Early Cretaceous (150 million to 100 million years old) specimens.....with "flesh"

originally posted by: LadyGreenEyes

You haven't offered any such explanation in your posts to me. Telling someone to look elsewhere in a thread is a nice tactic for those unwilling to offer evidence.

There's a rather large discrepancy between being unwilling to offer evidence and not wanting to repeat something for the umpteenth time when you're going to ignore it anyway.

The case of Lucy is a clear case of deliberate misrepresentation.

How so? You're the one making the claim, the onus is upon you to support your thesis so could you p,ease describe how and why it is a deliberate misrepresentation? It would be far easier for me to address your issues if I knew what they were instead of carpet bombing you with information not pertinent to your complaint.

Lucy is an ape, not some "early human", and there is no evidence that she is any sort of "early human". None.

Humans also are apes so what exactly is the point you're attempting to make aside from not understanding basic anthropology or biology?

She was an animal that walked on her knuckles. Has the exhibit in the St. Louis Zoo that shows her with human-like feet and hands been corrected? Not last I heard! That's deliberate deception.

What is your evidence that Lucy was a "knuckle walker" as you claim?

Why would the St. Louis Zoo alter the exhibit? It is a representation of the currently accepted science and reconstructions of A. afarensis. The only deliberate deception I'm seeing is the one you're putting over on yourself. Please describe in your opinion what is wrong with the interpretation of Lucy or other as Afarensis specimens.

She clearly could not have made the footprints that scientists claim are associated with her. Those look identical to footprints of human children. Fully human.

Exactly the point, the feet of A Afarensis were very similar to ours. The Laetoli foot prints are in volcanic ash dated to 3.5 MYA. there were no other hominids that we are aware of that lived in that part of the world at that point in time. But you want to insist that it can't be true despite having no alternative explanation nor evidence to support the thesis you half present.

You think the prints look just like a modern human child. Fair enough, they do on the surface. However when comparing a contour map of the Laetoli prints with those of a modern human walking with a normal gait and. Modern human walking with a BKBH gait, we find that while from the top the prints do look identical to those one of my children could have made, the contour map shows a very different view as the gait of whoever Made some of these Laetoli tracks also walked in a fashion very similar to how we would walk with some slight wobble to the gait as though they still spent time in trees occasionally yet were very well suited to walking upright.


Additional features that identify A. afarensis as bipedal are the angle of the foremen magnum which is hold to the base of your skull that allows the spinal cord to connect with the brain.


The pelvis is also a tell tale indicator for bipedalism

The australopithecine pelvis has widely flaring iliac ala. This flare is a critical component of the lever system of the hip and acts to increase the mechanical advantage of the lesser gluteals by increasing their lever arm. However, the lateral flare of the australopithecine ala is more pronounced than typically seen in modern humans. The fact that the australopithecine pelvis appears more similar to humans than to apes suggests that Australopithecus was fully bipedal. It is thought that the australopithecine unique morphology suggests the species did not utilize the modern gait seen in later Homo.9 The modern human pelvis has relatively larger hip joints and larger pelvic outlet relative to australopithecines or modern apes. These differences appear to be a compromise between two functional needs: 1) efficient bipedalism; and 2) allowing enough space for wide shouldered, large brained infants to pass through the birth canal.elucy.org...

johnhawks.net...

originally posted by: LadyGreenEyes

originally posted by: Barcs
Can you please give me some examples of science experiments that have been ignored or swept under the rug? Long held ideas are challenged all of the time, but nobody is going to try to say the earth isn't round, or that the sun revolves around the earth, or that gravity doesn't exist, or that evolution is false, because those are all proven things. Yeah, if somebody still thinks the earth is flat, they should be ridiculed because it's incredibly stupid. Scientific theories don't become theories until solid verifiable evidence that is testable and repeatable emerges. Once that happens, you fill in the gaps with other facts and hypotheses. Quite often the hypotheses are falsified and then kept out of the theory, but if they are verified they become part of it.,

No, because this is already way off track for the thread. If you want to discuss elsewhere, post one, and OM me, and we can do it there. My statement was about this discovery, and expanding that to all of science is too far off topic. Instead, perhaps you can explain what is being done in such cases as this to determine how this can happen.

