Re: afarensis Part Deux

Dana Tweedy wrote:
> "NashtOn" <nana@xxxxx> wrote in message
> news:Q0rmf.137012$Ph4.4178109@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> snipping
>
>
>>>There is no complete foot, but so what? You have completely failed to
>>>give any reasons why a complete foot should be the sole arbiter of
>>>wether or not a creature was bipedal. The simple fact is that
>>>bipedality causes changes many bones of the foot, ankle, leg and
>>>pelvis. In particular the shape of the ilium and distal femur are quite
>>>diagnoostic of bipedalism and A. afarensis is clearly bipedal.
>
>
> When faced with evidence, what does the mighty massage therapist do? Quote
> Mine!
>
> The below comes from:
> http://www.cs.unc.edu/~plaisted/ce/lucy.html
>
> Which is also quoted verbatium at:
> http://www.rae.org/lucy.html
>
>
>>Stern and Sussman write in the American Journal of Physical Anthropology
>>(60:279-313):
>>
>>
>>"In summary, the knee of the small Hadar hominid shares with other
>>australopithecines a marked obliquity of the femoral shaft relative to
>>the bicondylar plane, but in all other respects it falls either outside
>>the range of modern human variation (Tardieu, 1979) or barely within it
>>(our analysis). Since, aside from the degree of valgus, the knee of the
>>small Hadar hominid possesses no modern trait to a pronounced degree,
>>and since many of these traits may not serve to specify the precise
>>nature of the bipedality that was practiced, we must agree with Tardieu
>>that the overall structure of the knee is compatible with a significant
>>degree of arboreal locomotion." (p.298)
>>
>>(My comments: not as bipedal as you thought, huh?)
>
>
> That's not what the above article indicates. It says that the specimens
> show an early form of bipedality, and they may have also spent time in the
> trees. This does not mean they weren't bipedal.
>
> The below is also taken from
> http://www.cs.unc.edu/~plaisted/ce/lucy.html
>
>
>>"I myself remain totally unpersuaded. Almost always when I have tried to
>>check the anatomical claims on which the status of Australopithecus is
>>based, I have ended in failure." (Solly Lord Zuckerman,Beyond the Ivory
>>Tower, 1977, p. 77)
>>
>>(My comments: so much for the axiomatic truth that afarensis was bipedal).
>
>
> As has been pointed out before Zuckerman didn't examine afarensis, he
> studied africanus and robustus fossils. The more complete afarensis
> fossils show that Zuckerman was wrong.
>
> The quote below also comes verbatium from:
> http://www.cs.unc.edu/~plaisted/ce/lucy.html
>
>
>>
>> "Although most studies emphasize the similarity of the
>>australopithecines to modern man, and suggest, therefore that these
>>creatures were bipedal tool-makers at least one form of which (A.
>>africanus--"Homo habilis," "Homo africanus") was almost directly
>>ancestral to man, a series of multivariate statistical studies of
>>various postcranial fragments suggests other conclusions..."Finally, the
>>quite independent information from the fossil finds of more recent years
>>seems to indicate absolutely that these australopithecines of half to 2
>>million years and from sites such as Olduvai and Sterkfontein are not on
>>a human pathway." (Dr. Chas. Oxnard (USC) U. of Chicago Magazine,
>>Winter, 1974, pp. 11-12).
>
>
>
> Oxnard also didn't study afarensis fossils. He was proven wrong by other
> paleontologists.
>
> The below is also quoted from
> http://www.cs.unc.edu/~plaisted/ce/lucy.html
>
>
>>The ER-1470 skull was found in l972 (in fragments) a little below a
>>geological strata known as KBS tuff. This tuff had been dated a few
>>years earlier at 2.6 million years so Richard Leakey assigned the skull
>>an age of 2.9 million years. This aroused a storm of controversy as the
>>skull had an enormous brain capacity of perhaps 825 cubic centimeters
>>and several surprisingly modern features.
>
>
> But still very primitive.
>
>
>>After nearly a decade of
>>debate--often acrimonious--a committee of neutral experts was assembled
>>and used a variety of sophisticated tests which included faunal
>>comparisons (especially fossilized teeth of both Lake Turkana and
>>Ethiopian Afar pigs). They re-dated the tuff at 1.9 million years. (The
>>skull fragments themselves have never been dated.)
>
>
> Actually, they have been dated, by the above methods. They are
> approximately 1.9 million years old.
>
>
>>Leakey then estimated
>>the skull's age at 2 million years. He regarded it as an example of Homo
>>Habilis. Unfortunately the skull is too advanced for this species or
>>this age
>
>
> "Too advanced"? Where do you get that?
>
>
>
>>. A new generation of scholars tends to call ER-1470 Homo
>>Ergaster and this new species is seen as a bridge from Homo Habilis to
>>Homo Erectus, our alleged immediate ancestor.
>
>
> I.e, a transitional form. However, 1470 is not being referred to as H.
> ergaster, that name is being used for African specimens of what were called
> H. erectus. 1470 is considered by some paleontologists as H.
> rudolphensis. Plaistead was wrong.
> http://www.mnh.si.edu/anthro/humanorigins/ha/er1470.html
