Wibble, okay, let's take a more conversational approach, we both are convinced of different positions, so instead of trying to throw arguments and links at you, all I will ask you to consider is the fragmentary nature of the bones. If Lucy, a 40% skeleton, is the most "complete" skeleton of an Afarensis found, don't you think it's at least reasonable that conclusions drawn should be regarded as preliminary or tenuous? How can you be so conclusive/dogmatic, based on such limited evidence?
Also when we consider that scientists themselves consider some taxa to be, "taxanomical waste-bins" what that basically means is that they find so few of a specimen that it could just represent a mixture of a few bones from a pithecine and a few bones from a human.
CMI has a point when we consider the following facts;
hey based their case on the fact that A. afarensis fossils were also found at Laetoli, and that the only fossil reconstruction of the A. afarensis foot was arched, and hence compatible with the Laetoli Footprints. Thus, for over twenty years we have been told, both in the scientific and in the popular literature, that Lucy was bipedal and that she is what our evolutionary ancestor at that time looked like—or close to it.
Finally, a report in the August 2005 Scientific American suggests that there might be a problem. William E.H. Harcourt-Smith (American Museum of Natural History) and Charles E. Hilton (Western Michigan University) challenge Lucy’s bipedality. They claim that the fossil reconstruction of the A. afarensis foot is based on a mixture of fossils, some from the 3.2 million year old A. afarensis collection, and some from the 1.8 million year old Homo habilis collection. Specifically, they claim that one of the bones, the navicular, used to determine that the A. afarensis foot was arched, actually was a Homo habilis fossil foot bone, not an A. afarensis fossil foot bone
If those fragmentary remains could be "habilis" and many think habilis is a taxanomical wastebin that contains some pithecine, some human, bones, then is it not plausible that they found some homo-bones, if those are classed as habilis?
Conclusion; Think how easy it is to make such mistakes when we are talking about a handful of bones. To my mind it is poor science to even name species based on so little evidence. It seems to me there isn't enough evidence to even properly define what an afarensis or habilis is.
Now before you scream, "bias" in fact I can tell you with 100% confidence that even if I was an evolutionist I would have the same attitude of applying more vigour and being more sensible about such limited remnants of bones. Therefore I myself would wait for more evidence for the species "afarensis". It only makes sense, given the most complete skeleton has no feet at all.
P.S. Bare in mind I am not saying, "it is an impossible conclusion afarensis had more human like feet", if that is the case, as I have said to Bonedigger in the past, yes that would fit somewhat with evolution but it might also fit with mosaic features, after all a platypus has a duck's bill. And the most common thing evolutionists confuse mosaic features with, is evolution. We also have to consider my chart from those evolution-scientists, they themselves as evolutionists, shown that usually it is a matter of, "either P or X", or, "either pithecine or human", rather than, "intermediate". They only labelled one such feature for the early homos, as, "intermediate".
I think a reasonable explanation is that the australopithecines are just extinct apes and habilis didn't exist, and it's a mixture of pithecine bones and human bones. At the very least I can see no solid reason to not go with that conclusion, as a pretty parsimonious explanation of such fragmentary remains of evidence of such a tiny percentage. After all how many skeletons have they found, of homo sapien or neanderthal? If you saw a picture for the bones for pithecines like afarensis and homo habilis, they would fit in a bingbag, but the other species such as sapien, neanderthal, you would obviously need hundreds of museums.