Jump to content


Photo

Lucy Wasn't A Biped


  • Please log in to reply
21 replies to this topic

#1 mike the wiz

mike the wiz

    Veteran member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,374 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:mikey mischief.
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • England

Posted 12 September 2017 - 02:56 PM

There have been studies of comparative anatomy and there are some features which undeniably show that Lucy, or Australopithecus Afarensis, was not a biped with human feet despite this popular image of her in artwork. (the operative term being, "artwork").

 

Evolutionary propaganda portrays her with human feet. In this topic we shall only discuss the skeletal remains of Lucy, only the parts they did find and show the significance that those anatomical parts play in highlighting just how obvious it is that Afarensis didn't have bipedal locomotion.

 

In the below diagram from CMI, I have highlighted in red the foramen magnum, where the spinal column is attached (significantly). Most importantly in humans the centre of that hole, and the distance between extremities, differs from the chimp and Lucy (Afarensis) I have shown this with the blue arrows.

 

Attached File  foramen magnum.jpg   131.39KB   0 downloads

 

Secondly, the curvature of the fingers and toes strongly correlate with the brachiation in the other apes;

 

To compound this, when we look at a comparison of the shoulder socket in Afarenis and humans, clearly we see that Lucy had the arboreal anatomy of a brachiator, not a biped.

 

Please see the following link to see the graph for the fingers/toesm and the picture of the shoulder socket, and a full debunking of the notion that Lucy was the near-human you see depicted in the false evolutionary propaganda videos and artwork. 

 

https://creation.com...nd-homo-habilis

 

Conclusion: The most significant parts of the anatomy show that Lucy was clearly an ape, with curved finger/toes, a foramen magnum identical in it's measurements/ratio, to that of a chimp, and a shoulder that indicated brachiation. It seems any other anatomies that may look somewhat "similar" to humans, seem to be inconsequential. That is to say, a somewhat more gracile pithecine may have a superficial "closeness" to humans in some trivial, visual way, a sharing of somewhat similar shapings of certain bones, that essentially it seems to me, mean nothing. Where are the consequential differences? The bones that count, clearly depict a clear picture of ape-hood.


  • MarkForbes likes this

#2 StormanNorman

StormanNorman

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,130 posts
  • Age: 46
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Pittsburgh, PA

Posted 13 September 2017 - 08:07 AM

But, her pelvis and hip bones tell a very different story as they far more closely resemble human bones than chimps.....indicating that she was indeed bipedal.

 

research-project-human-evolution-10-728.



#3 MarkForbes

MarkForbes

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,290 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:South Africa
  • Age: 35
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Waverley

Posted 13 September 2017 - 05:24 PM

But, her pelvis and hip bones tell a very different story as they far more closely resemble human bones than chimps.....indicating that she was indeed bipedal.

 

research-project-human-evolution-10-728.

Are those Lucy bones based on actual found fossils or based on "reconstruction"?



#4 StormanNorman

StormanNorman

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,130 posts
  • Age: 46
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Pittsburgh, PA

Posted 14 September 2017 - 07:32 AM

 

But, her pelvis and hip bones tell a very different story as they far more closely resemble human bones than chimps.....indicating that she was indeed bipedal.

 

research-project-human-evolution-10-728.

Are those Lucy bones based on actual found fossils or based on "reconstruction"?

 

 

Both.  I believe that her sacrum, left hip, and both a complete left femur and left knee joint (not shown) were present and part of the fossil find.  The right hip was not...and would be a reconstruction in the picture likely based on her left hip and other Australopithecus fossil finds....



#5 Gneiss girl

Gneiss girl

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 160 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Age: 50
  • (private)
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Western US

Posted 14 September 2017 - 08:46 PM

Lucy's pelvis is reconstructed from crushed fragments.



#6 StormanNorman

StormanNorman

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,130 posts
  • Age: 46
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Pittsburgh, PA

Posted 15 September 2017 - 07:25 AM

Lucy's pelvis is reconstructed from crushed fragments.

 

Only partially.  The very top portion of her hip blade was bent back 90 degrees; the rest including the joint with the femur was judge to be the original shape....



