Jump to content


Photo

Lucy Wasn't A Biped


  • Please log in to reply
25 replies to this topic

#21 StormanNorman

StormanNorman

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,135 posts
  • Age: 46
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Pittsburgh, PA

Posted 03 November 2017 - 03:31 PM

 

 

 

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.

 

 

 

 

Actually, no, I don't agree.  Other evidence suggests that Afarensis was more bipedal than chimps in the sense that they could walk on two legs, more efficiently, for longer distances, etc.  Certainly not as well as homo erectus and us, but probably much better than chimps.  In fact, I doubt Lucy used her hands to walk....

 

 

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?

 

Mike, I never said any of that is impossible and, moreover, I am not making any claims here which is why is say "potential" transitional ....because I can't claim with certainty that she is, indeed, our ancestor.  We have found numerous hominid and Australopithecus fossils most of which are vastly incomplete...and we have estimates for their ages.  And, no doubt, we certainly need more fossils to fill in the blanks.  But, we line up what we have and make hypotheses based on the evidence with the understanding that the very next piece of evidence found could completely debunk your hypotheses....



#22 Blitzking

Blitzking

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,079 posts
  • Age: 55
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • California

Posted 03 November 2017 - 06:49 PM

 

 

 

 

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.

 

 

 

 

Actually, no, I don't agree.  Other evidence suggests that Afarensis was more bipedal than chimps in the sense that they could walk on two legs, more efficiently, for longer distances, etc.  Certainly not as well as homo erectus and us, but probably much better than chimps.  In fact, I doubt Lucy used her hands to walk....

 

 

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?

 

Mike, I never said any of that is impossible and, moreover, I am not making any claims here which is why is say "potential" transitional ....because I can't claim with certainty that she is, indeed, our ancestor.  We have found numerous hominid and Australopithecus fossils most of which are vastly incomplete...and we have estimates for their ages.  And, no doubt, we certainly need more fossils to fill in the blanks.  But, we line up what we have and make hypotheses based on the evidence with the understanding that the very next piece of evidence found could completely debunk your hypotheses....

 

 

"But, we line up what we have and make hypotheses based on the evidence with the understanding that IF WE DONT, THE FUNDING STOPS..

 

There.. I fixed it for you!

 

 

“No fossil is buried with its birth certificate. That, and the scarcity of fossils, means that it is effectively impossible to link fossils into chains of cause and effect in any valid way...

To take a line of fossils and claim that they represent a lineage is not a scientific hypothesis that can be tested, but an assertion that carries the same validity as a bedtime story

—amusing, perhaps even instructive, but not scientific.”

Henry Gee

 

 

“Every paleontologist knows that most species don’t change. That’s bothersome….brings terrible distress. …

.They may get a little bigger or bumpier but they remain the same species and that’s not due to imperfection and

gaps but stasis. And yet this remarkable stasis has generally been ignored as no data. If they don’t change,

its not evolution so you don’t talk about it.”  World Renown Paleontologist S J Gould

 

 

evolution-happening-in-lab.jpg



#23 Sleepy House

Sleepy House

    Junior Member

  • Advanced member
  • PipPip
  • 51 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 31
  • (private)
  • Creationist
  • United States

Posted 22 November 2017 - 11:25 AM

It makes no logical sense at all for an ape to evolve to be bipedal in the first place. Monkeys and apes are faster, stronger, move more efficiently, avoid predators way better, and have unlimited access to both ground and canopy—two separate habitat zones, which is invaluable for ease of food procurement and...survival.
  • mike the wiz likes this

#24 StormanNorman

StormanNorman

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,135 posts
  • Age: 46
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Pittsburgh, PA

Posted 22 November 2017 - 12:36 PM

It makes no logical sense at all for an ape to evolve to be bipedal in the first place. Monkeys and apes are faster, stronger, move more efficiently, avoid predators way better, and have unlimited access to both ground and canopy—two separate habitat zones, which is invaluable for ease of food procurement and...survival.

 

I don't think what you say is a 100% true.  There are distinct advantages to bipedalism.  1) It's a far more efficient means of locomotion for a primate meaning that while bipedal is not necessarily faster in a sprint, it is much better in the "long run'...pardon the pun.  2) If you need to carry something (like food) over a considerable distance, then I'd much rather be bipedal.  And 3), standing upright gives one a better view over obstructions (like tall grass) when looking for predators at a distance.

 

Now, I don't see any of these being very beneficial for a primate living in a dense jungle. However, if you are in more of a grassland environment with sparse groups of trees separated by considerable distance, then, for a primate, being bipedal might come in handy.

 

I was watching a show on National Geographic showing how current people in East Africa hunt.  A group of men with spears went out to hunt some herd animal...maybe some form of antelope.  They approach a herd which eventually split and ran away from them; they picked a sub-group and approached it before the whole herd could regroup...and it did the same thing; they continued this till eventually they were able to isolate a single animal.  They continued to pursue it and it continued to sprint away from them, but eventually it became so exhausted that it could run no more....and they surrounded and killed it.

 

This whole episode took many hours and covered several miles.  Now, even if chimps had the ability to use spears, they never could've killed one of those animals; they don't have the speed to run it down in the first try and they don't have the endurance to continue that process for hours on end. And even if they were able to kill it, how would they get it back to the females and infants??



#25 Sleepy House

Sleepy House

    Junior Member

  • Advanced member
  • PipPip
  • 51 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 31
  • (private)
  • Creationist
  • United States

Posted 22 November 2017 - 03:15 PM

It makes no logical sense at all for an ape to evolve to be bipedal in the first place. Monkeys and apes are faster, stronger, move more efficiently, avoid predators way better, and have unlimited access to both ground and canopy—two separate habitat zones, which is invaluable for ease of food procurement and...survival.

