More Complete than Lucy

Fascinatin' stuff, EB . . . thanks for the link . . .

My uncle Bob is a perfect example of a Neanderthal.

I put the thread here in hopes the looney toons would not see it.

Looking forward to the Nature article. Would love to know more about the animal forms found along side her, too.

Amazing stuff.

It fills me with awe that these doors to the far distant past are being opened to us.

Same here.

And it makes me wonder, with current technology and burial rituals, what will they know about us 3 million years from now?

(or maybe a thousand if we don't ruin the world before that.)

(bookmark)

Australopithecus afarensis, which was bibedal, three(?) year old girl, 3.3million BP..

That's basically a monkey skull. Monkey skulls show a wide amount of variation and some have teeth not horribly different from ours, i.e. not all have pronounced canines.

Other than that, Lucy is basically a very flagrant case of fraud.

http://shop5.gospelcom.net/epages/AIGUS.storefront/449565c1087bc346271d45579e7906f6/Product/View/30&2D9&2D026



This little video was shown at the apologetics group at the McLean Bible Church recently the effect on viewers was rather striking.

Lucy is the 40% more-or-less complete australopithicus skeleton which is commonly presented as a missing link of sorts, and the thought processes behind the manner in which reconstructions of lucy are presented indicates a mindset in which, at every juncture at which reality clashes with ideology, it is reality which simply gets tossed.

Lucy's actual remains did not included hands or feet and reconstructions are commonly presented with human or near-human hands and feet despite the fact that other skeletons of the same creature have hands and feet which are clearly those of an ape, with curved fingers for moving about in trees. Mary Leakey in fact had found clear tracks of human footprints in the same strata and location as Lucy's remains and the assumption is that at least one australopithicus MUST have had human feet.

Asked whether a better explanation would be that the tracks were simply produced by humans, Leakey and others replied that was impossible since the tracks were millions of years old.

The obvious explanation of course is that a human made the footprints and "Lucy" was simply that human's pet monkey.

The story actually gets better (much better) from there if you can believe that, with evolutionists claiming that a deer or other animal trampled "Lucy"'s hips and pelvis, breaking them into pieces, and that the pieces congealed by chances into the conformation of those of an ape, and deriving the true picture of Lucy's hips and pelvis by making a plaster cast, breaking it up with a saw, and then rearranging the pieces into a more human conformation.

For anybody willing to part with the twelve dollars, this little documentary offers an astonishing glimpse into the mindset of the evolution true believer.

David Menton earned a Ph.D. in cell biology from Brown University. He served as a biomedical research technician at Mayo Clinic and then as an associate professor of anatomy at Washington University School of Medicine (St Louis). For almost two decades he has been profiled in American Men and Women of Science?-A Biographical Directory of Today's Leaders in Physical, Biological and Related Sciences. Dr. Menton has lectured throughout the United States and Canada on the creation-evolution controversy.

C.S. Lewis is famously quoted to the effect that "Above all, the devil cannot tolerate being mocked", and the scene in this film in which the evolutionites attempt to redo Lucy's pelvis with implements of destruction generally has people rolling in the aisles. Good medecine.

I was rather wishing the ones who speak from lunacy would stay away from this thread.

Here's the basic reality of hominids for anybody interested.

Basically, you have neanderthals, which are not horribly different in appearance from modern humans, and then you have every other sort of hominids which are.

Neanderthals were always presented as the last step prior to us in the human evolution process, but there was a big problem in the lack of any evidence of crossbreeding despite the two groups (us and them) having lived in close proximity for long periods. In order to be descended from something via evolution, at some point, you have to be able to interbreed with the something.

And then the results of DNA testing for neanderthal remains started coming in in the late 90s. That solved the mystery. Neanderthal DNA was found to be about halfway between ours and that of a chimpanzee; we could no more interbreed with neanderthals than we could with horses.

The claim of evolutionites since then has been that both we and the neanderthal are descended from some previous hominid.

That's basically idiotic. That is like claiming that dogs cannot be descended from wolves, therefore they must be descended directly from fish.

Modern man is totally unrelated to all apes and hominids. The neanderthal may be a proto-human lord of some previous creation, or one of the odd characters alluded to in the bible and midrashim here and there, but the meaningful question is not so much what the neanderthal was but what he wasn't; he was not any sort of a friend of Chuck Darwin's.

You have three rational possibilities regarding modern man and where he came from:

• Modern man was created here from scratch recently as per the Bible and other ancient literature.
  
• Modern man was imported from elsewhere in the cosmos.
  
• Modern man was genetically re-engineered from neanderthals or other hominids.
  

Modern man having evolved is not an option.

Basic reality: Your little dream world in which evo-losers can brainwash the people of the world from infancy and all doubters are silenced by social pressure and legal action is crumbling and will be gone in a few years.

Any science theory with the problems evolution has would have been abandoned 70 years ago. Evolution is not about science. Nobody defends any sort of a science theory the way evolution is defended, i.e. to the last man, at all costs, and the truth be damned. Only religions and lifestyles are defended like that.

My question to evolution true believers is this: What part of this fab lifestyle do you figure you're going to be able to take with you?

I cannot control who posts on a thread. I can, however, scroll instead of reading.

scroll without reading?....... what?

http://www.asu.edu/clas/iho/lucy.html


Lucy: FAQ

A comment which had its origins in the "bad old days" at the "knowledge site" Abuzz. Originally a part of Boston.com, it was bought by the New York Times, which then decided it was not worth any expense, so they dumped all but two or three employees. With no moderation at all, it quickly became a haunt for all sorts of trolls and flame-warriors. Many of the people there openly advised one another to ignore the trolls, and to scroll past their posts (you know, the scroll-wheel in the middle of the mouse?). So, if someone was behaving in a trollish fashion, others would post: "SCROLL, SCROLL," to warn other members that the member who was flaming others was a troll, and should be ignored.

When you see a Gunga Din post, DP, the best adivce is: scroll, scroll.

I had all that set but thanks anyway.

My aussie sense of humour not coming through in typewritten form.

Was there a trogungall posting on this thread? ohhhhhh i must've missed that somehow......

:wink:

Naw, i was just airing a hypothetical . . . pay no attention to the man behind the curtain . . .