#7 Gneiss girl

Gneiss girl

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 160 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Age: 50
  • (private)
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Western US

Posted 15 September 2017 - 07:40 AM

Here is a comment in a relevant paper.....

 

"The limited fossil pelvic material that has been preserved usually needs extensive reconstruction before analysis, as the thin cortical bone

and highly curved surfaces of the pelvis make it susceptible to deformation, distortion, and crushing during taphonomic processes.

The subjectivity involved in said reconstructions of distorted fossils can result in a large degree of variability in the interpretation

of hominin pelvic material."

Virtual reconstruction of the Australopithecus africanus pelvis Sts 65 with implications for obstetrics and locomotion (PDF Download Available). Available from: https://www.research..._and_locomotion [accessed Sep 14, 2017].  

 

Now, I have no doubt that these scientists are doing their best to try and reconstruct these fossils. But one should ask themselves, what does the comparison of various fossils parts mean? Does similarity automatically mean shared ancestry? Could it mean similar function? Could it mean similar adaptation to a particular habit niche? Could it mean similar design? How does one begin to discern between various interpretations?


  • mike the wiz likes this

#8 StormanNorman

StormanNorman

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,130 posts
  • Age: 46
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Pittsburgh, PA

Posted 15 September 2017 - 10:50 AM

Here is a comment in a relevant paper.....

 

"The limited fossil pelvic material that has been preserved usually needs extensive reconstruction before analysis, as the thin cortical bone

and highly curved surfaces of the pelvis make it susceptible to deformation, distortion, and crushing during taphonomic processes.

The subjectivity involved in said reconstructions of distorted fossils can result in a large degree of variability in the interpretation

of hominin pelvic material."

Virtual reconstruction of the Australopithecus africanus pelvis Sts 65 with implications for obstetrics and locomotion (PDF Download Available). Available from: https://www.research..._and_locomotion [accessed Sep 14, 2017].  

 

Now, I have no doubt that these scientists are doing their best to try and reconstruct these fossils. But one should ask themselves, what does the comparison of various fossils parts mean? Does similarity automatically mean shared ancestry? Could it mean similar function? Could it mean similar adaptation to a particular habit niche? Could it mean similar design? How does one begin to discern between various interpretations?

 

It's hard to do any of what you mentioned above based on one fossil alone.  But, if you have multiple that display trends, then you can hypothesize as to their meaning.  Of course, until someone comes up with a time machine, you'll never know for sure. 

 

The article below walks through some of these trends.  From it, you can see how scientists can at least infer some things regarding human evolution.

 

http://origins.swau....id/hominid.html



#9 mike the wiz

mike the wiz

    Veteran member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,374 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:mikey mischief.
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • England

Posted 02 November 2017 - 03:25 PM

Those "trends" are irrelevant because since this is the only specimen you can't make guesses based on other specimens because it is pivotal as to what we have here, anatomically. Norman what you said doesn't really change Gneiss's point, that the pelvis may well be a distorted representation of the truth since it is only based on crushed fragments but the parts I shown you are indisputably whole and indicating NOT bipedalism. The fact is the foramen magnum is that of a chimps.

 

This might explain the other apish traits which fit nicely with it being ape. Don't forget, no Afarensis has ever been found with human feet.

 

Obviously skeletal comparison can only take us so far, if we look at the skeletal plan for a bird and a human you might think they were in the same family but once you add the soft tissue, it changes the picture dramatically, that's why the evolutionist propagandists love to only focus on the bones so you will get lost in these tedious comparisons that don't mean jack squat, The truth of the matter is, they have a handful of the remains of one skeleton and infer a human evolution, which is quite literally a MONSTER of a non-sequitur.



#10 StormanNorman

StormanNorman

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,130 posts
  • Age: 46
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Pittsburgh, PA

Posted 03 November 2017 - 07:06 AM

Those "trends" are irrelevant because since this is the only specimen you can't make guesses based on other specimens because it is pivotal as to what we have here, anatomically. Norman what you said doesn't really change Gneiss's point, that the pelvis may well be a distorted representation of the truth since it is only based on crushed fragments but the parts I shown you are indisputably whole and indicating NOT bipedalism. The fact is the foramen magnum is that of a chimps.

