juvenissun
... and God saw that it was good.
- Apr 5, 2007
- 25,446
- 803
- 71
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Baptist
- Marital Status
- Married
Upvote
0
Lucy is a transitional form
- Thread starter philadiddle
- Start date
I'd like to point out that with the responses so far nobody has argued any of the specific points that I made. Just a quote mine from NG, and that's it. Are your creationist sources failing you guys on this one?
Upvote
0
You fell into their sandpit the moment you took a creationist definition of transitional, thereby allowing AoS to point to an ancestral creature that does not fit the description.
I am not allowed to define Christianity, because I have been an atheist for over 20 years and have no real understanding of the Christian condition.
Seems reasonable to me, but then why should they get to define science? The correct definition of "transitional form" is anything and everything that has ever been alive ever.
Upvote
0
If the definition is that loose then they have a valid reason to complain about semantics. I was looking at their definition to see what specific elements we would find. I pointed out that those elements exist in Lucy.
I don't necessarily that that a very strict definition is the right definition, but if you define it so loosely that it includes every fossil that we find, not matter what the fossil is, then how could you ever falsify the existence of transitional fossils?
Upvote
0
Agonaces of Susa
Evolution is not science: legalize creationism.
- Nov 18, 2009
- 3,605
- 50
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Single
- Politics
- US-Constitution
So Australopethicus afarensis is the Missing Link™ between a mythological chimera we have no fossil evidence of and a human. We got it.
Upvote
0
The idea is that even using their scientific methods, evolution can still be shown.
Show them that their own rules still demand the conclusion they fight against.
Upvote
0
No.
The predecessor to Australopithecus afarensis was Australopithecus anamensis and was followed by two species - Australopithecus bahrelgharazai and Australopithecus africanus.
Upvote
0
Agonaces of Susa
Evolution is not science: legalize creationism.
- Nov 18, 2009
- 3,605
- 50
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Single
- Politics
- US-Constitution
"O king, when I had said these words, Indra with a smile said unto me 'Nothing is there in the three worlds that is not in thy power (to achieve). My enemies, those Danavas [extraterrestrial demons], named, Nivata-Kavachas [aquatic extraterrestrials] dwell in the womb of the ocean. And they number thirty million and are notorious, and all of equal forms and strength and splendour. Do thou slay them there, O Kunti's son; and that will be thy preceptor's fee.'" -- Arjuna, Mahabharata, Book III: Vana Parva, Section CLXVII, 8th century B.C.Yup, we even have evidence.
"In the first year there appeared, from that part of the Erythræan sea which borders upon Babylonia, an animal destitute of reason, by name Oannes, whose whole body (according to the account of Apollodorus) was that of a fish; that under the fish's head he had another head, with feet also below, similar to those of a man, subjoined to the fish's tail. His voice too, and language, was articulate and human; and a representation of him is preserved even to this day. This Being was accustomed to pass the day among men; but took no food at that season; and he gave them an insight into letters and sciences, and arts of every kind. He taught them to construct cities, to found temples, to compile laws, and explained to them the principles of geometrical knowledge. He made them distinguish the seeds of the earth, and shewed them how to collect the fruits; in short, he instructed them in every thing which could tend to soften manners and humanize their lives. From that time, nothing material has been added by way of improvement to his instructions. And when the sun had set, this Being Oannes, retired again into the sea, and passed the night in the deep; for he was amphibious." -- Lucius C. Alexander Polyhistor, historian, 1st century B.C.
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
Agonaces of Susa
Evolution is not science: legalize creationism.
- Nov 18, 2009
- 3,605
- 50
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Single
- Politics
- US-Constitution
No.
The predecessor to Australopithecus afarensis was Australopithecus anamensis and was followed by two species - Australopithecus bahrelgharazai and Australopithecus africanus.
One of these things is not like the other.
Upvote
0
No, actually they're both correct. The species I named are the species that came immediately before and after Australopithecus afarensis. Humans and chimps are further down the track in each direction. Therefore Australopithecus afarensis is an intermediate for all of them.
Chimp / Human Common Ancestor --> other species --> Australopithecus anamensis --> Australopithecus afarensis --> Australopithecus africanus & bahrelgharazai --> Other species --> Homo sapiens
Last edited:
Upvote
0
Naraoia
Apprentice Biologist
Of course not. Might be worth exposing him for the sake of the lurkers, though. (Not to mention it's entertaining, and not too much of an effort when he only posts one or two quotes.)
