Lucy

[-57]

From this...

They get this....

 

[Dr GS Hurd]

From this...

View attachment 162966

They get this....

View attachment 162967

You do know that that was not honest.

Here are the recovered "Lucy" fossils in place.

But that was informed by anatomical studies including other Au. afarensis fossils;

Read about this and more at;

The cranial base of Australopithecus afarensis: new insights from the female skull
William H. Kimbel, Yoel Rak,
Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B 2010 365 3365-3376; DOI: 10.1098/rstb.2010.0070. Published 20 September 2010

http://rstb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/365/1556/3365

 

[pshun2404]

Yes indeed, that IS not honest! 20% reality 80% imaginary = 100% not honest...

still finding the pelvis bone parts, as naturally found, appeared to be ape like (which was contrary to his preconceived claim)...he reshaped the model to fit as he believed (never having seen the whole item or Lucy) they would have looked...not how they actually looked...

 

[Dr GS Hurd]

I once spent 4 months rebuilding a scapula (shoulder blade) that had been worked into a prehistoric tool. I had to use a microscope to place the hundreds of bone fragments together one at a time. After 3 months I could tell that somewhere I had made a bad error, the shape was all wrong. The outer edge was curving. I checked all the fragments on my work table without any good result. Then I carefully tore apart all the paper bags the bones had been stored in, and I found two tiny fragments I had missed. They had been trapped in the paper seams of the bags.

And with those two fragments, I was able to take apart the failed reconstruction, and properly finish the job correctly.

If you think that Lovejoy did anything less than a good honest job, you are delusional. If you have never tried this sort of work, you have no credibility at all. Ask a plumber to do your heart surgery.

When you try to grasp at reality (it might be difficult) also recognize that we have many other Au. afarensis pelvi. "Lucy" was not the only one.

 

[-57]

Lovejoy ground away bone to make them fit his pre-conceived notion of what Lucy "must" habe looked like.

 

[pshun2404]

I once spent 4 months rebuilding a scapula (shoulder blade) that had been worked into a prehistoric tool. I had to use a microscope to place the hundreds of bone fragments together one at a time. After 3 months I could tell that somewhere I had made a bad error, the shape was all wrong. The outer edge was curving. I checked all the fragments on my work table without any good result. Then I carefully tore apart all the paper bags the bones had been stored in, and I found two tiny fragments I had missed. They had been trapped in the paper seams of the bags.

And with those two fragments, I was able to take apart the failed reconstruction, and properly finish the job correctly.

If you think that Lovejoy did anything less than a good honest job, you are delusional. If you have never tried this sort of work, you have no credibility at all. Ask a plumber to do your heart surgery.

When you try to grasp at reality (it might be difficult) also recognize that we have many other Au. afarensis pelvi. "Lucy" was not the only one.

By all means show me some of the ACTUAL pelvic examples...I have a seen a few and then compating them to the reconstructions with plaster molding created to enhance...so show me some of these "many" ACTUAL fossils of A. Afarensis (whay was actually found)...

Thanks

Paul

 

[Dr GS Hurd]

Lovejoy ground away bone to make them fit his pre-conceived notion of what Lucy "must" habe looked like.

Not true. He removed stony concretions that prevented cross-fitting the damaged bones. And it was to a plaster copy. All the original fossil material is exactly as it was originally discovered.

Creationist frauds and liars have fooled you. It was easy for them because you are desperate.

 

[Dr GS Hurd]

Do not be an obvious nitwit when a simple Goggle search will show you are wrong.

https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="afarensis"+pelvis+fossils&btnG=&hl=en&as_sdt=0,5

 

[pshun2404]

"delusional"..."an obvious nitwit"....nice....real professional....name calling is a typical default admission.

You said (not I) that there were "many" fossils of A. Afarensis pelvis's....I did my google-ing before your forcing of redundancy on me and as I said there are only a "few"....I see a short wide hipped ape in these...

I asked you to "show me" some (I actually want to see them)...simply copy some photos and submit them here. If you can't that's okay just admit it and saver the insults for someone it will incite!