 

 

Not quite, Mike...it's not quite as far back as it is in chimps, but is further back than what we see in homo erectus which, in turn, is further back than what we see in humans.  Bonedigger posted a picture of Lucy's original pelvis some time back and only the top part of the pelvic blade was deformed....not to mention that Lucy's pelvis is not the only pelvis / sacrum that we have from Australopithecus species.  Others show the same degree of bipedalism.  She had some degree of bipedalism....although she was probably not the walker that we are.  Conversely, she had longer arms and hands than us and was definitely a better tree climber than you and me.....although not as good as a chimp.  Again, Mike, she was a "tweener"....a perfect candidate for a transitional....



#11 mike the wiz

mike the wiz

    Veteran member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,374 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:mikey mischief.
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • England

Posted 03 November 2017 - 08:14 AM

 

 

Norman: Not quite, Mike...it's not quite as far back as it is in chimps, but is further back than what we see in homo erectus which, in turn, is further back than what we see in humans. 

 

No, it is identical to the chimps, and I also shown the human version. I think you only say this to make out there was a progression from quadrupedal to bipedal but the diagram is very clear, I even drawn lines to compare.

 

 

 

Norman: She had some degree of bipedalism....although she was probably not the walker that we are.  Conversely, she had longer arms and hands than us and was definitely a better tree climber than you and me.....although not as good as a chimp.  Again, Mike, she was a "tweener"....a perfect candidate for a transitional....

 

Chimps have some degree of bipedalism.

 

Of course from a logical perspective it doesn't really matter if she is a candidate for a transitional, a true transition between human would have to show for example how a human foot evolved, you would have to see the bones. There is 0% evidence that Lucy had a human foot or was evolving one. Your logic is to compare other Afarensis models when it comes to the pelvis, so if I accept your logic and you are to be consistent, you will accept that other Afarensis show ape-feet. You can't have it both ways. 

 

Of course since all apes are arboreal and have hands rather than feet, this makes it an even more circumstantial evidence for a transition. Logically there is the possibility that pithecines were simply a different type of ape. Anatomists acknowledge this when they admit that they usually end up saying concernining pithecines, "they were neither human nor ape" when they look at the anatomy.

 

So;

 

1. We are only studying a very limited 40% Lucy skeleton without soft tissue.

2. If it counts as circumstantial evidence of a "transitional", logically it also counts as simply a possibly bipedal ape, so you can't affirm-the-consequent anyway. In other words, even if Lucy was a biped which I doubt a lot, then even if she was, this doesn't mean a walking ape is equivalent to a human, or that an ape can evolve into a human.

 

It seems to me there is ample evidence to dismiss the pithecines as nothing more than a type of ape. This then neatly and parsimoniously explains why all of the other transitionals simply don't exist, such as the ancestors for apes, or anything else.

 

This is the problem you have Norman, if you find a few candidates for transitionals, that isn't the expected evidence, for finding a tiny percentage is the expected evidence, logically, of great numbers giving the appearance of the existence of transitionals. Mathematically this is a provable, if you have millions of species, many species of mammals, many species of primates, we might expect had evolution not occurred, to find a few species that might look like transitionals but that there would be a general absence of transitionals.

 

So really I think human evolution is over-emphasized and over-magnified. The true evidence is tenuous and can fit in a dust bin, all homo genus are human, they have even found living people who have archaic features that so called, "earlier" models of human had. I don't subscribe to your victorian notion that animal kinds are at the species level, and nor do any informed creationists. Everything in "homo genus" is human apart from the false taxa of Habilis which is a taxanomical wastebin of a few parts of either homo or pithecine.



#12 StormanNorman

StormanNorman

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,130 posts
  • Age: 46
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Pittsburgh, PA

Posted 03 November 2017 - 09:22 AM

 

 

 

Norman: Not quite, Mike...it's not quite as far back as it is in chimps, but is further back than what we see in homo erectus which, in turn, is further back than what we see in humans. 

 

No, it is identical to the chimps, and I also shown the human version. I think you only say this to make out there was a progression from quadrupedal to bipedal but the diagram is very clear, I even drawn lines to compare.