>
>
>>But in some ways ER-1470
>>is too modern even for these species.
>
>
> How so?
>
>
>
>>The maturation and gender of the
>>original owner of the skull is unknown. If ER-1470 was a female, the
>>cranial capacity of an adult male of this species would approach 1,000
>>c.c, right to the edge of modern humanity.
>
>
> But 1470 is only 775cc s. H. habilis (or rudolphensis) could never be
> mistaken for modern human.
>
>
>>If ER-1470 was an adult male,
>>then the small brow ridges, thin cranium and other modern features would
>>assume greater importance and approach modern man.
>
>
> But not nearly enough to be mistaken for modern humans.
>
>
>>Thus, no matter how
>>you slice it, ER-1470 is a problem for all concerned.
>
>
> Mostly for the Creationists.
>
>
>>It would seem that
>>this one fossil, therefore, could be a major focus for creationist
>>science. from: http://www.cs.unc.edu/~plaisted/ce/lucy.html
>
>
> There is no "creationist science". How many scientific papers have
> Creationists published about KNM ER-1470? None.
>
>
>
>
>>(My comments: secure, huh?)
>
>
> Very secure, considering this is the extent that Creationists can 'refute'
> these important fossils. Note that no one is doubting the veracity of KNM
> 1470, or it's importance as a hominid. The controversy here is the dating
> of the fossil.
>
>
>
>>
>>>
>>>>Anyone familiar with the ego wars of Johanson and Leaky knows very well
>>>>that Leaky vehemently opposed the notion that A. afarensis is an
>>>>ancestor of H. Sapiens.
>>>
>>>
>>>This is at the very least disingenuous. Leaky only doubts that A.
>>>afarensis is a DIRECT ancestor of H. sapiens. Reading his various works
>>>leaves no doubt at all that he considers it to be a hominid, that is a
>>>closer relative of H. sapiens than the Chimpanzee, by virtue of its
>>>intermediate morphology. Perhaps you csan find a citation for Leakey
>>>claiming that A. afarensis is 'just a chimp' or 'not a hominid'. Bet
>>>you can't.
>>
>>The controversy run deeper and you know it. Then again, maybe you don't.
>
>
> The controversy is about details, not about the veracity of the specimens.
> I notice you don't even try to address Adam's point. Where did Leakey ever
> claim that A. afarensis was "just a chimp", or claim it wasn't a hominid?
>
>
>>>
>>>>There are no skeletal remains if a complete foot of A. afarensis.
>>>
>>>
>>>Yes but there is plenty of evidence that it was bipedal and you haven't
>>>addressed any of it.
>>
>>Read above.
>>In their haste to put the evolutionist hype cart in front of the hard
>>data horse, we're in the mess we are now, re these specimens and their
>>significance.
>
>
> What "mess". Science does it's best work when faced with a challenge, and
> athropologists love nothing more than a good controversy to argue over.
> The specimens are obviously bipedal, and they are obviously hominids. The
> controversy in science is over the details.
>
> snipping
>
>
>>>Not true. Even more damning is that Tuffs *above* the footprints yeild
>>>similar ages (3.46 ± 0.12 Ma). Conclusion: the Pliocene age of the
>>>footprints is secure.
>>
>>Right. Not as secure (sic) or clear-cut as you would want us to believe.
>
>
> I notice you don't try to dispute the dating, you just assert it's not
> "secure". Your assertions are looking "Leaky"(sic).
>
>
>
>>Piltdown Man's origin's and age was also secure (sic), as I recall.
>
>
> Then you recall wrongly. Piltdown was never dated objectively, as the
> methods of radiometric dating had not been developed at the time. One of
> the reasons why the Piltdown hoax lasted as long as it did was that the
> keepers of the fossils refused to allow controversy about it. When it was
> examined closely, it was found to be a fake.
>
>
>>
>>~rest of attempt at damage control snipped
>
>
> Nicky does the 'Brave Sir Robin" approach again.
>
>
>>Now, after having exposed your lies,
>
>
> What "lies" do you think were "exposed"? Adam's information was correct,
> yours was faulty.
>
>
>>in a polite manner, there is still
>>*no* way of knowing for sure whether the species that are supposed to be
>>Man's ancestors are extinct chimps, apes or whether their are even part
>>of the same creature.
>
>
> If you want absolute certianty, then science is not for you. Science can
> only go with the preponderance of evidence. Man's ancestors are extinct
> chimps, and modern humans are living chimps, (and apes). There's no reason
> to suspect that the fossil finds such as "Lucy", "little foot", KNM 1470,
> etc, do not belong to the same individual that was uncovered.
>
>
>>For the lurkers:
>>
>>*Nothing* in anthropology, the science of the study of its own
>>assumptions is "secure".
>
>
> Science doesn't deal in "secure". It deals with preponderance of evidence.
>
>
>
>>Everything is shrowded in controversy, hoaxes
>>and politics abound.
>
>
> All of science is "shrowded"(sic) in controversy, as that's the nature of
> the beast. Politics abound in any human endeavor. Nicky throws around
> accusations of "hoaxes" but can't provide any specifics of any genuine
> hoaxes that science has not already dealt with.
>
> DJT
>


