Jump to content

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

This is really evidential “science” not analogy. With Solid irrefutable Proof.  

Listen to the Spin. Can definitely sell ice cream to the eskimos

Inferences, by looking at clues, Watch for transition words and phrases..Definitely, most likely, quite certain are, pay attention to the actual evidence provided--  not Scientific Proofs/Evidence.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dawkins mentioned Lucy, hare is how she got her name

Quote

"g upside down then-current theories about how man came to walk upright. Dr. Johanson named his findAustralopithecus afarensisóthe southern ape from the Afar depression of northeastern Ethiopia (Johanson et al., 1978, p. 8). The creature quickly earned the nickname ìLucy,î after the Beatlesísong, ìLucy in the Sky with Diamonds,î which was said to be have been playing all through the celebratory night back at Johansonís camp"

*****

THE TRUTH ABOUT ìLUCYî

Quote

CONCLUSION

You might be asking yourself whythis charade has been allowedto go on for so long. The answerówoven around power, fame, and moneyó can be foundin Johansonís own words. There is no such thing as a total lack of bias. I have it; everybody has it. The fossil hunter in the field has itÖ. In everybody who is looking for hominidsthereis a strong urgetolearn more about where the human line started. If you are working back at around three million, as I was,thatis very seductive, because you beginto get anidea that that is where Homo did start. You begin straining your eyes to find Homo traits in fossils of that ageÖ. Logical, maybe, but also biased.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 (Johanson and Edey, 1981, pp. 257,258, emp. added). He went on to admit: ìIt 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 evidenceî (p. 277). In the March 1996 issue of National Geographic, Dr. Johanson himself admitted: ìLucy has recently been dethronedî (189[3]:117). His fifteen minutes of fame had ended. As Lee Berger declared: ìOne might say we are kicking Lucy out of the family treeî (as quoted in Shreeve, 1996). Isnít it ironic how often that family tree gets pruned andtrimmed?

https://www.apologeticspress.org/pdfs/reprints_pdf/truthlucy.pdf

Quote

The body height of Australopithecus afarensis A.L. 288-1 ("Lucy") has recently been estimated and calculated as between 1 m to 1.06 m; other estimates give ca. 1.20 m. In addition, it is often stated that her relative leg length was shorter than that of modern humans. Using relative leg-, femur- and tibia length it is shown that both statements together can not be true; either her body height must at least have been around 1.06 to 1.10 m to give "Lucy" human-like leg proportions, or, to achieve a shorter, more ape-like leg ratio, a body height of ca. 1.20 m must be assumed.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1441719

Page 39 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

Quote

The question of locomotion is particularly problematic because of the way the debate has been framed. As far as we are concerned, the case has been successfully made that the mechanical environments of the A. afarensis hip, knee and foot were fundamentally those of living humans. However, the conclusion that A. afarensis walked exactly as extant humans do, or was restricted to terrestrial locomotor behaviors, is not an ineluctable correlate of this observation in the context of a dichotomous chimpanzee-human comparative framework. However impressive the departures from human postcranial morphology and body form may be, it is unclear how conclusive as to function and adaptation these deviations are in the context of extant African great apes, whose own postdivergence fossil record of locomotor evolution is completely unknown. Australopithecus afarensis was in no evolutionary sense intermediate between chimpanzees and humans and there are simply no reasonable analogs to human striding bipedality elsewhere in the animal kingdom from which to draw lessons as to cause. Therefore, to understand this species’ locomotor adaptations is tantamount to having a fuller understanding of its own singular evolutionary history

https://courses.edx.org/c4x/WellesleyX/ANTH_207x/asset/Kimbel09_Lucy_.pdf

*****

( not looking to get technical, above is supplemental material)

Any thoughts on  Dawkins story/tale in the Video posted above

Edited by S.M.H.A.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, S.M.H.A. said:

Dawkins mentioned Lucy, hare is how she got her name

*****

THE TRUTH ABOUT ìLUCYî

https://www.apologeticspress.org/pdfs/reprints_pdf/truthlucy.pdf

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1441719

Page 39 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

https://courses.edx.org/c4x/WellesleyX/ANTH_207x/asset/Kimbel09_Lucy_.pdf

*****

( not looking to get technical, above is supplemental material)

Any thoughts on  Dawkins story/tale in the Video posted above

 

Why would you quote anti Islamic apologetics and people accused of child molestation...to combat richard dawkins?

 

 

You are quoting a bunch of loonies.

https://christianchronicle.org/longtime-director-of-apologetics-press-fired/

 

These are the people you are quoting and trying to promote the views of. You should be ashamed of yourself.

Edited by iCambrian

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, iCambrian said:

 

Why would you quote anti Islamic apologetics and people accused of child molestation...to combat richard dawkins?

 

 

You are quoting a bunch of loonies.

https://christianchronicle.org/longtime-director-of-apologetics-press-fired/

 

These are the people you are quoting and trying to promote the views of. You should be ashamed of yourself.

