Lucy

DaisyDay · Sep 3, 2015

pshun2404 said:
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?

Chimps (Pan troglodytes) are a variety of ape - the closest genetically to man. Which species of living ape would you prefer to use as a comparison? And why?

A afarensis is not simply a variety of ape - too many divergent features (teeth, pelvis, knees, even feet).

JacksBratt · Sep 3, 2015

loveofourlord said:
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.

Yes, however, they have found complete burial mounds and graves of giants and no one will admit they exist, or state that they are anomalies.

If you want to stand on the few bones they put together to form Lucy.... well that's up to you.

Loudmouth · Sep 3, 2015

pshun2404 said:
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?

Isn't that exactly what a transitional would be, a variety of ape? For all intents and purposes, humans are also a variety of ape.

If A. afarensis is not a transitional species, then please tell us what features this species is missing that a real transitional would have, and why.

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...

It's no different than putting a vase back together. What you need to show is that the pelvis was put back together incorrectly, which you haven't done.

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...

The fact of the matter is that Lucy had a mixture of ancestral ape and modern human features. That is why Lucy is considered to be a transitional fossil. If you want to claim that Lucy is not transitional, then it would really help the discussion if you could describe the criteria you are using to determine if a fossil is transitional or not.

crjmurray · Sep 3, 2015

JacksBratt said:
Yes, however, they have found complete burial mounds and graves of giants and no one will admit they exist, or state that they are anomalies.

If you want to stand on the few bones they put together to form Lucy.... well that's up to you.

When are you going to make a thread on this giant topic?

Loudmouth · Sep 3, 2015

JacksBratt said:
Yes, however, they have found complete burial mounds and graves of giants and no one will admit they exist, or state that they are anomalies.

You mean the supposed giant bones that were "found" by PT Barnum?

The Cadet · Sep 3, 2015

JacksBratt said:
Yes, however, they have found complete burial mounds and graves of giants and no one will admit they exist, or state that they are anomalies.

Citation needed.

crjmurray · Sep 3, 2015

The Cadet said:
Citation needed.

Maybe someone else should make the giant thread.

DaisyDay · Sep 3, 2015

crjmurray said:
Maybe someone else should make the giant thread.

I think that one goes in the Conspiracy Theories forum on account of the huge cover up.

Astrophile · Sep 3, 2015

pshun2404 said:
Lord Zuckerman, the famous British anatomist, published his views on the australopithecines in his book, Beyond the Ivory Tower. He studied these creatures for more than fifteen years, looking at myriads of samples, and he came to the conclusion…that if man did in fact descend from an apelike ancestor, he did so without leaving a single visible trace in the fossil record (1970, p. 64).

How many australopithecine fossils had been found in 1970? I thought that Dart and Broom started things in the 1920s, but their work was largely ignored, and research on australopithecines only got properly started in the late 1950s, with Louis and Mary Leakey's discoveries in East Africa.

Also, have you actually read Lord Zuckerman's book, or did you get this from a creationist source?

crjmurray · Sep 3, 2015

Astrophile said:
How many australopithecine fossils had been found in 1970? I thought that Dart and Broom started things in the 1920s, but their work was largely ignored, and research on australopithecines only got properly started in the late 1950s, with Louis and Mary Leakey's discoveries in East Africa.

Also, have you actually read Lord Zuckerman's book, or did you get this from a creationist source?

I'd like a shot at the title.

I say creationist source.

pshun2404 · Sep 3, 2015

loveofourlord said:
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?

Wrong! They have no hip and joint examples from other fossils of A Afarensis. Even Lovejoy knew that as they were found they represented an ape-like hip, so-o he broke off the sacrum from the illium (which was crushed and bent at a 90 degree angle) and "repaired" it.

Repaired is in quotes for emphasis. He broke off the sacrum (which was fused) and spaced it exactly to line up with that common for most humans. Then he took a power saw and adjusted and cut away fragments of the illium to line up the new illusion to appear more human, but it originally appeared to be ape like of that there is no doubt (he even admitted this on Nova)....

That was NOT good science (good forensics demand you do not alter the evidence to produce illusions of some other explanation), but the hip had to be humanized to explain away the human footprints found at the Olduvai site (the one or two australipithicus samples we actually have, demonstrate the separated big toe of an Ape not found in these footprints)

Lucy's hip in its original orientation was absolutely Ape...and keep your creationist accusations to yourself I have not mentioned a single inference nor were any of the references I have made from creationist websites...

Paul

pshun2404 · Sep 3, 2015

Astrophile said:
How many australopithecine fossils had been found in 1970? I thought that Dart and Broom started things in the 1920s, but their work was largely ignored, and research on australopithecines only got properly started in the late 1950s, with Louis and Mary Leakey's discoveries in East Africa.

Also, have you actually read Lord Zuckerman's book, or did you get this from a creationist source?

I was probably reading science journals from about 1972...how old were you then? Lord Zuckerman's examples were from Australopithicenes more recent than Lucy and have been discussed, and sections of his work have been quoted by many for decades..but I read Zuckerman's Beyond the Ivory Tower (you should read it yourself) as part of my 1986 Zoology course (how old were you then?). We read it in comparison and discussion with Bok's later work by the same name as a matter of ethics in interpretation of evidence (IMO Lovejoy proved himself wanting by his "reconstructing" changes to the evidence).

