Lucy

pshun2404 · Aug 31, 2015

She was stiff-wristed AND bipedal. She seems to be a very early ancestress - no one claims she is human, thus the Australopithecus genus and not Homo genus.

Yes but ancestress does imply this first genus BECAME the second genus which we actually do not and cannot know for sure...do you agree? And if not then NOT an ancestress just an early variety of ape with similar characteristics to Homo...

The Cadet · Aug 31, 2015

pshun2404 said:
Yes but ancestress does imply this first genus BECAME the second genus

Actually, if genus A is ancestral to genus B and genus B died out with no other descendent genuses, then yes, genus A turned into genus B.

DaisyDay · Aug 31, 2015

It is true that we don't know for sure that A. afarensis directly led to H. sapiens, she is nevertheless not just an early variety of ape - she is an early split from the ape/human line, from the common ancestor. No ape is bipedal; all humans are. Lucy is neither here nor there, neither ape nor man. She is either the missing link or a cousin to the missing link.

We don't know for sure that she is the ancestress of mankind but we do know for sure that she is not the ancestress of any apekind.

The Barbarian · Aug 31, 2015

Nice artist creations....I noted he said "different"....but did you look at the actual fossils? Very different from the drawings...

Nope. Same knock-kneed posture as in humans:

Notice the angle of the head of the femur, the angle of the articular surface of the joint. No point denying the obvious. It's only found on bipedal primates.

The Barbarian said: ↑
The finger bones of Australopithcines are more like those of humans, more curved than ours, but less curved than those of chimps. Likely, they were pretty proficient climbers, even if they walked on two legs.

Click to expand...

You guys compare them to "chimps" not me....Lucy's hands are ape hands, not human....

Notice that they are intermediate between apes and humans. But more human-like than ape-like. They curve more than human digits and less than ape digits. Just what you'd expect from a transitional.

pshun2404 · Aug 31, 2015

The Cadet said:
Actually, if genus A is ancestral to genus B and genus B died out with no other descendent genuses, then yes, genus A turned into genus B.

Yes IF it were ancestral but my point was the evidence does not demand that.

The Barbarian · Aug 31, 2015

Here's another A. afarensis knee joint, found not far from the site where Lucy was found:

As you see, not human, but with the same knock-kneed form as humans.

Loudmouth · Sep 1, 2015

pshun2404 said:
that Lucy does not support the "australopithicene becoming human" scenario...

Then what features is Lucy missing that a real transitional fossil would have?

Loudmouth · Sep 1, 2015

pshun2404 said:
I never said it debunks the theory of evolution just Lucy's alleged role in the ape to human scenario...

The facts do not support the story we are fed about this particular ape. And I sense people have tried to imply I was using this man who has been repudiated but in actuality he has not (but he has been attacked by a few). Then of course there is the run of the mill secondary default to "well his research was too old" (typical)....but there have been many even in more recent times because as more and more researchers gained access to the fossils, Lucy’s “hominid” status began to be questioned...for example

Stern and Susman (American Journal of Physical Anthropology, Vol. 60, Issue 3, March 1983) remarked: “It is demonstrated that A. afarensis possessed anatomic characteristics that indicate a significant adaptation for movement in the trees” (1983, pg. 280). They went on to comment: “The AL 333-91 pisiform (bone of the hand) is ‘elongate and rod shaped’ and thus resembles the long, projecting pisiform of apes and monkeys”.

Compare the pelvises yourself. It is quite apparent to me that the pelvis of australopithecines is much more like modern humans than they are chimps.

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/326/5949/71/suppl/DC2

Their research demonstrated that Lucy's hands and feet show ZERO normal human qualities one would assign to human hands and feet!

If australopithecines were identical to humans in every way then they would be modern humans, not transitional. Surely a transitional form between humans and a common ancestor shared with chimps will have more ape-like features compared to humans, won't they?

Loudmouth · Sep 1, 2015

pshun2404 said:
Nice artist creations....I noted he said "different"....but did you look at the actual fossils? Very different from the drawings...

The photo above is a CT scan of the actual fossils, not an artistic rendering.

You guys compare them to "chimps" not me....Lucy's hands are ape hands, not human....not even semi-human in my opinion, just a variety of ape-kind....

What about the pelvis?

Loudmouth · Sep 1, 2015

pshun2404 said:
I guess the first issue for me is whether or not the Lucy's hand/wrist fossils actually do indicate arboreal behaviors? Was this Ape a knuckle walker? These scientists say yes///perhaps there are some who say no....what do you say?