Even better when he repeats the exact same mined quote in reply. Agon, care to address the quote I posted? It explains yours very nicely, I'd think.
It seems you only read it to the end of that paragraph. Read on, find the quote I posted, and ponder its meaning carefully.
I don't think it's a missing link, seeing as she's not exactly "missing".No wonder you think Australopithecus afarensis is the missing link between chimpanzees and modern humans...
What's wrong with regarding her as a transitional form, anyway? I think you still have a fairly substantial OP to address
I think that "&" wants to be an "or".
I'd be very careful to put arrows between any two hominins anyway. The rate at which new species pop up...
Upvote
0
To anyone who's responded with one liners to try to brush off the OP, please explain to me what your explanation for the Lucy skeleton is (and the other skeletons of the same species).
Why does it share so many characteristics of both chimps and humans?
Why do we find it in the particular layer of strata that it's in?
How is your explanation useful, meaning what kind of predictions can we make in paleontology, anthropology or genetics.?
Why does it share so many characteristics of both chimps and humans?
Why do we find it in the particular layer of strata that it's in?
How is your explanation useful, meaning what kind of predictions can we make in paleontology, anthropology or genetics.?
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
The OP took quite some time for me to make. I read the articles and put together my argument in my own words based on the evidence. Your post probably took you about 30 seconds to put together and now you may expect me to actually take a long time going through them point by point. That's not a fair way to debate things. I will happily respond to any points that you take the time to make in your own words, with those links as references.
Upvote
0
hamashiachagape
Newbie
I posted the following on another forum but it was dominated by creationists who posted nonsense in response. I'm reposting it here in hopes of getting some use out of it since it took me some time to make. There was one reasonable objection that was raised in the other forum and I'll add that onto the end. Unfortunatley I used the word "believe" in the first sentence which was an excuse for some to ignore the evidence. I found it quite ironic that someone supporting a religious view over science would be so picky about someone using the word "believe". Here it is as I posted it in a different forum:
I believe that Lucy is a transitional form, and in this post I’m am going to try to objectively back that up (which will make it a conclusion, not just a belief).
Sorry for belaboring the need to define what “transitional fossil” means, but I feel that it’s necessary to define or else my entire post could be disregarded because you think of “transitional fossil” in a different way than I do.
I’ll use a definition from a creationist website to try to avoid bias issues:
What is a transitional fossil? “A transitional fossil is one that looks like it’s from an organism intermediate between two lineages, meaning it has some characteristics of lineage A, some characteristics of lineage B, and probably some characteristics part way between the two. Transitional fossils can occur between groups of any taxonomic level, such as between species, between orders, etc. Ideally, the transitional fossil should be found stratigraphically between the first occurrence of the ancestral lineage and the first occurrence of the descendent lineage...” Source
To add to this, a transitional form does not have to be proven to be the single crown species that both lineages evolved from. We can never conclusively prove that. What a transitional fossil will show is that a species did once exist that shows characteristics of both of the currently existing species. Because of allopatric speciation, an overlap is possible.
The Lucy fossil has 14 morphological characteristics that are similar to chimpanzees, and 22 that are similar to humans. The following is a list of these features.
Features similar to a chimpanzee skeleton:
-Shape of mandible
-Protruding chin
-Lateral facet for canine on first lower premolar
-Size of first lower premolar
-Transverse processes of 10th through 12th thoracic vertebrae
-Medial margin of capitate (the carpal bone at the base of finger III)
-Arching of metacarpals and manual phalanges
-Orientation of acetabulum
-Diameter of femoral head
-Orientation of greater trochanter
-Lateral malleolus of fibula in lateral view
-Distal process of talus (tarsal bone that supports the tibia)
-Arching of metatarsals and of pedal phalanges other than distal phalanx
-Shape of proximal margin of proximal phalanx of toes I–III in lateral view
Features similar to a human skeleton:
-Simian shelf of mandible
-Slope of mandibular symphysis in lateral view
-Orientation of left and right postcanine tooth rows
-Incisor size
-Diastema (toothless space) between lower canine and first lower premolar
-Size of first lower premolar
-Spinous process of 4th through 10th thoracic vertebrae
-Displacement of postzygapophyses beyond caudal margin of centrum on 11th and 12th thoracic vertebrae
-Spinous process of 2nd and 3rd lumbar vertebrae
-Transverse width of centrum of 2nd through 5th lumbar vertebrae
-Number of fused vertebrae in sacrum
-Maximum transverse (side-to-side) width of sacrum (not counting 6th sacral vertebra of chimp)
-Lateral supracondylar ridge of humerus
-Lateral epicondyle of humerus
-Shafts of radius and ulna
-Proximal extension of olecranon process of ulna
-Dimensions of ilium beyond acetabulum (hip socket)
-Shape of greater sciatic notch
-Height of tip of greater trochanter
-Middle part of distal margin of tibia in posterior view
-Transverse width of medial malleolus of tibia
-Medial process of talus medial and plantar to tibial facet
Source
The evidence here is observed to be intermediate. The morphological features are factually divided between chimps and humans. This is not an assumption, it’s an observation. It also fits into the expected curve that we would expect to see if the cranium size of hominids was increasing.
