Lucy is a transitional form

[philadiddle]

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.

Do you have a source for this? I'd like to read it in context.

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’"

Again, can I have a source?

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’."

Source?

Also significant is that Lucy did not walk via bipedalism.

According to what study?

This indicating that neither Lucy or any other australopithecine may be stated to be a transition between an ape and a huamn.

What about all of the other features listed in the OP? Do you think that Lucy is a chimp or a human?
​

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.

If it's so subjective then why don't creationists reconstruct the skeleton to how they think it should be? You can order original casts of the original hip bones, so anyone can reconstruct it. Why don't creationists actually carry out the scientific work? I explained in some detail why the pelvis was reconstructed. Maybe you can explain what other ways it could be reconstructed (should be easy for you to do if it is subjective).

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 Fossil evidence for alleged apemen—Part 2: non-Homo hominids​

So your argument is that its upright posture is not quite like humans? Interesting.
​

 

[hamashiachagape]

Do you have a source for this? I'd like to read it in context.

The source for this particular one is found here - The Weekend Australian, May 7–8, 1983, Magazine section, p. 3. [A more complete skull that was assigned to Lucy's species was found in 1992 (A.L.144-2). However, although more complete, it was highly fragmented (60 fragments) and a lot of imagination was still involved in reconstructing it.]

Again, can I have a source?

Dr Charles E. Oxnard, Fossils, Teeth and Sex—New perspective on Human Evolution, University of Washington Press, Seattle and London, 1987, p. 227.
.

Source?

Quoted in - Cohen, P., Who’s the daddy, New Scientist p.5, 24 March 2001. Return to text.

According to what study?

There have been many on this topic, but amongst the information we have, one may investigate the matter here - http://creation.com/images/pdfs/tj/j15_2/j15_2_09.pdf

Key to the discussion "

Regardless of the status of Lucy’s
knee joint, new evidence has come
forth that Lucy has the morphology​

of a

​

​

knuckle-walker,4 which is a​

distinctly​

quadrupedal specialization

characteristic of some living apes and

is quite different than walking upright.
Richmond and Strait identify four skeletal
features of the distal radius of the
living knuckle-walking apes, chimpanzees
and gorillas. They also identify
similar morphological features on two​

early ‘hominids’, including Lucy....."​

What about all of the other features listed in the OP? Do you think that Lucy is a chimp or a human?

Beyond what I have to say on the topic: Dr Marvin Lubenow quotes the evolutionists Matt Cartmill (Duke University), David Pilbeam (Harvard University) and the late Glynn Isaac (Harvard University): ‘The australopithecines are rapidly sinking back to the status of peculiarly specialized apes … .’11​

Ref. 3, p. 167, which quotes Cartmill, M., Pilbeam, D. and Isaac, G., One hundred years of paleoanthropology, American Scientist 74:419, July–August 1986. Return to text.​

If it's so subjective then why don't creationists reconstruct the skeleton to how they think it should be? You can order original casts of the original hip bones, so anyone can reconstruct it. Why don't creationists actually carry out the scientific work? I explained in some detail why the pelvis was reconstructed. Maybe you can explain what other ways it could be reconstructed (should be easy for you to do if it is subjective).

On some information of what we think see - http://creation.com/images/pdfs/tj/j10_2/j10_2_219-240.pdf

So your argument is that its upright posture is not quite like humans? Interesting.​

There are other problems with it, involving many Morphological structural issues. Some are mentioned in the above sources that I mention, see especially the article from A.W. Mehlert.

Also a reconstruction found here - http://creation.com/images/pdfs/tj/j14_3/j14_3_91-99.pdf

http://creation.com/the-lucy-child

A good study from a Creation Biologist on this issue would be from here - http://usstore.creation.com/catalog/artistic-anecdotes-p-299.html?osCsid=io8arqim9dibnhu0ddd8aeqi93

 

[sandwiches]

There are other problems with it, involving many Morphological structural issues. Some are mentioned in the above sources that I mention, see especially the article from A.W. Mehlert.

I guess it might be farther related to humans than we thought.

 

[hamashiachagape]

I guess it might be farther related to humans than we thought.

Something also very interesting...I wanted to point this out to Philadiddle as well...