From every indication, Lucy had a mixture of adaptations for both arboreal and bipedal locomotion. Hmm, almost as if Lucy was transitional . . .

FrumiousBandersnatch · Sep 1, 2015

It seems to me that will always be demands for more transitional forms to 'prove' common descent unless you can find a fossil of every generation from the primate common ancestor to modern man (and even then they probably wouldn't be acknowledged). But when there is a clear morphological development over time towards the modern human (whether A. afarensis is on the direct ancestral line or not), and clear indications of a branching tree of species with ape-like features and human-like features, the conclusion seems inescapable:

God created them all separately, progressively changing the design over time, to precisely mimic what might be expected from an evolutionary tree with common descent. All that remains now is to establish precisely what God's motives were for such a detailed simulation

And I won't be surprised if someone thinks I meant that.

Loudmouth · Sep 2, 2015

FrumiousBandersnatch said:
It seems to me that will always be demands for more transitional forms to 'prove' common descent unless you can find a fossil of every generation from the primate common ancestor to modern man (and even then they probably wouldn't be acknowledged). But when there is a clear morphological development over time towards the modern human (whether A. afarensis is on the direct ancestral line or not), and clear indications of a branching tree of species with ape-like features and human-like features, the conclusion seems inescapable:

God created them all separately, progressively changing the design over time, to precisely mimic what might be expected from an evolutionary tree with common descent. All that remains now is to establish precisely what God's motives were for such a detailed simulation

And I won't be surprised if someone thinks I meant that.

What I find most entertaining is creationists who claim that Lucy is not transitional because she was not 100% identical to modern humans. Makes you wonder if they understand what a transitional fossil is supposed to be.

loveofourlord · Sep 2, 2015

JacksBratt said:
The number of bones found in the "Lucy" discovery was so small that any extrapolation, interpretation, assumption that fabricated the complete "lucy" is more of a guess than a fact.

The scientists needed a "lucy" so they built one.

From the neck up, her brain was 1/4 the size of a human's, her jaw was circular, like a gorilla and her teeth were way larger than human's.
From the neck down there was very little human like connections. This ape might have walked a bit more upright but was designed to dwell in trees.

This debate will never go away. It is apparent that Johanson was already premeditating a human ancestor fabrication as all HE needed was an elbow, or to be exact, a little bit of an elbow, to create this link. See his quote:

"I happened to glance over my right shoulder . . .and there on the surface of the ground was a little bit of an elbow, I recognized it immediately as belonging to a human ancestor."

Right then and there he had his missing link, come hell or high water, it was in the books. Truth be damned.

you do realize lucy wasn't the first or the last one found right? she was the second one found, and since more complete fossils have been found, but you know lets act like nothing has happened in 50 years or so.

FrumiousBandersnatch · Sep 2, 2015

Loudmouth said:
What I find most entertaining is creationists who claim that Lucy is not transitional because she was not 100% identical to modern humans. Makes you wonder if they understand what a transitional fossil is supposed to be.

In one sense, every fossil is transitional except those immediately prior to extinction.

crjmurray · Sep 2, 2015

Loudmouth said:
Then what features is Lucy missing that a real transitional fossil would have?

If I'm not mistaken, a very handsome and clever user already created a thread asking about that.

pshun2404 · Sep 2, 2015

The Barbarian said:
Here's another A. afarensis knee joint, found not far from the site where Lucy was found:

As you see, not human, but with the same knock-kneed form as humans.

No proof this is Lucy, or maybe not even an A. Afarensis. The actual fossil is this...

The bottom bone fragment is broken off at the key point and the top bone is chipped...what you offered was a creative reconstruction but not real (built up to fit the preconceived image)...someone creatively MADE IT look as you have presented...IMO your picture is dishonest and somewhat contrived and therefore cannot be relied on s accurate...

As doe the Femur? In 1973…they find a splintered shinbone and a femur…over one and a half miles away and 200 feet deeper in a different layer they more bones…they found pieces of another creature in a nearby gully (a piece of pelvis, a jawbone, a few broken rib bones, etc.)… then they put them all together as if this is one creature, shaping the rib cage to look more human….and viola a new semi-human species…

I mean, have you ever looked at the femur fossil (not the reconstructions or drawings)? Just look at it….the length and smaller femoral head are very similar to the Chimp’s that EBs compare it to, but I do see (with my own eyes) a very slight bicondylar angle is present, but not enough to reckon it more like human. In fact if one adds a little more plaster to the lateral epicondyle (which is broken on the Femur used to construct Lucy model) there is even less of an angle and maybe if one just moves it a little outward????

