Lucy

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Here's a site that explains Australopithecine bipedalism: eFossils - Lucy & Bipedalism.

 

[JacksBratt]

Just more attention-seeking by paranormal hypers.

Sure....because numerous skulls showing up all over the world and being very plentiful in Peru is much more of a stretch than making a whole monkey story out of just one single piece of a skull of something that wasn't even a monkey.

 

[pshun2404]

Ad Hominem attacks don't change facts...and Doc I was not responding to you but another....I was not boasting some expertise (as you are doing here) just stating I was into science far longer than my coming to faith...I was trying to get the poster to address the facts and the points being made, feel free to also do so...Lovejoy DID alter the evidence in his "repair" job reconstruction....that's not good science...do you agree?

In each case the angle was moved in the "recreations"? And notice how even in sediba the sacrum is separated and rejoined where it would be expected if a semi-human (all grey areas being assumption based reconstructions)? Even so variety (speciation) does not prove intermediacy in a progressive development.

 

[The Cadet]

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

Absolutely nothing about the Paracas Skulls is independently verified by any source of any repute. Given that this is the kind of discovery one would think would shake the scientific world, that seems like a rather bizarre omission. Similarly, the genetic research was not published in peer review, I cannot find the data myself, and the scientist responsible has deemed to remain anonymous - another two bizarre omissions. Again, this is a huge claim; what are you basing the claim on? The fact that there is extremely little in terms of solid evidence, the fact that hoaxes along these lines are really common (I mean, come on, the guy behind this one has conflicts of interest up the wazoo), and the fact that apparently there has been no independent verification outside the "paranormal community" and their anonymous friends makes me think that this isn't really a thing.

 

[DaisyDay]

Ad Hominem attacks don't change facts...and Doc I was not responding to you but another....I was not boasting some expertise (as you are doing here) just stating I was into science far longer than my coming to faith...I was trying to get the poster to address the facts and the points being made, feel free to also do so...Lovejoy DID alter the evidence in his "repair" job reconstruction....that's not good science...do you agree?

In each case the angle was moved in the "recreations"? And notice how even in sediba the sacrum is separated and rejoined where it would be expected if a semi-human (all grey areas being assumption based reconstructions)? Even so variety (speciation) does not prove intermediacy in a progressive development.

None of those are Lucy or A. afarensis so what is the point your trying to make?

A. afarensis and A. africanus (shown here without the objectionable repairs) are considered to be in the hominin line.

 

[Loudmouth]

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.

This is the best admission yet that Lucy is transitional. When you have to use made up stories about scientists faking data you are tacitly admitting that the evidence we do have is problematic for your argument.

 

[DaisyDay]

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.

I think I remember you from the old iidb and, briefly, talkrational? Gary, isn't it? I doubt you'd remember me - I did more reading than posting. I liked that your posts were both polite and very well informed. Lucaspa - who you remind me because he's also a good teacher - still posts from time to time.

 

[Loudmouth]

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.

In this very thread we have creationists trying to toss out Lucy because it does not fit their paradigm of thinking. They will even go as far as using made up stories about scientists altering the fossils.

There are loads of documents of giant races in all parts of the world. Time to take the blinders off guys.

Scientific papers, please.

 

[Dr GS Hurd]

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

Infant skull binding is known to have been practiced by different cultures at various times. Sometimes the goal was the elongated shape seen in Africa and Peru. The Mayan lowland royalty wanted to shape the skull with a flat board creating a straight profile from nose to the crown.

The so-called DNA results have never been published. There are on-line DNA sequence depositories open to the public. All qualified researchers are expected to post their sequence data. From reading this Brian Forester's website, facebook page, etc. I would not trust him to bring me a cup of coffee.

 

[JacksBratt]

In this very thread we have creationists trying to toss out Lucy because it does not fit their paradigm of thinking. They will even go as far as using made up stories about scientists altering the fossils.


Scientific papers, please.