 
I don't think what you say is a 100% true.  There are distinct advantages to bipedalism.  1) It's a far more efficient means of locomotion for a primate meaning that while bipedal is not necessarily faster in a sprint, it is much better in the "long run'...pardon the pun.  2) If you need to carry something (like food) over a considerable distance, then I'd much rather be bipedal.  And 3), standing upright gives one a better view over obstructions (like tall grass) when looking for predators at a distance.
 
Now, I don't see any of these being very beneficial for a primate living in a dense jungle. However, if you are in more of a grassland environment with sparse groups of trees separated by considerable distance, then, for a primate, being bipedal might come in handy.
 
I was watching a show on National Geographic showing how current people in East Africa hunt.  A group of men with spears went out to hunt some herd animal...maybe some form of antelope.  They approach a herd which eventually split and ran away from them; they picked a sub-group and approached it before the whole herd could regroup...and it did the same thing; they continued this till eventually they were able to isolate a single animal.  They continued to pursue it and it continued to sprint away from them, but eventually it became so exhausted that it could run no more....and they surrounded and killed it.
 
This whole episode took many hours and covered several miles.  Now, even if chimps had the ability to use spears, they never could've killed one of those animals; they don't have the speed to run it down in the first try and they don't have the endurance to continue that process for hours on end. And even if they were able to kill it, how would they get it back to the females and infants??

Good points of contention, Storm. The hunting method you are describing is called persistence hunting, and indeed a non-bipedal could not achieve such a thing.

Where it all gets confusing is the timeline. If the evolutionist's developmental timeline of humans is to be believed, we were bipedal for quite some time before we started large game hunts or making sophisticated tools. We were allegedly carrion scavengers and mushroom/berry foragers. If we lived in a savannah or near it without tools, weapons, or the ability to fashion sophisticated earthworks or shelters, it would be nearly impossible to survive whether we could see over the grass or not. Those places are teeming with tooth and claw, and the beasts that weild them have keener senses and speeds far greater.

Bipedalism would have to of been the riskiest gambit in evolutionary history, because if true, it didn't and couldn't have paid dividends until many, many, many generations later.

#26 StormanNorman

StormanNorman

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,135 posts
  • Age: 46
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Pittsburgh, PA

Posted 22 November 2017 - 03:39 PM

 

 

It makes no logical sense at all for an ape to evolve to be bipedal in the first place. Monkeys and apes are faster, stronger, move more efficiently, avoid predators way better, and have unlimited access to both ground and canopy—two separate habitat zones, which is invaluable for ease of food procurement and...survival.

 
I don't think what you say is a 100% true.  There are distinct advantages to bipedalism.  1) It's a far more efficient means of locomotion for a primate meaning that while bipedal is not necessarily faster in a sprint, it is much better in the "long run'...pardon the pun.  2) If you need to carry something (like food) over a considerable distance, then I'd much rather be bipedal.  And 3), standing upright gives one a better view over obstructions (like tall grass) when looking for predators at a distance.
 
Now, I don't see any of these being very beneficial for a primate living in a dense jungle. However, if you are in more of a grassland environment with sparse groups of trees separated by considerable distance, then, for a primate, being bipedal might come in handy.
 
I was watching a show on National Geographic showing how current people in East Africa hunt.  A group of men with spears went out to hunt some herd animal...maybe some form of antelope.  They approach a herd which eventually split and ran away from them; they picked a sub-group and approached it before the whole herd could regroup...and it did the same thing; they continued this till eventually they were able to isolate a single animal.  They continued to pursue it and it continued to sprint away from them, but eventually it became so exhausted that it could run no more....and they surrounded and killed it.
 
This whole episode took many hours and covered several miles.  Now, even if chimps had the ability to use spears, they never could've killed one of those animals; they don't have the speed to run it down in the first try and they don't have the endurance to continue that process for hours on end. And even if they were able to kill it, how would they get it back to the females and infants??

Good points of contention, Storm. The hunting method you are describing is called persistence hunting, and indeed a non-bipedal could not achieve such a thing.

Where it all gets confusing is the timeline. If the evolutionist's developmental timeline of humans is to be believed, we were bipedal for quite some time before we started large game hunts or making sophisticated tools. We were allegedly carrion scavengers and mushroom/berry foragers. If we lived in a savannah or near it without tools, weapons, or the ability to fashion sophisticated earthworks or shelters, it would be nearly impossible to survive whether we could see over the grass or not. Those places are teeming with tooth and claw, and the beasts that weild them have keener senses and speeds far greater.

Bipedalism would have to of been the riskiest gambit in evolutionary history, because if true, it didn't and couldn't have paid dividends until many, many, many generations later.

 

 

I do not know.   If you look at Lucy, she was more than likely bipedal in the sense that she walked upright on the ground and did not use her knuckles.  But, at the same time, she looks like she could still climb a tree...probably far better than you and me (longer arms and hands, chimp-like shoulders, etc.).  I agree that she could probably not survive in a pure savanna environment with no trees.  But, her mix of traits may have helped her survive in a grassland with some trees....perhaps clumps of trees.  She would probably do better than a chimp because clumps of trees will only have so much food. In other words, you eventually have to move to other clumps...or, at least, leave the trees to forage and carry the food back to the trees.

 

It all depends on the intertwining of the two proposed timelines:  1) East African climate changing from a dense rain forest -> grassland (and eventually a desert in some places) and 2) Humans:  tree dweller -> bipedal -> carrion scavenger -> larger body (without hair) and tool maker -> big game hunter.  Also, fire maker is mixed somewhere in there as well.






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users