Paul

pshun2404 · Sep 2, 2015

Loudmouth said:
Compare the pelvises yourself. It is quite apparent to me that the pelvis of australopithecines is much more like modern humans than they are chimps.

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/326/5949/71/suppl/DC2

If australopithecines were identical to humans in every way then they would be modern humans, not transitional. Surely a transitional form between humans and a common ancestor shared with chimps will have more ape-like features compared to humans, won't they?

Well first off I am not the one who always compares them with Chimps. Your guys are. But why can't this simply be a variety of Ape? Because it differs slightly? That's absurd...look at dogs? The Pelvis sections did not fit nicely like they are presented here and the spade area was crushed flat and in pieces and put together by a human...of course it is better suited for bipedality but to what degree? A knuckle walker that also can stand and walk is not too far fetched for me...

loveofourlord · Sep 2, 2015

pshun2404 said:
No proof this is Lucy, or maybe not even an A. Afarensis. The actual fossil is this...

The bottom bone fragment is broken off at the key point and the top bone is chipped...what you offered was a creative reconstruction but not real (built up to fit the preconceived image)...someone creatively MADE IT look as you have presented...IMO your picture is dishonest and somewhat contrived and therefore cannot be relied on s accurate...

As doe the Femur? In 1973…they find a splintered shinbone and a femur…over one and a half miles away and 200 feet deeper in a different layer they more bones…they found pieces of another creature in a nearby gully (a piece of pelvis, a jawbone, a few broken rib bones, etc.)… then they put them all together as if this is one creature, shaping the rib cage to look more human….and viola a new semi-human species…

I mean, have you ever looked at the femur fossil (not the reconstructions or drawings)? Just look at it….the length and smaller femoral head are very similar to the Chimp’s that EBs compare it to, but I do see (with my own eyes) a very slight bicondylar angle is present, but not enough to reckon it more like human. In fact if one adds a little more plaster to the lateral epicondyle (which is broken on the Femur used to construct Lucy model) there is even less of an angle and maybe if one just moves it a little outward????

Paul

They never put them together as the same fossil, thats a creationist lie they are two seperate fossils of the same species, but not one unified fossil, also we've again since found many fossils of the species, whats your explanation for the rest?

The Barbarian · Sep 2, 2015

The bottom bone fragment is broken off at the key point

No, the key is in the angle of the joint, which as you can see, like that of a human not an ape.

and the top bone is chipped...what you offered was a creative reconstruction but not real (built up to fit the preconceived image)...someone creatively MADE IT look as you have presented...

No, it's a real fossil. And it shows that Australopithecines walked upright. It wasn't the first hominin to do so; Oropithecus was also bipedal, albeit in an entirely different way.

IMO your picture is dishonest and somewhat contrived and therefore cannot be relied on s accurate...

No, it's a genuine fossil, and not altered.

As doe the Femur? In 1973…they find a splintered shinbone and a femur…over one and a half miles away and 200 feet deeper in a different layer they more bones…they found pieces of another creature in a nearby gully (a piece of pelvis, a jawbone, a few broken rib bones, etc.)… then they put them all together as if this is one creature, shaping the rib cage to look more human….and viola a new semi-human species…

No, that story is false. Lucy was one find, and the joint and jaws were another, but they weren't combined.

I mean, have you ever looked at the femur fossil (not the reconstructions or drawings)? Just look at it….the length and smaller femoral head are very similar to the Chimp’s that EBs compare it to, but I do see (with my own eyes) a very slight bicondylar angle is present, but not enough to reckon it more like human.

That's not debatable. Anyone can see that it is. The hips are likewise only possible for a bipedal creature.

The Barbarian · Sep 2, 2015

of course it is better suited for bipedality but to what degree?

Closer to us, than to other apes. It probably wasn't as good at long-distance treks as we are. But it was still slightly adapted to climbing.

Lucy

Newbie

SO COOL

I Did Nothing Wrong!! ~~Team Deep State

Crabby Old White Guy

Newbie

Crabby Old White Guy

Contributor

Contributor

Contributor

Contributor

Well-Known Member

Contributor

Newbie

Well-Known Member

The Bear. Not The Bull.

Newbie

Newbie

Newbie

Crabby Old White Guy

Crabby Old White Guy

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency