Australopithecines aren't "just" apes

[Mallon]

There's a great article here that documents the transitional nature of Australopithecus between humans and chimps, written in laymen's terms and well illustrated:

http://www.nabt.org/websites/instit...y_teacher/2010/February 2010/FebABTonline.pdf

So the next time you're told that australopithecines were "just" apes, make sure you refer to this article.

 

[praisejahupeople]

There's a great article here that documents the transitional nature of Australopithecus between humans and chimps, written in laymen's terms and well illustrated:

http://www.nabt.org/websites/instit...y_teacher/2010/February 2010/FebABTonline.pdf

So the next time you're told that australopithecines were "just" apes, make sure you refer to this article.

If lucy was alive today,would she be able to assimilate into human society or occupy a place in the zoo?

 

[Mallon]

If lucy was alive today,would she be able to assimilate into human society or occupy a place in the zoo?

I don't know. Given that she obscures the boundaries between humans and apes, I guess it would be a difficult decision to make. I'm not a fan of seeing apes in zoos anyways. They rarely look happy.

 

[Skaloop]

If lucy was alive today,would she be able to assimilate into human society

Absolutely not. She is very different than humans physically, she lacks our cognitive abilities (especially language), and she would have no knowledge of modern culture. So, while she could survive, it would be under the care of humans, not as an independent individual. It definitely would not be an "Encino Man" type of situation.

or occupy a place in the zoo?

Knowing people, she could very possibly end up in a zoo. But I agree with Mallon that that isn't where she should be. As for what should be done, that depends on her behaviour and other traits that we can't necessarily tell from her fossils. If she is violent and aggressive towards others, then taking care of her will be different than if she is docile and social. I would hope that she wouldn't be treated as a pet or a lab animal, but more like, say, the way a disabled child is taken care of by her parents. She can't live wholly independently, and it brings additional difficulties and challenges, but it's done to give her something as close to normal as we can.

Then again, Lucy would probably want absolutely nothing to do with us...

 

[Smidlee]

Lucy is so old news... so yesterday. They have a new fairytale now. World’s oldest human-linked skeleton found - Science- msnbc.com

I've read some comment a few years ago that "molecular clocks" seems to suggest apes came from a human-like ancestor more than man from a ape-like creature and the separation was farther back that paleontologist predicted. I figured then that with time paleontologist will slowly step in line with DNA evidence then say "see the fossils and DNA (molecular clocks) agree (after tons of fudging of course).

 

[Mallon]

Way to avoid the topic, Smidlee.

 

[crawfish]

Absolutely not. She is very different than humans physically, she lacks our cognitive abilities (especially language), and she would have no knowledge of modern culture. So, while she could survive, it would be under the care of humans, not as an independent individual. It definitely would not be an "Encino Man" type of situation.

Oh, I don't know about that...although I'm sure our modern ways would frighten and confuse her...

 

[Smidlee]

Lucy also has gorilla-like features. Gorilla-like anatomy on Australopithecus afarensis mandibles suggests Au. afarensis link to robust australopiths — PNAS

Mandibular ramus morphology on a recently discovered specimen of Australopithecus afarensis closely matches that of gorillas. ..... The presence of the morphology in both the latter and Au. afarensis and its absence in modern humans cast doubt on the role of Au. afarensis as a modern human ancestor.

 

[praisejahupeople]

Lucy also has gorilla-like features. Gorilla-like anatomy on Australopithecus afarensis mandibles suggests Au. afarensis link to robust australopiths — PNAS

Wow i was just refreshing myself on the topic by quickly looking at wiki,and it says that lucy resembles a chimp.Is only 3 feet high.Has a small skull.I dont see much of a skull when i look at the remains.I guess they cant make up their mind what particular type of animal it is?I guess to infer it has any sort of higher intelligence is really just guesswork and relies on the eye of the beholder.I especially have a bit of a chuckle when they find fossil remains of apes and arrange them in the museum to stand upright..

 

[troodon]

Wow i was just refreshing myself on the topic by quickly looking at wiki,and it says that lucy resembles a chimp.Is only 3 feet high.Has a small skull.I dont see much of a skull when i look at the remains.I guess they cant make up their mind what particular type of animal it is?I guess to infer it has any sort of higher intelligence is really just guesswork and relies on the eye of the beholder.I especially have a bit of a chuckle when they find fossil remains of apes and arrange them in the museum to stand upright..

They're talking just about the shape of the mandible, not the organism as a whole. Try to actually read stuff before using it as evidence for dismissing an entire field of science.

And, hey, do you notice something? You see how these scientists are looking at the evidence trying to refine their theory? Yeah, that's how science should work. They're doing their job! So much for scientists being mindless, atheist zombies living only to spread the lie of evolution by creating hoaxes and fudging their research.

 

[praisejahupeople]

Absolutely not. She is very different than humans physically,

Interesting.

she lacks our cognitive abilities (especially language),

Sounds to me you are describing something rather wild.

and she would have no knowledge of modern culture. So, while she could survive, it would be under the care of humans, not as an independent individual. It definitely would not be an "Encino Man" type of situation.