Paul

Dr GS Hurd · Sep 3, 2015

There are several errors, historical and scientific in the opening comment.But first all readers (and moderators) should take notice that this is merely a fragmented copy from an "essay" from a copyrighted creationist website. (Copyright © 2003 Apologetics Press, Inc. All rights reserved.) http://www.apologeticspress.org/ApPubPage.aspx?pub=1&issue=541&article=61

I am more than willing to debunk the original, or the slight variant posted here, but not if it will merely be deleted.

Historical issues are that Solly Zuckerman's work in the Second World War was on how to maximize the lethality of bombs, and the greatest "value" of bomb targets. He took an active interest in human fossils in the 1950s. He decided on the partial evidence he had accessed that the Australopithecus genus were not human ancestors. He was also engaged in other studies such as the effect of estrogen on the vaginal secretions of rats, and the use of X-rays in sterilization of male rats. At the time there were very few hominid fossil specimens, and the best documented were discovered by Raymond Dart in the 1920s. As events would tell, he was better on rats.

He wrote an interesting, and revealing article in 1974 about his early interests titled "Choosing One's Ancestors." http://calteches.library.caltech.edu/3039/1/ancestors.pdf

This was a rejection of any evidence, or analysis by anyone not named Solly Zuckerman. He was still opposed to the notion that the Australopithecus were our ancestors. He died in 1993 opposed to the notion. He had stopped paying attention to facts 20 years earlier.

Dr GS Hurd · Sep 3, 2015

pshun2404 said:
I was probably reading science journals from about 1972...how old were you then? ...but I read Zuckerman's Beyond the Ivory Tower (you should read it yourself) as part of my 1986 Zoology course (how old were you then?). We read it in comparison and discussion with Bok's later work by the same name as a matter of ethics in interpretation of evidence (IMO Lovejoy proved himself wanting by his "reconstructing" changes to the evidence).

Paul

In 1972 I received my first undergraduate research fellowship for my work in geochemistry. In 1973, I received my second research fellowship in geochemistry, and one for ethnographic research in Mesoamerica. In 1985 I had left the faculty of the Medical College of Georgia, and returned to "industrial" research. (My first postgraduate non-academic job in 1976 was as a polymer chemist. My first professorship in 1978 was in medicine). In 1989 I returned to teaching, and later was the Anthropology Curator and Director of a natural history museum. In 2000, I was "Professor of the Year," and the recipient of the Board of Trustees "Commendation for Excellence" as an anthropologist/archaeologist. I mentored over 20 undergraduates who became published scientists.

I was born in 1951, Paul. What degrees, and scientific achievements can you illuminate us with? Anyone that does not die gets older.

Dr GS Hurd · Sep 3, 2015

Larnievc said:
The guy fudged his results. What point are you trying to make? That people will lie to gain status? Colour my not surprised.

Can you give an exact example, plus citation in a competent publication that Johanson "fudged his results?"

Otherwise, pipe down.

Dr GS Hurd · Sep 4, 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 physical representation of bones was ~40%. Since most all mammal bones are bilaterally symmetric, that represented about 80% of the skeleton. The critical bones to a competent analysis are the teeth, the occipital condyles, the os coxa, and femoral head, the distal femor, and the proximal tibia and fibula. All but the teeth tell us clearly if the critter was a walker, or a crawler. The Australopithecus were all up-right walkers. We have many hundreds of bones from hundreds of separate individuals representing the Australopithecines.

Creationists should try to keep up.

Dr GS Hurd · Sep 4, 2015

DaisyDay said:
What false accusation? The quote mine? That's not false as the quote is so out of context as to pervert its meaning.

I am just learning that Paul, "pshun2004," is fond of copying from creationist websites as if he actually had any idea about the science. I'll try to keep this in mind. It is pointless to educate the willfully ignorant. He can be useful "bad examples."

Larniavc · Sep 4, 2015

Dr GS Hurd said:
Can you give an exact example, plus citation in a competent publication that Johanson "fudged his results?"

Otherwise, pipe down.

You are quite correct: I was fooled by a simple quote mine. I too have learnt that this fellow is fond of quote mining. I will certainly not simply trust his word from now on.

But thank you for your sensitive and friendly instruction to 'pipe down'.

You must be the very thing at diner parties.

JacksBratt · Sep 4, 2015

The Cadet said:
Citation needed.

Creationists are accused, a lot, of having their heads in the sand. Lately I am beginning to think it's not the creationists who are afraid of the truth but the evolutionist who cannot let go of old false pseudo science.

If you are really in search of truth you must not toss out something just because it doesn't fit your paradigm of thinking.
There are loads of documents of giant races in all parts of the world. Time to take the blinders off guys.

DNA back on this, one of many, giant skulls in Peru.

http://thetruthwins.com/archives/dn...re-in-and-the-results-are-absolutely-shocking

FrumiousBandersnatch · Sep 4, 2015

JacksBratt said:
CDNA back on this, one of many, giant skulls in Peru.

http://thetruthwins.com/archives/dn...re-in-and-the-results-are-absolutely-shocking

Just more attention-seeking by paranormal hypers.

Lucy

I Did Nothing Wrong!! ~~Team Deep State

Searching for Truth

Contributor

The Bear. Not The Bull.

Contributor

SO COOL

The Bear. Not The Bull.

I Did Nothing Wrong!! ~~Team Deep State

Newbie

The Bear. Not The Bull.

Newbie

Newbie

Newbie

Newbie

Newbie

Newbie

Newbie

"Encourage him to keep talking. He's hilarious."

Searching for Truth

Well-Known Member

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency