You say “‘Questioning’ is not how science works” but in the very next sentence say science is “making testable ‘questions,’ called hypotheses.”
And the bonobo DOES walk upright. I never said he walks exclusively upright. They are also much better bipedal walkers than chimps and have several bipedal muscular and skeletal traits that normal chimps DO NOT have. It is disingenuous of you to compare the upright walking of bonobos to chimps.
Additionally, there is NO way to know if australopithecus afarensis walked upright exclusively.
“Yea, the reconstruction story is fishy, but that's just the pelvis, not the knees and the femur.”
BONOBOS have the SAME knees and femurs! The only tangible difference is the “fishy” pelvis.
“Do bonobos and Lucy have a common ancestor?”
It is likely that the bonobo is a direct descendant of australopithecus afarensis. I think that is far more likely, given their similarities, than saying humans descended from australopithecus afarensis.
Do you think it is misleading to compare Lucy to a chimpanzee instead of a bonobo?
Do you think a bonobo is much more similar to Lucy?
Scientists find the ancient skeletal remains of a new fox species that is almost identical to the modern day fox. Years later it is discovered that it has retractable claws like a cat, and somehow the first reconstruction missed it. After this, it becomes widely believed that this “foxcat” is a missing link between canines and cats.
You don't understand the difference between making a falsifiable hypothesis to test (which only sometimes is in the form of a question), and the "questioning" you refer to. What you really mean by "questioning" is "debating" which everyone should be open to doing. I suggest you change your rhetoric to match.
Humans can also climb trees and crawl, but we walk upright as our primary means of locomotion after crawling around as babies. Bonobos can walk upright for short distances, that doesn't mean they walk upright as a matter of course. Again, you're being very disingenuous to say they they do.
And yes, you're being very misleading, because I think you're baiting to get to the conclusion that is different from the generally understood idea that bonobos, chimps, Lucy had a common ancestor and that Lucy was a branch that led to humans, while bonobos and chimps aren't. Frankly, I'm not versed enough in the subject to debate you on the intricacies of hominid lines, other than to return to my original point, which is that Lucy is a skeleton that shows a hominid that walks upright, nothing more, and nothing less.
My conclusion: It would be more accurate to compare Lucy to a bonobo than a chimpanzee.
My opinion: I believe the comparison of Lucy and the bonobo is avoided because she wouldn’t look different enough to convince the general public that she is a missing link. She is intentionally only compared to chimpanzees, because doing so makes her look like more of a “midground” between chimps and humans.
I feel like you think I am arguing something I am not. I am only saying it would be more appropriate to compare Lucy to a bonobo.
Do you think Lucy is closer to the bonobo or the chimpanzee?
If she is closer, why is she only compared to the chimpanzee?
You say “‘Questioning’ is not how science works” but in the very next sentence say science is “making testable ‘questions,’ called hypotheses.”
And the bonobo DOES walk upright. I never said he walks exclusively upright. They are also much better bipedal walkers than chimps and have several bipedal muscular and skeletal traits that normal chimps DO NOT have. It is disingenuous of you to compare the upright walking of bonobos to chimps.
Additionally, there is NO way to know if australopithecus afarensis walked upright exclusively.
“Yea, the reconstruction story is fishy, but that's just the pelvis, not the knees and the femur.”
BONOBOS have the SAME knees and femurs! The only tangible difference is the “fishy” pelvis.
“Do bonobos and Lucy have a common ancestor?”
It is likely that the bonobo is a direct descendant of australopithecus afarensis. I think that is far more likely, given their similarities, than saying humans descended from australopithecus afarensis.
Do you think it is misleading to compare Lucy to a chimpanzee instead of a bonobo?
Do you think a bonobo is much more similar to Lucy?
I've got a long weekend of travel coming up, I won't be checking this site. I might reply on Monday, depending on what's in my inbox.
Take it easy.
Picture this:
Scientists find the ancient skeletal remains of a new fox species that is almost identical to the modern day fox. Years later it is discovered that it has retractable claws like a cat, and somehow the first reconstruction missed it. After this, it becomes widely believed that this “foxcat” is a missing link between canines and cats.
Which comparison is more accurate and honest?: https://gab.com/TheGreyGuy/posts/110075076999518115
Hope you have a good weekend!
You don't understand the difference between making a falsifiable hypothesis to test (which only sometimes is in the form of a question), and the "questioning" you refer to. What you really mean by "questioning" is "debating" which everyone should be open to doing. I suggest you change your rhetoric to match.
Humans can also climb trees and crawl, but we walk upright as our primary means of locomotion after crawling around as babies. Bonobos can walk upright for short distances, that doesn't mean they walk upright as a matter of course. Again, you're being very disingenuous to say they they do.
And yes, you're being very misleading, because I think you're baiting to get to the conclusion that is different from the generally understood idea that bonobos, chimps, Lucy had a common ancestor and that Lucy was a branch that led to humans, while bonobos and chimps aren't. Frankly, I'm not versed enough in the subject to debate you on the intricacies of hominid lines, other than to return to my original point, which is that Lucy is a skeleton that shows a hominid that walks upright, nothing more, and nothing less.
Almost all of my “questions” have been testable. Which one of my testable hypotheses do you disagree with?
My testable hypotheses #1. Lucy has more in common with the bonobo than it does with the chimpanzee. After testing, she does.
My testable hypotheses #2. Every bipedal trait that Lucy has, besides the fishy pelvis, the bonobo has. After testing, true.
My testable hypotheses #3. The history of Lucy’s pelvis is fishy. After testing, Yup.
My testable hypotheses #4. Lucy is consistently shown as an intermediate link between chimpanzees and humans as seen in this picture: https://gab.com/TheGreyGuy/posts/110074854558261993
My conclusion: It would be more accurate to compare Lucy to a bonobo than a chimpanzee.
My opinion: I believe the comparison of Lucy and the bonobo is avoided because she wouldn’t look different enough to convince the general public that she is a missing link. She is intentionally only compared to chimpanzees, because doing so makes her look like more of a “midground” between chimps and humans.
I feel like you think I am arguing something I am not. I am only saying it would be more appropriate to compare Lucy to a bonobo.
Do you think Lucy is closer to the bonobo or the chimpanzee?
If she is closer, why is she only compared to the chimpanzee?