 

 

 

 

No, it is not identical to chimps....it is slightly forward compared to chimps....just as homo erectus is slightly forward compared to Lucy, etc.

 

 

Chimps have some degree of bipedalism.

 

Very, very limited...they can walk on two feet for short distances, but not very well

 

 

Of course from a logical perspective it doesn't really matter if she is a candidate for a transitional, a true transition between human would have to show for example how a human foot evolved, you would have to see the bones. There is 0% evidence that Lucy had a human foot or was evolving one. Your logic is to compare other Afarensis models when it comes to the pelvis, so if I accept your logic and you are to be consistent, you will accept that other Afarensis show ape-feet. You can't have it both ways. 

 

 

We don't have Lucy's feet, Mike....so, there is no direct evidence either way that she had a human-like foot (in line big toe) or a chimp-like foot (splayed big toe).  So, we make the best determination we can based on the evidence at hand with the understanding that that determination could change based on additional evidence.  Furthermore, other Australopithecus afarensis fossils have been found including other pelvic and sacrum bones as well a complete knee joint and metatarsal that, by observation, are far more similar to that of humans than chimps....again, another indication that she was substantially more bipedal than chimps.



#13 mike the wiz

mike the wiz

    Veteran member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,374 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:mikey mischief.
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • England

Posted 03 November 2017 - 10:31 AM

 

 

Norman: We don't have Lucy's feet, Mike....so, there is no direct evidence either way that she had a human-like foot (in line big toe) or a chimp-like foot (splayed big toe).  So, we make the best determination we can based on the evidence at hand with the understanding that that determination could change based on additional evidence.  Furthermore, other Australopithecus afarensis fossils have been found including other pelvic and sacrum bones as well a complete knee joint and metatarsal that, by observation, are far more similar to that of humans than chimps....again, another indication that she was substantially more bipedal than chimps.

 

No they haven't been found to be more similar to humans than chimps, but more dissimilar to both, but it's all irrelevant anyway because pitecines are apes, not humans, going from the other Afarensis fossils they had curved fingers and toes, they were apes, please read the link in message one.

 

A more quadrupedal ape is an ape, a more bipedal ape is an ape. I see no evidence of humanity. A true transition between ape and human would reveal an evolving foot, that you don't even have one set of footsies and still want to declare it evolution is predictable, AND silly, concerning the other pithecines, from their skulls alone, we can tell were apes. Please read the link I gave properly.

 

 

 

Norman: We don't have Lucy's feet, Mike....so, there is no direct evidence either way that she had a human-like foot (in line big toe) or a chimp-like foot (splayed big toe)

 

But logically since she had a foramen magnum in line with a chimp and since Lucy was a pithecine, and since pithecines are apes, and since Lucy is 40% skeleton and we can still tell she was an ape, and since other Afarensis had ape feet, there are no reasons to assume she had human feet.

 

Only humans have human feet. They have also now found human feet at 5. something million years, to satisfy your claim she may be a transitional, you have to find another of the same species with feet.

 

 

 

Norman: No, it is not identical to chimps....it is slightly forward compared to chimps....just as homo erectus is slightly forward compared to Lucy, etc

 

No this is a misrepresentation of the facts, the anatomy shows that you need a foramen magnum in a certain position for it to be bipedal, and if it's placed towards the rear, if it is more forward slightly that won't matter if it's general placement is at the rear. In message one we can see that it is either so close to a chimps the difference is irrelevant or identical, either way it isn't that of a biped.

 

So your comment is misleading, because the diagram clearly shows a big difference to human. Please provide evidence now of your claim that each is closer as a succession, because you are making out there is an evolution which I find devious.

 

Be careful Norman, you are now very close to performing your very last bare assertions at this forum. All humans have the placement of the magnum near the middle, and all Afarensis have it like a chimps. 

 

Here in this link we see the foramen magnum is the same in apes as it is in Afarensis;

http://bio.sunyorang.../p_hominids.htm

 

Homo erectus did walk as a biped so he can't have had a foramen magnum like the ones shown for apes we know aren't. WARNINGCease stating the propaganda or provide evidence if you state it again


  • Gneiss girl likes this

#14 mike the wiz

mike the wiz

    Veteran member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,374 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:mikey mischief.
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • England

Posted 03 November 2017 - 10:43 AM

Attached File  skullll.jpg   126.25KB   0 downloads

 

We can see here very clearly, Afarensis has a pretty much identical position. Note where the hole is in the top picture please readers.

