Questions For Answers In Genesis

@J.E.S

I’m a little surprised to find you so unapologetically advancing ridiculous rumors about the Lucy pelvis. Is it actually your plan to repeat every unfounded discussion promoted by any YEC page you read? The only way these Lucy rumors would make any sense is if Lucy’s pelvis is the only one we have for her hominid group - and that it was only her pelvis that demonstrated her upright walking. It is not the only pelvis. And her pelvis was not the only anatomically convincing aspect of her gait!

Below is a fulsome discussion of Lucy’s Pelvis:

Correcting Creationists Redux…Was Lucy’s Pelvis Reconstruction A Fraud?

Northstate Science
A source of reason and logic in a world increasingly hostile to both.
Posted by: cjobrien | 1 January 2011

“I happened across an article by Matthew Murdock in the 2006 Journal of Creation. What Murdock does, remarkably, is present a fairly accurate presentation of hominid locomotor capability based on fossil evidence. Moreover, he quite bluntly lambastes his fellow creationists for not reporting the fossil evidence honestly. Here are a few snippets from his article that are relevant to the discussion at hand:”

“Reading the popular literature (non technical papers), one would get the impression that there has only been one australopithecine pelvis found: the one belonging to A.L. 288-1 (‘Lucy’).Students sometimes get the notion that from this pelvis alone that australopithecine locomotion has been determined. The truth is there are several pelves belonging to australopithecines, some partial, some complete, and the evidence for australopithecine bipedality was establishedlong before the skeleton of Lucy was even discovered…”

“When I placed a cast of the unrestored ilium next to the sacrum, the distorted auricular surface forced the ilium into an anatomically incorrect position (figure 5). It is rotated to a right angle of where it should be no matter what the posture of this individual was (biped or quadruped). No animal alive or dead has a pelvis orientated this way, and this was clearly not its position during life, and no other australopithecine has this problem. It is clearly a case of post mortem distortion in this specimen (A.L. 288-1) only. As such, some repair had to be done to this surface (see postscript)….”

“I have seen a few creationists claim that it was this restoration that gave Lucy her upright posture. It does not appear as if these people have studied the skeleton in any detail (even if only through the writings of others). For if they did, they would see that it is not just the pelvis of Lucy that makes her bipedal, but her entire skeleton. Curvature of the spine (lumbar lordosis), length and angulation of the femur and tibia/fibula, and the hand and foot skeleton all indicate bipedal locomotion…”

“Did Lovejoy’s restoration give Lucy a bipedal pelvis? No, she already had one. In fact, even if this damaged part of the pelvis had not been found, we could still determine Lucy’s posture and gait from the rest of her pelvis (and skeleton)…”

1 Like

@gbrooks9 @T_aquaticus

Ok. I see your point. (And yes, I do intend to repeat SOME “unfounded discussion.” It’s just that some I’m willing to defend more than others.)
Just wondering: If (fairly incomplete) human fossils were discovered, would they be interpreted as “missing links”?

@J.E.S

Do you know anything about anatomy?
If we found just one or two bones … and we were able to tell the age of the individual by one means or another … what would be the point of ignoring unique aspects of such a bone if it clearly presents a configuration or geometry that does not exist in the same bone from a younger or older fossil?

Are you saying that if there is only one bone … it should be ignored, no matter how unique its shape is … because … you know… it’s just one bone?

Would that make any sense to you?

@gbrooks9

By your tone, I apparently see that you seemingly grossly misinterpreted my honest question for an attack of some sort.

No. What I meant by my question is: What if we found (incomplete) bones from HOMO SAPIENS in the fossil record (maybe if they were mixed around with monkey bones). How would they be interpreted?

bwahahahahaha!

@beaglelady
As I’ve already said:

They would be handled and interpreted based on the facts, much like what happened when an academic unintentionally, but most definitely, produced so-called “soft tissues” from fossilized flesh of dinosaurs! I think you will find that academics do not actually pursue “circular analysis” - - because the body of evidence is so robust for Evolution it just isn’t necessary.

The same thing cannot be said about YEC attempts to refute the wall of converging evidence now available to corroborate Evolution.

On the topic of fossil “soft tissue” - - several linked articles for the topic of fossils and “soft tissue” can be found in the BioLogos archives. Here is a link with some good (and amazing) photos:

http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/274/1607/183
Proceedings of the Royal Society: Biological Sciences
Published 22 January 2007 DOI: 10.1098/rspb.2006.3705

“Soft tissue and cellular preservation in vertebrate skeletal elements from the Cretaceous to the present.”

by Mary Higby Schweitzer, Jennifer L Wittmeyer, John R Horner

If my memory serves me, the pictures of connective tissue and even networks of still flexing capillaries were created by gently dissolving away the the fossilized rock of a sample of a dinosaur’s fossilized flesh!
.
.

Probably as incomplete bones from Homo sapiens mixed with monkey bones. Scientists find bones of multiple species mixed up all the time. No biggie.

@beaglelady[quote=“beaglelady, post:48, topic:36386”]
. Scientists find bones of multiple species mixed up all the time.
[/quote]

Fascinating…

Just look at La Brea Tar Pits.

An examination of the actual fossil shows the same thing.[quote=“J.E.S, post:33, topic:36386”]
Other than that, I (rather) get your point.
[/quote]

If you look at the skulls of Australopithecines you will see that they have many ape-like features. So we have a mixture of human and ape features, the very definition of a transitional fossil.

If you disagree that this is a transitional fossil, then please list the features Australopithecines are missing that a real transitional would have.

2 Likes

No. Modern humans have different features than the fossils labeled as being transitional. It isn’t the incompleteness of the fossil that leads to the conclusion, but the differences between the fossil and modern humans.

This topic was automatically closed 6 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.