Jump to content


Photo

Lucy Wasn't A Biped


  • Please log in to reply
7 replies to this topic

#1 mike the wiz

mike the wiz

    Veteran member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,240 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
  • 1,113 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
  • 1,281 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
  • 1,113 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
  • 127 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
  • 1,113 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
  • 127 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
  • 1,113 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






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users