Ya, sure.... Any evidence that I present would be criticized and no scientist, who wants a job tomorrow, would try or think of publishing anything of the sort.

A man named Ed Conrad found evidence of very old, evolution defying, human remains in coal. The Smithsonian turned a deaf ear. Even when MRI's showed it to be true, nobody wanted to touch it with a ten foot pole.

Why, you say? Science is no longer really about the truth, it's maintaining the lies of evolution.
Deviating from this may be the road to truth but also the rocky road of lonely jeers, insults, tinfoil hat comments.... the list goes on.

"No scientist in his right mind would attempt to speculate on
something as unusual as you suggest," said John G. Maisey, assistant
curator of the Department of Vertebrate Paleontology, American Museum
of Natural History.
<
On the other hand, one of Conrad's former teachers offered
encouragement: "It's easy to see why the so-called experts are
confused. Your main problem is that you have outrun the limits of
their knowledge. What you have makes them uncomfortable. Much
of what they have been teaching will have to be undone (if you're
proven right)."

And:

But Conrad felt that the specimens were never properly examined and
were never exposed to honest, objective testing. Even worse, he soon
found that he and his discovery were being shunned, even blackballed,
by the scientific community.

And:

As for why the scientific community chooses to turn its back, it's
anyone's guess. Conrad accuses the establishment of deceit, collusion
and conspiracy. He backs up his accusations with a two-decade journal
of facts and details explained on his Web site.
<
"There's something behind it all. A true scientist searches for the
truth no matter where it leads," he says. "What's so wrong to believe
that man existed 280 million years ago? Why is that a sin?"
<
Some say it's a matter of money. There are millions of dollars in
government grants, research projects and school funding based on the
teaching of the theory of evolution.
<
To pull out the rug from under those practices would be tantamount
to shaking up government, academia and science, or "pseudoscience,"
as Conrad calls it.
<
Ironically, early in the quest, Conrad's friend Lennon advised that
the road to the truth would be a rough road to travel, especially when
dealing with those who will not listen.
<
"They know they have a skeleton in their closet and they don't want
to open the door," Lennon would say.

 

[crjmurray]

Ya, sure.... Any evidence that I present would be criticized and no scientist, who wants a job tomorrow, would try or think of publishing anything of the sort.

A man named Ed Conrad found evidence of very old, evolution defying, human remains in coal. The Smithsonian turned a deaf ear. Even when MRI's showed it to be true, nobody wanted to touch it with a ten foot pole.

Why, you say? Science is no longer really about the truth, it's maintaining the lies of evolution.
Deviating from this may be the road to truth but also the rocky road of lonely jeers, insults, tinfoil hat comments.... the list goes on.

"No scientist in his right mind would attempt to speculate on
something as unusual as you suggest," said John G. Maisey, assistant
curator of the Department of Vertebrate Paleontology, American Museum
of Natural History.
<
On the other hand, one of Conrad's former teachers offered
encouragement: "It's easy to see why the so-called experts are
confused. Your main problem is that you have outrun the limits of
their knowledge. What you have makes them uncomfortable. Much
of what they have been teaching will have to be undone (if you're
proven right)."

And:

But Conrad felt that the specimens were never properly examined and
were never exposed to honest, objective testing. Even worse, he soon
found that he and his discovery were being shunned, even blackballed,
by the scientific community.

And:

As for why the scientific community chooses to turn its back, it's
anyone's guess. Conrad accuses the establishment of deceit, collusion
and conspiracy. He backs up his accusations with a two-decade journal
of facts and details explained on his Web site.
<
"There's something behind it all. A true scientist searches for the
truth no matter where it leads," he says. "What's so wrong to believe
that man existed 280 million years ago? Why is that a sin?"
<
Some say it's a matter of money. There are millions of dollars in
government grants, research projects and school funding based on the
teaching of the theory of evolution.
<
To pull out the rug from under those practices would be tantamount
to shaking up government, academia and science, or "pseudoscience,"
as Conrad calls it.
<
Ironically, early in the quest, Conrad's friend Lennon advised that
the road to the truth would be a rough road to travel, especially when
dealing with those who will not listen.
<
"They know they have a skeleton in their closet and they don't want
to open the door," Lennon would say.

