Finding Lucy

[megmeg6464]

Like if you had to watch this for school

[triciaelaine24]

SHINee too!

[doubleclicko0o]

SUJU. YEAH

[vme1111]

Wasn`t this thing proven as nothing more than an extinct ape a while ago?

[librarylu]

@vme1111 No. Did you miss this? It was announced last summer:

"Excavations in Ethiopia's Afar region have uncovered a 3.6-million-year-old partial male skeleton of the species Australopithecus afarensis. This is the first time since the excavation of Lucy in 1974 that paleoanthropologists have turned up more than isolated pieces of an adult from the species, which lived in East Africa from about 4 million to 3 million years ago."

They were fully bipedal. You didn't miss "Ardi" too, did you?

[vme1111]

@librarylu Well in that case we`ll see how long it takes before we find out that this was just something else also.

[vme1111]

@librarylu Also, another interesting thing, I just researched Ardi and found out it is no longer accepted as ample evidence for evolution of man. Why that wasn`t put out for everyone to see I can only guess? Anyway I wonder what else they would come up with that will only be proven against later . Piltdown man (HOAX) Lucy (EXTINCT APE) Ida (DUD) Ardi (SAME STORY). Before you attack me personally, no I`m not a religious nut, and no I`m not a creationist. Just someone who wants the truth fairly.

[librarylu]

@vme1111 Then read some peer-reviewed articles from scientific journals instead of the claptrap Answers In Genesis (and its clones) puts out.

Evolution happens even in the hominid line. That's the truth. Deal with it.

[vme1111]

@librarylu I have. And no I don`t use answers in gensis or any of those. It was an evolutionists himself that debunked it. Besides the only truth, is that 90% of the stuff they teach you in life is bullshit. And not just evolution either. Now that`s a problem.

[librarylu]

@vme1111 Your list is a creationist mantra. It doesn't matter if it's from AiG or ICR or TrueOrigins - it's nonsense. Read some real science, please. If all else fails, take a class.

I'm certain your "evolutionist" wasn't Donald Johanson, Tim White or Jørn Hurum.

[vme1111]

@librarylu If you say so. If anything I`m a strong believer in a knowledge filter. It`s no coincidence that so much study is done and nothing comes up but more questions. Now that doesn`t symbolize progress, but the fact that the answers these guys got did not satisfy what they thought so they didn`t mention it in hopes that future finds will answer them. I mean when you find T-Rex blood, and bone, something`s wrong. Not the first of it`s kind either.

[vme1111]

@librarylu Oh yeah, and before you try saying that the t-rex blood was actually just slime, look up experiments that were done proving it WAS indeed blood and other facts debunking that also. But because it was so well publicized, they had to give an answer, regardless if it contradicted science. Am I the only one that actually reads both sides or what.

PS- Final response because I`m not getting in a long drawn out argument over this stuff. Something called google. Use it.

[librarylu]

@vme1111 I have used Google, thousands of times. It's the YEC interpretation of the "blood" that's wrong. It wasn't "slime", either. Good luck in your quest to become a Young Earth Creationist. After that perhaps you'd like to join the Flat Earth Society.

Bye.

[vme1111]

@librarylu Wow!!! thanks for comfirming what I`ve been saying. That will be all.

[librarylu]

@vme1111 Oh, I hope so. If not I'll have to start deleting your posts.

[vme1111]

@librarylu Then go ahead. It ain`t that serious.

[librarylu]

@vme1111 You've said twice you're done but I'm enjoying watching you display your willful ignorance. Care to comment on the new human species that was found in Russia?

[lakers6902]

@librarylu yea i do care to comment actually

[hayyalife]

OR....they made it all up.

[NorthForkFisherman]

@hayyalife You mean creationists? Yeah. They're known for pulling some wild assed thoughts out their 4th point of contact. Now, Au. afarensis, that's a well known, described, and fairly widespread species of hominid throughout southern Africa.

[sardorn]

all lucy really is is just big and monky bones missed...

[NorthForkFisherman]

@sardorn If you want to actually go into the service and get one of these more "elite" teams, you need to learn how to express your self much more clearly. So, try again regarding AL 288-1, and not just from ignorance. Read first kid, then try to discuss what you've learned.

