posted on Jul, 29 2016 @ 12:57 PM
a reply to: cooperton
Right...because Lucy is the only exemplar of A. Afarensis remains ever found right? Site AL 333 in Ethiopia for example, yielded the remains of 13
individuals from the one site. The entire species morphology wasn't determined solely by Lucy. That's not how it works.
The reason evidence of missing links is nonexistent is because in Anthropology, we aren't looking for a term that doesn't exist within the
The only assumption here is yours in regards to how the science be is done. You make it seem like there's a set narrative that we start with and just
fill in the blanks and ignore everything that doesn't jive with MES. If that were the case, we would still be operating under anachronisms like Clovis
First. We would have ignored all of the evidence for Pleistocene admixture events. The notion is ridiculous.
The entire concept of a missing link is based on anachronistic presupposition that there should be a direct line from A to B and that just isn't how
evolution works. There are several species of Australopithecines example for who were living contemporaneously as well as A. Sediba who was still
hanging around when H. Habilis was roaming E. Africa 1.9 MA.
Also, the link you posted gives some rather poor context for Lucy. Here is the reconstruction that toured the US from 2007-2013 The placement of the
foramen magnum and angle of pelvic tilt are key indicators of Lucy's bipedalism.