Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: bobdsmith
Well here's a quick lookup on google. I know they are you creationist kook sights. Of course they do quote some respected scientists. Here ya go.
Link
Love this quote.

According to Richard Leakey, who along with Johanson is probably the best-known fossil-anthropologist in the world, Lucy's skull is so incomplete that most of it is “imagination made of plaster of paris”. Leakey even said in 1983 that no firm conclusion could be drawn about what species Lucy belonged to.

Heres another good one. Link 2

But hold on, the story gets better. Dr. Johanson gave a lecture at the University of Missouri in Kansas City, Nov. 20, 1986, on Lucy and why he thinks she is our ancestor. It included the ideas already mentioned and that Lucy's femur and pelvis were more robust than most chimps and therefore, "could have" walked upright. After the lecture he opened the meeting for questions. The audience of approximately 800 was quiet so some creationists asked questions. Roy Holt asked; "How far away from Lucy did you find the knee?" (The knee bones were actually discovered about a year earlier than the rest of Lucy). Dr. Johanson answered (reluctantly) about 200 feet lower (!) and two to three kilometers away (about 1.5 miles!). Continuing, Holt asked, "Then why are you sure it belonged to Lucy?" Dr. Johanson: "Anatomical similarity." (Bears and dogs have anatomical similarities).
375 posted on 08/04/2005 10:11:11 PM PDT by smokeman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 370 | View Replies ]


To: smokeman
seriously this is why we evolutionists always get so irate when people say the flaws of evolution should be taught, because we know that 9 times out of 10 they are refering to flaws that are not even true.

Lucy's knee joint (ie the true story): http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/knee-joint.html

Leakey even said in 1983 that no firm conclusion could be drawn about what species Lucy belonged to.

What did he apparently say, and where did he say it. It's no use for these websites to make up these claims without reference. It is likely BS. The consensus is that it is Australopithecus afarensis (and other fossils of this species are known)

They are also typically selected about what research they mention: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/a_piths.html

382 posted on 08/04/2005 10:24:16 PM PDT by bobdsmith
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 375 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson