by Steve Risner Lucy. I was recently at the Creation Museum of Answers in Genesis in northern Kentucky and was able to take a look at the famed human ancestor named after a Beatles’ song—replicas of the fossils, of course. She's held up as the iconic transition from our more apelike ancestors to modern man. Have you ever actually looked at all the information regarding “her”? It's pretty interesting to look at what an evolutionist will grab onto in order to cling to their religion. There are several reasons to throw Lucy out as a transition from anything to anything. In fact, it may be pretty easy to conclude the only reason we can even suggest she was a transition from a more apelike ancestor to us is that they took bones from two different creatures and put them together! That wouldn't happen, though, would it? Some may even believe there is a great lineage we can trace back through the ages of human evolution with piles of fossil remains. But the truth is that, with room to spare, we could fit all the fossil remains of our alleged ancestors into a single coffin. So is Lucy, found in 1974, the real mother of humanity? What was this legendary Australopithecus afarensis fossil? It's said she walked upright like modern humans but had a pretty tiny brain. This is one of the stories evolutionists will tell about the evolution of man—apelike creatures began walking upright and then slowly developed a bigger, more complex brain. Is there any support for such a notion? Not at all. In fact, some will say the exact opposite—that we began developing bigger brains and moved to the ground looking for food and using tools. So which is it? Like most of the theory of evolution, it's all stories and you can pick whatever you want to believe. Moving on... The history of Lucy's find: Donald Johanson was digging in the Hadar area of Ethiopia’s Afar Depression, the northernmost part of the Great Rift Valley. He came upon a large number of fossilized remains including several skull fragments, jawbones of various shapes, and various other skeletal bits and pieces including some fragments of a pelvis. Johanson admits he found the knee and lower leg bones at another site a year earlier—1.5 miles away and over 200 ft deeper! That's right! How can we conclude these were form the same creature or even the same type of creature when the finds are so fragmented and so far away at such varying depths? Johanson himself tells us: “It is hard for me now to admit how tangled in that thicket I was. But the insidious thing about bias is that it does make one deaf to the cries of other evidence.” What evidence is he referring to? Nearly every piece of the famed skeleton is similar in size and shape to the modern chimpanzee. That is to say that the skull size was identical to that of a chimp as well as its shape. The jaw was like that of a chimp. The wrist bones, very important in determining how the animal walked, are clearly of a “knuckle-dragging” ape. The ribs were more round like an ape's rather than flat or bladelike as a human's would be. The pelvis was crushed and only a small portion of it found. But Dr. Lovejoy did us all a favor and reconstructed it for us. His claim was that the bones, which seemed to want to fit together to make the pelvic shape of a knuckle-walking ape nearly perfectly, fit together “too well.” He did a famous video on this reconstruction where he actually took a saw-like tool and modified the pelvic structure to appear more like a human's pelvis. To be clear, the evidence clearly was in favor of a chimp-like pelvis so it was modified to be more human-like. That is “science” for you. What is interesting is that all the parts of Lucy that were found at one site indicate it was a chimpanzee—pretty much without question. Even the pelvis, before it was cut and fit together to make it look human, was obviously a chimp's or something very much like a chimp. The portions of this specimen found 1.5 miles away appeared to be more human-like because of the angle of the knee joint. However, this received criticism from other evolutionary paleontologists, asserting “that it was nothing more than a monkey knee,” but as Johanson writes in Lucy’s Legacy, “I never veered from my original assertion that the knee belonged to a biped.” A biped is something that walks on two legs rather than on all four. What are the details? Looking head on, chimpanzee and gorilla legs have an angle of 0 degrees. Humans have an angle of about 9 degrees. If the angle is much greater it gives a “knocked kneed” condition in humans. Lucy has a larger angle of about 15 degrees. Does this mean the evidence is conclusive that she walked upright? Not at all. Orangutans and spider monkeys, both of which are designed very well for living in trees, have knee angulation of about 15 degrees as well. Keep in mind that the knee joint was not found with the rest of the skeleton. These parts were found 1.5 miles away and over 200 ft deeper. Footprints have been discovered in the area as well. For some reason, scientists feel compelled to conclude that, although all the evidence shows Lucy was a chimp or something very similar to a chimp, these prints were from her or another one of her species. The prints appear to be very much like a modern human's prints. There is a growing number of scientists who are honest enough to say Lucy is nothing but an ape—most likely a chimpanzee. Some suggest that the fame, power, and money involved in a discovery so profound forced Johanson to fabricate a story that supported his find as the oldest member of modern man's lineage. There is literally nothing physical in the evidence that supports Lucy being anything but an ape. Not a single thing. Even her gender has been questioned by evolutionists. It seems there is nothing we actually know about this creature aside from the fact that it (or they, since there seems to be at least two different organisms involved) lived and died. It may come