Lucy and our faith

[nebula]

None of the claims raised have been verified. If someone can do that, fine. For example:

1. Post #2 RigMedic claims Lucy is a male and claims the pelvis shows that.

Science 24 November 1995:

Vol. 270. no. 5240, pp. 1297 - 1298

DOI: 10.1126/science.270.5240.1297b

Prev | Table of Contents | Next

Research News

James Shreeve

A controversial new analysis of its pelvis indicates that "Lucy," the most famous human ancestor of all, was really a male. This gender-bender is also a species-splitter: If correct, the analysis implies that Lucy's 3-million-year-old species, Australopithecus afarensis, was actually two separate species.

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/summary/270/5240/1297b

Here is another reference:

http://cat.inist.fr/?aModele=afficheN&cpsidt=2461089

This article explains more:

Lucy's skeleton was about two-thirds complete - against the odds, the

body was overlooked by scavenging hyenas and lions and was buried

rapidly by volcanic ash in the Great Rift Valley before the elements

could disperse the bones.

Even some of the tiny bones from the hands and fingers were preserved

but the right half of the pelvis was missing.

The left side of the pelvis and part of the sacroiliac, which anchors

the spinal column, was enough to tell anatomists that Lucy was no

recent fugitive from the rainforests of east Africa, which were in

retreat as the climate cooled and became drier.

The legs were short in proportion to the trunk and the pelvis was

relatively narrow. The femurs-the major bones in the top of the

legs- projected almost straight down from their pelvic sockets,

rather than angling in under the body's centre of gravity.

But they didn't splay outwards, in the manner of a chimpanzee or

gorilla.

The evidence was clear-Lucy-had walked upright. "Waddled" may be

closer to the mark - the pelvic anatomy was not designed for the

curving hips and fluid stride of latter- day great-granddaughters on a

Paris catwalk.

A widely published artist's impression of Lucy depicts the creature as

dark-skinned and hairy with a protruding, ape-like face, large breasts

(an evolutionary innovation in humans) and with a baby balanced on the

right hip.

But even for a prototype, whose architecture had yet to be refined and

broadened to create a birth canal large enough to accommodate one of

the boof-headed, large-brained babies of homo sapiens descendants,

Lucy's pelvis seemed to be strangely shaped.

For a quarter of a century anatomists have debated various mirror-

image reconstructions of Lucy's incomplete pelvis and come to

different conclusions.

The pelvis is one of the most critical structures in human evolution.

Not only is it crucial to an upright stance, as the fulcrum for the

spine and legs; its lower bones and pubis, dictate the maximum size

of the head and brain of any newborn baby.

An enormous brain and head, in relation to body size, is the defining

characteristic of modern human beings.

Earlier research which showed measurements of Lucy's pelvic dimensions

were unreliable because after millions of years the pelvis had become

skewed. In their new reconstruction, Dr Hausler and Dr Schmid

corrected for this distortion, then compared Lucy's pelvic

architecture with that of one of the more recent descendants, a

specimen of Australopithecus africanus from Sterkfontein Cave in South

Africa, designated by the serial number S14. . . .

O'Neill G., "Africa's Eve is found to be an Adam", Sunday Times:

Western Australia, 12 November 1995, p62

[nebula]

8. Nebula, #19, suggests that a bigger bone found nearby was much larger than Lucy and this "evidence contradicted the theory". What theory is that? Cannot try to understand what the contradiction is unless we have some idea of the theory.

The bone was too big to fit the Australopithecus afarensis model.

Perhaps it was an ulna from a different species,

A larger species that cohabitated with Australopithecus afarensis? They dated it to the same time, remember.

Do you know how many problems that theory creates?

perhaps from a male?

They did suggest that as a possibility in the documentary, but they had no further evidence to support this theory either.

Neb also suggests that while the pelvis seemed to suggest bipedal upright locomotion, the skull suggests otherwise, that is interesting and if she had provided a cite for that it would be helpful.

I was in a classroom with a model of an Australopithecus afarensis skull. Kind of hard to reference that, wouldn't you say?

[mtmom]

The original intent of the question was to see if anyone had previously done some of that research - don't like to recreate a wheel just cause I can't find it. The post by Nebula with references was great. I am still trying to track down the current state of the findings on Lucy. In his original work Johanson, of course, did not include other scientists insights. That was the only piece I had read before posting - figured I'd start with the beginning and continue to track it down through the years as other scientists contributed. Hopefully with the help of any who had travelled this road before. Thank you to all who took the time to answer - wasn't my intent to cause dissention just looking for facts.

[ayin jade]

Jukia,

Did you come here for an honest open discussion because it appears that you seem upset at anyone examining the veracity of the claims made on Lucy. I'm always puzzeled when an atheist does this because they do the exact opposite when it comes to examining our Faith.

Peace,

Dave

An honest, open discussion? Sure. But a discussion on this topic should include evidence, citations to the literature would be helpful.

None of the claims raised have been verified. If someone can do that, fine. For example:

4. AyinJade, post #9 states the difference between a male and female pelvis is "quite profound". Aside from the fact that may not be true in all primates (I do not know) it appears AJ has taken at face value the unsupported claim of RigMedic. I suggested, post # 14, that she track down the guy in Phoenix should she live near there. Has she???

Honestly, nothing I do is likely to be enough for you. I have not taken rig medic's post at face value, just so you know. However neither do I take the "evidence" for evolution at face value as you do. I have seen its flaws. I have seen the assumptions they use that are really quite questionable. I hold it to a standard of proof that you do not seem to.

