Ethiopia to Exhibit 'Lucy' Fossil in United States

Science - Reuters ^ | 2004-04-12 | Tsegaye Tadesse

[Junior]

Creos don't think it applies to them. God, however, will not be mocked...

[Dimensio]

I think that he's bugging you about this over and over again because you're not giving the answer that he wants to hear. He will settle for nothing less than "the whole skeleton was pieced together with bits found over an area comprised of several square miles, it was assemlbed to further the fraud of evolution, which is a sham with no real evidence to back it up". Any other answers that you offer are just examples of you being "evasive".

[Xenalyte]

Lucy, stored in a vault in an Ethiopian museum, and other Ethiopian artifacts including crowns and scepters of ancient monarchs are due to be put on display at the Houston Museum of Natural Science in Texas in 2006.

Mark your calendar ping!

[Xenalyte]

I found out about Lucy from Lucy's Bones, Sacred Stones and Einstein's Brain - still have it, as a matter of fact. Wonderful read, along with his follow-up, Jumbo's Hide, Elvis's Ride, and the Tooth of Buddha.

[Xenalyte]

See, that's exactly what I hate about the Dune books. How the hell does one pronounce "Shadout Mapes?" The way it looks, or all French-like?

Man, I despise the Dune series. Kwisatz Haderach my butt.

[Xenalyte]

It's an appetizer. It's what you eat before you eat to make you more hungry.

[LiteKeeper]

No, I'm not - check something other than the "experts" on this thread.

BTW - Johannsen is quoted as saying that he dated Lucy at 4+ millions years because as he was flying into the valley he "just knew anything we found down there would have to be 4 million years or more old." Real scientific, huh?

[Junior]

Cool titles, if nothing else.

[Junior]

Really. Odd that I didn't come across that quote in my research, but I did find where he had the lava flows above and below the remains dated, as well as the sediments within which she was found:

Potassium decays to argon gas and can be dated, which is how the Lucy skeleton was dated at 3.2 MaBP. As the following image shows, volcanic ash dated at 3.2 MaBP lies just above the layer where the fossils were found. Beneath the layer of rock and dirt lies another layer of volcanic ash, dated at 3.8 MaBP. This stratification told the scientists that Lucy died somewhere between 3.2 and 3.8 million years ago.
 

It seems Johanson did not go into his dig with any preconceived ideas of the age of the find, after all...

[LiteKeeper]

WAS LUCY AN APE-MAN?
- BTG No. 11b November 1989
by John D. Morris, Ph.D.*

© Copyright 2004 Institute for Creation Research. All Rights Reserved.

"Woe unto them that call evil good" (Isaiah 5:20)

"Lucy," consisting of a skeleton forty percent complete, was discovered in Ethiopia by Donald Johanson in 1974, and was dated at 3.2 million years of age. He calculated her to have stood about 3'6" tall, and to have weighed about 50 pounds. Certain features suggested to Johanson that it may have walked erect, and was therefore evolving into a human. In a recent interview, Johanson recollects, "I happened to glance over my right shoulder . . .and there on the surface of the ground was a little bit of an elbow, I recognized it immediately as belonging to a human ancestor."

Lest one get the impression that Johanson is blessed with an unusual gift of discernment, let me point out that many in the anthropological community have yet to be so convinced. Indeed, it is impossible to make snap judgments like this, while a number of sophisticated studies have shown that the austraiopithecines, in general, and "Lucy," in particular, were not ape-human intermediates, but rather, an extinct species of ape which probably spent most of its time in the trees.

Let us look at some of the specific features of "Lucy" which are important in this study. Everyone agrees that from the neck up, "Lucy" was gorilla-like. Her brain size was about one-fourth the size of a human brain; her jaw was "U"-shaped, typical of gorillas; her teeth were large, far larger than those in humans.

From the neck down, nearly every: feature was likewise non-human. Australopithecus fossils, including those which are thought to be much more recent and therefore should be more human-like, have long, curved fingers and long, curved toes—well adapted to swinging from tree limb to tree limb.

