Lucy

[pshun2404]

Dr. Donald C. Johanson originally insisted that A. afarensis was the direct ancestor of man. In fact, the phrase “the dramatic discovery of our oldest human ancestor” can be found emblazoned on the cover of his 1981 book, Lucy: The Beginnings of Humankind. Numerous other evolutionists, however, strongly disagreed.

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). Now some might complain, “But Lord Zuckerman’s work was done before Lucy was even discovered.” That may be true, but it misses the point.


Zuckerman’s research—which established conclusively that the australopithecines were nothing but knuckle-walking apes—was performed on fossils even younger than Lucy’s (i.e., even closer to man), showing no such evolution in the many, many fossils he examined! But how could this mistaken assessment about Lucy have happened? Well perhaps it was as Johanson himself admitted when he said “I was trying to jam evidence of dates into a pattern that would support conclusions about fossils which, on closer inspection, the fossils themselves would not sustain”(Lucy: The Beginnings of Humankind, Johanson and Edey, 1981, Penguin Publishers, London).

Hmmm? Do you see the admission of fudging to get the desired conclusion? He jammed evidence of dates into the actual data to support a conclusion already preconceived! And this is what bothers me, he sees no wrong in this? No deception? If successful he would have been fine using the lie to willfully make an untruth (at least his assumption based conclusion) appear to be THE truth? Go figure….

So what’s your “best guess” (a regular technique of Neo-Darwinians)? Did Johanson examine the evidence prior to making his decision about Lucy’s ability to walk uprightly? Or was Lucy “upright” and “walking” even before all of her fossils were uncovered—i.e., from the moment that single arm bone buried in the sand was discovered? Or could she walk uprightly as many apes do but usually spent her time knuckle walking? Why would this be “human” or even semi-human? Why exclude the possibility of her simply being an unsuccessful variety of ape? Oh that's right it doesn't fit the preconceived conclusion...we can't have that can we?

Paul

 

[Davian]

Dr. Donald C. Johanson originally insisted that A. afarensis was the direct ancestor of man. In fact, the phrase “the dramatic discovery of our oldest human ancestor” can be found emblazoned on the cover of his 1981 book, Lucy: The Beginnings of Humankind. Numerous other evolutionists, however, strongly disagreed.

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). Now some might complain, “But Lord Zuckerman’s work was done before Lucy was even discovered.” That may be true, but it misses the point.


Zuckerman’s research—which established conclusively that the australopithecines were nothing but knuckle-walking apes—was performed on fossils even younger than Lucy’s (i.e., even closer to man), showing no such evolution in the many, many fossils he examined! But how could this mistaken assessment about Lucy have happened? Well perhaps it was as Johanson himself admitted when he said “I was trying to jam evidence of dates into a pattern that would support conclusions about fossils which, on closer inspection, the fossils themselves would not sustain”(Lucy: The Beginnings of Humankind, Johanson and Edey, 1981, Penguin Publishers, London).

Hmmm? Do you see the admission of fudging to get the desired conclusion? He jammed evidence of dates into the actual data to support a conclusion already preconceived! And this is what bothers me, he sees no wrong in this? No deception? If successful he would have been fine using the lie to willfully make an untruth (at least his assumption based conclusion) appear to be THE truth? Go figure….

So what’s your “best guess” (a regular technique of Neo-Darwinians)? Did Johanson examine the evidence prior to making his decision about Lucy’s ability to walk uprightly? Or was Lucy “upright” and “walking” even before all of her fossils were uncovered—i.e., from the moment that single arm bone buried in the sand was discovered? Or could she walk uprightly as many apes do but usually spent her time knuckle walking? Why would this be “human” or even semi-human? Why exclude the possibility of her simply being an unsuccessful variety of ape? Oh that's right it doesn't fit the preconceived conclusion...we can't have that can we?

Paul

Is this a question of biology or philosophy?

 

[Goonie]

Dr. Donald C. Johanson originally insisted that A. afarensis was the direct ancestor of man. In fact, the phrase “the dramatic discovery of our oldest human ancestor” can be found emblazoned on the cover of his 1981 book, Lucy: The Beginnings of Humankind. Numerous other evolutionists, however, strongly disagreed.

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). Now some might complain, “But Lord Zuckerman’s work was done before Lucy was even discovered.” That may be true, but it misses the point.