5. AyinJade, post #10 suggests that scientists hide facts. My guess is she could make a lot of $ being a whistle blower on all those dishonest scientists. I think the Feds might pay if she can uncover fraudulent use of grant $. Simply another unsupported allegation.

I have seen it myself. I doubt the feds would listen to me any more than you do even tho I can cite specific examples to them. It is so common, they dont even think twice about it.

[Guest]

Ah, the truth is only your particular brand of truth then?

Truth?

In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not,

lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them. 2 Corinthians 4:4

Can You See

And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up:

That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life. John 3:14-15

The LORD Jesus Christ

Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me. John 14:6

Jesus The Christ

Some Workers In The Fields Of Science May Shout Assertions But Science Makes No Claim To THE TRUTH

O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings,

and oppositions of science falsely so called: 1 Timothy 6:20

And Although Some Workers In The Fields Of Science May Snicker Their Claims At The Faithful, Their Evolutionary Tale Still Holds Nothing Scientific

For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears;

And they shall turn away their ears from the truth,

and shall be turned unto fables. 2 Timothy 4:3-4

And Although Most Men And Their Fables Stay Clueless, God Knew All About The Fury Of The Oppressor From Before The Foundation Of The Earth

Therefore the redeemed of the LORD shall return, and come with singing unto Zion;

and everlasting joy shall be upon their head: they shall obtain gladness and joy; and sorrow and mourning shall flee away.

I, even I, am he that comforteth you: who art thou, that thou shouldest be afraid of a man that shall die,

and of the son of man which shall be made as grass;

And forgettest the LORD thy maker, that hath stretched forth the heavens, and laid the foundations of the earth;

and hast feared continually every day because of the fury of the oppressor, as if he were ready to destroy? and where is the fury of the oppressor? Isaiah 51:11-13

And Science Has No Revelation Of Sin And Of Redemption And Of Salvation And Of HIS Coming Appearance For The Second Time

but now once in the end of the world hath he appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself. And as it is appointed unto men once to die,

but after this the judgment: So Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many;

and unto them that look for him shall he appear the second time

without sin unto salvation. Hebrews 9:25(b)-28

And Most Will Not Eat But By God's Grace Some Will So We Cast HIS Bread Abroad

They that sow in tears shall reap in joy.

He that goeth forth and weepeth, bearing precious seed

shall doubtless come again with rejoicing, bringing his sheaves with him. Psalms 126:5-6

And We Rejoice Around The Table Of The LORD

Thy words were found, and I did eat them; and thy word was unto me the joy and rejoicing of mine heart:

for I am called by thy name, O LORD God of hosts. Jeremiah 15:16

And We Invite ALL To Our Master's Feast

And the lord said unto the servant, Go out into the highways and hedges, and compel them to come in, that my house may be filled. Luke 14:23

Come Beloved, Come And Taste

O taste and see that the LORD is good: blessed is the man that trusteth in him. Psalms 34:8

Come, The LORD Awaits

And he said unto me, It is done. I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end.

I will give unto him that is athirst of the fountain of the water of life freely.

He that overcometh shall inherit all things; and I will be his God,

and he shall be my son. Revelation 21:6-7

Come

I Jesus have sent mine angel to testify unto you these things in the churches. I am the root and the offspring of David, and the bright and morning star.

And the Spirit and the bride say, Come. And let him that heareth say, Come. And let him that is athirst come.

And whosoever will, let him take the water of life freely. Revelation 22:16-17

[mtmom]

Ok I am definitely done and the more I look for facts the more I find theories and statistics. They use linear regression with really low power based on current species to fit models of upright or ape like, or they use joint ratios of current species (ones that didn't evolve?), evidence of evolutionary reversals by date of fossil and hypothesis of origin of A.afarensis, cranial capacities to indicate brain function (how tight is that correlation? people with big heads are smarter?), theory that larger cranial capacity leads to upright mobility pattern seems to have been disproven by AL288-1 (Lucy), new theory upright mobility came first then higher brain function. After looking at all they know and hypothesize I am satisfied with the conclusion that we just plain don't have solid or even statistically significant evidence. Additionally, even if AL288-1 walked upright I couldn't find anything that linked us to it - maybe genetics and DNR markers would lend insight here. So evolution or creation both remain theories to be researched (though people will choose) and until we get smarter we can't "prove" or disprove either. Anyway for those who want references and citations on some of AL288-1 (Lucy) here you go:

Evolutionary reversal from AL288-1 (upright) to Stw431 (ape like)?

2005 Dobson AL288-1 dated older but more upright than Stw431 . These researchers used randomization models from chips and humans and found that

[Guest man]

So evolution or creation both remain theories to be researched (though people will choose) and until we get smarter we can't "prove" or disprove either.

Do you question creation?

[nebula]

After looking at all they know and hypothesize I am satisfied with the conclusion that we just plain don't have solid or even statistically significant evidence. Additionally, even if AL288-1 walked upright I couldn't find anything that linked us to it - maybe genetics and DNR markers would lend insight here.

[mtmom]

I do not "question" it because I am a believer. I take it on faith, but faith is believing in things not seen. I await the day when we will get enough wisdom or advance in intelligence enough to find the facts to see it.

[Guest man]

I do not "question" it because I am a believer. I take it on faith, but faith is believing in things not seen. I await the day when we will get enough wisdom or advance in intelligence enough to find the facts to see it.

Then let your faith be enough.

Stop searching for something you will never find.

The day you are waiting for will come on the day of judgement. On that day, everyone will know the truth, even those who resist it.