[moonlightbateman]

Nature Magazine -- Article of "Recent Common Ancestry of All living Humans" -- "the most recent common ancestor (MRCA) for a randomly mating population would have lived in the very recent past...the MRCA of all present-day humans lived just a few thousand years ago..." - Nature [vol 431] -- 9/30/2004 -- p 562

[MaximusArurealius]

"It was not claimed that there was a 'complete skeleton'"

It said "remarkably complete" so just what does that mean? You may find it remarkable, but you're a guppy and like all evolutionists, a pretend scientist defending a hoax. That's not what science does.

[SPAGHETTIMONSTER1]

pri·mate [pr màyt]

(plural pri·mates)

n

1. member of mammal order: a member of an order of mammals with a large brain and complex hands and feet, including humans, apes, and monkeys.

Order: Primates , boy these people mislead I have seen vids on youtube of nonhuman primates walking upright and alive.? not to mention the fact "they" modified her hip/pelvis bone? on youtube, I love this

[Rekcin]

Regardless of what you find, the dating methods are flawed. The KBS Tuff was originally dated at 212-230 million years. And that was scientifically agreed upon, that is until Leakey found Skull #KNM-ER 1470, then they said uh oh... that doesn't fit our theory. So they re-dated it and found it to be .5 - 2.64 million years. That's an error of around 500%. This would never have been re-dated had it not been for KNM-ER 1470. These errors are found with all dating systems. They return wild numbers.

[magick205]

@Rekcin: You should slap whoever told you that about the KBS tuffs. They gave you an over-simplified version of whats going on with that. It is correct that the original samples were heavily contaminated with old material from other deposits. This disrepancy was raised not by Leakey's discoeries, but rather by the painstaking background work on other mammal fossils, notably pigs (Mesochoerus sp.) and horses (Hipparion sp.)(continued)

[magick205]

@Rekcin: The geology of the Afar rift is so tortured and torn from plate spreading that it's hard to figure out. When they found 3 consistant ages in three different locales for these other animals they knew they had an issue. So the went back in, got clean uncontaminated samples from multiple places in the rock beds and developed a much more accurate date. I could discuss it more, but swing by the talkorigins site or pick up a copy of Johansen's "Lucy". The science is clearly explained.

[librarylu]

Roger Lewin's book Bones of Contention (not to be confused with Lubenow's) has the Koobi Flora Tuffs story as well.

The method was new at the time. The Koobi Flora contamination and controversy was one reason hominid fossils are dated by six different methods wherever possible to rule out error.

C14 dates match well with lake varves. Where the dates differed the C14 dates were slightly younger. This should have been good news for the Young Earth Creationists but they don't seem to think so.

[magick205]

@libraylu: And this is why when you have fossils that are not found in situ, or recorded, they're disposed of. They make nice souveniers, but cannot be used for data since they are now suspect. It's like the boneclones 1998 German Cro-magon skull replica they have for sale. Since it was found in a gravel bar they couldn't get a more accurate date than 10-30 kyo. It's the same problem they have with some of the South African cave deposits.

[SPAGHETTIMONSTER1]

copy and paste, for a good cause sorry hope you don't mind

[Rekcin]

There are over one hundred million identified and catalogued fossils currently in the world's museums. If macroevolution happened, then there should be "transitional forms" in the fossil record that show the intermediate life forms. Darwin himself said, there should be millions of them, and what do we have? One monkey that they hacked on until it looked like they wanted it to. Yes, hacked on.

[librarylu]

Apparently you don't know what a transitional is.

Don't tell me.....let me guess. You're a creationist!

[Rekcin]

Transitional is simple. I'm just telling you what your racist, uneducated leader (Darwin) told everyone. It's right there in black and white. "The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection: The Preservation of Favored Races in the Struggle for Life"

So, if evolution is true, then who are the Favored Races? This kind of thinking made Hitler, Pol Pot & Stalin think they were helping evolution along by killing millions of innocent people. You are following a murderous religion. (Yes it is!)

[magick205]

@Rekcin: "racist, uneducated leader" ? HAHAHA. Do you really want to go down this road there fella? When you espouse a faith that gives very clear instructions for genocide in one of your hold books? Let's make a few things clear shall we? Evolution is a descriptive science that examines the relationships between living forms and their descent from simpler earlier forms and is based entirely on EVIDENCE, not faith which is belief in the ABSCENCE OF EVIDENCE!

[Rekcin]

His only education was a degree in theology. He was not a scientist. And what exactly did he mean by this quote? "The civilised races of man will almost certainly exterminate, and replace, the savage races throughout the world." Sounds a little racist to me. I think the word evolution is way too broad. I agree with changes within species, because we can observe it. But changes from one species to another, we cannot observe. So, you have to have the same faith in your religion as I have in mine.