The fossil does show evidence of being a basal form of both modern humans and chimpanzees from its morphology. Also, with the fossils found before and after it, it fits where it would be expected to fit if evolution occurred. It appears to fit after the original common ancestor of chimps and humans as it started to become more human-like. Again, this is not an assumption, but a conclusion based on the morphology of the bones.
This does not prove evolution, because as I’m sure it’s been explained a thousand times on this board, proof is something for mathematics, not science. However, the evolution of all apes from a common ancestor is the best explanation for what we observe. This allows us to make predictions about what other species we will find and where we find them (in Africa). It also allows us to make predictions about what we will find genetically, but we can save genetics for another thread.
Science always seeks the best explanation. If I am wrong about evolution being the best explanation for what we are observing here, then you need to not only explain how the evidence does not support evolution, but you also need to give a better explanation that takes into account all of the facts. Multiple features indicate that it walked more like humans, so if you think it’s a chimp you will need to explain that. Other features are clearly more chimp-like, like its jaw, so if you think it’s human you will have to explain that.
I’ve seen a certain video about Lucy posted on this forum several times and I expect it to be one of the first responses to this post so I’ll post it here and respond to it right away.
YouTube - Why do people laugh at Evolutionists?
The main points of this clip that I get out of it are the following:
1) The two bones were fit together so well, that they’re in an anatomically impossible position. This was laughed at.
2) Lovejoy decided he could restore the pelvis to its natural shape. This too was laughed at.
3) The speaker says he’s removing whole parts, not just cutting.
4) Then they laughed at the way the pieces fit together.
There are other more general points made in the video but I’ll stick to the points about Lucy. So, here is my response to each of those points with a link to a pelvic anatomy diagram so that you can visualize what I’m describing:
http://radiology.usc.edu/Presentations/Sad...ANAT_FINAL2.HTM
1) The two bones that fit together too well (the sacral promontory and the iliac fossa) were deemed to be anatomically impossible because they were missing the sacroiliac joint. Instead of just laughing at the video, he should have studied pelvic anatomy to see why that claim was made. I am open to hear how the original bone was actually anatomically correct if anyone is willing to look objectively at the evidence with me.
2) The part of the fossil that was deformed was the blade along the iliac fossa right by where the sacroiliac joint should be. This is consistent with the idea that the sacral was pushed into the iliac causing the damage to occur. The damaged piece was at a 90 degree angle and was obviously crushed. If anybody cares to look at the actual fossil found and explain to me why it didn’t need fixing I would be open to hear that as well.
3) The speaker was mistaken. Lovejoy didn’t remove whole parts, he rearranged them by adding appropriate space for the sacroiliac joint, and he straightened out the bones that were crushed at an angle to make the blade of the iliac fossa straight.
4) The best way to overturn a scientific model is to have a better explanation. The speaker should have demonstrated a better way for the fragments to fit together. Even on the video the fragments were put together in a way that made the blade of the iliac straight, like it should be. Why did they just laugh at this? Was it put together wrong?
If this is difficult to visualize with text, I found a youtube video that has a great 3d model of the reconstruction so that you can see how it is broken and why it was fixed the way it was. I’ve taken the time to watch the video that you guys put up and I’ve taken the time to analyze and explain why I think it is an invalid argument, so hopefully you will return this by watching the following video and criticizing it:
YouTube - About the Reconstruction of the Lucy Pelvis - Final point.