Right

 

[JacksBratt]

Infant skull binding is known to have been practiced by different cultures at various times. Sometimes the goal was the elongated shape seen in Africa and Peru. The Mayan lowland royalty wanted to shape the skull with a flat board creating a straight profile from nose to the crown.

The so-called DNA results have never been published. There are on-line DNA sequence depositories open to the public. All qualified researchers are expected to post their sequence data. From reading this Brian Forester's website, facebook page, etc. I would not trust him to bring me a cup of coffee.

Of course you won't trust him. He is your nemesis. You are doing what is expected..... discredit the source of conflicting data.

Also, I always like the Skull binding story. Your camp will say these skulls were bound. However, no bound skull ever created a skull that was 2/3rds larger than a normal skull.
Binding doesn't increase the cranial capacity.

How about this, alternate, scenario..... the people who bound skulls were trying to imitate the look of a once existent, intelligent powerful people, who created megalithic structures and had knowledge and capabilities way beyond ours?

I know, I know... that's just silly.. let's just keep binding and head boarding our kids to make their skulls larger and their intelligence greater......

 

[crjmurray]

Of course you won't trust him. He is your nemesis. You are doing what is expected..... discredit the source of conflicting data.

Also, I always like the Skull binding story. Your camp will say these skulls were bound. However, no bound skull ever created a skull that was 2/3rds larger than a normal skull.
Binding doesn't increase the cranial capacity.

How about this, alternate, scenario..... the people who bound skulls were trying to imitate the look of a once existent, intelligent powerful people, who created megalithic structures and had knowledge and capabilities way beyond ours?

I know, I know... that's just silly.. let's just keep binding and head boarding our kids to make their skulls larger and their intelligence greater......

Seriously. SERIOUSLY. Go start your own thread on this. Post evidence, links, quote experts, just provide actual data in a thread of your own making.

 

[Astrophile]

I was probably reading science journals from about 1972...how old were you then?

I was 24 (25 in October); I was in the third year of a University degree course, and was doing research for my Honours essay. I had been reading scientific papers since the middle 1960s.

Lord Zuckerman's examples were from Australopithecines 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?).

I was 38 (39 in October); it was the year that I got married. This is odd; how did it happen that you were doing a Zoology course 14 years after you started reading scientific papers? Either you were precocious in your reading, or you took your University degree rather late in life. Also, 1986 was five years after the publication of Lucy: the Beginnings of Humankind by Johanson and Edey. Why were you still reading Beyond the Ivory Tower when its conclusions had been superseded by Johanson's work? Did you read Lucy, either as part of your course or at any time during the past 30 years?

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

The only Bok I know of is Bart Bok (1906-83), and his wife Priscilla (1896-1975), the authors of The Milky Way and the discoverers of the dark nebulae called Bok globules. Presumably your Bok is a different person.

 

[Dr GS Hurd]

Ad Hominem attacks don't change facts...and Doc I was not responding to you but another....I was not boasting some expertise (as you are doing here) just stating I was into science far longer than my coming to faith...I was trying to get the poster to address the facts and the points being made, feel free to also do so

But you were boasting about how you have read so much sciencey stuff. I merely gave you a small sample of the sciencey stuff I did. You also do know know what an Ad Hominem argument is.

...Lovejoy DID alter the evidence in his "repair" job reconstruction....that's not good science...do you agree?

It is a popular claim that "Lovejoy DID alter the evidence." It is a claim without any foundation.

The illustration you used was published in 2011 (Job M. Kibii et al, "A Partial Pelvis of Australopithecus sediba" Science Vol. 333 no. 6048 pp. 1407-1411). They produced the reconstructed pelvi for A. sediba. The A. africanus pelvis in your post was originally published in 2010 (C. Berge, D. Goularas, 2010 "A new reconstruction of Sts 14 pelvis (Australopithecus africanus) from computed tomography and three-dimensional modeling techniques. J. Hum. Evol. 58, 262).