 

Homo erectus, well there is a clue in the word, "erectus" Norman, meaning to walk erectly he must have had a differently placed magnum.



#15 StormanNorman

StormanNorman

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,130 posts
  • Age: 46
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Pittsburgh, PA

Posted 03 November 2017 - 12:45 PM

 

 

 

 

No they haven't been found to be more similar to humans than chimps, but more dissimilar to both, but it's all irrelevant anyway because pitecines are apes, not humans, going from the other Afarensis fossils they had curved fingers and toes, they were apes, please read the link in message one.

 

A more quadrupedal ape is an ape, a more bipedal ape is an ape. I see no evidence of humanity.

 

Of course, you don't....she wasn't human....and no one is claiming that she was.  What is being claimed is that she (or her species) is a potential transitional between humans and the rest of the ape family.  You can call her anything you want....it doesn't change anything

 

 

 

 A true transition between ape and human would reveal an evolving foot, that you don't even have one set of footsies and still want to declare it evolution is predictable, AND silly, concerning the other pithecines, from their skulls alone, we can tell were apes. Please read the link I gave properly.

 

 

A true potential transitional, Mike, is a fossil that has a mix of traits that fall between species group A and species B.  In some cases, the transitional trait may be closer in resemblance to the A; in other cases, closer to B; and, finally a trait may fall in between A and B.

 

Based on the evidence that we do haveAustralopithecus afarensis skull appears more similar to the other apes, e.g., cranial capacity, face slope, etc., with the exception of the mandible which seems to be a tweener.  Her torso seems to fall more in between the two.  Longer arms and hands than us, but not as long the tree-dwellers....almost right in between.  But, from the waste down, they appear to resemble humans far more so than the other guys based on the pelvic and sacrum bones that have been found as well as other fossils including the knee joint and a metatarsal bone among others.  All told, that sounds to me like it precisely fits the definition of potential transitional.

 

Now, we don't have their feet, Mike....and why you think that is an absolute must before considering anything a potential transitional is beyond me.  We have footprints that appear to lack the splayed big toe, but no doubt we would need the fossil to confirm.  Even if their feet more closely resemble the other apes (which would be surprising given the hips and knees), then that still would not necessarily eliminate them as a potential transitional.  Again, you can hang your hat on that and keep your beliefs safe, but the rest of certainly don't have to. 

 

 

 

But logically since she had a foramen magnum in line with a chimp and since Lucy was a pithecine, and since pithecines are apes, and since Lucy is 40% skeleton and we can still tell she was an ape, and since other Afarensis had ape feet, there are no reasons to assume she had human feet.

 

Other afarensis had ape feet???  What are you talking  about?

 

 

Only humans have human feet. They have also now found human feet at 5. something million years, to satisfy your claim she may be a transitional, you have to find another of the same species with feet.

 

Well, that's profoundly true, Mike.  And only dogs have dog feet....and only fish have fish feet...

 

Someone found a human foot from 5 million years ago??

 

 

No this is a misrepresentation of the facts, the anatomy shows that you need a foramen magnum in a certain position for it to be bipedal, and if it's placed towards the rear, if it is more forward slightly that won't matter if it's general placement is at the rear. In message one we can see that it is either so close to a chimps the difference is irrelevant or identical, either way it isn't that of a biped.

 

 

Says who?  And what do you mean by "bipedal?"  Do you mean human-like bipedal or chimp-like bipedal...or in between the two....like, dare I say, a transitional?  

 

 

So your comment is misleading, because the diagram clearly shows a big difference to human. Please provide evidence now of your claim that each is closer as a succession, because you are making out there is an evolution which I find devious.

 

Be careful Norman, you are now very close to performing your very last bare assertions at this forum. All humans have the placement of the magnum near the middle, and all Afarensis have it like a chimps. 

 

 

 

Be careful Norman?  Really?  

