Are there transitional fossils?

[Job 33:6]

@pshun2404

I think you have the tools to join the TE team. I think that if you put TE on the better side of the coin, and got off of the fence, you would find further information on the topic, much more sensible and rewarding. You would be able to understand things like the fossil succession in much deeper ways that could only be sensible from a TE standpoint.

Those who dont accept things like descent with modification really are in a tight position of either, having to outright deny the existence of scientific finds, or theyre backed into some sort of nihilistic or agnostic philosophy, that utilizes intellectual denial to keep themselves out of conflict. When pressed with difficult questions, those who deny succession of life are really just left with question marks, shrugging their shoulders and avoiding questions. But those who step off of the fence come to find many solutions and answers, which leads to a much deeper and more rich understanding of Gods creation.

 

[Astrophile]

Take that up with Xianghua, who says Eohippus is as close to a modern horse as a person without a pimple is to one with a pimple. It is this fishing for answers that seems so strange. Eohippus is obviously quite different from a modern horse, but it is part of a long chain of fossils that lead to modern horse, as has been discussed repeatedly on this thread. Creationists are desperate to deny that. So one claims the evolution from Eohippus to horse is so minor, it is like growing a pimple. The other creationist says the two are completely different with no possible relationship. Perhaps the answer is in the middle.

Where do you draw the line between horse family and not-horse-family? Is Dinohippus a horse ancestor or cousin? How about Pliohippus?

Can somebody answer a question for me? If, as I think we all agree, all life comes from life, i.e. every living thing has an unbroken line of ancestors extending indefinitely far back into the past, it follows that modern horses (genus Equus) had ancestors that lived at the same time as Eohippus, i.e. during the Eocene epoch. However, geologists don't find fossils of modern horses in Eocene rocks. If, then, there were no modern horses during the Eocene epoch, what were the Eocene ancestors of modern horses?

 

[Job 33:6]

Can somebody answer a question for me? If, as I think we all agree, all life comes from life, i.e. every living thing has an unbroken line of ancestors extending indefinitely far back into the past, it follows that modern horses (genus Equus) had ancestors that lived at the same time as Eohippus, i.e. during the Eocene epoch. However, geologists don't find fossils of modern horses in Eocene rocks. If, then, there were no modern horses during the Eocene epoch, what were the Eocene ancestors of modern horses?

and @pshun2404

Checkout the first video at 7:40 through 2:00 minutes into the second video. To the end Ken Miller actually speaks on this particular topic, its a pretty good piece.

 

[Herman Hedning]

You may in fact be right about the nasal bone but I do not think so, in fact in the fossil the split is too uniform, and the shapes of the two sides much too exact, but I realize that these types of fossils (like Tik) are badly crushed but that is part of the point. True objectivity does not make an assumption and then reconstruct to fit the pre-conceived model. And this is what happened here. And I do not think your determination about the legs is convincing (its a good way of explaining away what we actually can see but not definite).

And sorry but the image imprinting (artistic creations) used in schools (a typical propaganda technique) over the past century no longer has the same impact on me that they use to or that they may still for you.

I will stop beating a dead horse now, but I just can't let this go. "A good way of explaining away what we can actually see" - say what? Do you really, I mean REALLY, see something different from everybody else or do you just not want to admit that you were wrong? I'm not judging, and I will accept that you see the world differently. It just seems very strange to me. Do people in general look something like this to you? Just wondering ...

 

[pshun2404]

I will stop beating a dead horse now, but I just can't let this go. "A good way of explaining away what we can actually see" - say what? Do you really, I mean REALLY, see something different from everybody else or do you just not want to admit that you were wrong? I'm not judging, and I will accept that you see the world differently. It just seems very strange to me. Do people in general look something like this to you? Just wondering ...

No! I see what is really there, and then go by that.

 

[pshun2404]

I've asked the question about relatedness between mastodons and elephants 3 times now. Not sure why you wont respond.

And you didnt respond to my other question either. If you are aware that mutations can lead to morphological change, where do you draw the limit of how much morphological change mutations can cause?

I did answer your question twice...there are no limits on how much change they can create within a given type of organism. How many morphological changes would you predict are necessary to make a fish become an amphibian or an amphibian into a reptile? And please, no wise guy answers like "As many as it takes!" The following questions are just commentary....

Scales to skin, gills to lungs, fins to feet, a change in the nature of the the egg, and so on...and how many genetic changes (mutations) would it take to cause these changes? Do you know? If no one knows, then no one knows for sure this is what happened. They guess but do not know, and if they do not know,why teach over and over that this is indeed what happened?