Zuckerman’s research—which established conclusively that the australopithecines were nothing but knuckle-walking apes—was performed on fossils even younger than Lucy’s (i.e., even closer to man), showing no such evolution in the many, many fossils he examined! But how could this mistaken assessment about Lucy have happened? Well perhaps it was as Johanson himself admitted when he said “I was trying to jam evidence of dates into a pattern that would support conclusions about fossils which, on closer inspection, the fossils themselves would not sustain”(Lucy: The Beginnings of Humankind, Johanson and Edey, 1981, Penguin Publishers, London).

Hmmm? Do you see the admission of fudging to get the desired conclusion? He jammed evidence of dates into the actual data to support a conclusion already preconceived! And this is what bothers me, he sees no wrong in this? No deception? If successful he would have been fine using the lie to willfully make an untruth (at least his assumption based conclusion) appear to be THE truth? Go figure….

So what’s your “best guess” (a regular technique of Neo-Darwinians)? Did Johanson examine the evidence prior to making his decision about Lucy’s ability to walk uprightly? Or was Lucy “upright” and “walking” even before all of her fossils were uncovered—i.e., from the moment that single arm bone buried in the sand was discovered? Or could she walk uprightly as many apes do but usually spent her time knuckle walking? Why would this be “human” or even semi-human? Why exclude the possibility of her simply being an unsuccessful variety of ape? Oh that's right it doesn't fit the preconceived conclusion...we can't have that can we?

Paul

More suited to the creation/evolution forum in the physical science forum.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Dr. Donald C. Johanson originally insisted that A. afarensis was the direct ancestor of man. In fact, the phrase “the dramatic discovery of our oldest human ancestor” can be found emblazoned on the cover of his 1981 book, Lucy: The Beginnings of Humankind. Numerous other evolutionists, however, strongly disagreed.

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). Now some might complain, “But Lord Zuckerman’s work was done before Lucy was even discovered.” That may be true, but it misses the point.


Zuckerman’s research—which established conclusively that the australopithecines were nothing but knuckle-walking apes—was performed on fossils even younger than Lucy’s (i.e., even closer to man), showing no such evolution in the many, many fossils he examined! But how could this mistaken assessment about Lucy have happened? Well perhaps it was as Johanson himself admitted when he said “I was trying to jam evidence of dates into a pattern that would support conclusions about fossils which, on closer inspection, the fossils themselves would not sustain”(Lucy: The Beginnings of Humankind, Johanson and Edey, 1981, Penguin Publishers, London).

Hmmm? Do you see the admission of fudging to get the desired conclusion? He jammed evidence of dates into the actual data to support a conclusion already preconceived! And this is what bothers me, he sees no wrong in this? No deception? If successful he would have been fine using the lie to willfully make an untruth (at least his assumption based conclusion) appear to be THE truth? Go figure….

So what’s your “best guess” (a regular technique of Neo-Darwinians)? Did Johanson examine the evidence prior to making his decision about Lucy’s ability to walk uprightly? Or was Lucy “upright” and “walking” even before all of her fossils were uncovered—i.e., from the moment that single arm bone buried in the sand was discovered? Or could she walk uprightly as many apes do but usually spent her time knuckle walking? Why would this be “human” or even semi-human? Why exclude the possibility of her simply being an unsuccessful variety of ape? Oh that's right it doesn't fit the preconceived conclusion...we can't have that can we?

Paul

My "best guess" is that 35-45 years ago...the scientists involved didn't have the knowledge of scientists today. I'd also "guess" that since they're human...sometimes mistakes will be made. Finally, I'd "guess" that whatever their intentions were...they're probably glad now that the mistake was caught.

 

[durangodawood]

I'm not really qualified to place Lucy on the evolutionary "tree". Nor do I have a particular stake in this.

Generally, on the topic of human origins, I'll take a broad view of where the science leads.

 

[Larniavc]

Dr. Donald C. Johanson originally insisted that A. afarensis was the direct ancestor of man. In fact, the phrase “the dramatic discovery of our oldest human ancestor” can be found emblazoned on the cover of his 1981 book, Lucy: The Beginnings of Humankind. Numerous other evolutionists, however, strongly disagreed.

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). Now some might complain, “But Lord Zuckerman’s work was done before Lucy was even discovered.” That may be true, but it misses the point.


Zuckerman’s research—which established conclusively that the australopithecines were nothing but knuckle-walking apes—was performed on fossils even younger than Lucy’s (i.e., even closer to man), showing no such evolution in the many, many fossils he examined! But how could this mistaken assessment about Lucy have happened? Well perhaps it was as Johanson himself admitted when he said “I was trying to jam evidence of dates into a pattern that would support conclusions about fossils which, on closer inspection, the fossils themselves would not sustain”(Lucy: The Beginnings of Humankind, Johanson and Edey, 1981, Penguin Publishers, London).

