Australopithecus afarensis Scapular Ontogeny, Function, and

[marcsurtees]

Some more evidence consistent with the view that Australopithecus afarensis swung through the trees like an ape.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 150353.htm

[a_haworthroberts]

Glad you've found some tasty cherries, Marc.

You may wish to peruse the EvoAnth blog exchanges that I have posted in another thread at Free For All.

[Dr_GS_Hurd]

Right. Only apes can swing arm-over-arm.

[Brian Jordan]

And Marc's dramatic revelation comes with the news that all this happened three million years ago. I wonder which part of the article Marc would like to accept and which part he'd like to reject. Or would he not split the claims and is himself a splitter?

[cathy]

Some more evidence consistent with the view that Australopithecus afarensis swung through the trees like an ape.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 150353.htm

Marc can you explain what exactly your point is here? Evolution is a process of change not a cut and dried discreet all in one total change in body plan from one kind to another. Likewise changes in lifestyle.

So not all body parts will change at the same rate and at the same time. There is no reason why they should unless linked in some way. Likewise there is no reason why, after becoming bipedal, AA would totally abandon trees. AA are not humans they are something that is starting to evolve human like characteristics. In a piecemeal fashion. And the fact they could still swing through trees comfortably like an ape looks like more evidence of ape like ancestry (and I know humans are apes but for ease of writing I'll use Marcs definition).

And as gary has pointed out we still have a limited ability to swing on monkey bars even though no longer adapted to it like AA was. Rabbits can't, cats can't, horses cant'. My kids spent hours and hours literally on the monkey bars and climbing at the park. They were still bipeds.

You conveniently ignore other things in AA, like the pelvis which is not quite human but definitely not ape. Definitely more human and more bipedal then ape like. You ignore Knee joints, footprints that haven't the fully human high arches but are bipedal, evidence of stress in the wrist bones that seem to be part way between tree dwelling and human opposable thumb, evidence of a more prolonged childhood than other apes and so on and on and on and on. Why do you do that?

You can't point to just one thing and ignore all the others and claim that one thing means the others don't exist and aren't evidence that something is changing. You have to look at the whole picture and see what it shows. And you then have to look at AA in context as well. Before homo for example.

I repeat not everything will change at the same rate and same time. There is no reason AA shouldn't retain some of its ancestors ape like qualities nor lifestyles. You have to look at the whole picture and when you do you will see something in the process of changing. The you have to look at it in a wider context and see that later on more changes have occurred moving slowly towards the homo sapien end of the scale.

That is how science works.

So can you explain what your point is please cos I'm very confused and don't understand what you are getting at.

[Brian Jordan]

As Cathy says, Marc, changes in lifestyle occur gradually. As AA got steadily better at making beer, they got steadily drunker and fell out of the trees more often. Eventually they evolved not to allow children to get drunk and confined children to climbing to the park, sober, while the adults staggered around on the ground, occasionally propping themselves up with their knuckles to avoid falling over. There you have it: a perfect reason for starting to walk and not climb.

[cathy]

As AA got steadily better at making beer, they got steadily drunker and fell out of the trees more often. Eventually they evolved not to allow children to get drunk and confined children to climbing to the park, sober, while the adults staggered around on the ground, occasionally propping themselves up with their knuckles to avoid falling over. There you have it: a perfect reason for starting to walk and not climb.

Ah you witnessed us in the park then? Drunk in charge of pushchairs.

That was a joke in case Marc comes back - not the sorry, child neglecting result of the abandonment of all morals that comes with the acceptance of evidence for evolution.

[marcsurtees]

As Cathy says, Marc, changes in lifestyle occur gradually. As AA got steadily better at making beer, they got steadily drunker and fell out of the trees more often. Eventually they evolved not to allow children to get drunk and confined children to climbing to the park, sober, while the adults staggered around on the ground, occasionally propping themselves up with their knuckles to avoid falling over. There you have it: a perfect reason for starting to walk and not climb.

This is why BCSE will never be taken seriously. (and this is supposed to be the science only discussion board!)
I sometime wonder why I go to all the trouble engaging with you guys.... I should listen to Dawkins and not bother....

