Are Fossils evidence of evolution ....or are the evidence of fossils

[teddyv]

19 minutes ago, kingdombrat said:

Certain evolutionary scientists have talked of Lucy since the 1970s as a supposed ape-like ancestor of humans. It’s probably the world’s most famous extinct ape. The Lucy kind was roughly the size and shape of a chimpanzee. Scientists recently described a tiny foot from a toddler of this extinct species. But this foot looks like an ape’s, which clearly clashes with the LiveScience article title, “Ancient Human Ancestors Had to Deal with Climbing Toddlers.”¹ Does this species really deserve “human ancestor” status?
 
Zeresenay Alemseged from the University of Chicago discovered the remains back in 2000. He and other paleoanthropologists described the foot in Science Advances.² He told LiveScience that the big toe on the fossil’s post-it-note-size foot did not stick out to the side like it does in modern chimps, but was curved inward like today’s tree-climbing apes. The study authors speculated that Lucy’s kind could grasp and climb tree branches with its feet.
 
So why call it a human ancestor if it possessed non-human feet?
 
Even before this new foot description, some evolutionists—depending on which expert is consulted—have concluded that the Lucy type was just an ape kind. The late British zoologist Solly Zuckerman declared, “They are just apes.”³

Both anatomy and evolutionary disagreement had already debunked Lucy as any kind of human ancestor. http://clicktotweet.com/img/tweet-graphic-1.png

Evolutionists don’t all agree that Lucy was a human ancestor, because not one of its ape-shaped bones was shaped exactly like the corresponding bone in a human body. So, both anatomy and evolutionary disagreement had already debunked Lucy as any kind of human ancestor.⁴ This new foot fossil kicks that concept even further to the curb.
 
The main evolutionary story line favoring Lucy as a human ancestor involves famous footprints at Laetoli. Independent studies determined the African tracks exactly matched those of humans.^5,6 But their position in sediment layers deemed older than evolution’s age assignment for humanity meant that something not human must have made them.
 
The story reeks of evolution-serving circular reasoning. An imaginary ape having human feet and body posture only exists in the minds of those who assume humans evolved from ape-like ancestors. But a look at the fossils instead of listening to evolutionary stories opens a new option: that the Laetoli tracks look human because actual humans made them. But this would force another rewrite of human evolution in general.
 
This old evolutionary tale stubs its toe on this new fossil evidence that contradicts the LiveScience news story title. The Laetoli trackmaker had straight, human toes.⁶ Lucy’s kind had curved big toes—ape toes. Lucy never made those tracks. And without those imagined human feet attached to a Lucy, the only basis for imagining Lucy’s kind as a human ancestor vanishes.

Lucy was not becoming human. It was becoming extinct. http://clicktotweet.com/img/tweet-graphic-1.png

Lucy was not becoming human. It was becoming extinct. A more truthful title for a news article on this fossil foot find would sound something like “Curved Big Toe Confirms Lucy Was an Ape.”

Jeez, you are really all over the place today. An unsourced document (please include the links, it's not that hard). [ETA: Nevermind, I found the ICR article.] And those twitter links got to a twitter log-in page so I can't view them (I don't have a twitter account).

Anyway, this is just turning into a Gish Gallop which I'm not too excited in continuing.

 

Edited March 24, 2021 by teddyv
clarification

[Guest kingdombrat]

47 minutes ago, teddyv said:

Jeez, you are really all over the place today. An unsourced document (please include the links, it's not that hard). [ETA: Nevermind, I found the ICR article.] And those twitter links got to a twitter log-in page so I can't view them (I don't have a twitter account).

Anyway, this is just turning into a Gish Gallop which I'm not too excited in continuing.

 

Do what I did and look up the names within the articles of those Evolutionist Biologist who confirm [Lucy] is just an Ape.   When atheist evolutionist Biologist confirm Lucy is just an APE, it's hard to accept God Believers in evolution trying to propose Lucy was human.

[teddyv]

1 minute ago, kingdombrat said:

Do what I did and look up the names within the articles of those Evolutionist Biologist who confirm [Lucy] is just an Ape.   When atheist evolutionist Biologist confirm Lucy is just an APE, it's hard to accept God Believers in evolution trying to propose Lucy was human.

Did you really look up all the papers they cited in the ICR article?

