The Artistry of 'Ardi' (was artist’s depiction of Ardi manipulated to promote evo-religion?)

ICR News ^ | October 15, 2009 | Brian Thomas, M.S.

[GodGunsGuts]

Reconstructions of animals based on fossilized remains are interesting and can be of value. However, they are notoriously subjective. Recent research suggested, for example, that many longstanding dinosaur reconstructions were almost double the size of the actual dinosaurs.[1] And similar distortions are evident in presentations of the fossil world’s latest superstar.

Artist sketches and other renderings of “Ardi,” the newly proposed replacement for Lucy as man’s distant evolutionary ancestor, convey more than the raw data. Of the many Ardipithecus ramidus fossil bones and fragments that were collected from 35 individuals along the Awash River in Ethiopia, a female was chosen to represent the species.

Several features of an artist’s depiction of Ardi may have been orchestrated to facilitate her acceptance as an evolutionary icon. First, Ardi is show with obvious...

[whattajoke]

LOL! Where do you suppose they found her human-shaped breasts, and the rest of her human looking sex organs?

I'm curious, do you not accept that the Ardi fossil is a mammal? I suspect that you do. In light of that, can you please give us the main characteristics of mammals. Thanks.

[goodusername]

“Replacement is a perfect word. The Temple of Darwin has kicked Lucy to the back of the bus, and replaced her with Ardi. C. Owen Lovejoy explains the reasons for this evo-religious update in Science:”

—It sounds like you are trying to defend ICR and creationsafaris by changing what they mean by “replacement”. They don’t appear to mean it in some metaphorical sense as just meaning that Ardi may now be more famous or in some ways more important; they seem to mean it as Lucy literally being replaced in the evolutionary chain leading to us.

Creationsafaris especially makes it clear what they mean:
“The scoop is this: Lucy had nothing to do with our family tree after all. She and her kinds were on a separate branch that did not lead to us.”

As usual, creationsafaris and ICR didn’t do their homework and are clueless.

Even in the sense that you seem to mean it, ‘replacement’ is a odd and extremely misleading word. Both Lucy and Ardi are links in the chain. Each gives us unique information. When it comes specifically to the moment of the beginning of the Hominini (I hate the new terms), Ardi tells us more – because it’s closer to that event and has fewer derived features.

“”Most likely”?...LOL! Where do you suppose they found her human-shaped breasts, and the rest of her human looking sex organs?”

—Actually (as I explained in a previous post) I think they copied chimp breasts more than human ones.

“Indeed, the fossils were in such poor condition that it took your Temple of Darwin co-religionists over 15 years to reconstruct Ardi, and only then with digital reconstruction technology.”

—Actually, separate teams used different methods of reconstructing Ardi. One team used digital reconstruction, and another used plaster casts of the bones: “Restoration was undertaken independently using casts (Berkeley, CA) and digital data (Tokyo, Japan).”

[CottShop]

An image accompanying a different Ardi report also looks suspicious. It shows a human, Lucy, Ardi, two chimps, a gorilla, and an orangutan side-by-side,5 arbitrarily arranged to reflect an imagined evolutionary line of descent. (See image by clicking here.) They are all shown as having the same height, an obvious inaccuracy since Ardi was only four feet tall and Lucy was even shorter. Was there specific intent to de-emphasize known height differences in order to make human evolution more palatable?

In America’s picture-driven culture, it is unfortunate to think that these images will form for many their major perception of this extinct primate. And it is most unfortunate that these images have been rendered to support the contention that Ardi is a human ancestor, when the scientific evidence really shows that Ardi was little more than a now-extinct four-foot-tall tree-dwelling primate.6

[CottShop]

[[Was there specific intent to de-emphasize known height differences in order to make human evolution more palatable?]]

Oh heck no! They would never, ever, use such deceptive means- oh wait- yeah they would and constantly do- never mind- carry on

[count-your-change]

The silence is notable on why and how a primate living suitably in the trees would evolve feet that were less suitable for all purposes. Attributing behavior to a composite creature on the basis of a few fragments of bone is a perfect example of the just so story.

Looking at the back bone of Ardi....Wait...Ardi has no backbone.. the Artist, also known as The Illustrator, made a guess based upon modern bones (I seem to recall his saying human bones), so who knows just how tall the old gal was?

[tpanther]

—In what way is it a “replacement”? This seems to be a bizarre, but common, misunderstanding from a number of Creationist sources. I haven’t seen any scientists claiming that Lucy isn’t an ancestor just because Ardi may be. It’s not as if they are in competition.

