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.
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.