 

[pshun2404]

That very last sentence shows it again. Give me evidence to support your claim that scientists who accept evolution (there is no such thing as an 'evolutionist', just like there is no such thing as a 'gravitationist') do not accept that Lucy has been demonstrated to be a definite human ancestor.
And no. Scientists who wrote texts from BEFORE Lucy was discovered do not count.

The problem here is that whoever I produce will be relegated by you to some category to exclude them from consideration as legitimate, or you will impose some further requirements of me until finally, in the end, the only people or arguments accepted are those by scientists of YOUR approval, in works YOU will decide are the only ones that count, and within a time frame you will deem as acceptable.And why make "who wrote texts" a requirement? See how you are creating a box (which in my experience always shrinks).

In Propaganda we call it “Stacking the Deck”...only people with your view, only in Journals and works that support your view, and only within time you determine (though in other matters you will violate your own time rule and call it legitimate support). You see I have been down this road many many times.

But for the hell of it here are a bunch: Dr. Stanley Salthe, Professor Emeritus, Brooklyn College of the City University Ph.D. in Zoology from Columbia; Dr Phillip Skell, Chemist (who believes in evolution), Pugh Professor at Pennsylvania State University; Alexis Carrell , a Nobel Laureate in Medicine and Physiology; Biologist/Geneticist Dr. Richard Sternberg; John Eccles, another Nobel Laureate in Medicine and Physiology; Dr. Joseph Murray; Ernst Chain; and physiologist Dr. Ronald Ross; Lyle H. Jensen Professor Emeritus, Dept. of Biological Structure & Dept. of Biochemistry University of Washington, Fellow AAAS ; Lev Beloussov Prof. of Embryology, Honorary Prof., Moscow State University Member, Russian Academy of Natural Sciences; Alan Linton Emeritus Professor of Bacteriology University of Bristol (UK); Giuseppe Sermonti, Professor of Genetics, University of Perugia (Italy); Mae-Wan Ho Ph.D. Biochemistry The University of Hong Kong ; Annika Parantainen Ph.D. Biology University of Turku (Finland)...and more...they do not accept LUCA as a fact, but most believe in the possibility of it.

Are they a minority opinion? Yes without a doubt, and I will not give endless articles from Journals or books and you are free to not believe me. I do not care if you do or not. Trying to be civil is apparently an erroneous endeavor.

And in What Makes Biology Unique? (p. 198, Cambridge University Press, 2004), when Ernst Mayr admits that “The earliest fossils of Homo… are separated from Australopithecus by a large, unbridged gap” we can see that in fact we are still searching for transitionals between this alleged transitional and the genus homo (Sediba was one contestant).

As for Lucy, aside from the sacrum and two small fragments of ilia it is presumed she was bipedal and that’s fine, but as for the knee that allegedly seals the semi human deal it was discovered first (a year earlier) in an entirely different location (1.5 miles away and 200 feet down) but is added into the reconstructions as if they were the same creature (an unknowable hypothesis driven assumption)...and yet no one denies the knee is just like a human knee.

Australopithecines are no longer considered transitional to humans but possess a branch of the primate evolutionary tree separate from humans. The story Smithsonian attaches is that we share a common ancestor (the ancestor of the gaps argument). In fact their tree shows this nicely. But you know the tree trick...everyone has one (even though so many disagree).

 

[pshun2404]

And...? No snobby comeback? No attempt to even try and show me that I'm wrong?

See again the pseudo ad hominem "Snobby comeback" up until your last insult we were actually exchanging ideas based on our own unique way if interpreting the data...but now this is where you are.

But who knows,after all I am megacognitively disabled and inept. Clearly of low-ability with an illusion of superiority, therefore logical reasoning and a different perspective are not allowed.

I'm sorry, was the truth too snobby?

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

The problem here is that whoever I produce will be relegated by you to some category to exclude them from consideration as legitimate, or you will impose some further requirements of me until finally, in the end, the only people or arguments accepted are those by scientists of YOUR approval, in works YOU will decide are the only ones that count, and within a time frame you will deem as acceptable.And why make "who wrote texts" a requirement? See how you are creating a box (which in my experience always shrinks).

In Propaganda we call it “Stacking the Deck”...only people with your view, only in Journals and works that support your view, and only within time you determine (though in other matters you will violate your own time rule and call it legitimate support). You see I have been down this road many many times.