Much like a pet?

Knowing people, she could very possibly end up in a zoo. But I agree with Mallon that that isn't where she should be. As for what should be done, that depends on her behaviour and other traits that we can't necessarily tell from her fossils. If she is violent and aggressive towards others, then taking care of her will be different than if she is docile and social. I would hope that she wouldn't be treated as a pet or a lab animal,

Yes the zoo makes allowances for what particular type of animal they are dealing with.

but more like, say, the way a disabled child is taken care of by her parents.

Now you see what you did there?You described a wild animal then attributed it human intelligence.How do you know Lucy has 5% of the cognitive abilities of a disabled child?You dont know this at all.As you honestly said previously.

She can't live wholly independently, and it brings additional difficulties and challenges, but it's done to give her something as close to normal as we can.

Indeed,a clean cage with its artificial habitat as close as possible as to what it would encounter in its natural habitat would be good.A healthy diet with bananas as treats would make it happy..

Then again, Lucy would probably want absolutely nothing to do with us...

I think regular feeding with a bit of tenderness tends to break the ice with most animals.

 

[praisejahupeople]

They're talking just about the shape of the mandible, not the organism as a whole. Try to actually read stuff before using it as evidence for dismissing an entire field of science.

I havent dismissed this at all,hence my replies.Dismissing it would be not even reading this particular forum.Im merely attempting to discern whether Lucy is
.1.A chimpanzee.
.2.A larger form of primate
.3.Or in the case of common descent followers,a super chimp that has been mutated somehow and now has mental an physical abilities beyond what has been observed in chimps.Much like an x-chimp.

And, hey, do you notice something? You see how these scientists are looking at the evidence trying to refine their theory? Yeah, that's how science should work. They're doing their job!

Indeed.Science just observes empirical evidence and makes conclusions based on what they can see.Science really has no room for the imagination.Well not to the extent that i see when i read some things.Predictions are fine.

So much for scientists being mindless, atheist zombies living only to spread the lie of evolution by creating hoaxes and fudging their research.

If you want meaningful discourse,its probably wise not to attribute words that i didnt say,nor attribute characteristics that arent there.I said nothing about zombies,nor the mindless and this being a christian forum,atheism doesnt enter into the equation.Unless you are actually an atheist?Peace.

 

[Assyrian]

Indeed.Science just observes empirical evidence and makes conclusions based on what they can see.Science really has no room for the imagination.Well not to the extent that i see when i read some things.Predictions are fine.

I believe in intuition and inspiration. Imagination is more important than knowledge. For knowledge is limited, whereas imagination embraces the entire world, stimulating progress, giving birth to evolution. It is, strictly speaking, a real factor in scientific research.
Albert Einstein 1931​

 

[troodon]

If you want meaningful discourse,its probably wise not to attribute words that i didnt say,nor attribute characteristics that arent there.

That wasn't meant to be directed you, but at the sorts of Creationists who are under the impression that scientists are only looking for evidence confirming their theories and that they assume their theories are correct before first examining the evidence.

I apologize for not making that clear.

I said nothing about zombies,nor the mindless and this being a christian forum,atheism doesnt enter into the equation.

It does to some people on these forums. Oh, and again. The evil atheist conspiracy is alive and well in the heads of many visitors here.

Unless you are actually an atheist?

Speaking of things that don't cultivate meaningful discourse....

 

[Mallon]

Here's a question to stimulate the mind: Why does Lucy share so many features in common with humans if she's not related to them?

 

[crawfish]

Indeed.Science just observes empirical evidence and makes conclusions based on what they can see.Science really has no room for the imagination.Well not to the extent that i see when i read some things.Predictions are fine.

As mentioned before, Imagination is incredibly important to the scientific process. Without it, we are limited to the solutions that we already know about. This does not mean that scientists can just go willy-nilly and make stuff up; no, there is a process to determine if an imagined solution is viable. This is the process of falsification - any real scientist who comes up with an idea will perform experiments that attempt to show the idea is false. If this is done by a single scientist with success (that is, it isn't falsified), it becomes a hypothesis. If it is done by the community of scientists with success, then it becomes a theory.

 

[Chesterton]

Here's a question to stimulate the mind: Why does Lucy share so many features in common with humans if she's not related to them?

Define "related".

 

[Mallon]

Define "related".

Sharing common biological ancestry.

 

[Chesterton]

Sharing common biological ancestry.

Define "biological". (just kidding) (sort of )

I mean, humans share some features with everything there is in the universe, such as being made of atoms. The Pacific Ocean and I are related. If there's a religious distinction, whether humans are special, is all that matters.

 

[Mallon]

Define "biological". (just kidding) (sort of )

I mean, humans share some features with everything there is in the universe, such as being made of atoms. The Pacific Ocean and I are related. If there's a religious distinction, whether humans are special, is all that matters.

But the point is that humans and australopithecines look more like one another than either does to the ocean. And the question is why? If you don't deny the evidence for evolution, then I suppose the question is not for you. I'm directing it specifically at those who deny evolution.