as a surprise that 40 years after her discovery, more errors are being found in the remains and their classification. Just this year, 2015, scientists examining replicas of the famous skeletal remains found a backbone that was out of place. It was far too small to belong to this individual. It turns out, the conclusion is that it was from a baboon! The articles you'll read on this down play it and even make use of phrases like “small mistake” or something like that. A small mistake? It's a bone from a different animal altogether. The Bible tells us that man was created on the 6th day as God formed him from the dust and breathed life into him. Man was created in God's image—the importance of this cannot be stressed enough. If man evolved, he isn't created special and he isn't in God's image. Therefore, he's just an animal that happens to be smarter than the rest of the animal kingdom. God doesn't hold the animal kingdom to a high moral standard and He doesn't offer redemption to them when they sin. He does, however, command a moral standard of us with consequences for violation of that code. He also, because of His great love and mercy, provides a way of salvation to us if we are willing to accept it. Darwinian evolution is a religion. It is a religion that is pushed on us as science when it is actually in spite of all the scientific facts we can find. This example of the “science” behind human ancestry is typical. You can read a very good article on the subject of the bias and religious zeal of evolutionists at the Creation Moments website here: http://www.creationmoments.com/content/lucy-remains-college Of particular note is the last half concerning things Johanson stated about his search for fossils and how money and reputation were the only motivational factors in his work. I'm beginning to think that every part of the theory of evolution is completely fabricated and no physical evidence exists to support it. In fact, one evolutionist claims creationists don't believe in evolution because they lack imagination! I couldn't make this stuff up. So be encouraged. This icon of evolution is so filled with holes, it's insulting to an intelligent person for them to share it as they have. There isn't a single piece of evidence for an ancestor of mankind other than other modern humans. The mountain of evidence for Darwinism is really a house of cards. This forum is meant to foster discussion and allow for differing viewpoints to be explored with equal and respectful consideration. Any foul language or threatening/abusive comments will be deleted. Users who engage in threatening or abusive comments which are physically harmful in nature, will be reported to the authorities.
35 comments:
//He did a famous video on this reconstruction where he actually took a saw-like tool and modified the pelvic structure to appear more like a human's pelvis. To be clear, the evidence clearly was in favor of a chimp-like pelvis so it was modified to be more human-like. That is “science” for you.//
So, this guy knowingly committed fraud, and invited a film crew to record it? Something doesn't add up...
Why don't you address his claim that there is evidence that the pelvis broke and then later fossilized in that broken state?
//There is a growing number of scientists who are honest enough to say Lucy is nothing but an ape//
Humans are apes. Your statement makes no sense.
This whole thing is completely irrelevant in any creation/evolution debate. A non-human bipedal ape is not forbidden by "Biblical" Creationism.
You are right, David. It doesn't add up. Considering the entire program is saying "It's supposed to be human like, but it's too apelike." Yes, something doesn't add up. His whole "something broke it up" is mere speculation. That's his opinion, an opinion based on "it should be humanlike". Something else doesn't add up. We never see him compare his "replicas" to the originals. Are they the same? I will dare say they are not. We see the bias throughout the entire program. They WANT a human-like common-ancestor. They are following the evidence. They are creating evidence. And people like you are too easily duped by it.
//Humans are apes. Your statement makes no sense.//
Evidence please. Lucy fails. Every other link fails. Human are NOT apes by any means. There is NOTHING factual that links them.
Two different species must share a common ancestor for you to classify them both as apes? There was only one pair of apes on the ark?
Are you ok with classifying humans as mammals?
This blog post is more propaganda than information.
Bob Sorensen refused to deal with this other blog or even acknowledge it on his own pages. Predictably. But is Steve prepared to look at the first part of it? Or not?
https://bibleandscienceforum.wordpress.com/2015/04/25/an-open-letter-to-young-earth-creationists-who-predictably-misrepresented-the-news-about-lucy/
"What is interesting is that all the parts of Lucy that were found at one site indicate it was a chimpanzee—pretty much without question". Not true (and did you not notice that the Creation Museum falsely depict it as more like an extinct 'small gorilla' rather than like some kind of chimp):
https://answersingenesis.org/blogs/ken-ham/2012/08/12/we-now-know-that-lucy-said-duh-duh-duh/
Chimps are not bipedal mammals:
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/331/6018/750.abstract
From the Abstract:
"A complete fourth metatarsal of A. afarensis was recently discovered at Hadar, Ethiopia. It exhibits torsion of the head relative to the base, a direct correlate of a transverse arch in humans. The orientation of the proximal and distal ends of the bone reflects a longitudinal arch. Further, the deep, flat base and tarsal facets imply that its midfoot had no ape-like midtarsal break. These features show that the A. afarensis foot was functionally like that of modern humans and support the hypothesis that this species was a committed terrestrial biped."