But for the hell of it here are a bunch: Dr. Stanley Salthe, Professor Emeritus, Brooklyn College of the City University Ph.D. in Zoology from Columbia; Dr Phillip Skell, Chemist (who believes in evolution), Pugh Professor at Pennsylvania State University; Alexis Carrell , a Nobel Laureate in Medicine and Physiology; Biologist/Geneticist Dr. Richard Sternberg; John Eccles, another Nobel Laureate in Medicine and Physiology; Dr. Joseph Murray; Ernst Chain; and physiologist Dr. Ronald Ross; Lyle H. Jensen Professor Emeritus, Dept. of Biological Structure & Dept. of Biochemistry University of Washington, Fellow AAAS ; Lev Beloussov Prof. of Embryology, Honorary Prof., Moscow State University Member, Russian Academy of Natural Sciences; Alan Linton Emeritus Professor of Bacteriology University of Bristol (UK); Giuseppe Sermonti, Professor of Genetics, University of Perugia (Italy); Mae-Wan Ho Ph.D. Biochemistry The University of Hong Kong ; Annika Parantainen Ph.D. Biology University of Turku (Finland)...and more...they do not accept LUCA as a fact, but most believe in the possibility of it.

Are they a minority opinion? Yes without a doubt, and I will not give endless articles from Journals or books and you are free to not believe me. I do not care if you do or not. Trying to be civil is apparently an erroneous endeavor.

And in What Makes Biology Unique? (p. 198, Cambridge University Press, 2004), when Ernst Mayr admits that “The earliest fossils of Homo… are separated from Australopithecus by a large, unbridged gap” we can see that in fact we are still searching for transitionals between this alleged transitional and the genus homo (Sediba was one contestant).

As for Lucy, aside from the sacrum and two small fragments of ilia it is presumed she was bipedal and that’s fine, but as for the knee that allegedly seals the semi human deal it was discovered first (a year earlier) in an entirely different location (1.5 miles away and 200 feet down) but is added into the reconstructions as if they were the same creature (an unknowable hypothesis driven assumption)...and yet no one denies the knee is just like a human knee.

Australopithecines are no longer considered transitional to humans but possess a branch of the primate evolutionary tree separate from humans. The story Smithsonian attaches is that we share a common ancestor (the ancestor of the gaps argument). In fact their tree shows this nicely. But you know the tree trick...everyone has one (even though so many disagree).

So you have nothing then. All you have given me is names but no evidence of what they say and also quote-mines, which is obvious since you just basically cut a sentence directly down the middle.
That's not an honest debate tactic. And neither is calling any response that does not agree with your own views 'propaganda'.
Also, you do know that we have more fossils of the Australopithecus than just four fossil fragments, right?

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

See again the pseudo ad hominem "Snobby comeback" up until your last insult we were actually exchanging ideas based on our own unique way if interpreting the data...but now this is where you are.

But who knows,after all I am megacognitively disabled and inept. Clearly of low-ability with an illusion of superiority, therefore logical reasoning and a different perspective are not allowed.

I'm sorry, was the truth too snobby?

You REALLY need to learn what an ad hominem is. Saying that you have used snobby insults in the past is not an ad hominem because it's not defaming your character.
And your entire response to my post was you acting snobbishly.

 

[PsychoSarah]

Ever notice this is the only area of science where its proponents find it necessary to create court cases and even spend millions in political lobbies to exclude any other view but their own? The ONLY area of science that makes its existence political?

That's not true; heliocentrism was equally as political, just farther in the past than evolution. Furthermore, the reason evolution ended up being a court issue is because religious people didn't want it being taught in schools, so there were two choices: leave generations of students without the knowledge of one of the biggest theories in biology, or take it to court.

Also, did you forget that teaching "intelligent design" in schools was also taken to court? Are you seriously acting as if creationism has never made itself "political"?

The ONLY one forever producing doubters, and legally and academically trying to silence those who question it?

So you say on a forum dedicated to creationism and evolution debates. No one is being silenced.

The ONLY area filled with many many examples of intentional fraud that uses professional propaganda techniques in educating students?

1. I know you have expressed misinformation about supposed "frauds" concerning fossils. Additionally, the actual confirmed frauds never made it very far and resulted in those that perpetuated the frauds getting booted out of the scientific community.

2. What propaganda? Seriously, what propaganda? There are too many people ignorant about evolution for it to be shoved down their throats. It was even OPTIONAL to learn about it in my school district.