@Hameedeh @Reza

Kindly, review the issue raised by @iCambrian, and access it validity/merit. and take appropriate actions(modify post, delete any inappropriate contents/website or off topic posts(including this post) etc..if necessary) at your discretion. 

Edited by S.M.H.A.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
58 minutes ago, S.M.H.A. said:

@Hameedeh @Reza

Kindly, review the issue raised by @iCambrian, and access it validity/merit. and take appropriate actions(modify post, delete any inappropriate contents/website or off topic posts(including this post) etc..if necessary) at your discretion. 

 

http://creationwiki.org/Brad_Harrub

You have to pay attention to who you are sourcing. Theyre anti-muslim, even anti-christian, but ultimately, anti-science. These guys cannot be trusted.

Edited by iCambrian

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

TBH, i find it very difficult to reconcile between:-

[Shakir 5:48] And We have revealed to you the Book with the truth, verifying what is before it of the Book and a guardian over it, therefore judge between them by what Allah has revealed, and do not follow their low desires (to turn away) from the truth that has come to you; for every one of you did We appoint a law and a way, and if Allah had pleased He would have made you (all) a single people, but that He might try you in what He gave you, therefore strive with one another to hasten to virtuous deeds; to Allah is your return, of all (of you), so He will let you know that in which you differed;

and

According to Darwin’s view, there is a ruthless struggle for survival and an eternal conflict in nature. The strong always overcome the weak, and this enables development to take place.

Furthermore, Darwin proposed that the 'fight for survival' also applied between human racial groups. According to that fantastical claim, 'favoured races' were victorious in the struggle. Favoured races, in Darwin's view, were white Europeans. African or Asian races had lagged behind in the struggle for survival. Darwin went further, and suggested that these races would soon lose the "struggle for survival" entirely, and thus disappear.

At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilised races of man will almost certainly exterminate, and replace the savage races throughout the world. [ed: very sad]

Edited by justAnothermuslim

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/27/2017 at 2:49 PM, iCambrian said:

 

Why would you quote anti Islamic apologetics and people accused of child molestation...to combat richard dawkins?

You are quoting a bunch of loonies.

https://christianchronicle.org/longtime-director-of-apologetics-press-fired/

These are the people you are quoting and trying to promote the views of. You should be ashamed of yourself.

Can you Objectively point out the Scientific Issues here ? 

Quote

Paleontologist Donald Johanson’s account of the discovery of the creature now known popularly as “Lucy” reads like a Hollywood script that is full of mystery, excitement, and emotion. In his own words, “Lucy was utterly mind-boggling” (Johanson and Edey, 1981, p. 180). He tells of feeling a strong subconscious “urge” to go (with American graduate student Tom Gray) plot an area of Hadar, Ethiopia, known as “locality 162.” The superstitious paleontologist even recalls writing in his daily diary that he was “feeling good” about the day. So, on November 30, 1974, Johanson (who was serving at the time as the director of the Cleveland, Ohio, Museum of Natural History) and Mr. Gray loaded up in a Land Rover and headed out. After several hours of surveying in 100+ degree heat, the two decided to head back. However, on returning to their vehicle, Johanson suggested they take an alternate route in order to survey the bottom of a nearby gully. Johanson wrote: “It had been thoroughly checked out at least twice before by other workers, who had found nothing interesting. Nevertheless, conscious of the ‘lucky’ feeling that had been with me since I woke, I decided to make that small final detour.”

Buried in the sandy hillside of the slope was an arm bone—the single bone that eventually led to the unearthing of a skeleton that was nearly 40% complete. While the description of this now-famous find might lead one to think that it was similar to some serendipitous treasure unearthed in a movie script, the truth is far from that. The fossils Dr. Johanson unearthed were destined to become one of the most famous (and most controversial) finds of all time, and would shake every single limb on the alleged hominid family tree, completely upsetting then-current theories about how man came to be bipedal. Richard Leakey and Roger Lewin wrote of the find: “Johanson had stumbled on a skeleton that was about 40% complete, something that is unheard of in human prehistory farther back than about a hundred thousand years. Johanson’s hominid had died at least 3 million years ago” (1978, p. 67, emp. added). But, as additional studies were carried out, it became obvious that this “missing link” was “too good to be true.”

Dr. Johanson named his find Australopithecus afarensis—the southern ape from the Afar depression of northeastern Ethiopia (Johanson, et al., 1978, 28:8). The creature quickly earned the nickname “Lucy,” after the Beatles’ song, “Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds,” which was said to be playing all through the celebratory night back at Johanson’s camp. The fossil, officially designated as AL 288-1, consisted of skull fragments, a lower jaw, ribs, an arm bone, a portion of a pelvis, a thighbone, and fragments of shinbones. It was said to be an adult, and was dated at 3.5 million years. [Johanson also found at Hadar the remains of some 34 adults and 10 infants, all of which he dated at 3.5 million years.] In their assessment of exactly where this new species fit in, Johanson and colleague Tim White took pride in noting: “These new hominid fossils, recovered since 1973, constitute the earliest definitive evidence of the family Hominidae” (1979, 203:321). Not only was this fossil find unusually complete, but it also was believed to have been from an animal that walked in an upright fashion, as well as being the oldest human ancestor—the equivalent of a grand slam in baseball.