"It is hard for me now to admit how tangled in that thicket I was. But the insidious thing about bias is that it does make one deaf to the cries of other evidence." Those words by Johanson - which appear on various creationist websites and which Steve does not present in their precise context - look very much like a quote-mine designed to imply some kind of deliberate or accidental fraud by Johanson regarding evidence. His next words were "I recognised my bias quickly enough ...".
"There is a growing number of scientists who are honest enough to say Lucy is nothing but an ape—most likely a chimpanzee." Who are these scientists? Please name some of them - if you can.
"There is literally nothing physical in the evidence that supports Lucy being anything but an ape. Not a single thing." You are either ignorant (so why are you blogging on this topic) or you are lying. (I would also refer you to this blog post, one of several on Lucy by this blogger during the past couple of years: http://www.evoanth.net/2013/04/15/lucy-the-knuckle-walker-answers-in-genesis-v-evoanth/)
"If Lucy was a knuckle walker, you’d expect to find evidence for it in the arms and hands. Yet many studies have found that the adaptations chimps and gorillas have for knuckle walking are completely absent from Lucy and her kin ...".
"It is a religion that is pushed on us as science when it is actually in spite of all the scientific facts we can find." Totally untrue (as TEC Todd C Wood admitted in 2009).
"I'm beginning to think that every part of the theory of evolution is completely fabricated and no physical evidence exists to support it...". Your extreme bias is showing.
Yes, two species must share a common ancestor for them to be related. No problems with that. I have no problem suggesting you and I have a common ancestor. We do: Noah, probably Japeth too. The problem is claiming common ancestry when there is NOTHING to put between us. What would it have looked like? Why does the human evolution chain go from ape to human? Why does nothing go between this common ancestor and modern day apes? How did they not evolve?
Do I have a problem with identifying humans as mammals? With a proper understanding that the taxonomy is purely arbitrary and just how one person/group of persons decided how to organize the forms of life on this planet. We are different than any other mammal (or any animal for that matter) because we are specifically made in the image of God and have a spirit. Are we mammals by how a mammal is defined? (have hair, gives birth to live young, feeds young with milk) Yes. Does that make us related in any sense? Absolutely not.
Sorry - Wood is a YEC not a 'TEC'!
(Slightly distracted by all the UK political leaders being grilled 'live' on BBC TV as I wrote these comments.)
"Why does nothing go between this common ancestor and modern day apes?"
The Wikipedia page on Australopithecus afarensis says "It is thought that A. afarensis was more closely related to the genus Homo (which includes the modern human species Homo sapiens), whether as a direct ancestor or a close relative of an unknown ancestor, than any other known primate from the same time."
Of course YECs insist despite the evidence that other (extinct) Homo species were not apes but 'us' (but 'archaic humans as AiG stated recently) ...
//"Why does nothing go between this common ancestor and modern day apes?"
The Wikipedia page on Australopithecus afarensis says "It is thought that A. afarensis was more closely related to the genus Homo (which includes the modern human species Homo sapiens), whether as a direct ancestor or a close relative of an unknown ancestor, than any other known primate from the same time."//
Your quote does not help you. It proves my point. Where is the lineage from this 'ape-human common ancestor' to modern apes? Why has not a single fossil even been suggested? But your quote does a fine job at fancy story telling without a single iota of actual evidence, just like with the rest of the theory.
//Of course YECs insist despite the evidence that other (extinct) Homo species were not apes but 'us' (but 'archaic humans as AiG stated recently) ...//
Why should we think otherwise? Because a group of people with PhDs say so? Because self proclaimed experts want us to take their word for it? Where's the evidence? What can we examine ourselves? Why should we have to believe them by blind faith?
There is evidence that humans and today's ape had a common ancestor in the Miocene period.
I also wrote in my Amazon.com review of the Sarfati (a YEC) 2010 book, a review just mentioned in the other live thread: "On page 157 [in chapter 9 of 'Hoax'} he quotes Charles Oxnard: Australopithecines "clearly differ more from both humans and African apes, than do these two living groups from each other" (written in 1987). Sarfati is on hand to tell us what Oxnard really meant - "Australopithecus was not transitional between apes and humans". That is rubbish, such a conclusion does not necessarily follow (even if Oxnard once implied that that was his view which I doubt). He was talking about Homo sapiens and modern day great apes. And not about the earlier extinct apes - between which and the various Homo species the bipedal Australopithecines could have been a transitional species (or perhaps a side branch in the evolutionary tree). The words "than do these two living groups from each other" could imply that humans and the other great apes have both evolved considerably, and in broadly similar ways (apart from intelligence), since they diverged from the extinct ape- or monkey- like ancestor prior to the appearance of Lucy."