3. You seriously think frauds have never been an issue in any other field of science? What of Jan Hendrik Schön , a man of physics, that forged results? Yoshitaka Fujii holds what could be considered the world record for papers that had to be retracted thanks to their misconduct, with a total of 172. Their specialty is anesthesiology. What of Andrew Wakefield , the guy that wrote the fraudulent paper that made so many people believe vaccines cause autism, causing the deaths of numerous children to preventable diseases and endangering entire communities?

The ONLY area that affects politics and the way people are treated?

How? Seriously, how has it affected how people are treated? The most recent negative social development I can think of that can even be loosely associated with evolution is eugenics (which demands a degree of misunderstanding evolution). That hasn't been prominent since World War 2.

The ONLY area with applied racist and sexist roots?

Actually, you are confusing evolution with taxonomy, in that regard. Taxonomy was what was cataloging different races of humans as different subspecies. Furthermore, ever read the bible, which blatantly says women are lesser to men, and divides people into superior and inferior races, and condones slavery?

The ONLY area where assumption often precedes conclusion, and hypothesis sometimes shapes interpretation of the data (instead of the other way around)?

I suppose you have never read an article coming from the soft sciences, such as sociology. Some of those articles are so blatantly flawed they aren't worth the bytes of data they take up.

The ONLY area whose adherents sling muckracking, blanket dismissal, and character assassination against dissenters to secure their influence?

Nah, fools are dismissed across the board. I mean, when you get claims of a fossil rabbit being discovered, but the person making the claim won't allow the fossil to be examined by other scientists, there is naught that can be done but dismissing that claim. After all, the person won't let you confirm their claim.

Please understand, to question things in this area is not to be anti-Science as some accuse (science is so much more than this tiny area), it's to insist they stop pushing the story they attach as established fact over and over to new generations of students.

-_- no one thinks asking questions is unscientific. However, inquiries born of ignorance aren't worth our time.

 

[pshun2404]

That's not true; heliocentrism was equally as political, just farther in the past than evolution. Furthermore, the reason evolution ended up being a court issue is because religious people didn't want it being taught in schools, so there were two choices: leave generations of students without the knowledge of one of the biggest theories in biology, or take it to court.

Also, did you forget that teaching "intelligent design" in schools was also taken to court? Are you seriously acting as if creationism has never made itself "political"?

So you say on a forum dedicated to creationism and evolution debates. No one is being silenced.

1. I know you have expressed misinformation about supposed "frauds" concerning fossils. Additionally, the actual confirmed frauds never made it very far and resulted in those that perpetuated the frauds getting booted out of the scientific community.

2. What propaganda? Seriously, what propaganda? There are too many people ignorant about evolution for it to be shoved down their throats. It was even OPTIONAL to learn about it in my school district.

3. You seriously think frauds have never been an issue in any other field of science? What of Jan Hendrik Schön , a man of physics, that forged results? Yoshitaka Fujii holds what could be considered the world record for papers that had to be retracted thanks to their misconduct, with a total of 172. Their specialty is anesthesiology. What of Andrew Wakefield , the guy that wrote the fraudulent paper that made so many people believe vaccines cause autism, causing the deaths of numerous children to preventable diseases and endangering entire communities?

How? Seriously, how has it affected how people are treated? The most recent negative social development I can think of that can even be loosely associated with evolution is eugenics (which demands a degree of misunderstanding evolution). That hasn't been prominent since World War 2.

Actually, you are confusing evolution with taxonomy, in that regard. Taxonomy was what was cataloging different races of humans as different subspecies. Furthermore, ever read the bible, which blatantly says women are lesser to men, and divides people into superior and inferior races, and condones slavery?

I suppose you have never read an article coming from the soft sciences, such as sociology. Some of those articles are so blatantly flawed they aren't worth the bytes of data they take up.

Nah, fools are dismissed across the board. I mean, when you get claims of a fossil rabbit being discovered, but the person making the claim won't allow the fossil to be examined by other scientists, there is naught that can be done but dismissing that claim. After all, the person won't let you confirm their claim.

-_- no one thinks asking questions is unscientific. However, inquiries born of ignorance aren't worth our time.

Heliocentrism was equally incorrect and eventually replaced the Ptolemaic system and yes a bit of fraud has occurred in all areas (but no where compared to this idea since the very beginning) and I am proud to admit (and did) that it is scientists themselves that finally debunk them.

But selective exclusion, pouring new meaning into commonly understood terms, the use of image imprinting, and more, are clearly indicative of a propaganda campaign (the researchers themselves are not to blame).

The racist and sexist roots are undeniable.