Four of the six citations are research papers that do not seem to doubt anything. The other is an article by ICR, which obviously has its own narrative. The one dissenting opinion seems to be is the zoologist, Solly Zuckerman, who is quoted from a 1987 book, "Bones of Contention". I'd like to see that in the larger context because creationists are notorious quote-miners. I don't have that book, and I don't know if it's available online. 1987 is also getting pretty dated. Looking at Zuckerman's history and academic credentials, he did have experience with primates, but science is so specialized that does not automatically qualify anyone as an expert in various areas within that, other than having a generally better grasp than most of us. I don't know about his religious views so I'd hesitate assuming he was an atheist.

 

[teddyv]

"Bones of Contention" by Roger Lewin is actually available through Google Books. The ICR quote is missing the word "bloody" from the quote, which is "They are just bloody apes" (top of page 165 in the online version) and is a quote based on earlier observations of australopithecine remains in South Africa, not specifically Lucy.

From this review, I see he was heavily involved in these matters so is a reasonable authority (at least for this time period where the paleoanthropology was still maturing). He does seem to have been an outlier from the general consensus of the time as well, but does not seem to have doubted human development through earlier hominds.

[Guest kingdombrat]

10 minutes ago, teddyv said:

Did you really look up all the papers they cited in the ICR article?

Four of the six citations are research papers that do not seem to doubt anything. The other is an article by ICR, which obviously has its own narrative. The one dissenting opinion seems to be is the zoologist, Solly Zuckerman, who is quoted from a 1987 book, "Bones of Contention". I'd like to see that in the larger context because creationists are notorious quote-miners. I don't have that book, and I don't know if it's available online. 1987 is also getting pretty dated. Looking at Zuckerman's history and academic credentials, he did have experience with primates, but science is so specialized that does not automatically qualify anyone as an expert in various areas within that, other than having a generally better grasp than most of us. I don't know about his religious views so I'd hesitate assuming he was an atheist.

 

It's based evidence on the actual feet and offspring of Lucy are curved unlike the human foot.   It's designed more like a hand in examples of Apes rather than a foot where it's only use is to walk upon.   

[teddyv]

2 minutes ago, kingdombrat said:

It's based evidence on the actual feet and offspring of Lucy are curved unlike the human foot.   It's designed more like a hand in examples of Apes rather than a foot where it's only use is to walk upon.   

Since you won't acknowledge anything I post but continue to introduce red herrings, then I will not continue. I'm done doing your research.

[Guest kingdombrat]

4 minutes ago, teddyv said:

Since you won't acknowledge anything I post but continue to introduce red herrings, then I will not continue. I'm done doing your research.

I totally expect you to ignore:

Zeresenay Alemseged from the University of Chicago discovered the remains back in 2000. He and other paleoanthropologists described the foot in Science Advances.2 He told LiveScience that the big toe on the fossil’s post-it-note-size foot did not stick out to the side like it does in modern chimps, but was curved inward like today’s tree-climbing apes.

 

The late British zoologist Solly Zuckerman declared, “They are just apes.”3

 

Evolutionists don’t all agree that Lucy was a human ancestor, because not one of its ape-shaped bones was shaped exactly like the corresponding bone in a human body.

 

The Laetoli trackmaker had straight, human toes.6 Lucy’s kind had curved big toes—ape toes.

 

References
1. Hickok, K. Ancient Human Ancestors Had to Deal with Climbing Toddlers. LiveScience. Posted on Livescience.com July 4, 2018, accessed July 8, 2018.
2. DeSilva, J. M. et al. 2018. A nearly complete foot from Dikika, Ethiopia and its implications for the ontogeny and function of Australopithecus afarensis. Science Advances. 4 (7): eaar7723.
3. Lewin, R. 1987. Bones of Contention. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, 164.
4. Sherwin, F. 2017. Lucy Languishes as a Human-Ape Link. Acts & Facts. 46 (5): 10-13.
5. White, T. D. 1980. Evolutionary Implications of Pliocene Hominid Footprints. Science. 208 (4440): 175-176.
6. Raichlen, D. A., 2010. Laetoli Footprints Preserve Earliest Direct Evidence of Human-Like Bipedal Biomechanics. PLOS ONE. 5 (3): e9769.

[teddyv]

8 minutes ago, kingdombrat said:

I totally expect you to ignore:

Nice. Maybe don't ignore others, and they won't ignore you.