"It proves my point." It does no such thing. "any other known primate from the same time." Not now or more recently. Then. the time in which 'Lucy''s species was not yet extinct.
Lucy is on the HUMAN lineage, after the common ancestor of humans and great apes was around, NOT the great ape (eg gorillas) lineage.
"Because a group of people with PhDs say so?" Yes.
//"It proves my point." It does no such thing. "any other known primate from the same time." Not now or more recently. Then. the time in which 'Lucy''s species was not yet extinct.
Lucy is on the HUMAN lineage, after the common ancestor of humans and great apes was around, NOT the great ape (eg gorillas) lineage.
"Because a group of people with PhDs say so?" Yes.//
This is exactly what I am talking about when I say you are not reading. I KNOW full well Lucy is claimed to be on the human lineage. I'm not talking about that. If you would shut your mouth and LISTEN, you might understand this. My point is there is no APE linage. How do you get millions of years of "ape-human common ancestor' to humans but nothing to apes? Get my question right, then you can try to address it.
And as for the 'evidence' you cited, you lost it's credibility when you said "could be". Sorry, evidence has no 'could be's'. It is or it isn't. Could be is "wisha, wanna, hope it is", and 'could be' can very well be something entirely different. You cannot jump from 'could be' to "is" and be called logically sound. Yet that is all Evolution has. "could be". Unimpressed. I have no reason to accept PhDs who say that. We call it wishful thinking for a reason. Even one of your own PhD's says it requires "imagination". Imagination is not science. Neil DeGrasse Tyson and Gail Kennedy need to grasp this. So do you.
"This is exactly what I am talking about when I say you are not reading. I KNOW full well Lucy is claimed to be on the human lineage. I'm not talking about that. If you would shut your mouth and LISTEN, you might understand this."
Calm Down.
If you knew 'Lucy' was on the human lineage and not the great ape lineage, why did you refer in post 5 to the species as a 'common ancestor' (or was your post garbled and you really meant something different)?
"My point is there is no APE linage." I know what your point was.
I admit that my FIRST response, in post 8, did not directly address your point - I was temporarily thrown by the fact that your question "Why does nothing go between this common ancestor and modern day apes?" makes no sense whatsoever because 'Lucy' was not a common ancestor of us and great apes and was not on the great ape lineage either - but ours.
You may wish to peruse: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gigantopithecus
"How do you get millions of years of "ape-human common ancestor' to humans but nothing to apes?" As far as I know we don't but if we do, fossilisation is rare so perhaps there are extinct apes (first appearing AFTER the common ancestor) out there waiting to be found. (It sounds as though Gigantopithecus may have first appeared earlier than the common ancestor to great apes and Homo species, even though it is classified as an extinct ape.)
If you think "could be" is ALWAYS wrong you are anti scientific enquiry.
Ashley, the level of facepalm to your post is truly of epic proportions. You are totally clueless. Totally.
//If you knew 'Lucy' was on the human lineage and not the great ape lineage, why did you refer in post 5 to the species as a 'common ancestor' (or was your post garbled and you really meant something different)?//
Please cite in post 5 where I even mentioned Lucy. If you spent the time actually reading with the intention of comprehension, you'd find I didn't. If you follow the conversation, you would notice I was addressing the point David had about what common ancestors were. Nowhere did I suggest Lucy was a common ancestor. You want to continue suggesting you know what you are talking about? You want to continue suggesting you have a clue about it?
//I know what your point was.
I admit that my FIRST response, in post 8, did not directly address your point - I was temporarily thrown by the fact that your question "Why does nothing go between this common ancestor and modern day apes?" makes no sense whatsoever because 'Lucy' was not a common ancestor of us and great apes and was not on the great ape lineage either - but ours.//
No, you did NOT know what I was talking about. Because you kept reading what you wanted to see and did not try to figure it out. It made no sense to you because you kept reading what I was not saying. I again, I did not mention Lucy in that post so the problem is YOU.
//If you think "could be" is ALWAYS wrong you are anti scientific enquiry.//
The difference between you and Evolution and scientific inquiry in regards to "could be" is a critical word and action called "experimentation". If you actually read my post for understanding, you would see I was talking about jumping from "could be" to "is" WITHOUT experimentation backing it up. And a key thing about experimentation is that someone who does not believe your theory can take your experiment, follow it, and get the same results. No Evolutionist has put forth even ONE such experiment. No experimentation, no science. This is why we keep saying science cannot address origins. Because you cannot perform the scientific process on that.