None of the items in this link show A. Afarensis fossil pelvic bones...save those I already have shown!

Now please show me some of them as you claim they exist....(not africanus, not sediba, but Afrarensis like you said exist)....the actual fossils please...

Thanks

Paul

 

[Dr GS Hurd]

There are several immature Astralopith fossils with pelvic bones, but even limiting this to adult skeletons only we have adequate comparative materials. Here are the fossil catalog numbers for the best preserved examples, and what I think are better published studies.

A.L. 288–1 (Lucy), A.L. 438-1
William H. Kimbel and Lucas K. Delezene 2009 "‘Lucy’ Redux: A Review of Research on Australopithecus afarensis" YEARBOOK OF PHYSICAL ANTHROPOLOGY 52:2–48

KSD-VP-1/1d
Haile-Selassie, Y., Latimer, B. M., Alene, M., Deino, A. L., Gibert, L., Melillo, S. M., ... & Lovejoy, C. O. 2010 "An early Australopithecus afarensis postcranium from Woranso-Mille, Ethiopia" Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 107(27), 12121-12126.

You are badly mistaken that the pelvic studies of the A. africanus are not applicable. In fact, Tim White was arguing that africanus and afarensis could be combined in a single species based on skeletal bone, and that only cranial bones and teeth really separated them. Later studies mentioned below both find some post-cranial differences that indicate the A. afarensis are more human-like than the A. africanus.

Dobson, S. D. 2005 "Are the differences between Stw 431 (Australopithecus africanus) and AL 288-1 (A. afarensis) significant?" Journal of human evolution, 49(1), 143-154.

Dobson found that Stw 431 has only a significantly smaller lumbosacral joint which means that A. afarensis was a better walker.

Green, D. J., Gordon, A. D., & Richmond, B. G. 2007 "Limb-size proportions in Australopithecus afarensis and Australopithecus africanus" Journal of human evolution, 52(2), 187-200.

Green et al found that the body proportions of A. afarensis were more similar to Homo habilus than the africanus fossils.

Stw 431 and Sts 14 (africanus)
StW 441/465

Kibii, J.M., Clarke, R.J.
2008 "A reconstruction of the Stw 431 Australopithecus pelvis based on newly discovered fragments" South African Journal of Science Vol 99:5&6, 225-226

But the real question is what does this tell us about human evolution? Two good reviews are;

Gruss LT, Schmitt D. 2015 "The evolution of the human pelvis: changing adaptations to bipedalism, obstetrics and thermoregulation" Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B 370:20140063

Lewton, K. L. 2012 "Evolvability of the primate pelvic girdle" Evolutionary Biology, 39(1), 126-139

I found Lewton's article particularly interesting as she relates the genetic control network for the individual bones of the pelvis as they could evolve in some sense independently of one another.

I should have added that I only refer to fossils, and published articles that anyone can freely review.

 

[pshun2404]

There are several immature Astralopith fossils with pelvic bones, but even limiting this to adult skeletons only we have adequate comparative materials. Here are the fossil catalog numbers for the best preserved examples, and what I think are better published studies.

A.L. 288–1 (Lucy), A.L. 438-1
William H. Kimbel and Lucas K. Delezene 2009 "‘Lucy’ Redux: A Review of Research on Australopithecus afarensis" YEARBOOK OF PHYSICAL ANTHROPOLOGY 52:2–48

KSD-VP-1/1d
Haile-Selassie, Y., Latimer, B. M., Alene, M., Deino, A. L., Gibert, L., Melillo, S. M., ... & Lovejoy, C. O. 2010 "An early Australopithecus afarensis postcranium from Woranso-Mille, Ethiopia" Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 107(27), 12121-12126.

You are badly mistaken that the pelvic studies of the A. africanus are not applicable. In fact, Tim White was arguing that africanus and afarensis could be combined in a single species based on skeletal bone, and that only cranial bones and teeth really separated them. Later studies mentioned below both find some post-cranial differences that indicate the A. afarensis are more human-like than the A. africanus.