Long before Evolution was proven true it was to be treated as if it were in academic circles.

There is far too much that relies on interpreting the data according to the theory (and I have shown some of these instances here and elsewhere)

"Seriously, how has it affected how people are treated?"

Remember Ota Benga (Anthropologists) and Adolph Hitler and Margaret Sanger (Eugenics) for starters...the textbook defended by Clarence Darrow (a racist rag)...? Again yes it was defeated by scientists as well (and I commend them) but only after generations had been brainwashed, the effects of which lingered for decades. Today if you dissent from the mantra you can fail your courses, be discredited in your field, lose your position in institutes of higher learning, groups and ethnicities are deemed more or less primitive, more or less evolved, and more.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Remember Ota Benga (Anthropologists) and Adolph Hitler and Margaret Sanger (Eugenics) for starters...the textbook defended by Clarence Darrow (a racist rag)...? Again yes it was defeated by scientists as well (and I commend them) but only after generations had been brainwashed, the effects of which lingered for decades.

Really? We're going to Godwin this thread with you bringing up Adolf Hitler to talk about evolution? REALLY?!

 

[xianghua]

What part of "Cars do not have babies" do you not understand?

so what if we will find a car that can produce other cars?(lets say that this car even have DNA). in this case you will conclude design or a natural process? if you will conclue design then we can conclude the same for nature because nature isnt less complex and have in this case the same traits. if you will not conclude dessign then you will need a great proof that car can evolve naturally.

So after all this argument that the proteins for the flagellum could not all develop at once, you now say they all could develop at once, in fact thousands of protiens could develop at once?

again: only by a designer. this is the whole design argument. a designer can build a complex system by seconds. something that nature cant do.

I still see no need that they all had to develop all at once. I think they developed gradually.

but again: one part each step will not work. try it by yourself: can you as intelligent designer make something like a video camera when every step is functional by itself?

You have seen what other Creationists have posted here. They say the jump from Eohippus to horse is so great, it could not possibly happen at all. But you say it is so trivial, it should not even be called evolution. So which way is it? Ridiculously trivial, or totally impossible?

we dont know because we dont have all the d ata we need to conclude this. but again: i gave you a clear example like the tetrapod transition. and i have showed that in this case we cant conclude any evolution. so the same can be said here even with the horse case. even if they are indeed different kinds it will not be evidence for evolution because the order of their fossils.

Ah, you are just going to post the same list over and over. Please show me one of those articles that proves the flagellum could not have evolved. You have not even attempted to do that.

here is one from the list:

Michael Behe, “Irreducible Complexity: Obstacle to Darwinian Evolution,” p
p. 352-370,in William A. Dembski and Michael Ruse, eds.,
Debating Design: From Darwin to DNA (Cambridge, United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press, 2004)

Huh? I have told you over and over that the fossil record is strong evidence for evolution. Why do you try to pretend I am saying otherwise?

have you forgot the cars example?:

ferrari evolution‏ - חיפוש ב-Google

The fossil record shows horses changed with time. Do you think the horse fossil series is evidence of change in the horse family over time?

the same can be said for those cars. but it doesnt prove any evolution.

Do you think that this change came about by incremental changes in DNA in the animals involved?

Again, cars do not have babies. Hence, they cannot evolve.

why not? changes can happen even in a regular car that cant reproduce.

Because fish reproduce with changes. Cars do not have babies.

it doesnt matter because we are talking here about complex system that need to evolve. both self replicating car and a regular one add small changes over time. so by this evolutionery logic they both can evolve over time into something else.

 

[xianghua]

For Lucy specifically, a couple of the finger bones, which are the two short bones you see at the far right, midway up this image https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/31/Lucy_blackbg.jpg .

how do we know that its not a human hand?

In 2011, additional fossils of the foot were discovered, which indicated that this species had foot arches like we do.

again the same question: how do we know that its not a human part that claim to be an ape one?

What evolved from what has never been the point transitional species. They are MARKERS for evolutionary events, such as when bipedal apes began to appear or when lungs show up in the fossil record.

this isnt my point. my point is that any order of fossils cant be evidence for evolution. so fossils mean nothing actually.

another problem is this one:

The place of the australopithecines in human evolution: grounds for doubt?

 

[Jimmy D]

so what if we will find a car that can produce other cars?(lets say that this car even have DNA). in this case you will conclude design or a natural process? if you will conclue design then we can conclude the same for nature because nature isnt less complex and have in this case the same traits. if you will not conclude dessign then you will need a great proof that car can evolve naturally.