The wrist bones show a locking mechanism which is precisely what we would expect if the organism in question put stress on its hands while performing the act of locomotion. Finding another wrist bone 40 years later doesn't tell me anything. But where does it stop, right? We find bones 1.5 miles apart and at embarrassingly different depths and we call them the same organism with literally no connection at all. We then collect a bunch of bones up, picking those we like from a large number of them, and accidentally sneak in a baboon vertebrae. You can say we know anything about this seemingly hybridized animal and you can keep a straight face doing it? This is the work of a child..perhaps a teen. But it's disgusting how some of you will try to hang onto it. This animal never existed. It's 3 in one (at least). We're talking about a land dwelling chimera like a mermaid here. Let's get back to reality. Your fairy tale is making intelligent humanity look like a bunch of fools.
Did you watch the video, David? You can actually find the entire full length video of Lovejoy and decide for yourself. But the FACT is pretty simple: although the evidence suggested one thing, he "knew" it should say something else so he modified the evidence and recorded it for us all. Why? Why would he be so bold? Because the "scientific" community is drooling all over the place waiting for a morsel of evidence to support their theory. There is nothing more to it. And Johanson admitted it repeatedly in his writings he was motivated by money, reputation, and stress. How else could he find 47 bones in an area 1.5 miles wide at over 200 feet of varying depths and walk around like he's found something. This is the most laughable example of "science" I can think of...well, this and Haeckel's fraudulent drawings. This is "science." If this is what you think science is, most of us are far too intelligent for it. In fact, Lucy, the chimp, is likely too intelligent to buy it. What a joke.
"Why don't you address his claim that there is evidence that the pelvis broke and then later fossilized in that broken state?"--fair enough. The claim was, "I knew she walked upright even though the pelvis didn't agree with that, so I made it look like it was supposed to."
Anything to add?
"This blog post is more propaganda than information."--false. It's a great deal of factual information. Like anything, my opinion is included. You can disagree with my thoughts on it, but you can't contest the facts. They are what they are. That's why this is historical science. We have facts. No one disputes them. We have explanations for those facts. Those we can agree or disagree on. It's pretty simple. You got that now?
"You are totally clueless. Totally."
"Please cite in post 5 where I even mentioned Lucy. If you spent the time actually reading with the intention of comprehension, you'd find I didn't."
I accept what you say, but your post 5 was garbled as I also suggested last night might have been the case. As well as the term common ancestor you had also been discussing Lucy with David. And the blog under which these exchanges appear is about specifically Lucy rather than common ancestors.
In post 2 you stated: "Lucy fails." In post 5 you stated: "The problem is claiming common ancestry when there is NOTHING to put between us." Thus it was unclear whether you were ruling out Lucy AND ruling out a common ancestor (to link our species to great apes) or whether you were suggesting that if Lucy fails so TOO does a common ancestor (because you thought Lucy was being presented by scientists as a common ancestor of humans and today's great apes).
"No, you did NOT know what I was talking about." When I wrote post 13 I DID address what you were talking about ie the ape lineage.
Steve has not shown that his post was not propaganda, he has merely asserted that it wasn't. His responses do not properly address my post 4.
The funny thing about these pages is that apart from Bob no other YECs (not from Worldview Warriors) seem to join in with discussions
//Did you watch the video, David? You can actually find the entire full length video of Lovejoy and decide for yourself. But the FACT is pretty simple: although the evidence suggested one thing, he "knew" it should say something else so he modified the evidence and recorded it for us all. Why?//
There was other evidence that "Lucy" walked upright. That evidence didn't fit with the original assessment of the pelvis. Lovejoy did not modify the evidence. The original evidence is still available.
Unless you have evidence that Lovejoy incorrectly reconstructed the pelvis, you are being dishonest to your readers by accusing him of fraudulent activity. If you personally suspect him of fraud, fine, but you shouldn't report your suspicion as fact.
You can't even use your 100% faith in the accuracy of the Bible to know that he committed fraud, because nothing in the Bible forbids the existence of non-human bipedal apes.
// Why would he be so bold? Because the "scientific" community is drooling all over the place waiting for a morsel of evidence to support their theory. There is nothing more to it.//
Lucy is as important to the overall theory of evolution as a single instance of something falling is important to the theory of gravity.... in other words, not at all.
