Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 45 (9208 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: anil dahar
Post Volume: Total: 919,519 Year: 6,776/9,624 Month: 116/238 Week: 33/83 Day: 3/6 Hour: 0/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Lucy (Australopithecus)
Porkncheese
Member (Idle past 529 days)
Posts: 198
From: Australia
Joined: 08-25-2017


Message 1 of 88 (819898)
09-14-2017 11:38 PM


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

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by Coyote, posted 09-15-2017 12:13 AM Porkncheese has not replied
 Message 7 by RAZD, posted 09-15-2017 8:43 AM Porkncheese has replied
 Message 13 by Taq, posted 09-15-2017 10:37 AM Porkncheese has not replied
 Message 38 by anglagard, posted 09-15-2017 7:09 PM Porkncheese has not replied

  
AdminNosy
Administrator
Posts: 4755
From: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Joined: 11-11-2003


Message 2 of 88 (819900)
09-14-2017 11:59 PM


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

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2366 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


(2)
Message 3 of 88 (819901)
09-15-2017 12:13 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Porkncheese
09-14-2017 11:38 PM


Not all guesswork
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.

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
Belief gets in the way of learning--Robert A. Heinlein
In the name of diversity, college student demands to be kept in ignorance of the culture that made diversity a value--StultisTheFool
It's not what we don't know that hurts, it's what we know that ain't so--Will Rogers
If I am entitled to something, someone else is obliged to pay--Jerry Pournelle
If a religion's teachings are true, then it should have nothing to fear from science...--dwise1
"Multiculturalism" demands that the US be tolerant of everything except its own past, culture, traditions, and identity.
Liberals claim to want to give a hearing to other views, but then are shocked and offended to discover that there are other points of view--William F. Buckley Jr.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Porkncheese, posted 09-14-2017 11:38 PM Porkncheese has not replied

  
Pressie
Member (Idle past 236 days)
Posts: 2103
From: Pretoria, SA
Joined: 06-18-2010


Message 4 of 88 (819903)
09-15-2017 1:00 AM


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

Replies to this message:
 Message 5 by Porkncheese, posted 09-15-2017 3:00 AM Pressie has replied

  
Porkncheese
Member (Idle past 529 days)
Posts: 198
From: Australia
Joined: 08-25-2017


Message 5 of 88 (819906)
09-15-2017 3:00 AM
Reply to: Message 4 by Pressie
09-15-2017 1:00 AM


quote:
Are you under the impression that Lucy is the onlyAustralopithecus afarensisfossil ever found?
No
Australopithecus 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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by Pressie, posted 09-15-2017 1:00 AM Pressie has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by Pressie, posted 09-15-2017 5:35 AM Porkncheese has replied
 Message 14 by Taq, posted 09-15-2017 10:39 AM Porkncheese has not replied

  
Pressie
Member (Idle past 236 days)
Posts: 2103
From: Pretoria, SA
Joined: 06-18-2010


Message 6 of 88 (819910)
09-15-2017 5:35 AM
Reply to: Message 5 by Porkncheese
09-15-2017 3:00 AM


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?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by Porkncheese, posted 09-15-2017 3:00 AM Porkncheese has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by Porkncheese, posted 09-15-2017 9:17 AM Pressie has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1665 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 7 of 88 (819920)
09-15-2017 8:43 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Porkncheese
09-14-2017 11:38 PM


yes.
From these few bones
Can we really draw this conclusion???
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 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).
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).
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?
Enjoy
ps
See {composite\Lucy\Little-Foot\Australopithicus} was bipedal and The story of Bones and Dogs and Humans for additional discussion.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆Zen☯Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Porkncheese, posted 09-14-2017 11:38 PM Porkncheese has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by Porkncheese, posted 09-15-2017 10:48 AM RAZD has replied

  
Porkncheese
Member (Idle past 529 days)
Posts: 198
From: Australia
Joined: 08-25-2017


Message 8 of 88 (819928)
09-15-2017 9:17 AM
Reply to: Message 6 by Pressie
09-15-2017 5:35 AM


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by Pressie, posted 09-15-2017 5:35 AM Pressie has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by JonF, posted 09-15-2017 9:22 AM Porkncheese has replied
 Message 11 by Pressie, posted 09-15-2017 9:29 AM Porkncheese has replied

  
JonF
Member (Idle past 428 days)
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 9 of 88 (819930)
09-15-2017 9:22 AM
Reply to: Message 8 by Porkncheese
09-15-2017 9:17 AM


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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by Porkncheese, posted 09-15-2017 9:17 AM Porkncheese has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by Porkncheese, posted 09-15-2017 9:25 AM JonF has not replied

  
Porkncheese
Member (Idle past 529 days)
Posts: 198
From: Australia
Joined: 08-25-2017


Message 10 of 88 (819931)
09-15-2017 9:25 AM
Reply to: Message 9 by JonF
09-15-2017 9:22 AM


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by JonF, posted 09-15-2017 9:22 AM JonF has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by dwise1, posted 09-15-2017 10:28 AM Porkncheese has replied
 Message 15 by NosyNed, posted 09-15-2017 10:48 AM Porkncheese has not replied

  
Pressie
Member (Idle past 236 days)
Posts: 2103
From: Pretoria, SA
Joined: 06-18-2010


Message 11 of 88 (819932)
09-15-2017 9:29 AM
Reply to: Message 8 by Porkncheese
09-15-2017 9:17 AM


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by Porkncheese, posted 09-15-2017 9:17 AM Porkncheese has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by Porkncheese, posted 09-15-2017 10:56 AM Pressie has not replied

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 6077
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 7.3


(2)
Message 12 of 88 (819934)
09-15-2017 10:28 AM
Reply to: Message 10 by Porkncheese
09-15-2017 9:25 AM


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by Porkncheese, posted 09-15-2017 9:25 AM Porkncheese has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 20 by Porkncheese, posted 09-15-2017 11:24 AM dwise1 has replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 10304
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 7.3


(2)
Message 13 of 88 (819935)
09-15-2017 10:37 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Porkncheese
09-14-2017 11:38 PM


Porkncheese writes:
From these few bones
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?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Porkncheese, posted 09-14-2017 11:38 PM Porkncheese has not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 10304
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 7.3


Message 14 of 88 (819936)
09-15-2017 10:39 AM
Reply to: Message 5 by Porkncheese
09-15-2017 3:00 AM


Porkncheese writes:
Presumptuous indeed
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?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by Porkncheese, posted 09-15-2017 3:00 AM Porkncheese has not replied

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 9012
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


(1)
Message 15 of 88 (819937)
09-15-2017 10:48 AM
Reply to: Message 10 by Porkncheese
09-15-2017 9:25 AM


Aware?
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
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by Porkncheese, posted 09-15-2017 9:25 AM Porkncheese has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024