The features which suggest upright posture to Johanson are primarily the hip and knee joints, but numerous studies on the hip have shown otherwise. Oxnard, in his 1987 book, Fossils, Teeth and Sex (which contains an excellent summary of these various studies), claims that, "These fossils clearly differ more from both humans and African apes than do these living groups from each other. The australopithecines are unique" (p. 227). Evidently they could walk somewhat upright, as pygmy chimps do today, but not in the human manner at all. Furthermore, Johanson seldom reminds us that he found the knee joint—the strongest evidence for upright stance—in a location some two to three kilometers away, and in a layer of rock some 200 feet lower. Clearly, the knee does not belong with the rests, but even if they do go together, the knee is not diagnostically upright, and; points more specifically to tree-climbing abilities, according to Oxnard and other authorities.

Several investigators, including Richard Leakey, have now concluded that two or perhaps three species have been wrongly combined in "Lucy." She was not a human ancestor. At best, she was a form of extinct ape; at worst, she was a mosaic, yet she is still touted as the best "evidence" for human evolution.

As the eminent, evolutionary anthropologist David Pilbeam has stated, "Paleoanthropology reveals more about how humans view themselves than it does how humans came about." Unfortunately, many textbooks, as well as many museum exhibits, still portray the humanistic view of mankind, as well as the evolutionary view of mankind's origin, as if it were well supported by the data.

Addendum to BTG No. 11b Article

This article, published in November 1989 has come under criticism by certain evolutionists. At issue was the statement that "Furthermore, Johanson seldom reminds us that he found the knee joint—the strongest evidence for upright stance—in a location some two to three kilometers away, and in a layer of rock some 200 feet lower."

The statement was based on reports of Johnson’s public comments and the slides he used at the University of Missouri on November 20, 1986, (see ‘Bible-Science Newsletter", October 1987 pp 1-3), compared with a photo he published in his book Lucy: the Beginnings of Humankind (1981) page 157 and a National Geographic article in November 1985, page 593.

Evidently, there were two knee joints, found in different locations, and confusion between the two has led to numerous erroneous articles, of which mine was one. The article is included here as published for archival purposes, with this retraction of the sentence in question.

However, the point made in the very next sentence remains true, and that is the main point—"…even if they (i.e. the knee and the other bones) do go together", it does not demonstrate human ancestry. The most that could be claimed for Lucy is that she was a chimp-like primate, who spent most of her time in the trees, who perhaps walked a little more erect than other tree-dwelling primates when on the ground. I would be willing to concede this point.

Study of the tactics used in the decades-long harangue by evolutionists to re-establish the pedigree of Lucy’s knee is instructive. Evolutionists scour the creationist’s literature for any error, no matter how trivial. (Creationists are not infallible, and error does creep in, despite our best efforts.) These minor errors are trumpeted far-and-wide by self appointed evolutionary watchdogs, and used to claim that creationism is not credible, all the while ignoring much more significant misstatements or inappropriate museum displays, etc., by evolutionists.

An error in detailing Lucy’s knee does not change the fact that she was a tree-dwelling primate! Humans and apes are quite separate.

Discovery of the needle does not make the haystack disappear. A look at the big picture finds little evidence that can be used for macro-evolution, and much to support creation.

[antivenom]

COOL! Thanks for the PING!

[Junior]

Considering your source is the Institute for Creation Research, which has, shall we say, iffy credentials when it comes to the veracity of their science reporting, it's no wonder you're misunderstanding so much.  I googled "+Lucy+AL+288" and found dozens of sites dealing with this hominid (and she is a hominid -- "man-like" -- regardless of your predilections in this matter).  I must admit, one of the more easily readable has been the site I've been referencing today, but I can include others for your edification.  I thought you might enjoy the excerpt, below:

It is Lucy's pelvic and femur structure, along with her knee joint, that are decidedly hominid. As Tattersall points out, short of having a pelvis to examine, the knee tells the most about locomotion (Tattersall 1996):

"In a quadruped – an ape, say – the feet are held far apart, and each hind leg descends straight to the ground beneath the hip socket. In bipedal humans, on the other hand, the feet pass close to each other during walking so that the body's center of gravity can move ahead in a straight line. If this didn't happen, the center of gravity would have to swing with each stride in a wide arc around the supporting leg. This would be extremely clumsy and inefficient, wasting a lot of energy. So in bipeds, both femora angle in from the hip joint to converge at the knee; the tibiae then descend straight to the ground. In the human knee joint, this adaptation shows up in the angle – known as the "carrying angle" – that is formed between the long axis of the femur and tibia."