Creation Ministries International has a DVD from David Menton, who is a PHD in Cellular Biology from Brown University..and who also was nominated in 1998 as Professor of the year at the university that he taught at. See his credentials here - http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/bios/d_menton.asp

This DVD - http://usstore.creation.com/catalog/lucy-she’s-lady-p-278.html - might be beneficial to those interested on the topic. Also see a lecture of his here - http://www.myspace.com/video/vid/23675931

 

[Split Rock]

There are other problems with it, involving many Morphological structural issues. Some are mentioned in the above sources that I mention, see especially the article from A.W. Mehlert.

Also a reconstruction found here - http://creation.com/images/pdfs/tj/j14_3/j14_3_91-99.pdf

Interestingly, this article does not discuss the central position of the Australopithecine foramen magnum (the hole at the base of the skull for the spinal column), one of the major indicators of bipedalism. It also emphasizes that they are in many ways closer to the ape ancestor than to humans. This is not under dispute.

 

[hamashiachagape]

Interestingly, this article does not discuss the central position of the Australopithecine foramen magnum (the hole at the base of the skull for the spinal column), one of the major indicators of bipedalism. It also emphasizes that they are in many ways closer to the ape ancestor than to humans. This is not under dispute.

Actually, discussed here -

"

(2) The Position of the Foramen Magnum
This is the scientific name for the opening in the
underside of the skull where the spinal cord is attached. In
apes the opening is more towards the rear of the skull and
'points' downward and backward. In humans it faces more
downward than backward, thus reflecting the fully upright
stance of humans where the head is perched on top of the
spine.
In the alleged man-like australopithecines, the position
of the foramen magnum varies to some degree. In the Taung
child, for instance, which is an infant gracile australopithecine,
it appears to face more down than is usual with
apes. However, Gish, a creationist, points out that in foetal
CENTech. J., vol. 10, no. 2, 1996
and infantile stages of apes, the foramen
magnum lies relatively further forward but
'moves' towards the rear during post-infantile
growth, whereas in man the relative position
of the structure changes very little during​

growth. He says — '. . .

​

​

it would be a serious​

mistake in this respect, to compare a juvenile​

ape skull to an adult human skull. ​

​

​

'28​

In the infant Taung specimen, the face is​

flatter and the forehead higher, in similar​

fashion to all young apes. As the infant grows​

to adulthood, the face becomes more​

prognathous, the supraorbital ridges develop,​

and the forehead becomes flatter. This means​

that the distance between the foramen magnum​

and the forward extremity of the jaws increases​

(unlike humans), while the distance from the​

skull's posterior extremity to the foramen​

magnum remains little changed. The opening​

itself does not move — all the 'movement' is​

in the lengthening of the skull and jaws as the​

specimen grows older.​

In the illustration of the ​

​

​

afarensis specimen​

reproduced by Johanson and Edey, we see that​

the foramen magnum lies on the underside of​

the skull, but still near the chimpanzee​

position.​

​

​

29 The same illustration shows that the human​

foramen magnum lies further forward than the chimp or​

afarensis.​

30 The distance between the opening and the​

anterior extremity of the jaws and teeth, in ​

Thats a sample of it..the resource in its totality is found here - http://creation.com/images/pdfs/tj/j10_2/j10_2_219-240.pdf​

Its on pg. 221-222 of the Technical Journal vol. 10, no. 2 1996.

 

[hamashiachagape]

Again from the other information as to whether this is an ape or a human..even Secular Scientists persuant to the resources that I have pulled, admit that it is an ape. There is nothing here that would lead us to believe morphologically or via any other understanding that there is a transition between an ape and a human with this fossil (and I have actually pulled resources on this material, and some material from the Tel Aviv University that also affirms this). This amongst other issues led me to investigate Creation Science in more depth, as I didn't really see many Intelligent Design advocates addressing it....when has Dembski or Meyers or even Jonathan Wells (whom I would really love to see do it given his background) really addressed it?

And by the way..you guys really need to look at Kurt Wise's work on a Young Earth (which I'd love to talk about later in another thread)! I have addressed some research Scientists who disagree with his work without even taking 2 seconds to look it over. Catastrophism is commonly being accepted by many Scientists given the research in Geology, but Wise's credentials are certainly impeccable and he should be recognized as a leading authority on the matter of Geology (his PHD was done under Stephen Jay Gould). From my behalf..these Scientists get two thumbs down for not doing their homework .

