I saw this video repeatedly posted on another forum as though it proved something.
YouTube - "LUCY" (Australopithecus afarensis)..The Ultimate proof of evolution..Part 8
My problem is that it doesn't address any of the reasons for why Lovejoy reconstructed it the way he did, and it presents it as though Lovejoy assumed how it would look and made it to fit that. What I need to find, in order to be objective about it, is the actual peer reviewed article where Lovejoy explains why he had to reshape it, and most importantly, what led him to reshape it the way he did. It was crushed in the first place, but if you want to arbitrarily refit crushed pieces back together I'm sure you could force several different outcomes. I'm looking for the objective reasons that he did it the way he did.
I found this article from 1988: http://www.clas.ufl.edu/users/krigbaum/proseminar/Lovejoy_1988_SA.pdf
And there are a few other peer reviewed articles from '86 and '89 that I don't have access to. Can anyone help me track down a copy of the paper where Lovejoy explicitly states why he reconstructed the pelvic bone the way he did?
YouTube - "LUCY" (Australopithecus afarensis)..The Ultimate proof of evolution..Part 8
My problem is that it doesn't address any of the reasons for why Lovejoy reconstructed it the way he did, and it presents it as though Lovejoy assumed how it would look and made it to fit that. What I need to find, in order to be objective about it, is the actual peer reviewed article where Lovejoy explains why he had to reshape it, and most importantly, what led him to reshape it the way he did. It was crushed in the first place, but if you want to arbitrarily refit crushed pieces back together I'm sure you could force several different outcomes. I'm looking for the objective reasons that he did it the way he did.
I found this article from 1988: http://www.clas.ufl.edu/users/krigbaum/proseminar/Lovejoy_1988_SA.pdf
And there are a few other peer reviewed articles from '86 and '89 that I don't have access to. Can anyone help me track down a copy of the paper where Lovejoy explicitly states why he reconstructed the pelvic bone the way he did?
Last edited:
