You're minimizing things. The pelvic structure means Lucy walked upright. I'd like to be shown wrong on that, btw, because the theory of evolution is largely bunk.
Lucy was discovered and reconstructed by paleoanthropologist Donald Johanson of the Cleveland Museum of Natural History. "The first reconstruction had little iliac flare and virtually no anterior wrap, creating an ilium that greatly resembled that of an ape." A later reconstruction by Tim White reassembled the pieces to appear "similar to modern human females."
That alone should be a red flag on the legitimacy of Lucy’s pelvic structure. A world renowned paleoanthropologist, with nothing to prove, reconstructed it. And it looked exactly like an ape’s pelvis. Years later it was RE-reconstructed to resemble a human pelvis.
Additionally, Lucy is only ever compared to a common chimpanzee. The differences between Lucy and common chimps are used as proof to it being a missing link. However, its closest modern day equivalent is obviously the bonobo chimp. When Lucy is compared to a bonobo chimp, those differences completely vanish… beside the RE-reconstructed pelvic bone. Interesting enough, the original reconstruction was identical to a bonobo’s pelvic bone.
Bonobo chimps and australopithecus afarensis are almost identical. Comparing Lucy to anything other than a bonobo is disingenuous. They are the same size, live(d) in the same area, and both have identical bipedal features (besides the RE-reconstructed pelvic).
Of course it was reconstructed, it was sitting in the ground for who knows how long.
Yes, I'll go there. I don't trust your word for it, and I'd like to see a source about that reconstruction done 2x, with the 2nd time to backwash Lucy to being an upright walker, because from my understanding when they found Lucy, they threw a party at the camp site because they immediately knew what the skeleton represented.
“they threw a party at the camp site because they immediately knew what the skeleton represented” this is 100% false. My source below will prove that.
Paleoanthropologist Donald Johanson of the Cleveland Museum of Natural History discovered and reconstructed Lucy with a normal ape pelvic. Later, Tim White RE-reconstructed it to resemble a human pelvis.
“Johanson recovered Lucy's left innominate bone and sacrum. Though the sacrum was remarkably well preserved, the innominate was distorted, leading to two different reconstructions. The first reconstruction had little iliac flare and virtually no anterior wrap, creating an ilium that greatly resembled that of an ape. However, this reconstruction proved to be faulty, as the superior pubic rami would not have been able to connect were the right ilium identical to the left. A later reconstruction by Tim White showed a broad iliac flare and a definite anterior wrap, indicating that Lucy had an unusually broad inner acetabular distance and unusually long superior pubic rami.”
Thanks for the link, but it doesn't really support your hypothesis, rather the opposite. The 2nd reconstruction was not done to distort reality, rather it was done to more accurately reflect it. It says the skeleton was distorted, which often happens with bones during the fossilization process.
Moreover, it makes the case that the knees of the skeleton are also indications that Lucy walked upright. I don't see any issues you have with the knees.
It proves my claim that Lucy’s first reconstructed pelvis looked like a normal apes. It was later reconstructed to look human.
The skeleton was “distorted” to appear like a normal ape’s pelvis. What are the chances?
Can you agree that both those things together can lead someone to be skeptical?
It claims that Lucy has “valgus knees.” So do female bonobo chimps. I address that in my post, however I am rather vague. I didn't want to overcrowd the infographic.
It was reconstructed wrongly, they say, based on them not noticing the distortion. According to your image, if it's correct, they didn't have the other half of the pelvis. Dinosaur bones were also put together wrong for various reasons, to include not fully understanding their anatomy compared to modern animals, for the same reasons as Lucy's skeleton.
I understand this leads to skepticism, a healthy dose of it. The theory of evolution has holes you could drive a truck though. But this reconstruction alone is not a nail in the coffin for me.
I'm not sure that bonobos having vagus knees matters unless it's claimed that bonobos aren't decedents from a common ancestor. Some primates down the line got vagus knees, like bonobos, and some didn't, like chimps.
The article you linked two notes it was not just the knees, it was the femoral head and the greater trochanter (which I had to look up, it's been years since I took anatomy) which is the bulge on the opposite of the femoral head, that leads them to conclude that Lucy walked upright. There there are apparently enough differences to show that Lucy walked upright.
The conclusion anthropology makes is that Lucy is the missing link. The brain size is tiny. Which means it's not. What they did find, was evidence of a humanoid that walked upright from about 3.2 million years ago.
Anyway, I try to remember it's (usually) a human being on the other end of any interaction.
I fully understand the argument as to why they re-reconstructed it. I just think it lacks credibility: During the fossilization process, the pelvic bone distorted. This distortion just happened to make it look like a normal chimp pelvic bone. It looked so much like a normal ape pelvic that the World renowned paleoanthropologist, Donald Johanson of the Cleveland Museum of Natural History, reconstructed it wrong…
I think that is a bit fishy. Additionally, couldn’t “distortions” account for many more differences?
Besides the re-reconstructed pelvic bone, Lucy and the bonobo are almost identical. The bonobo’s knees (and several other skeletal features) are relevant, because it shows how similar the bonobo is to Lucy. The bonobo is WAY more similar to Lucy than the normal chimp.
Do you agree that it is disingenuous to compare Lucy to a normal chimp when the bonobo is so much more alike?
Try to find one article or study comparing Lucy to a bonobo. Keep in mind, there are hundreds of articles comparing Lucy to a normal chimp. And they all use how different the normal chimp is from Lucy as proof of Lucy being a missing link. Almost all these differences vanish when comparing Lucy to a bonobo.
Keep in mind, at no point did I say anything about evolution. Me questioning the legitimacy of Lucy is not me questioning evolution. I like to keep my arguments narrow.
God damn I watched how they found Lucy, and it was the biggest hoax on the Planet. They have this guy who just makes it up as he goes along. He is the indigenous scout of their supposed matter, he leads a team of fossil hunters looking for the apemen along a region where the nile retreated. It is an otherwise desert now, with few toxic scrubs, beating sun over the rocks and sand. In a region subjected to historic war and constant turmoil. They need passes to enter. Anyhow this shaman can spot any other rock and name it an animal, or Lucy. He licks them, does a dance with a skull fetish, and uses a forked stick to find their bones. Then he picks up the rocks and starts calling them parts of skulls. That smooth pebble is a definite skull, and that petrified stick is a vertebrate, by shaking his talisman, and licking the stones, and walking around in circles with his forked stick, chanting hmmm mmmh hmmmm, there's the apeman. Look it's in a dated riverbed. Seriously, I have never seen anything as absurd in all my life. Apparently he's the local global expert in monkey hunting their distinctive remains. Smooth rounded soft stones that resemble cranium along an ancient riverbed. Found by licking pebbles, and shaking a talisman. Perhaps some are animal remains, but it truly is mysticism.
The remains are selling for multi millions, hence the tribalism. Another gold rush.
Pause and think. So Africa. The water holes, waterways are full of dead animals. Along the ancient Nile subjected to countless wars. The beating sun bleaches and pertifies bones in days as the constant sand strips them. Look folks let's just combine them, sculpting nice little narratives.
Some of the things they pretend is science is just glorified ditch diggers making stuff up as they go along. Then they smile at you after their conjecture and say it's science.
To add further info, anyone who wants to look into the Darwin myth can read this excellent article: https://chemtrailsgeelong.com/darwinontrial.html
You're minimizing things. The pelvic structure means Lucy walked upright. I'd like to be shown wrong on that, btw, because the theory of evolution is largely bunk.
The pelvic structure was RE-reconstructed.
Lucy was discovered and reconstructed by paleoanthropologist Donald Johanson of the Cleveland Museum of Natural History. "The first reconstruction had little iliac flare and virtually no anterior wrap, creating an ilium that greatly resembled that of an ape." A later reconstruction by Tim White reassembled the pieces to appear "similar to modern human females."