It was already pointed out that these fossils have nothing to do with Professor Lovejoy, or the "Lucy" fossil or even her species. I read the blog post you copied the photo from, and I don't think you have understood even that. http://lawnchairanthropology.com/2011/09/19/insert-clever-quip-about-australopithecus-hips/

In each case the angle was moved in the "recreations"? And notice how even in sediba the sacrum is separated and rejoined where it would be expected if a semi-human (all grey areas being assumption based reconstructions)? Even so variety (speciation) does not prove intermediacy in a progressive development.

We call that a fine example of word salad.

 

[Dr GS Hurd]

A man named Ed Conrad found evidence of very old, evolution defying, human remains in coal. The Smithsonian turned a deaf ear. Even when MRI's showed it to be true, nobody wanted to touch it with a ten foot pole.

Ed Conrad!

I have not heard from him in many years. Is he still claiming that stony concretions are fossils? Is he still alive?

 

[Loudmouth]

Ya, sure.... Any evidence that I present would be criticized and no scientist, who wants a job tomorrow, would try or think of publishing anything of the sort.

In other words, you have no evidence.

A man named Ed Conrad found evidence of very old, evolution defying, human remains in coal. The Smithsonian turned a deaf ear. Even when MRI's showed it to be true, nobody wanted to touch it with a ten foot pole.

Then let's see the evidence. As suggested above, start your own thread since this thread is devoted to real fossils.

 

[pshun2404]

None of those are Lucy or A. afarensis so what is the point your trying to make?

A. afarensis and A. africanus (shown here without the objectionable repairs) are considered to be in the hominin line.

Someone else referenced other Australopithicus pelvic samples as a rebuttal of the point I had made about Lovejoy's questionable method of "repair" regarding his models...that earlier were given as an image we should consider valid...

Hominid is a classification based on the theory. A taxanomical classification of a particular class of Ape-kind. Albeit it is an accepted term but still one made up by men of a certain belief system. Even I use the term but it is relatively meaningless...a man made construct to compartmentalize one variety of samples found. Originally it meant humans and very few closest relatives (like cro-magnon, neanderthal, and others, all who were varieties of human) and later it was expanded by EBs to blur the line between human and ape...

 

[The Cadet]

Ya, sure.... Any evidence that I present would be criticized

Well of course it would be. This isn't some bizarre special step we only ever take when the evidence would disprove evolution, this is a standard part of the process. Whenever you're presented with new information, the first thing you need to do is check the quality of the evidence, and scrutinize it. I could find evidence tomorrow that claims that supermodels find overweight hairy men extremely attractive, and as happy as that would make me, my first response would be to make sure the claim is actually being made by a legitimate source.

Of course you won't trust him. He is your nemesis.

This is a phenomenally unhelpful attitude to have if you're interested in having a conversation or conveying information. Why tell us in the first place if you already know that there's no way any of us would take it seriously because we're all evil or something like that?

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Hominid is a classification based on the theory.

You have that the wrong way around. Hominid is a classification that has been renamed and modified based on the evidence.

A taxanomical classification of a particular class of Ape-kind. Albeit it is an accepted term but still one made up by men of a certain belief system. Even I use the term but it is relatively meaningless...a man made construct to compartmentalize one variety of samples found. Originally it meant humans and very few closest relatives (like cro-magnon, neanderthal, and others, all who were varieties of human) and later it was expanded by EBs to blur the line between human and ape...

That's close enough; the categories did start out somewhat vague and arbitrary, but each new discovery tells us more, and allows us to better distinguish groups and apparent lineages. Quite often the categories are readjusted in line with new discoveries. You don't need a theory to categorise fossils according to their similarities of appearance and context.

The theory gives us a mechanism to explain the similarities we see in the fossils; it's an explanation of how the pattern of groups and lineages (identified by resemblance & context) was generated.