Having collected the fossils, Johanson and White were responsible for publishing their descriptions, as well as giving their interpretation of exactly how they fit into the hominid family tree. Not wanting to waste valuable space on the description of A. afarensis in one of the major science journals, they ultimately decided to publish it in Kirtlandia, a relatively obscure publication of the Cleveland Museum of Natural History. Then, in what was either an extremely naïve (albeit zealous) move, or a calculated and ambitious one, Johanson and White decided to bump the Leakey’s prized Australopithecus africanus off the main hominid tree and replace it with A. afarensis (for their full assessment, see Johanson and White, 1979). Leakey’s A. africanus was relegated to a tangential side branch that went—literally—nowhere. This decision eventually would weigh heavily on Lucy as she fell under attack from scientists who felt she was nothing more than another example of A. africanus—or worse, an animal with numerous chimp-like qualities.

One of the ironic discoveries regarding Lucy had to do with the size of her skull. Prior to her discovery, evolutionists had assumed that these ape-like species had evolved larger brains, which then allowed them to crawl down out of the trees and begin foraging for food on the ground. According to evolutionary timelines, the creatures adopted bipedalism as their primary form of transportation, and once on the ground, began to use tools. Lucy, as it happened, took this nice, neat little story and turned it upside down. Her brain case was not enlarged. In fact, from all appearances, it was comparable in size to the common chimpanzee. And yet, Johanson and White steadfastly defended the position that this creature walked uprightly like man. They noted:

Bipedalism appears to have been the dominant form of terrestrial locomotion employed by the Hadar and Laetoli [in Tanzania—BH/BT] hominids. Morphological features associated with this locomotor mode are clearly manifested in these hominids, and for this reason the Laetoli and Hadar hominid remains are unequivocally assigned to the family Hominidae(Johanson and White, 1979, 203:325, emp. added).

Dr. Johanson insisted that A. afarensis was the direct ancestor of man (see Johanson and Edey, 1981). 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 evolutionists, however, strongly disagree. Lord Solly 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, and 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). Some might complain, “But Lord Zuckerman’s work was done before Lucy was even discovered.” True, but that misses the point. Zuckerman’s research—which established conclusively that the australopithecines were nothing but knuckle-walking apes—was performed on fossils younger (i.e., closer to man) than Lucy!

And therein lies the controversy. If Lucy and her descendants were discovered to be nothing more than apes (or chimps), then all of Johanson’s fame and fortune would vanish instantly—like an early morning fog hit by a hot noonday Sun. Remember—this single discovery made Johanson’s career. Upon returning the entire Hadar hominid fossil collection to the National Museum in Ethiopia (as he previously had agreed to do), Johanson recounted:

Lucy had been mine for five years. The most beautiful, the most nearly complete, the most extraordinary hominid fossil in the world, she had slept in my office safe all that time. I had written papers about her, appeared on television, made speeches. I had shown her proudly to a stream of scientists from all over the world. She had—I knew it—hauled me up from total obscurity into the scientific limelight (Johanson and Edey, 1981, p. 374, emp. added).

Thus, one can understand why he would have such a vested interest in keeping this fossil upright and walking on two feet. If others were to discover that Lucy was not a biped, then her hominid status would be called into question—something far less rewarding for Dr. Johanson, professionally speaking.

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? Johanson admitted that, immediately after seeing the single arm bone, “This time I knew at once I was looking at a hominid elbow. I had to convince Tom, whose first reaction was that it was a monkey’s” (Johanson, et al., 1994, p. 60, emp. added). However, as more and more researchers gained access to the fossils (or replicas thereof), Lucy’s “hominid” status began to be questioned—seriously questioned!

We would like for you to examine the evidence regarding this famous fossil find, and then determine for yourself whether Lucy and her kin were, in fact, our ancestors—or merely ancient apes or chimps. As a start, consider the following anatomical discoveries that have been made since Johanson’s initial declaration of Lucy as a entirely new hominid species.