The "carrying angle" can also be stated as "weight bearing axis" as shown below (Zihlman 2000). The chimpanzee, which is a quadruped, has a femur that comes straight out of the hip socket, while Lucy and the modern human exhibit the bipedal carrying angle.

 





Zihlman offers some basic measurements in the form of a comparative drawing, featuring Lucy, a chimpanzee and a human (Zihlman, Simmons 2000). In the following sketch, we can readily see the differences between the chimpanzee and the Australopithecus afarensis, especially with regard to the pelvic shape and tilt of the sacrum, which are decidedly hominid. Lucy's arms are also shorter than that of an ape, while still maintaining a longer ratio of arm length to overall height than that of a modern human. Furthermore, her arms are still longer than the overall length of her legs, although the ratio is not as high as in apes. From her skeleton, comparing it to chimps and humans, we can see that she is somewhere in between, on her way to becoming human (Zihlman, Simmons 2000).

Lucy's mandible also shows traits of both chimpanzees and modern humans as can be seen in the following image taken from Zihlman's coloring book. Apes' mandibles show parallel rows of molars as opposed to the wide U-shape of modern human. Lucy's dentition is a cross between ape and human in that the overall shape is apelike while the canine tooth size resembles that of modern humans.

In the chimp's mandible, we see a space between its incisors and large canine, which does not occur in Australopithecus Afarensis females. Furthermore, we see a reduction of incisor and canine tooth size more in line with that of a modern human while the molars are closer to the chimps' in size. The canine, however, is large and asymmetric and projects slightly beyond the tooth row (Johanson, White 1979). It is believed that Lucy feasted mostly on fruits and fibrous materials, climbing trees occasionally for food (Tattersall 1996). However, the enamel is thicker on the Australopithecus afarensis molar than on either the chimpanzee or human (Zihlman 2000).

 





 





The jaw also shows prognathism, a jutting forward of the lower facial features commonly found in the apes and other pre-human fossils although Lucy's jaw is not as pronounced as that of the ape.

Whether Lucy was completely terrestrial is a matter of debate. Some (Shreeve 1996, Tattersall 1996, Zihlman 2000) believe that she maintained some vestiges of her arboreal ancestry by climbing trees at night to seek shelter from predators during sleep periods, to eat fruits and leaves of trees and sometimes to scavenge a kill which is stored for "safekeeping" by predators (Tattersall 1996). There has been no evidence of tool making nor is there clear evidence of meat eating. It is plausible that Lucy and her kind used tools such as branches that would have decayed by now. This supposition is possible because chimpanzees make and use rudimentary tools for "fishing" for termites and leaves as sponges for drinking after a hard rain (Goodall 1986).
 

 

[Doctor Stochastic]

A bit of mechanical engineering can explain a lot.

[Liberal Classic]

ROFLMAO!!

[LiteKeeper]

"i>iffy credentials

According to whom...there are PhDs on their staff and board of advisors who are well qualified to discuss the evidence. Do you dismiss them because they are not Darwinists? Some of these PhDs are on university staffs, teaching and researching.

CAUTION: Your presuppositions are showing

[capitan_refugio]

Australopithecines were "human-like" primates. That's what "hominid" means - human-like. Had "Lucy" and her relatives been human enough, they would have been classified in the genus "Homo."

Nor were Australopithecines sufficiently ape-like to be classified with contemporary apes or forerunners, such as Ramapithecus and Sivapithecus. Please note that even in the name of the genus, the researchers recognized their ape affinities by using the root "pith" (meaning ape). However, the Australopithecines have many humanish features which are easily sufficient to call them "hominids."

As a little bit of trivia, the "Klingons" in the Star Trek movies and later series were modeled on the 1959 Leakey discovery "Zinjanthropus," later renamed Australopithecus boisei.

[capitan_refugio]

The sites were dated by using ash layers that bounded the fossil-bearing strata. I'm guessing here, but I doubt you read the book "Lucy."

[capitan_refugio]

Nice find. Well worth saving.

There are some out there who do not have open, enquiring minds. Reminds me a quotation: "Cast not pearls before the swine."

[Thinkin' Gal]

;-)

[Hank Rearden]

This is our new Ethernopian.

It's an appetizer. It's what you eat before you eat to make you more hungry.