we cant claim that the entire skeleton is made from nonsense parts.
Why not? It was a jumble of mostly crushed bones in a mishmash, and the vast majority of anthropologists don't view the fossil skeleton as accurate to what the bones belonged to. Protoavis representations look like this
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-z6-BMZ76WEQ/VLyxgjbq6_I/AAAAAAAAAaI/q9af3x749Mc/s1600/protoavis-2.jpg, which is why I made the comment that the "beak" shape would likely be the result of the upper and lower jaw being smashed together (if that is even a skull). The vertebrae of the neck look anatomically wrong with their significant variations in thickness, especially with the thinner bones being towards the center of the neck when the vertebrae should be gradually larger or a relatively similar to each other as they go farther from the base of the skull. The "wing/arm" bones are positioned strangely in correspondence to the spine (should be positioned farther back) and the ones that are in the middle and end of the wing are weirdly short. I've taken anatomy and physiology courses, this fossil just doesn't look like the bones should go together this way, if they even all belong to the same animal.
we can clearly see that this fossils have a bird-like shape in general.
Sure, the bones are arranged to look like that. But with it being uncertain that those bones even all belong to the same species, I don't view that as very relevant.
so the question remains how all those parts can fit to form a bird-like creature. just a coincidence?
This atrocity is made of human fingernails
https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/originals/5b/95/9d/5b959db31125b0f171520f4e0a739342.jpg
This is made of bones
https://www.creativespotting.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/Untitled-back-2009.jpg
This is made from just chicken bones
https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/236x/89/3d/a4/893da45d343b0e7d504b9ed093302e2b.jpg
Also, the bones of that Protoavis weren't even that intact before being arranged like that, with fragments having to be glued together to even get that. Seriously, you can rearrange bones to look like a lot of things, it doesn't mean the bones belong in that position.
i dont think so. if so we can say that its just a coincidence that lucy bones fit to form a human-like ape.
Lucy's bones weren't found all crushed in a pile of bones from a multitude of species mixed around. Protoavis was the WORST CASE SCENARIO, this is not comparable to Lucy at all. Plus, what of the OTHER fossils of Lucy's species found? Unlike Protoavis, for which there is only one, there are more than a dozen different bodies for Lucy's species.
its a lots of bones. we cant exclude the possibility that this specific part belong to a human.
You are seriously saying "even though all the Protoavis fossils were in a jumbled pile of multiple species, that skeleton is definitely all from the same species, but those A. afarensis foot fossils found at a site in which there are only fossils of this species which do not match up to human proportions but indicate the presence of foot arches is quite possibly human". You think Protoavis being a real fossil would be an issue for evolution, so you defend it despite the fact that there are valid reasons to not view the fossil as legitimate. You think Lucy is a huge find for evolution, so you try to belittle it as much as possible, despite the fact that the crippling flaws of the Protoavis fossil don't even apply to Lucy's fossils or any others of her species.
You know what, here are two check lists for Protoavis and A. afarensis. The first lists traits that, if "YES", support the fossil being real and an accurate representation of the organism it is derived from. The second lists traits that, if "NO", support the fossil being real and an accurate representation of the organism it is derived from.
List 1:
Fossil bones were found in good condition: Protoavis "NO", A. afarensis "YES"
Fossil bones date consistently: Protoavis "YES", A. afarensis "YES"
Multiple fossils of this species have been discovered: Protoavis "NO", A. afarensis "Yes"
Multiple fossils of the same genus have been discovered: Protoavis "NO", A. afarensis "YES"
When analyzed by multiple, neutral professionals, the consensus is that all the bones belong to the same species: Protoavis "NO", A. afarensis "YES"
Protoavis 1, A. afarensis 5.
List 2 (points from this list count as negative):
Fossil bones were found among those of many different species: Protoavis "YES", A. afarensis "NO"
Fossil DNA cannot be extracted: Protoavis "YES", A. afarensis "YES".
So, the total after both short lists is Protoavis -1, A. afarensis 4. What objective means did you use to come by the conclusion that if I consider A. afarensis fossils to be put together correctly, then I should think that the Protoavis fossils were put together correctly? Because it seems plainly obvious to me that Protoavis is much less likely to represent a real organism than A. afarensis.