I would conclude that you have no evidence for ID and so are having to resort to ever more ridiculous analogies.

 

[Jimmy D]

how do we know that its not a human hand?

We examine it, compare it to other hands (apes, humans, ancient hominids etc) and conclude it is not a human hand.

again the same question: how do we know that its not a human part that claim to be an ape one?

We examine it, compare it to other feet (apes, humans, ancient hominids etc) and conclude it is not a human foot.

my point is that any order of fossils cant be evidence for evolution. so fossils mean nothing actually.

Why are they ordered as they are then? .....

Evolution of the horse - Wikipedia

During the Eocene, an Eohippus species (most likely Eohippus angustidens) branched out into various new types of Equidae. Thousands of complete, fossilized skeletons of these animals have been found in the Eocene layers of North American strata.

In the early-to-middle Eocene, Eohippus smoothly transitioned into Orohippus through a gradual series of changes

In response to the changing environment, the then-living species of Equidae also began to change. In the late Eocene, they began developing tougher teeth and becoming slightly larger and leggier, allowing for faster running speeds in open areas, and thus for evading predators in nonwooded areas

In the early Oligocene, Mesohippus was one of the more widespread mammals in North America. It walked on three toes on each of its front and hind feet (the first and fifth toes remained, but were small and not used in walking). The third toe was stronger than the outer ones, and thus more weighted; the fourth front toe was diminished to a vestigial nub.

Mesohippus was slightly larger than Epihippus, about 610 mm (24 in) at the shoulder. Its back was less arched, and its face, snout, and neck were somewhat longer. It had significantly larger cerebral hemispheres, and had a small, shallow depression on its skull called a fossa, which in modern horses is quite detailed.


Miohippus was significantly larger than its predecessors, and its ankle joints had subtly changed. Its facial fossa was larger and deeper, and it also began to show a variable extra crest in its upper cheek teeth, a trait that became a characteristic feature of equine teeth.


Etc, etc until we find the modern horse fossils which date back about 3.5 million years.

Is it just a coincidence that we have thousands of fossils deposited in chronolgical order changing from least like the modern horse to most like the modern horse? If we looked at it through your ID lens we could only conclude that they each one was a failed attempt at creating a modern horse, with each design slightly improving on the last until it was perfected 3 million years ago. Sounds like your 'designer' isn't too competent.

 

[Astrophile]

The fossil record shows horses changed with time. Do you think the horse fossil series is evidence of change in the horse family over time?

the same can be said for those cars. but it doesnt prove any evolution.

Do you think that this change came about by incremental changes in DNA in the animals involved?

Do you think that each generation in the series from Eohippus to Equus was produced in a factory like cars?

 

[Astrophile]

Heliocentrism was equally incorrect

Are you a geocentricist? What do you mean by saying that heliocentrism is incorrect, and what evidence do you have for this statement?

 

[PsychoSarah]

how do we know that its not a human hand?

The fingers are much longer than in our species, and have a bit more curve to them. This illustration demonstrates it better than I could verbally http://www.grossmont.edu/people/bon...ges/images/EarlyHumanEv/AustraloHumanComp.jpg

Unfortunately, I can't find an image that directly compares the hands of our species with that of Lucy side by side.

again the same question: how do we know that its not a human part that claim to be an ape one?

It's a matter of proportions, and their foot arches aren't as prominent http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/pelvis.jpg

-_- I have to wonder, though, why you think a random human body part would end up fossilized along with these obvious non-human bones in a position suggesting that they belong to the same body. Don't get me wrong, scavengers will often move bones around such that the head of a fossil body can end up a few meters away from the rest of the body, but those don't end up in anatomically correct positions.

this isnt my point. my point is that any order of fossils cant be evidence for evolution. so fossils mean nothing actually.

Incorrect. 1 mammal fossil that's 3.5 billion years old and evolution is DONE. The entire significance of the fossil record is how consistently we find fossil species in order. You can find a fish fossil among mammal fossils, but you will NEVER find a mammal fossil older than the oldest fish fossils.

another problem is this one:

The place of the australopithecines in human evolution: grounds for doubt?

Your article is 1975. It's just too out of date. I mean, this is from more than 20 years prior to the discovery of the fossil foot that made it clear that the primary means of locomotion for Lucy's species was walking on two legs. I find it especially strange that you would even use an article that has no mention of Lucy's species (Australopithecus afarensis). Did you misread Australopithecus africanus, which is in the article? Not that a paragraph makes much of an article.