“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.
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.