That alone should be a red flag on the legitimacy of Lucy’s pelvic structure. A world renowned paleoanthropologist, with nothing to prove, reconstructed it. And it looked exactly like an ape’s pelvis. Years later it was RE-reconstructed to resemble a human pelvis.
Additionally, Lucy is only ever compared to a common chimpanzee. The differences between Lucy and common chimps are used as proof to it being a missing link. However, its closest modern day equivalent is obviously the bonobo chimp. When Lucy is compared to a bonobo chimp, those differences completely vanish… beside the RE-reconstructed pelvic bone. Interesting enough, the original reconstruction was identical to a bonobo’s pelvic bone.
Bonobo chimps and australopithecus afarensis are almost identical. Comparing Lucy to anything other than a bonobo is disingenuous. They are the same size, live(d) in the same area, and both have identical bipedal features (besides the RE-reconstructed pelvic).
Source for bonobo chimps bipedal muscular/ skeletal characteristics: https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fevo.2018.00053/full
Of course it was reconstructed, it was sitting in the ground for who knows how long.
Yes, I'll go there. I don't trust your word for it, and I'd like to see a source about that reconstruction done 2x, with the 2nd time to backwash Lucy to being an upright walker, because from my understanding when they found Lucy, they threw a party at the camp site because they immediately knew what the skeleton represented.
No problem at all.
“they threw a party at the camp site because they immediately knew what the skeleton represented” this is 100% false. My source below will prove that.
Paleoanthropologist Donald Johanson of the Cleveland Museum of Natural History discovered and reconstructed Lucy with a normal ape pelvic. Later, Tim White RE-reconstructed it to resemble a human pelvis.
“Johanson recovered Lucy's left innominate bone and sacrum. Though the sacrum was remarkably well preserved, the innominate was distorted, leading to two different reconstructions. The first reconstruction had little iliac flare and virtually no anterior wrap, creating an ilium that greatly resembled that of an ape. However, this reconstruction proved to be faulty, as the superior pubic rami would not have been able to connect were the right ilium identical to the left. A later reconstruction by Tim White showed a broad iliac flare and a definite anterior wrap, indicating that Lucy had an unusually broad inner acetabular distance and unusually long superior pubic rami.”
Source: https://www.daily-sun.com/magazine/details/93914/LUCY:-3.2-MILLION-YEARS-OLD-HOMINID
Thanks for the link, but it doesn't really support your hypothesis, rather the opposite. The 2nd reconstruction was not done to distort reality, rather it was done to more accurately reflect it. It says the skeleton was distorted, which often happens with bones during the fossilization process.
Moreover, it makes the case that the knees of the skeleton are also indications that Lucy walked upright. I don't see any issues you have with the knees.
Do you know why the skeleton is named Lucy?
It proves my claim that Lucy’s first reconstructed pelvis looked like a normal apes. It was later reconstructed to look human.
The skeleton was “distorted” to appear like a normal ape’s pelvis. What are the chances?
Can you agree that both those things together can lead someone to be skeptical?
It claims that Lucy has “valgus knees.” So do female bonobo chimps. I address that in my post, however I am rather vague. I didn't want to overcrowd the infographic.
Source for bonobo Valgus knees: https://gab.com/TheGreyGuy/posts/110068564155931883
Just wanted to add, I am liking the civil back and forth.
It was reconstructed wrongly, they say, based on them not noticing the distortion. According to your image, if it's correct, they didn't have the other half of the pelvis. Dinosaur bones were also put together wrong for various reasons, to include not fully understanding their anatomy compared to modern animals, for the same reasons as Lucy's skeleton.
I understand this leads to skepticism, a healthy dose of it. The theory of evolution has holes you could drive a truck though. But this reconstruction alone is not a nail in the coffin for me.
I'm not sure that bonobos having vagus knees matters unless it's claimed that bonobos aren't decedents from a common ancestor. Some primates down the line got vagus knees, like bonobos, and some didn't, like chimps.
