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

[The Barbarian]

2 hours 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. 

Humans are also apes.   We fit in with chimpanzees as our closest relatives with other apes more distantly related to us than  humans and chimps are related to each other.

As you see, your unidentified source, got several anatomical details wrong.  Which does no small damage to their credibility.

2 hours ago, kingdombrat said:

it's hard to accept God Believers in evolution trying to propose Lucy was human.

Lucy wasn't a human.  Just transitional between other apes and humans.

 

[Sparks]

2 hours 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.   

It's worse.  Lucy had no feet or hands.  None were found. 

Purportedly, there were many 'trillions' of Australopithecus found which are said to make up for the Lucy lie, but I cannot find any reference to the actual numbers found.   

Wikipedia writes of it's classification: "A. afarensis is now a widely accepted species, and it is now generally thought that Homo and Paranthropus are sister taxa deriving from Australopithecus, but the classification of Australopithecus species is in disarray."

Yes, I can bet they are in disarray.  They aren’t even able to classify the fossils with any degree of certainty. 

[The Barbarian]

4 hours ago, kingdombrat said:

The one who discovered [Lucy] is the one making the claim, not the Creation Science Association for Mid-America.

Nope.   This refers to a second Australopithecine found several kilometers away:

4 hours ago, kingdombrat said:

It was very difficult, but Johanson did manage to remember that it was found “60 to 70 meters [over 200 feet] lower in the strata and two to three kilometers [1.24-1.86 miles] away.”

Yes, a different individual.  But Lucy's femur was found with the rest of her body.   The creationist just grafted the two statements together to make it look as though he was talking about the same skeleton.

 

[The Barbarian]

44 minutes ago, Sparks said:

It's worse.  Lucy had no feet or hands.  None were found. 

Fortunately there are many other specimens of A. afarensis:

Australopithecus afarensis fossils have only been discovered within Eastern Africa. Despite Laetoli being the type locality for A. afarensis, the most extensive remains assigned to the species are found in Hadar, Afar Region of Ethiopia, including the above-mentioned "Lucy" partial skeleton and the "First Family" found at the AL 333 locality. Other localities bearing A. afarensis remains include Omo, Maka, Fejej and Belohdelie in Ethiopia, and Koobi Fora and Lothagam in Kenya.

https://fossil.fandom.com/wiki/Australopithecus_afarensis

So no shortage of fossils including hand and foot bones.

 

44 minutes ago, Sparks said:

Purportedly, there were many 'trillions' of Australopithecus found which are said to make up for the Lucy lie, but I cannot find any reference to the actual numbers found.   

Pleased to help you.  Never heard of "trillions" though.  You have a link?

44 minutes ago, Sparks said:

Wikipedia writes of it's classification: "A. afarensis is now a widely accepted species, and it is now generally thought that Homo and Paranthropus are sister taxa deriving from Australopithecus, but the classification of Australopithecus species is in disarray."

Yes, I can bet they are in disarray.  They aren’t even able to classify the fossils with any degree of certainty. 

Because there are so many A. afarensis fossils, that species is well-defined.   Others, not so much.  In part, because later species became more human-like.   Late  Australopithecines have many traits of early members of Homo.   It seems there were a lot of different species at that time, only one directly leading to us.

 

Edited March 24, 2021 by The Barbarian

[The Barbarian]

6 hours ago, Walter Goraj jr said:

You are welcome. I am going to try to find the story of the  "midget " family trapped in a cave of "mud".

I remember seeing something about that on television...

Just kidding.   Let me see what you find.

[Sparks]

On 3/24/2021 at 5:44 PM, The Barbarian said:

Fortunately there are many other specimens of A. afarensis:

Allegedly.  But I guess that makes it OK to lie?

On 3/24/2021 at 5:44 PM, The Barbarian said:

Pleased to help you.  Never heard of "trillions" though.  You have a link?

Notice the quotes?

On 3/24/2021 at 5:44 PM, The Barbarian said:

Because there are so many A. afarensis fossils, that species is well-defined. 

Well, so where does the disarray come in according to Wikipedia?  I think it's because they don't know what they are doing. 

Do you think that man brought death into the world, or death brought man into the world?  That is, do you think God lied about creating man?  Seems to me, God told you what He did and it had nothing to do with us evolving from apes. 

[The Barbarian]

There are many other specimens of A. afarensis.

7 hours ago, Sparks said:

Allegedly.

Nope.   Easily found in the literature.    The "First Family" was an entire group of them, found only a few kilometers from where Lucy was found.

This species is one of the best known of our ancestors due to a number of major discoveries including a set of fossil footprints and a fairly complete fossil skeleton of a female nicknamed 'Lucy'.

The ‘First Family’ - a group of A. afarensis fossils discovered in Hadar, Ethiopia in 1975. It became known as the ‘First Family’ because it contained fossils from nine adults and four children. Some unknown disaster overcame this family group, burying them all at the same time. This important find has allowed scientists to gather insights into the biology and development of a single fossil species. It also provided evidence that this species lived in small groups based on possible family bonds.

 https://australian.museum/learn/science/human-evolution/australopithecus-afarensis/

7 hours ago, Sparks said:

But I guess that makes it OK to lie?

No, and I don't think you were lying.   Yes, many of the creationists who peddled that lie to you knew the truth.  To be fair, some creationist retracted the claim when they realized that they had been lied to by other creationists.  

[The Barbarian]

Pleased to help you.  Never heard of "trillions" though.  You have a link?

8 hours ago, Sparks said:

Notice the quotes?

Yes.   Do you have link from where that came?  I'm interested in finding the paleontologist who claimed "trillions" of A afarensis.    Show me that link.

8 hours ago, Sparks said:

Well, so where does the disarray come in according to Wikipedia?  I think it's because they don't know what they are doing. 

It's because we now know there were a number of species of advanced hominids living in East Africa at the time.   So sorting out the relationships is going to take a while.

Quote

Do you think that man brought death into the world, or death brought man into the world?

God brought man into the world.  I thought all creationists would admit that much.  The problem is that they don't approve of the way He did it.   Doesn't have anything to do with the relationships of hominids, though.

Quote

That is, do you think God lied about creating man?

I don't even think creationists lie about it.   They just aren't comfortable with the way He did it.

Quote

Seems to me, God told you what He did and it had nothing to do with us evolving from apes. 

You know what God says about every man assuming what seems right to him?

 

Edited March 26, 2021 by The Barbarian

[Guest kingdombrat]

On 3/24/2021 at 1:37 PM, The Barbarian said:

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.

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.

 

 

 

 

They could abstract bone fragments in a powder dust form and see if the bones themselves match.   But why risk such thing when you're whole concept is a complete illusion to begin with?

[Guest kingdombrat]

On 3/24/2021 at 1:52 PM, The Barbarian said:

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

Laetoli print:

 

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.

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:

This would be acceptable in my opinion if the feet were not reported by the discoverer himself to be almost 2 miles away and 200 feet into a deeper stratus than where the bulk of Lucy's remains were factually discovered.   That is illogical at best to connect the 2.