Yesterday I sent the following email to Answers in Genesis re their 'Lucy' exhibit at the Creation Museum:
"I have learnt in a discussion at the Worldview Warriors blog (in a discussion under a blog written by a young Earth creationist*) that no fossils of any extinct great apes (kinds of gorilla, chimpanzee etc) have been discovered since the probable last common ancestor species of great apes and the various human species was still alive. Thus whilst on the human lineage species such as Australopithecus afarensis (including the fossil known as 'Lucy'), as well a various extinct Homo species, have been found by contrast the great ape lineage has apparently not yielded any fossils to date (I went to Wikipedia and looked at the pages on gorillas, chimps and bonobos).
In a - selective with the available evidence and typically science denialist - blog post by Ken Ham that I attach, the CEO of Answers in Genesis expressed the opinion that the 'Lucy' species was "simply an ape, probably resembling a small gorilla".
https://answersingenesis.org/blogs/ken-ham/2012/08/12/we-now-know-that-lucy-said-duh-duh-duh/
The exhibit at the Creation Museum dubbed 'Lucy' certainly resembles a modern gorilla (not a chimpanzee):
https://answersingenesis.org/kids/creation/exciting-new-exhibit-opens-at-creation-museum/
Please will Answers in Genesis tell us WHAT species they are seeking to depict, and whether they are proposing that 'Lucy' IS in fact an extinct great ape on the lineage leading to today's gorillas? And whether or not the display boards at their Creation Museum inform visitors what exactly species they believe 'Lucy' was?
Are AiG insisting that this exhibit is purporting to display Australopithecus afarensis (but saying that they don't know exactly how it would have appeared because the fossil is not complete)? If so then the Creation Museum is being fraudulent - since the most recently uncovered evidence does NOT suggest following detailed study by experts that the creature was a habitual knuckle-walker as depicted by AiG, but rather was almost certainly bipedal most or all of the time. The second link I've attached above implies that AiG are informing visitors that this exhibit IS of Australopithecus afarensis.
A normal, 'secular', museum would doubtless inform its visitors WHAT species they are attempting, based on the available evidence - which people could double check the accuracy of online or in books - to depict.
But this is not a normal museum. Much of it is targeted at young people and at people who are suspicious of/uninformed about science and scientific evidence (especially people who are already young earth creationist Christian in 'worldview') I suspect.
If by chance the Creation Museum are depicting one of today's extant gorilla species, please will they confirm this. And explain HOW the bones of 'Lucy' do not match the bones of modern gorillas (since the scientists would surely not mistake gorilla bones - these bones were found in Ethiopia where gorillas do not occur today - for something extinct and with some different features).
If - as is normal - AiG REFUSE to respond or even acknowledge this message (because they may be either blocking all my emails, or deleting them unread on receipt, or reading them but then refusing to reply because it is ME) perhaps somebody else reading this might wish to ask them this same question and raise any other relevant points?"
OK, I'm no expert on Owen Lovejoy and the 'Lucy' pelvis.
But I found this and it appears convincing:
https://northstatescience.wordpress.com/2011/01/01/correcting-creationists-redux-was-lucy%E2%80%99s-pelvis-reconstruction-a-fraud/
According to the site the author of this article is (or was) as described here:
"Christopher O’Brien is an Adjunct Professor of Anthropology at California State University, Chico and Adjunct Faculty at Lassen Community College, Susanville. His day job is as the Public Services Staff Officer for Lassen National Forest in northern California. He received his BS in Anthropology from the University of California-Davis and a MA and PhD in Anthropology from the University of Wisconsin-Madison. He is currently working on the zooarchaeology of several cave and rockshelter sites in northern California, and the historical ecology of several species. He has also been directing archaeological excavations in western Tanzania since 2002. Views expressed on these pages are those of the writer and do not reflect those of the US Forest Service or any other land management agency except where explicitly indicated and where that view has been made public by the agency itself."
Why are you going on about AiG and asking them questions in this forum? They are completely unassociated with this ministry.
David, I would call Lovejoy's manipulation of the data, at the least, wishful thinking. If it's not fraud, it's certainly not right. He claimed the pelvic bones fit together too perfectly! So he modified them. They fit together to form the pelvis of a knuckle walker--which is very likely what Lucy was. Her wrist bones demonstrated this as well. Her leg bones, which were found 1.5 miles away at a depth 200 feet deeper were likely not hers anyway. It is pretty clear to me that we have, at the least, a chimp like creature, a baboon, and a spider monkey or orangutan in this collage. None of which makes this a hominid.
Lovejoy could get away with this because he was helping to hold up an icon of evolution. If a creationist did the opposite with the pelvis, it would be heralded from the roof tops and the news cycles wouldn't stop running it over and over. Manipulating evidence is okay for you, it seems. Good to know.
If it's not important and not anti-biblical, why are you commenting?