[magick205]

@Rekcin: It's fairly obvious that you are neither a historian nor biologist. Examine the work of the church in all its forms as it missionaries spread the word of god thru out the "uncivilized" world. The phrasing is cutting social commentary. And speciation has been observed in many places and contexts. One of my personal favourites is the existance of Helacyton gartleri. There are many numerous others that can be discussed, all based on evidence, not superstition.

[Rekcin]

No I'm not, but I'm not stupid either. I find HeLa extremely suspect. It was one of the first commecially available research cell samples for tissue culture experiments. The cells have been cultured, commercially, all these years. My feeling is someone is playing fast-and-loose with the whole subject for the sake of sensationalism. Stop providing culture media and dividing the culture and this organism would die. This proves what? Many well known scientists disagree that this is a new species.

[magick205]

@Rekcin: Removing the media would prove what? If I remove air from your environment what would be the result of that? As far as H. gartleri, please cite those studies which would claim it's not a new species. It's behavior and biology have shown that this is clearly a new form of protozoan that has arisen from us. It's invasive and quite adapatable as unicellular organism go.

[Rekcin]

Again, if it was left on it's own it would die. On another subject. It has been a pleasure going back and forth with you. SO many people I speak with always resort to using bad language and insults. You have been very courteous, I appreciate that. I can tell that you are smarter than me and know a lot more about these things than I do. The only thing I have in my favour is God, and the truth. I have no doubt that you believe this. But please try to be open minded and see the other side.

[magick205]

@Rekcin: Well that's the whole point isn't it? These channels are best used for educational purposes and bowing to the LCD by using anything less than clear worded argument and prose is an insult to my worthy opponent and any who may come after and see what we speak of here. If I cannot get my point across by use of clear references and peer-reviewed data, then there is no point. Vulgarity simply cheapens my argument, though I can be agressive in pushing my point.

[magick205]

@Rekcin: Let's continue. The mention of "favoured races" in the subtitle of Origin of Species merely refers to variations within species which survive to leave more offspring. It does not imply racism. However, it is true that virtually all Englishmen in Darwin's time viewed blacks as culturally and intellectually inferior to Europeans. Some men of that time (such as Louis Agassiz, a staunch creationist) went so far as to say they were a different species. (continued)

[Rekcin]

If he meant species why did he say races? Are species and race synonymous? I don't think so.

[magick205]

@Rekcin: Perhaps you're not a native english speaker? It's an archaic usage and Race, as used by Darwin, refers to varieties, not to human races. It simply points out that some variations that occur naturally survive in greater numbers. Origin of Species hardly refers to humans at all.

[magick205]

Charles Darwin was a product of his times and no doubt viewed non-Europeans as inferior in ways, but he was far more liberal than most: He vehemently opposed slavery (Darwin 1913, especially chap. 21), and he contributed to missionary work to better the condition of the native Tierra del Fuegans. He treated people of all races with compassion. Nice try, but the facts of history do not now or ever bear you out.

[magick205]

@Rekcin: And always with picking on AL 288-1. You know you might have actually had an argument if there was just one. But there's not. We have over 150 separate specimens of Australopithecines that provide a complete profile what these creatures look like. Lovejoy's reconstruction is accurate. The AL 288-1 pelvis, as found was in an anatomically impossible position for chimp or human since it's PSIS was bent thru 90deg from normal. And it only went together ONE WAY.

[Rekcin]

The australopithecines are quite distinct from humans. Several detailed computer studies of australopithecines have shown that their bodily proportions were not intermediate between those of man and living apes. Another study, which examined their inner ear bones, used to maintain balance, showed a striking similarity to those of chimpanzees and gorillas, but great differences from those of humans. Likewise, their pattern of dental development corresponds to chimpanzees, not humans.

[magick205]

@Rekcin: Then please, cite these studies. However, do not waste our time by trying to use the Rak, Ginsberg, et. al. Ramius study. That's based on a sample of only two specimens and a measuring technique that was discredtited by their eariler failed evaulation of neanderthal maindibles. Also, the inner ear bones are not used in balance. The semi-circular canals of the clochlea performs that function. As far as the rest: CITE IT.

[puncheex]

@Rekcin: Every species, except for most extant species and those that went extinct, are transitional forms. You can come back and say all those 100 million fossils are all extinct forms, but you're going to have a hard time maintaining that. It would seem to be the only way you can claim that all those fossils contain no transitional forms. I would guess, right off the top of my head, that we have perhaps 90 million transitional fossils on our hands.