Hmmm? Do you see the admission of fudging to get the desired conclusion? He jammed evidence of dates into the actual data to support a conclusion already preconceived! And this is what bothers me, he sees no wrong in this? No deception? If successful he would have been fine using the lie to willfully make an untruth (at least his assumption based conclusion) appear to be THE truth? Go figure….

So what’s your “best guess” (a regular technique of Neo-Darwinians)? Did Johanson examine the evidence prior to making his decision about Lucy’s ability to walk uprightly? Or was Lucy “upright” and “walking” even before all of her fossils were uncovered—i.e., from the moment that single arm bone buried in the sand was discovered? Or could she walk uprightly as many apes do but usually spent her time knuckle walking? Why would this be “human” or even semi-human? Why exclude the possibility of her simply being an unsuccessful variety of ape? Oh that's right it doesn't fit the preconceived conclusion...we can't have that can we?

Paul

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

 

[pshun2404]

Mods...could you move this thread to Physical and Life Science

 

[pshun2404]

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

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

 

[pshun2404]

Please relocate this thread to Physical and Life sciences

 

[pshun2404]

Dr. Donald C. Johanson originally insisted that A. afarensis was the direct ancestor of man. In fact, the phrase “the dramatic discovery of our oldest human ancestor” can be found emblazoned on the cover of his 1981 book, Lucy: The Beginnings of Humankind. Numerous other evolutionists, however, strongly disagreed.

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). Now some might complain, “But Lord Zuckerman’s work was done before Lucy was even discovered.” That may be true, but it misses the point.


Zuckerman’s research—which established conclusively that the australopithecines were nothing but knuckle-walking apes—was performed on fossils even younger than Lucy’s (i.e., even closer to man), showing no such evolution in the many, many fossils he examined! But how could this mistaken assessment about Lucy have happened? Well perhaps it was as Johanson himself admitted when he said “I was trying to jam evidence of dates into a pattern that would support conclusions about fossils which, on closer inspection, the fossils themselves would not sustain”(Lucy: The Beginnings of Humankind, Johanson and Edey, 1981, Penguin Publishers, London).

Hmmm? Do you see the admission of fudging to get the desired conclusion? He jammed evidence of dates into the actual data to support a conclusion already preconceived! And this is what bothers me, he sees no wrong in this? No deception? If successful he would have been fine using the lie to willfully make an untruth (at least his assumption based conclusion) appear to be THE truth? Go figure….

So what’s your “best guess” (a regular technique of Neo-Darwinians)? Did Johanson examine the evidence prior to making his decision about Lucy’s ability to walk uprightly? Or was Lucy “upright” and “walking” even before all of her fossils were uncovered—i.e., from the moment that single arm bone buried in the sand was discovered? Or could she walk uprightly as many apes do but usually spent her time knuckle walking? Why would this be “human” or even semi-human? Why exclude the possibility of her simply being an unsuccessful variety of ape? Oh that's right it doesn't fit the preconceived conclusion...we can't have that can we?

Paul

 

[The Cadet]

Dr. Donald C. Johanson originally insisted that A. afarensis was the direct ancestor of man. In fact, the phrase “the dramatic discovery of our oldest human ancestor” can be found emblazoned on the cover of his 1981 book, Lucy: The Beginnings of Humankind. Numerous other evolutionists, however, strongly disagreed.

Not in 1981. In fact, by then, the debate was actually completely settled.

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).

Zuckerman attempted to prove that the australopithecines were merely apes. He failed in the 50s, and his views were repudiated and discarded. You are quoting someone whose research was proven wrong half a century ago as though they were a legitimate source. Perhaps it would do you well to get a little closer to the present? Are there any scientists today who think that Lucy was "just an ape"?

Zuckerman’s research—which established conclusively that the australopithecines were nothing but knuckle-walking apes

Nonsense. Zuckerman's research utterly failed to establish this. Again, it's important to remember that nobody agrees with him today. Zuckerman's view was repudiated by research both before and after the discovery of Lucy.

—was performed on fossils even younger than Lucy’s (i.e., even closer to man), showing no such evolution in the many, many fossils he examined!

This just in: established scientists get things wrong sometimes. Zuckerman's work has not stood the test of time. It was honest, real research, but he was wrong.