Dobson, S. D. 2005 "Are the differences between Stw 431 (Australopithecus africanus) and AL 288-1 (A. afarensis) significant?" Journal of human evolution, 49(1), 143-154.

Dobson found that Stw 431 has only a significantly smaller lumbosacral joint which means that A. afarensis was a better walker.

Green, D. J., Gordon, A. D., & Richmond, B. G. 2007 "Limb-size proportions in Australopithecus afarensis and Australopithecus africanus" Journal of human evolution, 52(2), 187-200.

Green et al found that the body proportions of A. afarensis were more similar to Homo habilus than the africanus fossils.

Stw 431 and Sts 14 (africanus)
StW 441/465

Kibii, J.M., Clarke, R.J.
2008 "A reconstruction of the Stw 431 Australopithecus pelvis based on newly discovered fragments" South African Journal of Science Vol 99:5&6, 225-226

But the real question is what does this tell us about human evolution? Two good reviews are;

Gruss LT, Schmitt D. 2015 "The evolution of the human pelvis: changing adaptations to bipedalism, obstetrics and thermoregulation" Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B 370:20140063

Lewton, K. L. 2012 "Evolvability of the primate pelvic girdle" Evolutionary Biology, 39(1), 126-139

I found Lewton's article particularly interesting as she relates the genetic control network for the individual bones of the pelvis as they could evolve in some sense independently of one another.

I should have added that I only refer to fossils, and published articles that anyone can freely review.

Great only these do not address the claim you made...you said "many" examples of A. Afarensis pelvis...please provide some or admit you were mistaken...

As for samples of Africanus (like STW 431) the pelvic sample, though scant, is clearly (and admitted to be) more Ape-like thus having to be called an "evolutionary reversal" (being after Lucy), which is a very convenient way of excusing the error in judgment of those claiming they are the same species (rather than merely variations or even totally different creatures) however, we are not addressing the issue of the story told to make the real data support the presupposed theory (often the same evidence can be interpreted differently), we are talking about Lucy (A. Afarensis) and what you said as an allegedly authority based rebuttal to my point...

It was YOU (Dr. of Anthropology?) who said "When you try to grasp at reality (it might be difficult) also recognize that we have many other Au. afarensis pelvi. "Lucy" was not the only one."

Well first I have a strong grip on reality (I do not easily buy into the convenient hypotheses based explanations) and NO we DON'T have "many other Au. afarensis pelvi" YOU know this is an untruth...so please just say you were mistaken or trying to persuade the less educated so we can move on...

Paul

 

[Dr GS Hurd]

It was YOU (Dr. of Anthropology?) who said "When you try to grasp at reality (it might be difficult) also recognize that we have many other Au. afarensis pelvi. "Lucy" was not the only one."

I posted the generally intact, and easily accessed examples.

However, I'll amend my sentence, "When you try to grasp at reality (it might be difficult) also recognize that we have plenty other Au. afarensis pelvi for analysis. "Lucy" was not the only one."

 

[pshun2404]

Accepted! Please post some of the plenty other A. Afarensis pelvi fossils...show me them...I do not see them...plenty of skull bones, elbows, a few vertebra, but only the same two or three pelvic examples...

To me, plenty other is more than a total of a few...

 

[pshun2404]

Couldn't find any eh? Didn't think so....

 

[Loudmouth]

Hominid is a classification based on the theory.

False. It is a classification based on the shared physical features of the fossils and living humans. It is based on the facts.

It is also worth mentioning that Linnaeus organized life by shared features without using evolution at all, being that he did so well before Darwin was even born.

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...

Then why don't you list some criteria that we can use to differentiate between hominids and non-hominids. If you don't accept A. afarensis as a transitional species, then please tell us what features a real transitional would need. Show us the criteria you are using. Or is it a matter of rejecting any fossil as being transitional, no matter what it looks like?

 

[Loudmouth]

Accepted! Please post some of the plenty other A. Afarensis pelvi fossils...show me them...I do not see them...plenty of skull bones, elbows, a few vertebra, but only the same two or three pelvic examples...