As for the rest, I am not engaging in a debate on evolution vs. creation here, either. Again, off topic.

Explain, if you wish, why and how you think the soft tissues survived as they did.

So your rant about scientists' egos and science experiments swept under the rug was perfectly valid, yet when I question your claims, I'm the one who is off topic? Several links have been provided explaining how it can happen. Repeating "how can it happen?" over and over when several explanations have already been given is a bit silly.

a reply to: peter vlar

Nice post..

I would also like to add that one of the most overlooked areas of Australopithecine anatomy is the spinal column. Fossil specimens attributed to A. afarensis clearly prove the presence of a lumbar curve. Even if no skulls, pelvis, legs or knee joints were available for study, bipedalism in Australopithecines could have been established with this one area of their anatomy alone.

originally posted by: stumason
*snip*
Emphasis mine - key word here, most. Some do end up preserving the soft tissue in the fossil record, ergo, the explanation is fine. It all depends on the exact nature of the burial and the prevailing conditions at the time - it says in the article (again.....) that the Ichthyosaurs were caught in a mud flow and swept into deeper water, which is colder and more anoxic, lending to better preservation of soft tissue in the fossil.

A perfectly valid and reasonable explanation and certainly better than anything you have or can come up with.

So, they were caught in a mud flow, but then swept to colder water, yet were somehow still in the mud? That explanation isn't logical. Again, we need more study to find one that actually fits, and explains why this very rare thing happens. Does scientific study bother you for some reason?

a reply to: peter vlar


Evidence? Here you go - Ancestors walked on knuckles

Not a Creationist source there, either. Lucy being a knuckle walker isn't exactly a secret, you know.

The exhibit isn't correct, and they know it isn't correct. They simply want it to fit the prevailing incorrect theory, to mislead people.

The pelvis doesn't look like ours at all, no more than does that of a chimp. The foot bone is a single bone, not a whole foot, and drawing a human-like foot around it assumes too much.

The prints don't belong to the ape Lucy. They assumed wrongly that they did. The evidence doesn't support that. Science means you have to let go of an idea when it's shown to be wrong.

a reply to: peter vlar

Nice post, Peter, though you may have played into the addressee's hands somewhat.

Lady Green Eyes cannot sustain his claims regarding fossil tissue preservation, so he (or she, perhaps) has resorted to a typically duplicitious creationist tactic, and trailed a red herring across the thread to draw the discussion on to ground he is more comfortable with.

His claim that Lucy was a knucklewalker is based on an article by someone called Michael Oard, which appears on numerous creationist web sites keen to distinguish humankind from the brute creation. Here it is:

Did Lucy Walk Upright? — Answers in Genesis

Same article re-posted on creation.com (ingeniously subtitled 'One tiny bone ignites evolutionary fervour')

Plenty more where those came from. All tripe, of course, as you could no doubt demonstrate with ease, though I'll try to save you the trouble with my next post.

a reply to: LadyGreenEyes

Nice one there. Your link is to a BBC news article about a the following paper, Evidence that humans evolved from a knuckle-walking ancestor, by B.G. Richmond and D.S. Strait. Yes, it is a perfectly respectable scientific paper.

Dated 2000.

There has been more research into the matter in the many years that have elapsed since that paper was published. Allow me to refer you to the following: Independent evolution of knuckle-walking in African apes shows that humans did not evolve from a knuckle-walking ancestor by T.L. Kivell and D. Schmitt. It is dated 2009 and quotes the earlier paper by Richmond and Strait no less than four times. The authors even acknowledge Richmond's presence on their peer review board:

We also thank D. Begun, E. Fiume, J. Hanna, B. Hare, J. Horvath, C. Orr, B. Richmond, M. Rose, M. Tocheri, C. Wall, R. Wunderlich, Animal Locomotion Lab members, 2 anonymous reviewers and the editor for providing valuable comments and discussion on our manuscript.

The whole article is at the link. It's short. It's free. I dare you to read it.