Furthermore, this isn't even the only species in the same genus as Lucy for which we have foot arches in fossils. A. sediba has a complete hand fossil from a single individual as well as foot bones with arches
http://www.sciencephoto.com/image/4...tralopithecus_sediba_fossil_skeletons-SPL.jpg . The foot arches aren't even the most important bones for depicting bipedal walking, the hips are, and we have way more hips than foot bones. These are not
again: we can push back the evolution of mammals. scientists pushing back creatures all the time:
Earlier origin for flowering plants
And did they push back flowering plants to coming before non-flowering plants? No. And of course the fossil record timeline is going to adjust a bit as more fossils are discovered and make the timeline more accurate. However, you'll NEVER find a mammal in the Cambrian. Why is that, please give a non-evolution explanation as to why not a single mammal is ever found from the Cambrian.
so in every fossil that we found scientists not only date the fossil but also the layers around them?
Especially when the species is considered relevant to human evolution specifically. However, it's not like every trilobite dug up is dated, since their fossils are excessively common. The rock layers are always dated. If there is sufficient reason to suspect that a fossil's age cannot be derived accurately this way, usually the fossil will be dated as well.
see above with the flower case. by the same logic : till this discovery you never find such a flower that is date about 100 my younger. now we have found such a flower so we can just push it back.
Yet, that's not older than the first non-flowering plants on land, now is it? That's certainly not older than the first plant life that lived in water. Where is the order of appearance compromised? Additionally, it was pollen fossils in your reference. It's entirely possible that this pollen came from the ANCESTORS of flowering plants that did not produce flowers themselves, yet had similar pollen. It took me all of a few seconds to think of that possible explanation.
remember this one?:
| Biology Letters
Yeah, and I expanded my reading on the matter. It's a fossil thought to have ended up in older sedimentary layers thanks to fissures being prominent in the region in which it was found, due to it being morphologically very similar to modern reptiles despite being extremely old and genetic studies suggesting a divergence between iguanas and other squamates being more recent than this singular fossil would suggest. Yeah, whenever there is ONLY 1 fossil to go by, and the circumstances around the fossil in question make dating or identification particularly questionable (such as being crushed in a pile of a bunch of fossils from many different species, or, in the case of this particular fossil, being found in an area filled with fissures for animals to fall into), it's reasonable to cast doubt on the accuracy of the dating... the doubts were later CONFIRMED through molecular testing on the fossil itself. This situation is not comparable to Lucy, it's not even comparable to Protoavis. Why are you bringing it up?
""Any acrodontan—let alone an advanced agamid—in the Triassic is thus highly unexpected in the light of recent studies."
Yup, the fossil didn't quite fit with the genetic comparisons of various modern lizards or the rest of the fossil record... and was found in a place full of fissures. And it is the only fossil like that. It's deviant, hence the reason for investigation in the first place, as well as performing molecular tests on the fossil itself.
"Tikiguania estesi is widely accepted to be the earliest member of Squamata, the reptile group that includes lizards and snakes. It is based on a lower jaw from the Late Triassic of India"
Hmm, perhaps in 2011, this "widely accepted" statement was true, but later molecular studies of the fossil indicated it was much younger than the rock it was found in.
"It is extremely unlikely that Tikiguania is an advanced agamid from the Triassic, and that the draconine jaw ‘morphotype’ has persisted largely unchanged for 216 Myr."
Something quite interesting: Tikiguania estesi age was considered wrong even by the person that discovered it, who actually correctly identified it as being much younger. Also, all the important sources I can find in regards to this fossil mention the Triassic age as either being unreliable, or wrong. So... your point?
"Tikiguania would have been evidence for an anomalously early (i.e. Triassic) age for what molecular studies suggest is a highly derived squamate clade (Acrodonta), implying that all major clades of squamates such as iguanians, anguimorphs, snakes, scincomorphs and gekkotans had diverged in the Triassic. However, none of these groups appear unequivocally in the fossil record until substantially later [5]. Indeed, some recent palaeontological and molecular studies of squamate divergence dates have not mentioned Tikiguania, presumably because of its problematic nature"
Yeah, and? When there were molecular studies performed on the fossil itself, it was found to actually be much younger than the rock around it... so case closed. You never need to bring this up again.