To me, plenty other is more than a total of a few...

"Reading the popular literature (non technical papers), one would get the impression that there has only been one australopithecine pelvis found: the one belonging to A.L. 288-1 (‘Lucy’). Students sometimes get the notion that from this pelvis alone that australopithecine locomotion has been determined. The truth is there are several pelves belonging to australopithecines, some partial, some complete, and the evidence for australopithecine bipedality was established long before the skeleton of Lucy was even discovered.

Pelvic remains of Australopithecus africanus have been recovered from the South African sites of Makapansgat and Sterkfontein. The Makapansgat remains consist of two juvenile ilia: a left; MLD 7 (male), MLD 25 (female) also from the left side, and ischial (the innominate, or hip bone, consists of 3 bones that fuse together with age; the ilium, ischium, and the pubis) fragment MLD 8.1 These remains are claimed to be 3.3–3.0 Ma old. Pelvic remains from Sterkfontein include: Sts 14 (a partial skeleton with a nearly complete pelvis), Sts 65 (a right innominate), and Stw 431 (a partial skeleton from Sterkfontein Member 4) found in 1987. Apart from Stw 431 all of these remains were discovered long before A.L. 288-1 (‘Lucy’)."
http://www.angelfire.com/mi/dinosaurs/Journal_20_2__pp104_112.pdf

 

[DaisyDay]

Or is it a matter of rejecting any fossil as being transitional, no matter what it looks like?

Bingo.

 

[pshun2404]

"Reading the popular literature (non technical papers), one would get the impression that there has only been one australopithecine pelvis found: the one belonging to A.L. 288-1 (‘Lucy’). Students sometimes get the notion that from this pelvis alone that australopithecine locomotion has been determined.

Not the case here as I have read many many "technical papers", and I certainly did not make that assertion (the only one)....I know of three examples to be exact (have seen them all) and Lucy's had the most real fossil remaining...(but it was changed)

Doc said plenty of A. Afarensis examples...I looked and looked years ago and even now and could not find any others...

Afarensis and Africanus and Sediba are all DIFFERENT varieties....Africanus and Sediba ARE NOT Afarensis so your references again DO NOT APPLY....if you can show some examples of the "many" Afarensis PELVIC fossils I would love to see them...show us...provide some photos of the actual fossils (not just the story we are told to believe)

Why is it no can get this? The mind seems not to be able to grasp simple logic...

I gave photos...others from your side have given photo support of other features...so SHOW US

By the way...I really liked the article Stw 441/465: a new fragmentary ilium of a small-bodied Australopithecus africanus from Sterkfontein, South Africa by Hausler and Berger....IMO what we are finding of Africanus can be interpreted as more convincing but we are talking about Afarensis....please stay focused. Thanks

 

[Loudmouth]

Afarensis and Africanus and Sediba are all DIFFERENT varieties....Africanus and Sediba ARE NOT Afarensis so your references again DO NOT APPLY....

They are all australopithecines, and all are transitional. Do you think that they faked all of these pelvises to look more human-like?

Why is it no can get this? The mind seems not to be able to grasp simple logic...

Would it really matter? If there were multiple examples of a human-like pelvis in A. afarensis, would you accept them as transitional and evidence for evolution?

 

[pshun2404]

They are all australopithecines, and all are transitional. Do you think that they faked all of these pelvises to look more human-like?

Absolutely not...the actual fossils are the actual fossils...some of what we see in "reconstructions" are added to and or enhanced....the point that they are all being classified as Australopithecines is irrelevant to the discussion Doc and I were having. Saint Bernards and Shih tzu are both dogs, but not the same creature...we cannot rightly compare their jaw bones and make generalized associations that are species defining....Bernards and Shih tzu are different species (varieties) but not the same animal...Africanus and Sediba may be different species (varieties) of Australopithecus, but they are not the same...so it is also with Afarensis...

His assertion (from an apparently authoritative opinion) was that there were many A. Afarensis pelvi. Are there or are there not? If so show us...if not admit the mistake and we can move on...