It only goes to show you are not reading my posts, nor do I suspect you are reading the sources but relying on ICR's take on it.

1. I read the LiveScience one, and I don't see it saying what ICR wants it to say.

2. I did address the Zuckerman one.

3. That's pretty vague - source?

4. "While our results show that Laetoli hominins walked with human-like kinematics, we still cannot be sure of which hominin taxon made the footprints. Many researchers suggest that Australopithecus afarensis made the footprint trails [6], [7], [11], although this hypothesis is disputed by others based on differences between print morphology and fossilized foot remains [10], [38]. If Au. afarensis did make the Laetoli footprints, then our results support the hypothesis that this species walked with relatively human-like hip and knee extension [39], [40], and that kinematically human-like bipedalism is compatible with adaptations for arboreality found throughout the australopith skeleton [2]. Thus, settling the dispute over the taxonomic identification of the makers of the Laetoli prints will clarify debates surrounding fossil hominin post-cranial material and locomotor behavior [11], [39]." Source

 

[The Barbarian]

36 minutes ago, kingdombrat said:

But what is odd, we're able to take fragments from the skeletal remains and perfom dna testing.   But NO ONE wants to do that when it has been proposed.   Why don't they want to do a complete dna analysis on the remains of Lucy? [/quote]

Because no one has gotten DNA from a fossil that old.

It usually degrades within a few tens of thousands of years to a level useless for sequencing.    The record for primates, so far as I know, is of an 800,000 year old cousin of modern humans, H. antecessor.   There is one case of a 1,000,000 year old mammoth still having enough DNA to sequence.   It had apparently been frozen all that time, which probably explain why it was so well-preserved.

The sequencing of H. antecessor showed it to be a different species, not a subspecies, as Neanderthals, modern humans, and Denesovans are.

Lucy is about 3.2 million years old, about four times the age of H. antecessor.   So not likely that any Australopithecine will still have enough DNA to sequence.   If it happens, you won't like the results.  It will show Lucy to be more different from us than H. antecessor is, but more like us than any other existing ape.

3 hours ago, kingdombrat said:

 Why don't they want to do a complete dna analysis on the remains of Lucy?   Because they have and it doesn't match.

You've been misled about that.  If they had it, it would have been quickly published, since it would help to clarify the phylogeny of modern humans.

 

 

 

 

[The Barbarian]

1 hour ago, kingdombrat said:

eresenay Alemseged from the University of Chicago discovered the remains back in 2000. He and other paleoanthropologists described the foot in Science Advances.2 He told LiveScience that the big toe on the fossil’s post-it-note-size foot did not stick out to the side like it does in modern chimps, but was curved inward like today’s tree-climbing apes.

Um. chimpanzees are tree-climbing apes.   And their big toe curves inward:

Laetoli print:

 

1 hour ago, kingdombrat said:

Evolutionists don’t all agree that Lucy was a human ancestor, because not one of its ape-shaped bones was shaped exactly like the corresponding bone in a human body.

So the ways in which it was more like an ape aren't ways in which it was more like a human?   Yes, I suppose that's true.  But being a transitional form, what would be expected is to be intermedate between those.   And not surprisingly, they are.

1 hour ago, kingdombrat said:

The Laetoli trackmaker had straight, human toes.6 Lucy’s kind had curved big toes—ape toes.

Let's see if we can find some Australopithecine toes...

"Lucy is the poster girl for her group of ancient hominins. The study of her other bones showed she was able to stand upright. But no foot bones were found with her skeleton, so researchers have puzzled over whether she walked like modern people or was a blend of ground- and tree-dweller.

The new discovery shows these relatives "were fully humanlike and committed to life on the ground," Ward said in a telephone interview from Africa. "It lays to rest the idea that they were a compromise."

The new bone, discovered with other A. afarensis bones at Hadar, Ethiopia, is a metatarsal, one of the long bones connecting the toes to the base of the foot.

It shows that Lucy's kin had arches stiffening their feet like modern people, as opposed to apes whose feet are more flexible for grasping tree branches."

https://www.thespec.com/news/world/2011/02/10/ancient-foot-bone-shows-human-like-walking-possible-for-lucy-other-3-million-year-old-kin.html

As predicted, Lucy's toes were more humanlike than apelike:

Edited March 24, 2021 by The Barbarian