LUCY’S PELVIS AND GENDER

A great deal of the “hype” regarding Lucy has been pure speculation from the very beginning. In fact, incredible though it may seem, even the gender of the creature is now being called into question. Johanson’s original assessment was: “The most complete adult skeleton is that of AL 288-1 (‘Lucy’). The small body size of this evidently female individual (about 3.5 to 4.0 feet in height) is matched by some other postcranial remains...” (Johanson and White, 1979, 203:324). And yet, in his original review, Johanson’s description of postcranial [below the skull—BH/BT] data was both speculative and deficient. Johanson and his colleagues recorded “strong dimorphism in body size; all skeletal elements with high level of robusticity in muscle and tendon insertion; pelvic region and lower limbs indicate adaptation to bipedal locomotion...” (Johanson, et al., 1978, 28:7-8). It was from the shattered fragments of the pelvis that Donald Johanson interpreted the AL 288-1 fossils as being those of a female—primarily due to the diminutive size. But these bones were far from being problematic. As Hausler and Schmid discovered:

The sacrum and the auricular region of the ilium are shattered into numerous small fragments, such that the original form is difficult to elucidate. Hence it is not surprising that the reconstructions by Lovejoy and Schmid show marked differences (1995, 29:363).

In regard to Lucy’s pelvis, Johanson affirmed:

Lucy’s wider sacrum and shallower pelvis gave her a smaller, kidney-shaped birth canal, compared to that of modern females. She didn’t need a large one because her newborn infant’s brain wouldn’t have been any larger than a chimpanzee infant’s brain (Johanson, et al., 1994, p. 66).

That admission begs the question as to why this fossil was not categorized from the outset as simply a chimpanzee. But this gender declaration poses additional problems for Lucy. As Hausler and Schmid went on to note: “If AL 288-1 was female, then one can exclude this species from the ancestors of Homo because its pelvis is certainly less primitive than the pelvis of Sts 14 [the designation for a specific A. africanus fossil—BH/BT]” (1995, p. 378). Both of the pelvises mentioned display some degree of damage, and both are missing critical parts, but it should be noted that in regard to the Lucy fossil, more than one attempt was made at reconstruction.

After various reconstructions of the inlet and midplane of Lucy’s pelvis, along with comparisons to other fossils and modern humans, it became evident that the shape of Lucy’s pelvis was not structured correctly for the eventuality of a birth process. The pelvis was just too narrow to accommodate an australopithecine fetus. Hausler and Schmid noted that Lucy’s pelvis was ridgeless and heart-shaped, which means that “she” was more likely a “he.” They wrote:

Contrary to Sts 14 [designation for a specific A. africanus fossil—BH/BT], delivery [of a baby—BH/BT] in AL 288-1 would have been more complicated than in modern humans, if not impossible, due to the protruding promontorium.... Consequently, there is more evidence to suggest that AL 288-1 was male rather than female. A female of the same species as AL 288-1 would have had a pelvis with a larger sagittal diameter and a less protruding sacral promontorium.... Overall, the broader pelvis and the more laterally oriented iliac blades of AL 288-1 would produce more favourable insertion sites for the climbing muscles in more heavily built males.... It would perhaps be better to change the trivial name to “Lucifer” according to the old roman god who brings light after the dark night, because with such a pelvis “Lucy” would apparently have been the last of her species (29:380, emp. added).

This declaration produced an immediate reaction from the evolutionist community, as many scientists worked diligently to try to defend Lucy. If Hausler and Schmid’s conclusion is correct, then this implies that the equivalent female of this species would be even smaller—something unheard of in trying to compare this creature to modern-day humans! Lucy’s pelvis is not what it should be for an upright-walking hominid—but the dimensions fall easily within primates found among the family Pongidae (apes).

LUCY’S APPENDAGES—
MADE FOR BIPEDALISM, OR SWINGING FROM TREES?

But what do Lucy’s arms and legs tell us in regard to her locomotion? If she were a biped, surely her upper and lower extremities would point to an upright stance. After all, the bone that led to Johanson’s discovery of Lucy was that of an arm. Yet the bony framework that composes Lucy’s wrists may be the most telling factor of all. Brian Richmond and David Strait of George Washington University experienced what many might call a “eureka!” moment while going through some old papers on primate physiology at the Smithsonian Institute in Washington, D.C.

“We saw something that talked about special knuckle walking adaptations in modern African apes,” Dr. Richmond said. “I could not remember ever seeing anything about wrists in fossil hominids...Across the hall was a cast of the famous fossil Lucy. We ran across and looked at it and bingo, it was clear as night and day” (see BBC News, 2000).

The March 29, 2000 San Diego Union Tribune reported:

A chance discovery made by looking at a cast of the bones of “Lucy,” the most famous fossil of Australopithecus afarensis, shows her wrist is stiff, like a chimpanzee’s, Brian Richmond and David Strait of George Washington University in Washington, D.C., reported. This suggests that her ancestors walked on their knuckles (Fox, 2000).