 

 

Here in this link we see the foramen magnum is the same in apes as it is in Afarensis;

http://bio.sunyorang.../p_hominids.htm

 

Homo erectus did walk as a biped so he can't have had a foramen magnum like the ones shown for apes we know aren't. WARNINGCease stating the propaganda or provide evidence if you state it again

 

I've already provided it to you in the link I posted above.  

 

image035.jpg

 

1 -> Chimp; 2-> Australopithecus afarensis; 3 -> Homo Erectus; 4 -> Human

 

Like I said (2) is slightly more forward than (1) & (4) is slightly more forward than (3).  There is a big difference between (2) and (3) which represents a time difference of about 1.5 to 2 million years.



#16 StormanNorman

StormanNorman

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,130 posts
  • Age: 46
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Pittsburgh, PA

Posted 03 November 2017 - 12:48 PM

attachicon.gifskullll.jpg

 

We can see here very clearly, Afarensis has a pretty much identical position. Note where the hole is in the top picture please readers.

 

Homo erectus, well there is a clue in the word, "erectus" Norman, meaning to walk erectly he must have had a differently placed magnum.

 

I never asserted otherwise....



#17 mike the wiz

mike the wiz

    Veteran member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,374 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:mikey mischief.
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • England

Posted 03 November 2017 - 01:20 PM

 

 

Norman: Like I said (2) is slightly more forward than (1) & (4) is slightly more forward than (3).  There is a big difference between (2) and (3) which represents a time difference of about 1.5 to 2 million years.

 

I think you need to be more observant. If you notice the size of number 4 skull, it is the difference in size between skull number three and four which makes it seem like number 4 is more forward.

 

This is why the measurements in message one are based on the distance between the back of the skull and the front. This makes me suspect that this photograph was likely created by an evolutionist trying to show a false progression.

 

To show what I mean I have drawn a diagram of two rectangles both with a dot identically close to their middle by exact percentage distance from middle, notice if we measure from the very bottom of the rectangle (in the top picture), we get a false progression where the dot doesn't seem to be as close to the centre in the large rectangle.

 

Now in the picture below, if we measure them by making each the same size we see the placement of the circle is exactly the same;

 

Attached File  copier.jpg   11.9KB   0 downloads

 

So the error is to place the skulls on a flat surface where the back of the skull rests on the cushioning. I also note that the cushion they rest on seems uneven, making our comparison even less valid if it is uneven. Each skull has to be photographed in it's entirety then made the same size by use of a photo shop, then measured so that the top and bottom of the skulls line up exactly. There can be no guesswork with missing skull in-fills either unless they are based on knowledge.

 

So the only genuine comparison we can make from that picture of the four skulls, is that 1 and 2 are very similar and so are 3 and 4 similar to each other. Though I admit 3 looks like some is missing.

 

CONCLUSION: This isn't a good comparison without those requirements being met. I think it's fair to say with that in mind, I only really see similarity between 1 and 2 like I see basic similarity between 3 and 4. If those minutely small differences are a "progression" then it seems like a pretty weak argument, they could simply be coincidence. 

 

Another factor is that I don't take for granted the ages given, so erectus in actual fact would be younger than say neanderthal, or the same age, or all the same age. If they are contemporaneous and not really older or younger than one another, then the progression would be false because the order would be false. For example they have recently confirmed human footprints 5 million years old and if I remember correctly Lucy was about 3 million years old? So then if we place the skulls in the order of age, we would have to place a homo sapien skull in position 1 alongside Lucy. So the sequential progression your photograph shows, as though it is a timeline, is begging-the-question fallacy, if it assumes that each came in the chronological order evolution says it happened in.

 

So there may be a disparity between the real life chronological order and an evolutionary chronology, if the human footprints at 5 million years were caused by sapiens or neanderthals, for example.

 

(Note that my argument with the red rectangles is correct even if I am wrong and there is an order, if there is more of an order if we measure correctly, or less of one, I would hope we would both want to measure correctly, so I hope you can see what I meant by that.)

 

(https://creation.com...rete-footprints ( 5.7myo human prints)



#18 mike the wiz

mike the wiz

    Veteran member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,374 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:mikey mischief.
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • England

Posted 03 November 2017 - 01:37 PM

 

 

Norman: Be careful Norman?  Really?  

