Difference between revisions of "Lucy"

Revision as of 07:53, 25 May 2014

4zr3t6ufwwbo37ei1udtyo95i2pfyvd

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
-=Lucy=
+zr3t6ufwwbo37ei1udtyo95i2pfyvd
-{{Evolution Says|‘Lucy’ is an Australopithecus that walked upright. The fossil evidence proves this. The existence of this part ape, part human, proves that humans evolved. }}
-==The Facts Are ..... ==
-(1) The fossil Australopithecus afarensis (alias 'Lucy') was assembled by anthropologist Donald Johanson from fossil fragments found in Ethiopia in 1974. The bones pieced together to form 40% of a possibly female skeleton that was assessed to be 3.5 million years old. At a lecture at the University of Missouri (Kansas City) on November 20, 1986, Johanson confessed that the knee-joint was found 60-70 m lower in the strata than the rest of the bones, and 2-3 kilometres away. Johanson said that he put the joint on 'Lucy' because it was anatomically similar, not because it actually belonged to the skeleton. The only reason Johanson and others say the 'Lucy' walked upright, and that it was a human ancestor, is because of the presence of this wrongly added knee-joint.  CSA News, February 1987
-(2) The arm/leg ratio of a human is 0.75, while an ape's is 1.00. Johanson has given Lucy's ratio as 0.83, half-way between human and ape. This seems to give credence to the theory that Lucy is a missing link. However, Johanson has confessed that he estimated the leg length because the only leg found was broken in two places, and one end was crushed. This estimate makes his 'precise' proof ratio useless, and negates it from being a human missing link. M. Bowden, "Ape-Men: Fact or Fallacy", (2nd ed.), Sovereign Publications: Kent (UK), 1981 p:222
-(3) 'Lucy' walked on two legs according to its discoverer, Donald Johanson, because of "the angle of the thigh bone and the flattened surface at its knee joint end......" It is interesting to note that this conclusion was drawn from a 40% complete skeleton, whose femur had a severely crushed knee joint end. National Geographic, Vol. 150, No. 6, 1976 p:790-811
-(4) Anthropologist Richard Leakey doubts the reconstruction of 'Lucy', believing that the skull may be two separate skull fragments mistakenly put together. He has described the reconstruction of Lucy's incomplete skull as "imagination, made of plaster of Paris". Leakey doubts that 'Lucy' has any part in human evolution. The Australian, August 8, 1986 p:3;  The Weekend Australian, May 7-9, 1983 p:3
-(5) A new analytical technique which uses a scanning electron microscope to 'read' the patterns of bone deposits on skulls has been used on 'Lucy' to factually analyse its fossil relationships. Analysis of Lucy's skull deposition pattern indicates that it is the same as the chimpanzee, and all together different from humans. New Scientist, January 11, 1992 p:35
-(6) Palaeontologist Adrienne Zihlman (University of California), has stated that "Lucy's fossil remains match up remarkably well with the bones of a pigmy chimp", even though he did find some differences between them. New Scientist, Vol. 104, No. 1430, November 1984 p:39-40
-(7) A comparison of the pelvis of 'Lucy', with that of a chimpanzee and a human has revealed that
-'Lucy' was only capable of giving birth to young the size of a newborn chimp. This investigation lends further weight to the idea that 'Lucy' was just a species of ape. Science News, December 14, 1985 p:376
-(8) A growing number of evolutionary anatomists who have studied the bones of 'Lucy' have concluded that the creature is not related to humans. They do not believe that it is an intermediate between humans and apes, or that it walked upright in a human manner. Charles Oxnard, "Fossils, Teeth and Sex -
-New Perspectives on Human Evolution", University of Washington Press: Seattle. 1987 p:227
-==References==
- [[Category:Umasking Evolution]]

Difference between revisions of "Lucy"

Revision as of 07:53, 25 May 2014

Navigation menu

Search