Richmond and Strait discovered that knuckle-walking apes have a mechanism that locks the wrist into place in order to stabilize this joint. In their report, they noted: “Here we present evidence that fossils attributed to Australopithecus anamensis (KNM-ER-20419) and A. afarensis (AL 288-1) retain specialized wrist morphology associated with knuckle-walking” (2000, 404:382, parenthetical item in orig.). They went on to observe:

Pre-bipedal locomotion is probably best characterized as a repertoire consisting of terrestrial knuckle-walking, arboreal climbing, and occasional suspensory activities, not unlike that observed in chimpanzees today. This raises the question of why bipedalism would evolve from an ancient ancestor already adapted to terrestrial locomotion, and is consistent with models relating the evolution of bipedalism to a change in feeding strategies and novel non-locomotor uses of the hands (404:384).

Moreover, additional evidence has come to light which suggests that Lucy is little more than a chimpanzee. Johanson and his coworkers admitted in an article in the March 31, 1994 issue of Nature that Lucy possessed chimp-proportioned arm bones (see Kimbel, et al., 1994) and that her alleged descendants (e.g., A. africanus and H. habilis) had ape-like limb proportions as well—which is a clear indication that she did not evolve into something “more human.”

Not only have Lucy’s wrists and arm-bones been called into question, but there also is a mountain of evidence that demonstrates this creature was better adapted for swinging through the trees, like modern-day chimps. After thoroughly examining A. afarensis fossils, Stern and Susman remarked: “It is demonstrated that A. afarensis possessed anatomic characteristics that indicate a significant adaptation for movement in the trees” (1983, 60:280). They went on to comment: “The AL 333-91 [designation for a specific A. afarensis fossil—BH/BT] pisiform [bone of the hand—BH/BT] is ‘elongate and rod shaped’ and thus resembles the long, projecting pisiform of apes and monkeys” (60:281, emp. added).

Stern and Susman’s research detailed the fact that the hands and feet of A. afarensis are devoid of the normal human qualities assigned to hands and feet. Instead, their research demonstrated that these creatures had long, curved fingers and toes typical of arboreal primates. [In reading through the following descriptions of the fossils, bear in mind that the zoo in St. Louis, Missouri, proudly displays a life-size replica of Lucy with perfectly formed human hands and feet.]

Stern and Susman commented: “The overall morphology of metacarpals II-V [bones that comprise the hand—BH/BT] is similar to that of chimpanzees and, therefore, might be interpreted as evidence of developed grasping capabilities to be used in suspensory behavior [swinging in trees—BH/BT]” (60:283). In looking at the morphology of the fingers, they affirmed:

The markedly curved proximal phalanges [bones of the fingers—BH/BT] indicate adaptation for suspensory and climbing activities which require powerful grasping abilities.... The trapezium [bone at the base of the first digit—BH/BT] and first metacarpal are very chimpanzee-like in relative size and shape.... Enlarged metacarpal heads and the mildly curved, parallel-sided shafts are two such features of the Hadar metacarpals not seen in human fingers. The distal phalanges, too, retain ape-like features in A. afarensis.... On the other hand, the Hadar fossil falls within the range of each ape and less than 1 SD[standard deviation—BH/BT] unit away from the means of gorilla and orangutan (60:284).

In their concluding remarks, Stern and Susman remarked:

It will not have escaped the reader’s attention that the great bulk of evidence supports the view that the Hadar hominid was to a significant degree arboreal.... We discovered a substantial body of evidence indicating that arboreal activities were so important to A. afarensis that morphologic adaptations permitting adept movement in the trees were maintained (60:313).

In the September 9, 1994 issue of Science, Randall Susman reported that the chimp-like thumbs in A. afarensis were far better suited for tree climbing than tool making (Susman, 1994). Lucy also possessed a nonhuman gait, based on ratio of leg size to foot size (see Oliwenstein, 1995, 16[1]:42). One researcher even went so far as to suggest that A. afarensis was little more than a failed experiment in ape bipedalism, and as such, should be consigned to a side branch of the human evolutionary tree (as reported by Shreeve, 1996). So not only were Lucy’s ribs and pelvis wrong, but her limbs also were physiologically more conducive to swinging around in treetops.

AUSTRALOPITHECINE TEETH:
MORE EVIDENCE THAT LUCY WAS ARBOREAL

One of Donald Johanson’s specialties is identifying differences within the teeth of alleged hominids. In fact, in his original description, he gave a great deal of attention to the dentition of A. afarensis. By measuring the various differences in molars and canines, he systematically assigned various fossils to predetermined groups. However, even his highly trained eyes may have missed some important microscopic data. Anthropologist Alan Walker has been working on ways of possibly determining behavior based on evidence from the fossil record. One of his methods includes quantitative analysis of tooth microwear. Using image enhancement and optical diffraction methods of scanning, Walker believes he might be able to reconstruct ancient diets from paleontological samples. In speaking of Walker’s material, Johanson noted:

Dr. Alan Walker of Johns Hopkins has recently concluded that the polishing effect he finds on the teeth of robust australopithecines and modern chimpanzees indicates that australopithecines, like chimps, were fruit eaters.... If they were primarily fruit eaters, as Walker’s examination of their teeth suggests they were, then our picture of them, and of the evolutionary path they took, is wrong (Johanson and Edey, 1981, p. 358).