Tweety, stop squirming.

Where is the complete foot I asked for?
And why are you obsessed with my profession? Does it bother you, or are
you jealous that you didn't score very high in your MCAT and didn't do
well enough in College to be accepted into a professional school?

Just asking;)

Nicola

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: afarensis Part Deux
    ... > the range of modern human variation ... > nature of the bipedality that was practiced, ... This aroused a storm of controversy as the ... There is no "creationist science". ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: afarensis Part Deux
    ... > diagnoostic of bipedalism and A. afarensis is clearly bipedal. ... the range of modern human variation ... nature of the bipedality that was practiced, ... geological strata known as KBS tuff. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: "great distance runners" (was Re: chimps stronger than humans)
    ... The role of load-carrying in the evolution of modern body ... "Once bipedality has been acquired, ... from standing fresh water. ... former savannah supporters must now swallow our earlier ...
    (sci.anthropology.paleo)
  • Re: Jesus Christ -- Clashing Biblical Images
    ... controversy is whether its a genuine document or a modern ... one modern readers bring to the table. ... The charge of Smith being motivated by trying to prove that early Christianity accepted homosexuality didn't start to occur until Smith himself drew the connection between his beliefs on this and Secret Mark in preparation for a talk at Colombia. ...
    (soc.history.medieval)
  • Re: afarensis Part Deux
    ... >> diagnoostic of bipedalism and A. afarensis is clearly bipedal. ... >the range of modern human variation ... >nature of the bipedality that was practiced, ... > No this is completely wrong: the footprints are IN the Laetoli Beds. ...
    (talk.origins)