The article you linked two notes it was not just the knees, it was the femoral head and the greater trochanter (which I had to look up, it's been years since I took anatomy) which is the bulge on the opposite of the femoral head, that leads them to conclude that Lucy walked upright. There there are apparently enough differences to show that Lucy walked upright.
The conclusion anthropology makes is that Lucy is the missing link. The brain size is tiny. Which means it's not. What they did find, was evidence of a humanoid that walked upright from about 3.2 million years ago.
Anyway, I try to remember it's (usually) a human being on the other end of any interaction.
I fully understand the argument as to why they re-reconstructed it. I just think it lacks credibility: During the fossilization process, the pelvic bone distorted. This distortion just happened to make it look like a normal chimp pelvic bone. It looked so much like a normal ape pelvic that the World renowned paleoanthropologist, Donald Johanson of the Cleveland Museum of Natural History, reconstructed it wrong…
I think that is a bit fishy. Additionally, couldn’t “distortions” account for many more differences?
Besides the re-reconstructed pelvic bone, Lucy and the bonobo are almost identical. The bonobo’s knees (and several other skeletal features) are relevant, because it shows how similar the bonobo is to Lucy. The bonobo is WAY more similar to Lucy than the normal chimp.
Do you agree that it is disingenuous to compare Lucy to a normal chimp when the bonobo is so much more alike?
Try to find one article or study comparing Lucy to a bonobo. Keep in mind, there are hundreds of articles comparing Lucy to a normal chimp. And they all use how different the normal chimp is from Lucy as proof of Lucy being a missing link. Almost all these differences vanish when comparing Lucy to a bonobo.
Keep in mind, at no point did I say anything about evolution. Me questioning the legitimacy of Lucy is not me questioning evolution. I like to keep my arguments narrow.
Lucy is not the oldest Chimp in existence either. https://phys.org/news/2021-10-oldest-footprints-pre-humans-crete.html
God damn I watched how they found Lucy, and it was the biggest hoax on the Planet. They have this guy who just makes it up as he goes along. He is the indigenous scout of their supposed matter, he leads a team of fossil hunters looking for the apemen along a region where the nile retreated. It is an otherwise desert now, with few toxic scrubs, beating sun over the rocks and sand. In a region subjected to historic war and constant turmoil. They need passes to enter. Anyhow this shaman can spot any other rock and name it an animal, or Lucy. He licks them, does a dance with a skull fetish, and uses a forked stick to find their bones. Then he picks up the rocks and starts calling them parts of skulls. That smooth pebble is a definite skull, and that petrified stick is a vertebrate, by shaking his talisman, and licking the stones, and walking around in circles with his forked stick, chanting hmmm mmmh hmmmm, there's the apeman. Look it's in a dated riverbed. Seriously, I have never seen anything as absurd in all my life. Apparently he's the local global expert in monkey hunting their distinctive remains. Smooth rounded soft stones that resemble cranium along an ancient riverbed. Found by licking pebbles, and shaking a talisman. Perhaps some are animal remains, but it truly is mysticism.
The remains are selling for multi millions, hence the tribalism. Another gold rush.
Pause and think. So Africa. The water holes, waterways are full of dead animals. Along the ancient Nile subjected to countless wars. The beating sun bleaches and pertifies bones in days as the constant sand strips them. Look folks let's just combine them, sculpting nice little narratives.
How do you know it's female??? Oh wait, there were only two genders back then .....
Oy vey don’t be so antisemitic!
Lucy
66 pounds.
Sucking devil dick whenever humanly possible as always, as usual.
Some of the things they pretend is science is just glorified ditch diggers making stuff up as they go along. Then they smile at you after their conjecture and say it's science.
Those skull pictures on the left aren't from Lucy you lying fuck.
They are from Australopithecus afarensis.
https://humanorigins.si.edu/evidence/human-fossils/fossils/dik-1-1
Learn to reverse image search before getting mad!
Don't chimp out
I know it's you iknowitsyou
I use the same account for everything, dumbass.
But at least I know that you use at least 5 alternate accounts.
Note added to your file.
LOL :D
Note added.