So we now have impressive evidence that Lucy and her kin ate fruit from trees, rather than foraging for food on the ground.

LUCY’S RIB CAGE

Due to the impossibility of reconstructing Lucy’s skull from the few fragments available, the determination that Lucy walked uprightly like a human had to be derived from her hips and ribs. Peter Schmid, a paleontologist at the Anthropological Institute in Zurich, Switzerland, studied Lucy extensively, and summarized his efforts as follows.

When I started to put the skeleton together, I expected it to look human. Everyone had talked about Lucy as being very modern, very human, so I was surprised by what I saw. I noticed that the ribs were more round in cross-section, more like what you see in apes. Human ribs are flatter in cross-section. But the shape of the rib cage itself was the biggest surprise of all. The human rib cage is barrel shaped, and I just couldn’t get Lucy’s ribs to fit this kind of shape. But I could get them to make a conical-shaped rib cage, like what you see in apes (as quoted in Leakey and Lewin, 1992, pp. 193-194).

Ribs can be “tweaked” and rotated so that they appear more “barrel-like” or conical, but the best (and correct) arrangement is the original morphology. The facets from the ribs that line up on the vertebrae provide a tighter fit when aligned correctly. In Lucy’s case, her ribs are conical, like those found in apes.

LUCY: HOMINID OR CHIMP?

When Lucy first arrived on the scene, newsmagazines such as Time and National Geographic noted that she had a head shaped like an ape, with a brain capacity the size of a large chimp’s—about one-third the size of a modern man’s. In an article that appeared in New Scientist, evolutionist Jeremy Cherfas noted: “Lucy, alias Australopithecus afarensis, had a skull very like a chimpanzee’s, and a brain to match” (1983, 93:172). Adrienne Zihlman observed: “Lucy’s fossil remains match up remarkably well with the bones of a pygmy chimp” (1984, 104:39). It should be no surprise then, that in Stern and Susman’s 1983 analysis of afarensis, they pointed out:

These findings of ours, in conjunction with Christie’s (1977), observation on enhanced rotation at the tibio-talar joint in AL 288-1, Tardieu’s (1979) deductions about greater voluntary rotation at the knee in AL 288-1, Senut’s (1981) and Feldesman’s (1982a) claims that the humerus of AL 288-1 is pongid in certain of its features, and Feldesman’s (1982b) demonstration that the ulna of AL 288-1 is most similar to that of Pan paniscus [a chimp—BH/BT], all seem to lead ineluctably to the conclusion that the Hadar hominid was vitally dependent on the trees for protection and/or sustenance (60:311).

All of these characteristics led inevitably to the conclusion that Lucy was simply a chimp-like creature. And yet, more than a decade earlier, Charles Oxnard, while at the University of Chicago, already had passed judgment on these creatures. His multivariate computer analyses indicated that the australopithecines were, in fact, nothing but knuckle-walking animals (1975).

CONCLUSION

You might well be asking yourself why this charade has been allowed to go on this long. The answer—woven around power, fame, and money—can be found in Johanson’s own words.

There is no such thing as a total lack of bias. I have it; everybody has it. The fossil hunter in the field has it.... In everybody who is looking for hominids, there is a strong urge to learn more about where the human line started. If you are working back at around three million, as I was, that is very seductive, because you begin to get an idea that that is where Homo did start. You begin straining your eyes to find Homo traits in fossils of that age.... Logical, maybe, but also biased. 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 (Johanson and Edey, 1981, pp. 257,258, emp. added).

He went on to admit: “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” (p. 277).

Some are asking if A. afarensis is more primitive than A. africanus, or if they are one and the same? Others point to the many chimp-like features, and question whether Lucy ever walked upright at all? But, in the March 1996 issue of National Geographic, Donald Johanson himself admitted: “Lucy has recently been dethroned” (189[3]:117, emp. added). His (and Lucy’s) “fifteen minutes of fame” are over. As Lee Berger declared: “One might say we are kicking Lucy out of the family tree” (as quoted in Shreeve, 1996). Fascinating, how often the hominid family tree is pruned!

REFERENCES

BBC News (2000), “Ancestors Walked on Knuckles,” [On-line], URL: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/687341.stm.

Cherfas, Jeremy (1983), “Trees Have Made Man Upright,” New Scientist, 93:172-178, January 20.

Fox, Maggie (2000), “Man’s Early Ancestors Were Knuckle Walkers,” San Diego Union Tribune, Quest Section; March 29.

Hausler, Martin and Peter Schmid (1995), “Comparison of the Pelvis of Sts 14 and AL 288-1: Implications for Birth and Sexual Dimorphism in Australopithecines,” Journal of Human Evolution, 29:363-383.