Or perhaps you might find Wikipedia a little easier to digest:

Ambulation: One of Lucy's most striking characteristics is a valgus knee, which indicates that she normally moved by walking upright. The femoral head of the knee was small and the femoral neck was short, both primitive characteristics. Her greater trochanter, however, was clearly derived, being short and human-like rather taller than the femoral head. The length ratio of her humerus to femur was 84.6% compared to 71.8% for modern humans and 97.8% for common chimpanzees, indicating that either the arms of A. afarensis were beginning to shorten, the legs were beginning to lengthen, or both were occurring simultaneously. Lucy also had a lumbar curve, another indicator of habitual bipedalism. Lucy likely had non-pathological (physiologic) flat feet, not to be confused with pes planus, though other afarensis individuals appear to have had arched feet.

The big words are just the names of bones, you can look them up easily.

And now I think it's time to forget about Lucy (no matter how much God loved her) and go back to asking you to show some evidence for your claims about tissue fossilization.

originally posted by: LadyGreenEyes

The exhibit isn't correct, and they know it isn't correct. They simply want it to fit the prevailing incorrect theory, to mislead people.

Once again, please describe why YOU feel it doesn't fit otherwise you're just repeating your personal opinion as you will not support your statements with citation or anecdote. Why is that?

The pelvis doesn't look like ours at all, no more than does that of a chimp.

Perhaps I could gift you an appointment with my optometrist? This is where we get into that whole pesky intermediate/transitional fossil that creationists always get a stick in their bum about because it isn't 100% like that of modern humans. It is however actually far more like ours than a chimps pelvis. Like us, the pelvis of A. Afarensis has a shorter vertical measurement and a bowl shape to it which along with the angle at which the femur attached makes the anatomy ideal for bipedal walking. The longer vertical measurement and shallower femoral angle of the chimps is an indicator of quadrapedalism. The Australopithecine pelvis was the pelvis of an upright walking hominid.

The foot bone is a single bone, not a whole foot, and drawing a human-like foot around it assumes too much.

The arch in that one metatarsal will be just as evident in the others. You do not need the entire foot to infer that the foot was arched. Te evidence was right there whether you accept it or not.

The prints don't belong to the ape Lucy.

Which ape did they belong to then? Which other apes lived in that tea 3.5 MYA?

They assumed wrongly that they did. The evidence doesn't support that.

Since you are the one making the claim why do you continuously refuse to support your statements? One link to outdated information that's only relevance was to your personal inclination just doesn't cut it. WHY doesn't the evidence support it? It's your statement so please explain it.

Science means you have to let go of an idea when it's shown to be wrong.

Then why are you holding on so tightly?

originally posted by: LadyGreenEyes
So, they were caught in a mud flow, but then swept to colder water, yet were somehow still in the mud? That explanation isn't logical. Again, we need more study to find one that actually fits, and explains why this very rare thing happens. Does scientific study bother you for some reason?

Actually, it is perfectly logical as we see underwater mudslides today.

Here, educate yourself and stop being such a plonker.

originally posted by: Barcs
So your rant about scientists' egos and science experiments swept under the rug was perfectly valid, yet when I question your claims, I'm the one who is off topic? Several links have been provided explaining how it can happen. Repeating "how can it happen?" over and over when several explanations have already been given is a bit silly.

My statement about the egos of scientists wasn't a rant; it was a simple acknowledgment of fact. That's just how things are. The explanations given aren't very likely. Hence, my statement that more research is needed. What is it about research that so bothers you?

a reply to: Astyanax

So, no matter how much evidence shows this to be an ape, they still insist on the ancestor label? Wow....and you claim scientists aren't stubborn. Lucy was a knuckle-walking ape, and that's proven. Claiming that other factors negate the admitted knuckle-walking is proof of my statement that scientists can't stand being told they were wrong.

Have to say, i appreciate your proving my point so well.

a reply to: peter vlar

It doesn't fit because it shows "Lucy" to be more human-like than the evidence indicates. They KNOW it's wrong, but wont' correct it. Bruce Carr, a director of education at the zoo, stated -

We cannot be updating every exhibit based on every new piece of evidence. What we look at is the overall exhibit and the impression it creates. We think that the overall impression this exhibit creates is correct.

In other words, no matter the evidence, they will present a known lie.

That bone wasn't arched. Looked pretty straight, about like all the apes I have seen.

The prints belonged to people, normal people, just like us. That is obvious from simple examination.

Believe the admitted misrepresentation of you want. You have every right to be wrong.

originally posted by: Astyanax
Lady Green Eyes cannot sustain his claims regarding fossil tissue preservation, so he (or she, perhaps) has resorted to a typically duplicitious creationist tactic, and trailed a red herring across the thread to draw the discussion on to ground he is more comfortable with.