Ashley, please clarify for me: are you interpreting my statements about the Creation Museum to mean that is where I got a great deal of my info?
//Her leg bones, which were found 1.5 miles away at a depth 200 feet deeper were likely not hers anyway. //
I was kinda ignoring this claim of yours until now. That does sound weird that they would claim that these different sets of fossils so far apart belong to the same specimen.
So I check the wikipedia article, and find that they never claim (or even imply) they were part of the specimen. The knee joint is labeled as "AL 129-1" and Lucy is "AL 288-1."
Please read that article carefully. Also, notice how the knee shown in the article for "AL 129-1" isn't in the pictures of the reconstructions of the Lucy model.
//He claimed the pelvic bones fit together too perfectly! //
Here is his actual claim: OWEN LOVEJOY: "This has caused the two bones in fact to fit together so well that they’re in an anatomically impossible position."
//David, I would call Lovejoy's manipulation of the data, at the least, wishful thinking. If it's not fraud, it's certainly not right.!//
OWEN LOVEJOY: "When I put the two parts of the pelvis together that we had, this part of the pelvis has pressed so hard and so completely into this one, that it caused it to be broken into a series of individual pieces, which were then fused together in later fossilization."
Please provide evidence that this is not an accurate assessment of the fossil, besides your appeal to Lovejoy's wishful thinking.
//It is pretty clear to me//
What expertise do you have to make this assessment? Have you examined the fossils for yourself?
//Manipulating evidence is okay for you, it seems. Good to know.//
"As human beings, whether we're followers of Christ, atheists, or whatever, we should be afforded respect and polite interaction. "
Here is a YEC defending Australopithecus afarensis / Lucy's bipedalism:
http://creation.com/images/pdfs/tj/j20_2/j20_2_104-112.pdf
I usually don't like to post links of long articles (that I don't even bother to read myself) as evidence for one view or another, but just want to show that this isn't a creation/evolution thing. There is no need to portray Lovejoy as a villain.
Has any creationist written a paper defending their view that Lucy wasn't bipedal?
"Ashley, please clarify for me: are you interpreting my statements about the Creation Museum to mean that is where I got a great deal of my info?"
No. But as has been pointed out, much of your information is suspect. There's no reason, taking account of all the fossil evidence, to claim that 'Lucy' was a chimp-like animal.
Ashley said " There's no reason, taking account of all the fossil evidence, to claim that 'Lucy' was a chimp-like animal. "
you mean, of course, except for her fossilized remains resembling a chimp almost perfectly, that her wrist bones made it likely she was a knuckle walker, her jaw and skull were obviously chimp, her pelvis was that of a quadruped,her knee, found 1.5 miles away, was like that of a spider monkey (clearly not belonging to Lucy at all), etc etc. There's a great deal of evidence that she was nothing but a chimp...and a baboon...and a spider monkey. Nothing human like in her frame at all. Nothing.
What have I stated that's suspect? It's all easy to find on the net from a variety of credible sources.
David said, "anatomically impossible position"--if she walked upright. She didn't. I guess we're good.
David said, rather strangely, "//Manipulating evidence is okay for you, it seems. Good to know.//
"As human beings, whether we're followers of Christ, atheists, or whatever, we should be afforded respect and polite interaction. "
Uh, how was this disrespectful or impolite? You seem to be okay with data manipulation. I stand by that. It's not rude. I wasn't being snarky. This is how you seem to be. Quoting me telling those who are childish and rude to keep it down just makes it seem like you're whining. You may not be, but it seems as though you could be.
//David said, "anatomically impossible position"--if she walked upright. She didn't. I guess we're good.//
No, impossible for either a biped or a quadruped. Here is what a YEC, who actually handled a cast of the unrestored pelvis, had to say:
"When I placed a cast of the unrestored ilium next to the sacrum, the distorted auricular surface forced the ilium into an anatomically incorrect position (figure 5). It is rotated to a right angle of where it should be no matter what the posture of this individual was (biped or quadruped). No animal alive or dead has a pelvis orientated this way, and this was clearly not its position during life, and no other australopithecine has this problem. It is clearly a case of post mortem distortion in this specimen (A.L. 288-1) only. As such, some repair had to be done to this surface (see postscript)."
Check out the appendix on the second to last page of the PDF I linked before. I'll link it again:
http://creation.com/images/pdfs/tj/j20_2/j20_2_104-112.pdf
//her knee, found 1.5 miles away,//
Why'd you repeat this after I debunked your claim? Or were you just reading the comments in reverse order and hadn't read mine yet?
"David J. said...
Here is a YEC defending Australopithecus afarensis / Lucy's bipedalism:"
Too bad you cherry picked someone who published a paper for review in 2006, since there were important developments since then. That one paper will not negate the facts against the status of Lucy that the others have presented here, and elsewhere on the Web. How do you know the author is a YEC? Why should it matter?
