Dont Be a Flea writes:
quote:
“Lucy” for example, who has no hands or feet bones but is claimed to walk upright. They have no proof of this, so why commission a museum to build a half man, half ape model for the world to ogle at when they have no proof only assumptions.
Ahem. Two problems.
First: What makes you think bipedalism is determined solely by the feet? You can determine bipedalism by looking at things like the knees and hips, both of which we have for Lucy. For example, the Lucy skeleton has a valgus, or "knock," knee. This means that when the legs are extended, the knees would bend in and touch.
This is not something you see in quadrupeds. Instead, it is found in bipeds. Thus, this is evidence that Australopithecus afarensis walked upright.
We also have an ankle joint. The morphology of the ankle is indicative of bipedal locomotion, not quadruped. The condyles on her femur are large, indicative of bipedal locomotion. Her sacroiliac joint is also large, indicative of bipedal locomotion. Her iliac alae are flared, indicative of bipedal locomotion. Her lumbar vertebrae are large and curved, indicative of bipedal locomotion. Apes usually have four lumbar vertebrae while humans have five. The fragments we have of Lucy indicate she had five or six.
However, she does have some signs of transitional morphology. In humans, the ratio of the humerus to the femur is 71.8. For chimpanzees, it is 97.8 (arms are longer compared to the legs). For Lucy, it is 84.6. Plus, her phalanges are more curved than a human, but flatter than arboreal apes.
Given all this information indicating bipedal locomotion, what is your basis for insisting it is "fraud" to so claim?
Second: What makes you think Lucy is the only A. afarensis skeleton we've found? Why don't you mention "Selam"? We have the entire skull and torso as well as a lot of the arms and legs, including a foot.
What about Site 333? There are 13 individuals to be found among the fossils. What about AL 129-1, a complete knee joint? What about the other specimens we have?
quote:
Why make displays and draw pictures of entire races of intermediaries that are merely fragmented incomplete fossils, for the laymen to misunderstand and just “believe” what they are told.
Because the "misunderstanding" is that you seem to think that the display of the entire dinosaur is being extrapolated from a single toe bone. That is not the case. Instead, we have a large number of fossil specimens, all of which point toward bipedal locomotion.
And to help clinch the deal:
We have footprints. The Laetoli footprints, made by A. afarensis, show a heavy heel-strike. The big toe is adducted and parallel to the rest of the toes. There is a significant arch. The weight transfer goes from laterally from the heel to the lateral metatarsal. There is a pronounced big-toe depression, indicating toe-off. All of which are signs of bipedal locomotion.
quote:
I think these are calculated moves, done deliberately to insure further funding for their studies.
So you're saying that the world community of anthropologists are engaged in a sophisticated scam?
Question: Just how much money do you think there is in anthropology?
Rrhain
Thank you for your submission to
Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.
™ Version 4.2