Get a clue. "LadyGreenEyes" is female. Some of us don't have a problem using pronouns properly. Address me as female when talking about me to others.

As for the rest of your claim; It's admitted that Lucy is misrepresented, yet you cling to the lies. I guess the truth is too much for you to handle.

a reply to: stumason

Underwater mudslides with no bacteria present? No, we don't. Conveniently "forgetting" about some of the problem doesn't make it go away. Bacteria would be present, and would eat away the soft tissues.

Again, why are so many of you against further research into a very rare and unexplained phenomenon? Guesses are not proof. I'd prefer some research and actual data, over speculation. You know, what real science demands.

originally posted by: LadyGreenEyes
My statement about the egos of scientists wasn't a rant; it was a simple acknowledgment of fact. That's just how things are. The explanations given aren't very likely. Hence, my statement that more research is needed. What is it about research that so bothers you?

The ego is a HUMAN trait, not a scientist trait. People have big egos in all walks of life, from religious zealots, to hardcore scientists, to musicians, to wall street brokers. You haven't backed up your statement about egos in science overriding facts, so calling it a fact is simply not true. That is your opinion, and I love research, hence why I have actually researched evolution and learned how stupid it is to deny. 15 years ago I had a similar outlook as you, the whole "evolution is just a theory" BS, but as soon as I started reading about evolution from unbiased sources, I realized that it's silly to deny. Right now it seems like the only person with an ego problem is you, because you refuse to accept solid verified science.

So, no matter how much evidence shows this to be an ape, they still insist on the ancestor label? Wow....and you claim scientists aren't stubborn. Lucy was a knuckle-walking ape, and that's proven. Claiming that other factors negate the admitted knuckle-walking is proof of my statement that scientists can't stand being told they were wrong.

Your dishonesty is unreal. Did you not read THIS POST or THIS POST? It really cracks me up when folks just blatantly ignore evidence when posted. Please address it in detail, or don't bother arguing. You are just intentionally ignoring any evidence posted and think your opinion is absolute, yet have the nerve to accuse SCIENTISTS that do this for a living of having big egos. What is wrong with research? Why ignore the FACT that humans ARE apes, that has been stated numerous times? You need to take a basic biology course or something. Saying a creature is an ape rather than a human is ignorance at the highest level. It's not either or. Learn your classifications. Learn the basics of biology and then MAYBE you can present some science that supports your side. Your preaching and slander of scientists has no bearing on evolution or reality. Present something tangible.

originally posted by: LadyGreenEyes
a reply to: peter vlar

It doesn't fit because it shows "Lucy" to be more human-like than the evidence indicates. They KNOW it's wrong, but wont' correct it. Bruce Carr, a director of education at the zoo, stated -

We cannot be updating every exhibit based on every new piece of evidence. What we look at is the overall exhibit and the impression it creates. We think that the overall impression this exhibit creates is correct.

In other words, no matter the evidence, they will present a known lie.

No, that is presented in YOUR words. To put it in other words, once an institution spends millions to have an installation built it isn't always cost effective or feasible to spend millions more to alter it every time new data is extrapolated. The point of the museum is to spark some interest in science in its visitors. If you want to ostracize every museum fr having an incorrectly presented exhibit I think we would have very few museums open in the world. As long as the museum lights that spark that gets someone to do some reading and look farther into an aspect of science that interests them, to me that's far more important than having a couple of minor design flaws. By the way you still haven't said what YOU think is wrong with the Lucy Exhibit except to say that THEY know it is wrong so it can't fit. That's a steaming pile of poo you've laid like an aster egg and it stinks to high heaven. Ill just keep waiting in case you ever formulate an answer.

That bone wasn't arched. Looked pretty straight, about like all the apes I have seen.

No, you must not have looked at the picture or taken the time to look into it any farther because it is definitely arched. Since humans are apes, I'm encouraged that your reasoning is starting to sign slinky with current evolutionary models by accepting that the arched bone is like that of other apes.

The prints belonged to people, normal people, just like us. That is obvious from simple examination.

I didn't realize you had been to east Africa and personally examined the prints.that's really cool. Did you take any pictures while you we there? What dig season did you go over?

