximus) is mostly on the back of the shaft like other hominids, rather than on its side like African apes (where it acts as an adductor).
*The femoral neck is long relative to the size of the shaft, a consequence of lateral iliac flare.
*The femoral neck is anterior-posteriorly flattened, making it relatively tall, thus, resistant to bending stresses during one-legged support.
*The bone thickness on the anterior neck surface is expanded, a response to muscle forces during toe-off and the force transmitted when the leg comes to the ground at the end of its swing.
*The neck-shaft angle is low.

Your move.

Would a good translation (for the benefit of any laymen who may have wandered in, as Tom Lehrer would say) be "The foot is transitional between ape and human"?Not particularly good evidence against evolution, then, methinks.