[kofferotten]

he's a relativ to me:)

[ArtFaithHopeAndAGAPE]

This is fascinating! 8-) Thank you so for sharing :))

[librarylu]

You're welcome.

I was able to get my local library to buy the series. It's excellent.

[captainkirk414]

Its a freaking monkey.

[magick205]

Primate yes, monkey no. It's an ape, not that dissimilar to you or I. And most likely, this species is the ancestor to us all.

[captainkirk414]

Its a monkey's skeleton. Present day orangutan and spider monkeys have the same angle as humans yet are extremely adept tree climbers.

[magick205]

Which angle are you talking about? The knee, hip, and mandibular arc all show humanoid charateristics. So also the dention and the position of the foramen magnum. The only thing that shows a still partial arboreal existance is the greater curve of the phalanges bones. If you have more info, then cite it.

[magick205]

Excellent video. I still think that these videos gloss over so much of what makes A. afarensis AL288-1 so unique and important. I've had the good fortune to get a copy of Johansens's "Lucy" and read it cover to cover. There's just so much in there to read and comprehend, and it's so compelling about the work being done in this field. Good job with the video. 5*

[librarylu]

All credit goes to PBS. They did an excellent job on the series, IMO. It's impossible for them to cover everything, but I think they whet an appetite to find out more.

I read the book when it first came out. He really conveyed his sense of wonder in it and in From Lucy to Language - I felt like I was THERE.

Another book you might enjoy is Roger Lewin's Bones of Contention (NOT Lubenow's). It gives an intriguing, sometimes hilarious, look at the world of paleoanthropology in those days.

[magick205]

There is a very interesting paper on the mandibular ramus that puts A afarensis on the more robustus side of our lineage. The origin of our species, in the writer's opinion is pushed back even further to about 4 mya. I've had a chance to read some of the rebuttals to the paper and the general consensus is that we simply don't enough specimens yet in hand to cover the full range of variation in Australopithecines. Very interesting read.

[librarylu]

I just ran across something on that while Googling for papers by Yvette Deloison.

I'll check it out.

[atesema1234]

bad

[librarylu]

Comment accidentally removed:

mijamz: first and foremost, nothing in science is proven to be truth, second not all dating methods are relative, third the study on thirty year old fragments was a STUDY to show that dating is not accurate. Most of the elements used for dating(i.e. carbon, flourine, etc) don't have a half life long enough to date more than a max of 4000 years after that data is to hard to gather and trace

[librarylu]

so scientists assume that that means it's much older than it appears so they guess to make it fit with there theory

[librarylu]

Mijamz, if you knew beans about science you'd know you can't peer review your own work.

Not all the methods used are radiometric.

A cross check between varves and C-14 showed C-14 was very accurate. The C-14 dates were actually slightly younger, which should help support YEC silliness.

Read this:

actionbioscience . org/evolution/benton . html

The word "proven" has a very specific meaning in science. Not proven does not = not true.

[librarylu]

C-14 isn't used on materials older than 50,000 - 60,000 years because there's so little carbon left.

You'd have to say 4000 if you think the earth is 6000 years old.

id-archserve . ucsb . edu/anth3/courseware/Chronolog­y/08_Radiocarbon_Dating . html

The dates are calibrated because of variations in atmospheric carbon.

For fossils older than Middle Pleistocene, Potassium-Argon dating is often used.

There's also relative dating.

suite101 . com/article.cfm/paleontology/3­8189

[mijamz]

Here's an example of a flawed dating system. When a certain insect has just died, the dating on it shows it to have been dead for millions of years. And another tree, that recently died out a huge tree, dated is shown to be hundreds if not thousands of years younger than it actually is.

[magick205]

Hmm. Considering that you fail to describe what dating system is being used your argument does not only fail, it is simply irrelevant. And as you also fail to provide the title of your monograph for me to review via NCIB or PubMed I can safely say that it is nothing more than the fevered imagination of a foolish zealot. If you're not published, don't be an idiot and say you are music boy. Stick to your piano work, leave science to professionals.

[mijamz]

first off you are prejudging before you know anything. 2 people use this account. I am the one with the information and studies on these specific topics. My son however is the one with the piano work. So you need to learn how to not prejudge.

