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 have, Australopithecus 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;
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. WARNING: Cease stating the propaganda or provide evidence if you state it again
I've already provided it to you in the link I posted above.
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.