 

[Jro]

I just wanted to defend the view that all fossils are transitional for a moment. What we mean by a species is transitional is not the view that that fossil or even that species directly evolved into contemporary species, but that the species in question has characters associated with two different groups. The reason we have to look at evolution this way is because fossil lineages do not look like this: http://activity.ntsec.gov.tw/lifeworld/english/content/images/en_evo_c6.jpg
but instead look more like this: http://www.cambridgeblog.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/03/phylogeny-equidae.jpg.

For example, the reason Archaeopteryx lithographica is considered a transitional fossil is not because we think it directly links dinosaurs and birds, but because it possesses characteristics of both groups (teeth and feathers for example). Fossils like Australopithecus have characteristics in common with both modern apes and humans.

 

[Split Rock]

Actually, discussed here -

"

(2) The Position of the Foramen Magnum
This is the scientific name for the opening in the
underside of the skull where the spinal cord is attached. In
apes the opening is more towards the rear of the skull and
'points' downward and backward. In humans it faces more
downward than backward, thus reflecting the fully upright
stance of humans where the head is perched on top of the
spine.
In the alleged man-like australopithecines, the position
of the foramen magnum varies to some degree. In the Taung
child, for instance, which is an infant gracile australopithecine,
it appears to face more down than is usual with
apes. However, Gish, a creationist, points out that in foetal
CENTech. J., vol. 10, no. 2, 1996
and infantile stages of apes, the foramen
magnum lies relatively further forward but
'moves' towards the rear during post-infantile
growth, whereas in man the relative position
of the structure changes very little during​

growth. He says — '. . .

​

​

it would be a serious​

mistake in this respect, to compare a juvenile​

ape skull to an adult human skull. ​

​

​

'28​

In the infant Taung specimen, the face is​

flatter and the forehead higher, in similar​

fashion to all young apes. As the infant grows​

to adulthood, the face becomes more​

prognathous, the supraorbital ridges develop,​

and the forehead becomes flatter. This means​

that the distance between the foramen magnum​

and the forward extremity of the jaws increases​

(unlike humans), while the distance from the​

skull's posterior extremity to the foramen​

magnum remains little changed. The opening​

itself does not move — all the 'movement' is​

in the lengthening of the skull and jaws as the​

specimen grows older.​

In the illustration of the ​

​

​

afarensis specimen​

reproduced by Johanson and Edey, we see that​

the foramen magnum lies on the underside of​

the skull, but still near the chimpanzee​

position.​

​

​

29 The same illustration shows that the human​

foramen magnum lies further forward than the chimp or​

afarensis.​

30 The distance between the opening and the​

anterior extremity of the jaws and teeth, in ​

Thats a sample of it..the resource in its totality is found here - http://creation.com/images/pdfs/tj/j10_2/j10_2_219-240.pdf​

Its on pg. 221-222 of the Technical Journal vol. 10, no. 2 1996.

Are you under the mistaken impression that the only skulls we have of Australipithecines are of juveniles? Instead of concentrating only on Taung Child, where you can make a selective argument against bipediality, why not discuss the adult skulls we have?

 

[Split Rock]

Again from the other information as to whether this is an ape or a human..even Secular Scientists persuant to the resources that I have pulled, admit that it is an ape. There is nothing here that would lead us to believe morphologically or via any other understanding that there is a transition between an ape and a human with this fossil (and I have actually pulled resources on this material, and some material from the Tel Aviv University that also affirms this). This amongst other issues led me to investigate Creation Science in more depth, as I didn't really see many Intelligent Design advocates addressing it....when has Dembski or Meyers or even Jonathan Wells (whom I would really love to see do it given his background) really addressed it?

Of course secular scientists admit they are apes... they are, and so are we! The reason that IDers don't address the issue is their "big tent" approach. They need to maintain the illusion of solidarity between creationist IDers like Johnson and ones who accept human evolution like Behe.

And by the way..you guys really need to look at Kurt Wise's work on a Young Earth (which I'd love to talk about later in another thread)! I have addressed some research Scientists who disagree with his work without even taking 2 seconds to look it over. Catastrophism is commonly being accepted by many Scientists given the research in Geology, but Wise's credentials are certainly impeccable and he should be recognized as a leading authority on the matter of Geology (his PHD was done under Stephen Jay Gould). From my behalf..these Scientists get two thumbs down for not doing their homework .

Kurt Wise is an interesting case. he is an honest professional creationist... rather rare. He is honest because he admits that it is not the physical evidence that leads to his conclusions about the earth and man, but his religious beliefs.