[magick205]

When you have only one name on an account what else might you expect, hmmm? Much can be done when wearing the mask of another. And since there is no mention of another on the account I'm having a bit of trouble having confidence in that statement. So, can you provide a title or other kind of identifying data so that I may properly examine your findings? What journal are you published in? I've got my AAAS suscription, and since I've some time between patients, I'd like to use it.

[mijamz]

I wonder what life would be like if I constantly doubted everything that was truth. And since you are so doubtful I don't think it would do you any good to read my research anyway. So on that note, good day, don't respond. There are plenty of other people I would rather talk to than a fool like you.

[magick205]

HAHHAHA. I knew it. I just love to catch hypocrites like you. Not that there was any doubt of your falsehoods. I look forward to finding you again. There is nothing more that I hate than a liar and a fool. And you sir, while I hate to use ad hominems, are nothing but. You've come to an intellectual gunfight armed with the equivalent of a butterknife. And the best part is, this conversation is preserved for all others to see. Thank you for all the fun, coward.

[mijamz]

the only problem with this is that they are putting a skull together from pieces of bone that they "assume" is skull bones. And they make them with how they "assume" a hominid looked like back then. They have no way of prooving the age of these bones either. As you recall bones turn to dust after a hundred years or so. Even in life they are always dwindling away. 3 m. years is illogical.

[librarylu]

Please look up fossilization. The fragments are no longer bone - they're stone.

You can put a puzzle together even with some pieces missing, can't you?

Over three hundred individuals are now represented making Australopithecus afarensis the best known early hominid species. Lucy isn't even the type specimen.

Her skeleton is 40% complete.

According to Johanson six different methods are used to date fossils. They're cross-checked so there's little chance for error.

Nice try.

[mijamz]

you would be happy to know that I did a test experiment. I had three different types of bones a.k.a. fossils that were fossilized over a period of 30 years, and they were all from withing a couple of years old of each other. And had them dated using the 6 different methods, And everyone of them dated them to be between 200 thousand and 1 m. years old. The dating methods are flawed. Nothing comes from nothing by itself it has to be created.

[librarylu]

"you would be happy to know that I did a test experiment."

I'd be happier if you'd written it up for peer review.

Please name these six different methods and explain why they would be used to date something that's only thirty years old.

There's a guy on another commentary who claims he can petrify crayons. Maybe you two should get together - with some coloring books.

Your last statement is a logical fallacy: bifurcation/false dilemma.

logicalfallacies .i nfo/falsedilemmas . html

[mijamz]

also I did happen to do a peer review. just so you know. And my last statement isn't a fallacy, let me see you try to capture an experiment illustrating the "big bang theory" oh wait you can't because you would have to create the circumstances to even start trying to capture it. That would severely ruin the theory's principle of coming together by itself.

[librarylu]

Where is it published?

Do you work for Kent Hovind?

[magick205]

So,where's that peer review paper? Can you perhaps even say who you might have submitted it to so that we might be able to see an advance copy? Cause, I'm getting a big whiff of BS off all your posts there sparky.

[mijamz]

maybe you should get away from the cow, because it's not healthy to smell crap as it's coming out of the cow. It's called research buddy. Look it up yourself. It's not that hard to find.

[MaximusArurealius]

"Fragments of more than 300 individuals of Australopithicus afarensis have been discovered so far, including a remarkably complete skeleton of an adult female (nick- named "Lucy")" from a wsu edu website. This is a lie. 40% is not a complete skeleton. So 300 bones hardly does anything for us.

[shishkabobby]

@MaximusArurealius It was not claimed that there was a 'complete skeleton', so there was no lie. You are free to decide for yourself what constitutes 'remarkably complete'. Just look at the images on Wikipedia's Lucy page, I find it remarkable for something 3.2 million years old.

[lovelesspierrot]

Fascinating! I actually have him as a professor at Arizona State University. He teachede a class called human origins-- he's a brilliant lecturer!

[librarylu]

"he's a brilliant lecturer"

I'm sure he is. He's an excellent writer with a way of conveying his sense of wonder.

Lucky you!

[magick205]

He's one of your teachers?!?! Now I know the true taste of jealousy. Those are the kinds of lectures I loved going to....where the most important subjects are discussed.

[DanVilAl]

I saw this whean I was a teen, I remeber, thank you.

[KINGROYBOY]

Thanks, it helped me on my report =D

Haha, YouTube is the source of school!

[librarylu]

Is the "D" a big grin or your grade? :D

Read his books sometime. They're fascinating.

[KINGROYBOY]

You mean from Lucy to Language? I have that one! Pretty amazing finds in that one!