Oh wait..you meant from the pictures didn't you? I like how I included contour maps of the impressions in an above post that show quite definitively that whoever those feet belonged to may have feet that looked like ours, they didn't walk Quite like us. But then why let a little evidence get in the way of some good old fashioned ignorance when its clearly serving of so well.

Thank you for playing along, I rather enjoy reading someone's vitriolic defense of their positions when the entire support structure rests on blanket statements and rewording of your statements to make them kind of sound like they could be facts but support them with no facts or citations. Well done. Ill bet there's an estate communion wafer in it for you this Sunday too.

Believe the admitted misrepresentation of you want. You have every right to be wrong.

Thank you. I've been waiting a loooonnngggg time for someone to give me permission to read on my own, do the requisite research and come to logical, evidence based conclusions. Ill start tomorrow.

originally posted by: rickymouse

Anything that goes against conscensus of the time is usually discounted, that is not real science.

I wonder if that is because we are supposed to remember the intelligent level of the masses for that time frame. One day we look back in history and say we had cell phones we could clone animals but we didn't have the intelligence to cure diseases. Although we synthetically created them in laboratories.

originally posted by: LadyGreenEyes
a reply to: stumason

Underwater mudslides with no bacteria present? No, we don't. Conveniently "forgetting" about some of the problem doesn't make it go away. Bacteria would be present, and would eat away the soft tissues.

Again, why are so many of you against further research into a very rare and unexplained phenomenon? Guesses are not proof. I'd prefer some research and actual data, over speculation. You know, what real science demands.

Even if bacteria were present, that doesn't necessarily mean they would decay as you(or anyone in general) think they would. Experiments have proven rapid fossilization of soft tissue is, while rather infrequent, a natural process.

In decay experiments using modern shrimp, amorphous calcium phosphate preserved cellular details of muscle as well as bacteria. The source of phosphate was the decaying carcass of the shrimp itself. The experimental fossilization proceeded in an environment closed to additional oxygen. The pH began at 8, dropped to between 6 and 7 after three days, then recovered to near 8 within four weeks. Mineralization of the soft tissue began less than two weeks after the start of the experiment and continued to progress throughout the experiment. In the Santana Formation the apatite, precipitating in anoxic and acidic conditions, must have begun to preserve the fish gills within five hours of the fish’s death.

Evidently bacteria play a major role in the precipitation of apatite. The microbes’ metabolic activity increases the phosphate ion concentration and decreases the pH in the immediate vicinity. If there are also calcium ions in solution, apatite can precipitate if the pH is not too acidic. This fossilization process is referred to as phosphatization. It is often restricted to one area of a carcass. The first tissues that decay supply the phosphate ions which later precipitate as apatite in another area of the carcass. This seems to have happened in some clams that died with their shells tightly closed from being buried alive in sediment.25 The microbe-infested belly of the clam metabolizes first. The phosphate ion concentrations build up and subsequently mineralize the muscle of the clam before the muscle totally decays.

Emphasis mine. Bolded statements depict a very similar burial method.

source - D.E.G. Briggs and A.J. Kear, “Fossilization of Soft Tissue in the Laboratory,” Science 259 (1993):1439–1442.


And even though there seems to be some tension between the two sides, rapid fossilization actually fits well with theology in general. It demonstrates that a large amount of time is not required for fossilization. YEC's in particular love to cite these fossil records as evidence for a young earth.

And while I am a "creationist"(in the simplest of terms), I don't support any of these views. Rapid fossilization does not support any young earth theory. Nor does it support the contrary theory(just to be crystal clear)....

A2D

a reply to: LadyGreenEyes

Do you know what these are?


Pretty, aren't they?

They're polished coprolites. See, in some cases you can polish a turd.

If these can fossilize, why can't soft tissues?

"LadyGreenEyes" is female.

Yes, but are you?

a reply to: LadyGreenEyes

I never said there weren't "bacteria present in underwater mudslides". What I did say was the creatures were pushed into deeper, colder, anoxic water by the mudslide - my point being that without oxygen and in much lower temperatures, bacteria actually will be greatly slowed if not stopped altogether. You then disputed underwater mudslides even happen and when provided with clear evidence they do, your pissing in the wind..