---

Uhhh, that’s exactly what’s going on...shift and confiscate the science money from one fraud to another. SO of course they’re not in competition. Lucy’s done her job.

It’s supposed to be Ardi’s turn now.

[tpanther]

Everything GGG posts is an “intentional misstatement”

...says FR's Al Sharpton. Or is it Sheila Jackson Lee?

[count-your-change]

“This find is far more important than Lucy,” said Alan Walker, a paleontologist from Pennsylvania State University who was not part of the research. “It shows that the last common ancestor with chimps didn't look like a chimp, or a human, or some funny thing in between.”

Closet creationist no doubt. But that last line IS good, if RDy didn't look like “some thing in between” chimps and humans, what exactly does it look like?

[tpanther]

These rim shots are exactly why I seldom engage creationists in any debate. Your ridicule is your best weapon.

---

Absolutely amazing.

Yeah....I can see how that would be soooo...

upsetting to evolutionists.

Calling that “old news”, and pointing out and observing the fossils are old and fraglie, that is just soooo over the top uncalled for and all.

I mean the nerve!

Wow, from the side of the aisle that often attacks and smears people like rabid dogs any and every time evolution is so much as questioned.

From the side that rushes to the courthouse to shut DOWN debate.

I bet you even said that with a straight face, huh?

Usually kind of a drive-by evo are you?

[PIF]

skinnier, but denser.

[PIF]

And note that females have wider hips than males - for some reason. So wide-hipped specimens would most likely be female, unless things were very different in those departments millions of years ago. Who knew? Perhaps things were so new back in 4004 BC that every one was confused about who did what with which?

[xcamel]

Everything you post however, is an intentional lie

[tpanther]

Closet creationist no doubt. But that last line IS good, if RDy didn’t look like “some thing in between” chimps and humans, what exactly does it look like?

---

I don’t think that matters or is important to them.

At least not nearly important as the money...and perpetuating the fraud.

I’m convinced at this point they’d roll out something that looked like a giant frog, with a complete straight face and call it “Jimbo” next.

Back in the day when SNL was viable, it would make for a great skit!

[Oztrich Boy]

gee, big surprise, more ‘hand-waving- and ‘just-so’ stories from the big Lie.....

Is that a nice way to refer to the Institute of Creation Research?

[SunkenCiv]

Thanks GeronL.

[goodusername]

“Closet creationist no doubt. But that last line IS good, if RDy didn’t look like “some thing in between” chimps and humans, what exactly does it look like? “

—It was a mix of human features (more than expected), chimp features (fewer than expected), and some other features lost in both the human and chimp lines. (Thus it doesn’t look like either a human or a chimp, nor a mere blend of the two).

[count-your-change]

“a blend” is just what “something in between” is.

[goodusername]

““a blend” is just what “something in between” is.”

—Exactly. As I said, it’s not merely a “blend” of human and chimp characteristics, and thus isn’t simply “something in between” humans and chimps.

Much of it *is* a blend of human and chimp, but some of it doesn’t look either human or chimp.

That’s hardly surprising though. There’s no reason that the common ancestor of chimps and humans can’t have characteristics not found in either descendant. For instance, one can get a pretty good idea of what Latin was like by studying it’s descendant languages (French, Italian, Romanian, etc), but one would find by studying Latin that it has characteristics that haven’t survived in any of its descendants.

(What *was* surprising is that Ardi is less chimp-like than expected. Most assumed that humans changed much more than chimps over the past 6 million years or so, and thus thought that the common ancestor of humans and chimps would be mostly chimp-like.)

[ElectricStrawberry]

BWAAAAAhahahahaha....Brian Thomas *MS is one funny guy.

First, Ardi is shown with obvious breasts that look essentially like those of human females, albeit hairy

Um......yeah...."she" had breasts. Does you, Brian Thomas *Ms doubt that a female human ancestor would have breasts??

Second, the pelvic area is explicitly drawn and human-like.

Wow, Brian Thomas *MS.....a picture of a nekkid hair-covered waist get you to blush or something? Imagine that....a human ancestor had a human-like pelvic area. STOP THE PRESSES!!!

erotic, suggestive and nude female models have a particularly strong attention-getting impact among male consumers

I'm sorry, Dr....err....Brian Thomas *MS but this does not turn me on, nor do I take it as "erotic" in any manner:

OMG...."Ardi" is pictured as......"NUDE".....!!!

Brian Thomas *MS......you are a loon.