That is the end of my original post. It was pointed out that Lucy's bones were found spread out and merely assumed to be the same creature. The bones actually make up 40% of the skeleton, and despite that many bones, there are no duplicate parts, indicating it is the same individual. There are also more fossil skeletons found of that species, it's not just Lucy that we have to study.
Lucy meets the definition of a transitional form, even by creationist standards.
Interestingly, this fossil you mention has caused a fit regarding many Scientists thoughts on the matter. Some of the top Anthropologists in the world declare, such as Richard Leakey and Donald Johanson, declare that Lucy's skull is "‘imagination made of plaster of paris’. Leakey himself states that no firm conclusion could be drawn about what species Lucy belonged to.
But what we do know about her is that she is said to belong to australopithecines. What Dr. Charles Oxnard, who is a professor of Anatomy and Human Biology at the University of Western Australia states about Australopithecines is as follows "‘The various australopithecines are, indeed, more different from both African apes and humans in most features than these latter are from each other. Part of the basis of this acceptance has been the fact that even opposing investigators have found these large differences as they too, used techniques and research designs that were less biased by prior notions as to what the fossils might have been’"
Oxnard concludes " ‘The australopithecines are unique.’
Dr. Meave Leakey declares "
‘It is impossible to tell whether we are more closely
related to Lucy or
K. platyops. There
is simply too much missing from the
fossil record since then’."
Also significant is that Lucy did not walk via bipedalism.
This indicating that neither Lucy or any other australopithecine may be stated to be a transition between an ape and a huamn.
As for what we do know about Lucy, and of particular interest to your argument...this actually has already been addressed by Young Earth advocates "The central argument for afarensis being a hominid is that the creature had an erect posture and was capable of bipedal locomotion. The argument that afarensis was bipedal is based on skeletal reconstructions of the pelvis and lower limb bones. As up to 40% of Lucy’s postcranial skeleton was recovered, a lot of the morphological and biomechanical analyses are based on these bones, although not exclusively so. One problem with reconstructions of Lucy’s skeleton (dated to about 3.2 Ma) is the subjective nature of the work, as predetermined belief about the posture of afarensis may bias the reconstruction of the skeleton. How else can the following statement by Maurice Abitbol, who studied Lucy’s pelvis, make sense?
‘Prevailing views of Lucy’s posture are almost impossible to reconcile. When one looks at the reconstruction proposed by Lovejoy (1998) and by Weaver et al. (1985), one gets the impression that her fleshed reconstruction would be the body of a perfectly modern human biped (Figure 1a). But when one looks at the preliminary reconstruction recently shown at the Smithsonian, one gets the impression of a chimpanzee awkwardly attempting to stand on its hindlimbs and about to fall on its frontlimbs (Lewin, 1988). In the latter, the implication is a “primitive” form of bipedality in the Hadar hominids. To resolve such differences, more anatomical (fossil) evidence is needed. The available data at present are open to widely different interpretations.’71 http://creation.com/fossil-evidence-for-alleged-apemenpart-2-non-homo-hominids
I also need reiiterate what Tel Aviv found...that Lucy co-existed with humans makes it also impossible for this to be our direct ancestor. And according to G. G. Simpson, this is exactly what you need to demonstrate..that there was a transition between apes and humans. The problem being, we simply have found nothing to fit the bill.
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
Split Rock
Conflation of Blathers
Do you have a reference for this sentence fragment that is obviously taken out of context?
Lucy is a transitional between modern humans and the extinct ape ancestor of both humans and other modern apes... not between modern humans and other modern apes. In other words, chimps and gorillas are just as evolved from our common ancestor as we are. They have many derived features not present in our common ancestor, nor us.
References? In any case, this can be said of any species or genus.
Not sure how this helps you. Would you be happy if K. platyops was our ancestor? I doubt it.
There is some argument over whether or not it was truly bipedal, or perhaps not habitually bipedal. The pelvis is clearly intermediate between humans and other apes. Even if Lucy was only partially bipedal, that hardly disqualifies it as an intermediate.
There are more than just one specimen of this species, and others of this genus. As more fossils are discovered, more will be made clear about such details. Where will your arguments about non-clarity go then, I wonder?
Different reconstructions may differ in details, but the more fossils we find the more clear the picture will become. How does this level of uncertainty alter the obvious intermediate features of the species?
A fossil dated to 3-million-years old? Homo sapiens originated in Africa about 200,000 years ago. How do you conclude they coexisted???
Upvote
0
Similar threads