"Ashley said " There's no reason, taking account of all the fossil evidence, to claim that 'Lucy' was a chimp-like animal. "
you mean, of course, except for her fossilized remains resembling a chimp almost perfectly, that her wrist bones made it likely she was a knuckle walker, her jaw and skull were obviously chimp, her pelvis was that of a quadruped,her knee, found 1.5 miles away, was like that of a spider monkey (clearly not belonging to Lucy at all), etc etc. There's a great deal of evidence that she was nothing but a chimp...and a baboon...and a spider monkey. Nothing human like in her frame at all. Nothing.
What have I stated that's suspect? It's all easy to find on the net from a variety of credible sources."
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/331/6018/750.abstract
"ABSTRACT
The transition to full-time terrestrial bipedality is a hallmark of human evolution. A key correlate of human bipedalism is the development of longitudinal and transverse arches of the foot that provide a rigid propulsive lever and critical shock absorption during striding bipedal gait. Evidence for arches in the earliest well-known Australopithecus species, A. afarensis, has long been debated. A complete fourth metatarsal of A. afarensis was recently discovered at Hadar, Ethiopia. It exhibits torsion of the head relative to the base, a direct correlate of a transverse arch in humans. The orientation of the proximal and distal ends of the bone reflects a longitudinal arch. Further, the deep, flat base and tarsal facets imply that its midfoot had no ape-like midtarsal break. These features show that the A. afarensis foot was functionally like that of modern humans and support the hypothesis that this species was a committed terrestrial biped."
http://www.pnas.org/content/107/27/12121.abstract
"Abstract
Only one partial skeleton that includes both forelimb and hindlimb elements has been reported for Australopithecus afarensis. The diminutive size of this specimen (A.L. 288-1 ["Lucy"]) has hampered our understanding of the paleobiology of this species absent the potential impact of allometry. Here we describe a large-bodied (i.e., well within the range of living Homo) specimen that, at 3.58 Ma, also substantially antedates A.L. 288–1. It provides fundamental evidence of limb proportions, thoracic form, and locomotor heritage in Australopithecus afarensis. Together, these characteristics further establish that bipedality in Australopithecus was highly evolved and that thoracic form differed substantially from that of either extant African ape."
Like you said, it can all be found on the net.
David
It's interesting you seem to keep wanting to hammer this "the knee was never part of Lucy" thing. Search for her online: you'll find a knew joint. Perhaps my understanding on this is not correct, but I believe that knee joint was not found with the other fossilized parts.
However, there are numerous eye witness accounts of Johanson connecting the knee joint which he admittedly found a very large distance away to the find commonly referred to as "Lucy." Perhaps the knee, although not part of Lucy exactly (like other parts of her) is allegedly of the same species. That's fine. The point is, Lucy didn't have a knee found with her, to my knowledge, and the knee is what suggests she wasn't just a chimp. However, the knee included with her is not built for walking upright. It was built for arboreal living. Her wrists were, as well as were her hands. There is literally no reason to assume Lucy is anything but an ape that died a long time ago. How long I can't say. There is nothing that would connect her to humanity.
The same goes for the Leakey footprints that are obviously human and do not resemble A. afarensis at all but they "know" they were from A. afarensis. Are evolutionists so blinded by their need for the story to be true that they unconsciously through rational thinking out the window?
I hope this clears things up for you. The knee is included and isn't human or human-like at all. That's the point. If you want to continue to argue about minor points on that, I'm not really interested. The fact is simple: the leg bones are not connected to mankind...like the rest of Lucy.
//No, impossible for either a biped or a quadruped. Here is what a YEC, who actually handled a cast of the unrestored pelvis, had to say:
"When I placed a cast of the unrestored ilium next to the sacrum, the distorted auricular surface forced the ilium into an anatomically incorrect position (figure 5). It is rotated to a right angle of where it should be no matter what the posture of this individual was (biped or quadruped). No animal alive or dead has a pelvis orientated this way, and this was clearly not its position during life, and no other australopithecine has this problem. It is clearly a case of post mortem distortion in this specimen (A.L. 288-1) only. As such, some repair had to be done to this surface (see postscript)."//
Hello is all right. I inquired of Creation Ministries International as to why such a thing was on their site. The reply was that the paper had passed peer review and that the Journal of Creation is for creationist debate: "The views expressed in the papers are those of the authors and not necessarily those of CMI."
Further, even if they did walk upright, it would not mean that they are related to humans. Although a subject of debate, it is not antithetical to biblical creation.
Post a Comment