Johanson, Donald C. (1996), “Face-to-Face with Lucy’s Family,” National Geographic, 189[3]:96-117, March.

Johanson, Donald C. and Maitland Edey (1981), Lucy: The Beginnings of Humankind (New York: Simon & Schuster).

Johanson, Donald C., Lenora Johanson, and Blake Edgar, (1994) Ancestors: In Search of Human Origins (New York: Villard Books).

Johanson, Donald C. and Tim D. White (1979), “A Systematic Assessment of Early African Hominids,” Science, 203:321-330, January 26.

Johanson, Donald C., Tim D. White, and Yves Coppens (1978), “A New Species of the Genus Australopithecus (Primates: Hominidae) from the Pliocene of Eastern Africa,” Kirtlandia, 28:2-14.

Kimbel, William, Donald C. Johanson, and Yoel Rak (1994), “The First Skull and Other New Discoveries of Australopithecus afarensis at Hadar, Ethiopia,” Nature, 368:449-451, March 31.

Leakey, Richard and Roger Lewin (1978), People of the Lake (New York: E.P. Dutton).

Leakey, Richard and Roger Lewin (1992), Origins Reconsidered: In Search of What Makes Us Human (New York: Doubleday).

Oliwenstein, Lori (1995), “Lucy’s Walk,” Discover, 16[1]:42, January.

Oxnard, Charles (1975), “The Place of the Australopithecines in Human Evolution: Grounds for Doubt?,” Nature, 258:389-395, December.

Richmond, Brian G. and David S. Strait (2000), “Evidence that Humans Evolved from a Knuckle-Walking Ancestor,” Nature, 404:382-385, March 23.

Shreeve, James (1996), “New Skeleton Gives Path from Trees to Ground an Odd Turn,” Science, 272:654, May 3.

Stern, Jack T. Jr. and Randall L. Susman (1983), “The Locomotor Anatomy of Australopithecus afarensis,” Journal of Physical Anthropology, 60:279-317.

Susman, Randall L. (1994), “Fossil Evidence for Early Hominid Tool Use,” Science, 265:1570-1573, September 9.

Zihlman, Adrienne (1984), “Pygmy Chimps, People, and the Pundits,” New Scientist, 104:349-40, November 15.

Zuckerman, Solly (1970), Beyond the Ivory Tower (New York: Taplinger).

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/28/2017 at 9:10 AM, iCambrian said:

 

http://creationwiki.org/Brad_Harrub

You have to pay attention to who you are sourcing. Theyre anti-muslim, even anti-christian, but ultimately, anti-science. These guys cannot be trusted.

Let's try these Sources:

Quote

The most famous human ancestor, Lucy the australopithecine, was named after the Beatles' Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds. But new research might warrant a theme song change to Adele's Skyfall. Did Lucy fall from a tree to her death three million years ago? Some palaeoanthropologists say yes, while others think it might be a tall tale.

Lucy The Australopithecine's Death: Skyfall Or Tall Tale?

https://www.forbes.com/sites/kristinakillgrove/2016/08/30/lucy-the-australopithecines-death-skyfall-or-tall-tale/#5eaf0cda7404

"Lucy's" body height and relative leg length: human- or ape-like?

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1441719

"Lucy" redux: a review of research on Australopithecus afarensis.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19890859

Full article here

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ajpa.21183/epdf

(Page 36 Debate about locomotion)

(Page 39 Conclusion)

Lucy's back: Reassessment of fossils associated with the A.L. 288-1 vertebral column.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26058822

Full article here

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0047248415001335?via%3Dihub

One of Lucy’s Vertebrae is a Baboon’s?

https://anthropology.net/2015/04/11/one-of-lucys-vertebrae-is-a-baboons/


 

Perimortem fractures in Lucy suggest mortality from fall out of tall tree.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27571283

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/28/2017 at 9:10 AM, iCambrian said:

 

http://creationwiki.org/Brad_Harrub

You have to pay attention to who you are sourcing. Theyre anti-muslim, even anti-christian, but ultimately, anti-science. These guys cannot be trusted.

 

1912 ------1950's You would have trusted this

Quote

Piltdown Man is one of the oldest mysteries in human evolution. The question to be solved, though, is not about where he fits into the tree of human ancestors, but rather who perpetrated the greatest fraud in the history of palaeoanthropology. A team of researchers think they have finally narrowed the suspect pool down to just one person, who worked alone.

The story of Piltdown starts in 1912, when Arthur Smith Woodward, a palaeontologist at the British Museum, and Charles Dawson, an antiquarian and lawyer, announced their discovery of Eoanthropus dawsoni. Dawson had found remains of what he thought was a human ancestor at a place called Piltdown in East Sussex, England.  It was a time of great interest in human ancestors, with Homo heidelbergensis discovered in Germany just a few years prior.  And England, not to be outdone by their rival Germany, increased their attempts to find a human ancestor in their own country.