 

WARNING 2. DANGER: WIZARD eyes flash! 

 

:P



#19 StormanNorman

StormanNorman

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,130 posts
  • Age: 46
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Pittsburgh, PA

Posted 03 November 2017 - 02:51 PM

 

 

 

Norman: Like I said (2) is slightly more forward than (1) & (4) is slightly more forward than (3).  There is a big difference between (2) and (3) which represents a time difference of about 1.5 to 2 million years.

 

I think you need to be more observant. If you notice the size of number 4 skull, it is the difference in size between skull number three and four which makes it seem like number 4 is more forward.

 

 

I don't think so, Mike....they look almost the exact same size to me.  The only real difference is that the human skull has its upper jaw and teeth present....every thing else looks about the same size....



#20 mike the wiz

mike the wiz

    Veteran member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,374 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:mikey mischief.
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • England

Posted 03 November 2017 - 03:06 PM

 

 

Norman: I don't think so, Mike....they look almost the exact same size to me.  The only real difference is that the human skull has its upper jaw and teeth present....every thing else looks about the same size....

 

Nevertheless it's an incorrect way to measure, lining them up from the bottom, on an uneven surface with parts missing. I explained the correct way.

 

Obviously if you agree erectus was bipedal human with human feet as well as sapien bipedal with human feet, both having the magnum nearer the centre, and if you agree Afarensis's skull is closer to a chimps which it clearly is, then it seems it would have been like a chimp, in having that level of ape-like level of bipedalism, given that is how chimps are, if they have the magnum in that position.

 

So we have two sets of each, 1 and 2 ape-level of bipedalism if you like and 3 and 4 with human bipedalism and human feet.

 

In other words I see two apes very clearly and two humans very clearly. I see no reason to say that one led to the other, why is is such an impossibility to your mind that we have a bunch of various apes and a bunch of humans? If you start logically, with humans being created and apes separately, in ancient days if they adapted to certain environments, some humans more archaic, some apes more bipedal, is it not physically possible that micro evolution could do this? That it could take bipedal humans and adapt them to be slightly more "primitive" so to speak, and take some apes and make them slightly more bipedal?

 

Wow, that's as hard to believe as a square circle. :rolleyes:

 

The changes between skulls themselves can't be put in that chronological order because of something you seem to be totally unaware of, in fact all species of homo have been found with a mix of archaic/gracile traits. Today there are living people with heavy eye ridges, they have also found erectus specimens with more gracile features. They have found human prints at 5.7myo and homo sapiens at 3-350,000 years old.

 

It is also well known as to how these changes can be caused.

 

Exhibit A;

 

 

 

 The matter of the origin of the archaic sapiens themselves is also unresolved. The modern Omo specimens were found close together and have identical ages; yet Omo II has noticeable erectus features, while Omo I is as modern as people of today. Wood says that if the two were found in separate locations they would have been put in different groups. This demonstrates the large range of variability in a contemporary human population.

 

And this;

 

 

Also, Custance has argued convincingly that the so-called ‘primitive’ erectus and Neanderthal features are almost entirely due to the functioning of the jaw mechanism which would affect the size and shape of brow ridges, the forehead and the zygomatic arch.51 On page 183 Custance finds that the ‘primitive’ facial and skull features have nothing to do with evolution, but are due to the eating of uncooked or partially-cooked foods, especially in childhood, thus strengthening the jaw mechanism, causing it to be- come more massive in structure, and this process deforms the skull by depressing the forehead, making the brow ridges more prominent, and forces outwards the zygomatic arch, thus accentuating the cheek bones. If these people also chewed hides and skins of animals for softening, this would also have had a similar effect. This effect is increased by the tugging of flesh from the bones, and might be particularly pronounced when the diet, especially of juveniles, is lacking in bone-hardening substances such as calcium. By mid-adolescence these features then would become ‘set in concrete’ as adult characters.

Custance cites known examples, and points out that such authorities as Hooten, Howells, Hrdlicka and others were well aware of this.52 Thus, such a process, occurring in individuals, could well account for many erectus and Neanderthal features.






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users