Posted on 02/11/2011 1:44:54 AM PST by Natufian
New fossil evidence seems to confirm that a key ancestor of ours could walk upright consistently - one of the major advances in human evolution.
The evidence comes in the form of a 3.2 million-year-old bone that was found at Hadar, Ethiopia.
Its shape indicates the diminutive, human-like species Australopithecus afarensis had arches in its feet.
Arched feet, the discovery team tells the journal Science, are critical for walking the way modern humans do.
(Excerpt) Read more at bbc.co.uk ...
GGG Ping!
LOL. I didn´t notice that.
LOL!
Fact is the “Lucy” skeleton is only about 80 bones and fragments of bones. No feet, no ankles, only one leg bone and a piece of a bone, No hands, only a few back vertebrae, in short a few a scraps that may not not even go together.
“Fossil find puts ‘Lucy’ story on firm footing”. Right. Soon we’ll even know it’s hair color whatever it was.
This bone isn´t from Lucy. Do you even bother to read the articles before posting?
Ever notice how the desperation of scientists to find this non existent fossil record has a sort of Willy Loemanesque quality about it? This panicked desperation to believe something that just isn’t true?
This fossil proves nothing, it sure doesn’t give evidence that so called “lucy” is an human ancestor.
They got some esplainin’ to do
“This fossil proves nothing, it sure doesn’t give evidence that so called “lucy” is an human ancestor.”
Both modern humans and ´Lucy´ are/were bipedal. You do realise how rare bipedalism is in nature don´t you?
Whatever their motivations, they DID find this fossil. Your motivations in wanting it to go away seem somehow dubious as well.
Lucy has always been on a firm footing with me..............
This fossil proves that Lucy was an “archetype”............
LOL, what fossil? Look the evolutionary schtick is that there is this progression from simple life form to more complex life form. It just didnt happen. We would be seeing evidence everywhere, its just not there. It is a whack job faith issue, they will continue to make crap up like global warming. It would be comedic if it werent so pathetic.
What fossil? The one that was analyzed in the paper submitted to Science. Your under no obligation to agree with their conclusions but denying it´s existence is poor strategy if you want to convince the fair and open minded.
I didn’t say it was, Don’t you even bother to read posts before replying?
The article said this after four paragraphs discussing “Lucy”:
“And now we can say that the foot, too, joins these other anatomical regions in pointing towards a fundamentally human-like form of locomotion in this ancient human ancestor.”
In brief, the speaker is saying the bone would be typical to the “Lucy” form.
As I pointed out the “Lucy” skeleton is without feet, etc.
Seemingly not that rare. There is this foot-bipedal. "Lucy"-bipedal. And as the anti-Lucarians insist the Hadar knee-joint did not come from "Lucy", that makes a third bipedal species from the same time, same place. (Unless of course, they actually belong together)
FOUL, your presupposition is that this bone exists so there fore it is a valid fossil link. Just because someone assigns the meaning of a bone as a linked fossil doesnt mean it is connected. We all know the stretch that the scientific community has tried to make over decades to prove their pet theory, it just hasn’t worked. That just isnt fair and open minded of you.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.