But how could this mistaken assessment about Lucy have happened? Well perhaps it was as Johanson himself admitted when he said “I was trying to jam evidence of dates into a pattern that would support conclusions about fossils which, on closer inspection, the fossils themselves would not sustain”(Lucy: The Beginnings of Humankind, Johanson and Edey, 1981, Penguin Publishers, London).

It's one thing to quote a scientist whose ideas the mainstream has long since abandoned. It is entirely another to dishonestly misquote an scientist describing the mainstream.

https://books.google.de/books?id=HgGNlFMM5XQC&pg=PA259&lpg=PA259&dq=I+was+trying+to+jam+evidence+of+dates+into+a+pattern+that+would+support+conclusions+about+fossils+which,+on+closer+inspection,+the+fossils+themselves+would+not+sustain&source=bl&ots=7ee5MeGbN0&sig=fmVhO9tY5bwY9mMdDkgViaNRoUg&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CCIQ6AEwAGoVChMIiqudhObHxwIVQbwUCh3XJgps#v=onepage&q=I was trying to jam evidence of dates into a pattern that would support conclusions about fossils which, on closer inspection, the fossils themselves would not sustain&f=false

I strongly recommend everyone read the passage in context. The statement in question is not referring to Lucy. It's a scientist openly talking about his biases with regards to other fossils, and issues that made it hard for him to place Lucy c. It is not the scientist admitting that his discovery was not what it seemed to be. But even if it had been, guess what: it doesn't matter. Because his discovery held up. Today, Lucy is universally understood as a transitional form. Science moves forward. Ideas that hold up are kept while those that don't are discarded. Your citations are decades out of date, poorly quoted, and completely meaningless to the modern state of the science.

Hmmm? Do you see the admission of fudging to get the desired conclusion?

Only - only - if you did not read the original source whatsoever and completely ripped your quote out of context! Did you read the source you're quoting to any depth whatsoever? Seriously, please explain this. This kind of thing is unacceptable.

So what’s your “best guess” (a regular technique of Neo-Darwinians)?

My best guess is that you pulled these quotes from a creationist source like AiG or Apologetics Press without spending even a moment checking if any of it was actually true. You just saw it, thought, "Yeah, that sounds damning to evolution", and reposted it here without even a moment's thought.

 

[.Mikha'el.]

ON!

Thread moved from Philosophy to Physical and Life Sciences!

OFF!

 

[Shemjaza]

You might want to get the mods to merge this with your mirror thread.

 

[David4223]

MOD HAT ON

The two threads about the same topic have been merged into one.

MOD HAT OFF​

 

[DaisyDay]

“I was trying to jam evidence of dates into a pattern that would support conclusions about fossils which, on closer inspection, the fossils themselves would not sustain”(Lucy: The Beginnings of Humankind, Johanson and Edey, 1981, Penguin Publishers, London).

You should read some of the context: GoogleBooks: Lucy: The Beginnings of Humankind - if you think this in anyway debunks the Theory of Evolution.

Also, what the Cadet said. The book is pretty interesting. You should read it.

 

[sfs]

Only - only - if you did not read the original source whatsoever and completely ripped your quote out of context! Did you read the source you're quoting to any depth whatsoever? Seriously, please explain this. This kind of thing is unacceptable.

It sure would be nice to hear from the original poster about this flagrant quote mine. Unfortunately, he has a history of posting the same argument repeatedly without ever responding to criticism.

 

[JacksBratt]

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.

 

[The Cadet]

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.

http://johnhawks.net/explainer/bipedality/pelvis-australopithecus/

Actually, below the neck was the most important human connection: the pelvis. The pelvis was typical of upright movement, not of tree-borne quadrupedal movement. Lucy was an ape that walked like a man.

This debate will never go away.

It already has in scientific circles. The only place this debate still exists is among creationist circles. Everywhere else, Lucy and austraulopithecines in general are universally accepted as transitional forms in hominid evolution. Why do you think that is?

 

[DaisyDay]

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.

Gorillas don't have a circular jaw; neither do humans. Gorillas' and chimpanzees' back teeth are in parallel rows while humans' are more slanted away towards the back. Her teeth are smaller than a chimpanzee's and larger than a human's. She was the smallest of all the specimens of the species they found. Of all of them, their brain size overlapped the high size for a chimpanzee but did not overlap the low side for humans.

Do you understand? She and her species is neither completely apelike nor completely humanlike but in between - this is their significance.

 

[Armoured]

“But Lord Zuckerman’s work was done before Lucy was even discovered.” That may be true, but it misses the point.

Seems like kind of a crux point, actually...