Dawson's discovery was profound. The Piltdown specimen had an ape-like mandible and a human-like cranium, suggesting that humans evolved large brains early on. The new find was assumed to be earlier than other European ancestors for this reason, and reset what researchers thought they were looking for from a "missing link." The site also produced primitive stone tools and a carved slab of bone, bolstering the idea that Eoanthropus was intelligent but still ape-like.

After Dawson died in 1916, however, no new bones or artifacts associated with Piltdown were found. From then, the concern over the veracity of Piltdown grew. The unraveling started in the 1950s, when Oxford scientists demonstrated that the jaw was from a recent ape, and that someone filed down the teeth and stained it to look old. The modern human skull, the stone tools and the carved stone had also been modified to appear ancient.

But until now, scientists have not fully understood how, why and by whom the fraud was committed. In an article published today in Royal Society Open Science, lead author Isabelle De Groote and more than a dozen British scientists reanalyzed the Piltdown Man remains using DNA analysis, spectroscopy and 3D reconstructions to show that one person committed this famous fraud -- and that it was most likely Charles Dawson.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/kristinakillgrove/2016/08/10/human-ancestor-hoax-at-piltdown-finally-solved/#2e5810232c80

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/28/2017 at 9:06 PM, justAnothermuslim said:

TBH, i find it very difficult to reconcile between:-

[Shakir 5:48] And We have revealed to you the Book with the truth, verifying what is before it of the Book and a guardian over it, therefore judge between them by what Allah has revealed, and do not follow their low desires (to turn away) from the truth that has come to you; for every one of you did We appoint a law and a way, and if Allah had pleased He would have made you (all) a single people, but that He might try you in what He gave you, therefore strive with one another to hasten to virtuous deeds; to Allah is your return, of all (of you), so He will let you know that in which you differed;

and

According to Darwin’s view, there is a ruthless struggle for survival and an eternal conflict in nature. The strong always overcome the weak, and this enables development to take place.

Furthermore, Darwin proposed that the 'fight for survival' also applied between human racial groups. According to that fantastical claim, 'favoured races' were victorious in the struggle. Favoured races, in Darwin's view, were white Europeans. African or Asian races had lagged behind in the struggle for survival. Darwin went further, and suggested that these races would soon lose the "struggle for survival" entirely, and thus disappear.

At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilised races of man will almost certainly exterminate, and replace the savage races throughout the world. [ed: very sad]

Survival of the fittest Concept:

Corporate World

Economic World

Social World

Political World

Family Interaction

Spousal relationships

Natural Selection - Forces Human is at loss,Human is a plaything in the hands of Outside forces.  Everything is predestined by the Natural Forces/Social/Economic/Political/Peer Pressure (Outside force)...

No Responsibility/Accountability/No remorse- Individualism at the core of this ideology.

Theory of Evil was proposed by the one who did not prostrate, and wanted to bring down the status of Human. We see the same thing going on, Human is no more than a glorified animal. Survival of the fittest( Q 2:30) was recognized. Only concerned with Animal aspect of life. He was concerned with only material/outward ( Q 7:12). Same blame game ( Q 7:16) deflection.

*****

Even from Secular prespective

Quote

Fodor, who died last month, thought that the neo-Darwinists had confused the loyalty oath of modernity with blind adherence to the fallacy known as “natural selection.”

..

The problem isn’t that drawing a line is hard; it’s that it’s too easy: you simply call the behavior you like an adaptation, the one you don’t like a free rider. Free to concoct a just-so story, you may now encode your own personal biases into something called “human nature.”

Once you’ve made that error, the nonfiction best-seller list is yours for the asking. Everyone loves a mirror disguised as a windowpane: you tell whatever story your readership wants to hear, about whatever behavior it wants to see dignified. So the habits of successful people have been made, over the past thirty years, into derivatives of the savannah and the genetic eons, and “natural selection” has been stretched from a bad metaphor into an industry. Nobody was better at exposing this silliness than Fodor, whose occasional review-essays in the L.R.B. were masterpieces of a plainspoken and withering sarcasm. To Steven Pinker’s suggestion that we read fiction because “it supplies us with a mental catalogue of the fatal conundrums we might face someday,” for instance, Fodor replied, “What if it turns out that, having just used the ring that I got by kidnapping a dwarf to pay off the giants who built me my new castle, I should discover that it is the very ring that I need in order to continue to be immortal and rule the world?”

When I reread “What Darwin Got Wrong,” there were two sentences that I paused over longest. “What trait did evolution select for when it selected creatures that protect their young? Was it an altruistic interest or a selfish interest in their genes?” The oddity is asking the question in the first place. What sort of creature is it, after all, that must first ideate its own function before being able to fulfill it? 

https://www.newyorker.com/culture/postscript/jerry-fodors-enduring-critique-of-neo-darwinism

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


×