[Michael]

As Cathy says, Marc, changes in lifestyle occur gradually. As AA got steadily better at making beer, they got steadily drunker and fell out of the trees more often. Eventually they evolved not to allow children to get drunk and confined children to climbing to the park, sober, while the adults staggered around on the ground, occasionally propping themselves up with their knuckles to avoid falling over. There you have it: a perfect reason for starting to walk and not climb.

This is why BCSE will never be taken seriously. (and this is supposed to be the science only discussion board!)
I sometime wonder why I go to all the trouble engaging with you guys.... I should listen to Dawkins and not bother....

Marc

Brian's response was to highlight the nonsense of creationism. I do not know how you have the gall to come out with all your nonsense.

[Roger Stanyard]

As Cathy says, Marc, changes in lifestyle occur gradually. As AA got steadily better at making beer, they got steadily drunker and fell out of the trees more often. Eventually they evolved not to allow children to get drunk and confined children to climbing to the park, sober, while the adults staggered around on the ground, occasionally propping themselves up with their knuckles to avoid falling over. There you have it: a perfect reason for starting to walk and not climb.

This is why BCSE will never be taken seriously. (and this is supposed to be the science only discussion board!)
I sometime wonder why I go to all the trouble engaging with you guys.... I should listen to Dawkins and not bother....

Shrug.

Please do so.

While you're at it, let him know that you think lions used to run around eating turnips or some such.

[cathy]

This is why BCSE will never be taken seriously. (and this is supposed to be the science only discussion board!)

Marc why did you not read any of the serious responses or questions about your post?
The ones where you were asked serious questions like what about the other features of AA like its pelvis, evidence for prologed childhoods etc?
Why would you expect the scapula to change straight away just because the pelvis was changing, they're not linked in any way to my knowledge?
Why did you expect AA to totally abandon trees just because it had started walking upright?

Why have you ignored all the serious questions asking what point you were trying to make in your post Marc?

I sometime wonder why I go to all the trouble engaging with you guys.... I should listen to Dawkins and not bother....

My suspicion is because all your other friends are creationists but you aren't really stupid or egotistical enough to live totally without any intellectual stimualtion! I suspect its cos its the only place you can engage people in anything other than head nodding and total agreement!

And in light of that please address the serious points made.
So AA was still able to swing thu trees - why is that an issue and how does it change any of the other features?
What actual difference does it make to the evidence that they were also bipedal and therefore unlike other apes?
What point are you trying to make about AA in posting that?
How does it negate the whole theory of evolution, or cast doubt on anything when it would appear to fit the predictions of evolutionary theory.

NObody is arguing with the paper, but nobody can engage with you unless you state what point you are trying to make with it!!!!! Is it to state AA was just an ape not undergoing any evolutionary change?

As for Dawkins - creationists already have far more in common with him than they do with their fellow non creationist christians so I guess you already listen to him telling you how you should read the bible. Better an atheist with an specific agenda to rid the world of all religion than an educated christian who understands it in context like Michael.

You'd be a real hit on his site as an shining example of all that is bad with religion and why it should go! Which is the only thing creationism is ever likely to achieve.

[a_haworthroberts]

I've just posted a comment under this - awaiting moderation: http://evoanth.wordpress.com/2012/11/07 ... e-climber/

The comment reads:
"
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v4 ... 05047.html
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/338/6 ... c79e0983b2
Abstracts of two key scientific papers on 'Selam'.
(See also: viewtopic.php?f=5&t=3118
Marc Surtees is a YEC - he flagged this article http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 150353.htm - but it actually states ""When we compared Selam's scapula with adult members of Australopithecus afarensis, it was clear that the pattern of growth was more consistent with that of apes than humans." At the same time, most researchers agree that many traits of the A. afarensis hip bone, lower limb, and foot are unequivocally humanlike and adapted for upright walking." I think the evidence for bipedalism comes from other A. afarensis fossils other than Selam.)

You may wish to see item 1 of AiG's 'News to Note' for 17 November, entitled 'Lucy was a real swinger': http://www.answersingenesis.org/article ... e-11172012
I'm about to take a close look at it."

[a_haworthroberts]

Marc seems to have quit his own thread - but I suspect he still keeps an eye on it:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/article ... e-11172012 (item 1: 'Lucy was a real swinger')

My message to AiG (sent direct from within their website):

"The theory of evolution is not a 'lie' but an honest interpretation of evidence. However, Answers in Genesis MISREPRESENT the science in an attempt to DISCREDIT it.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/article ... e-11172012 (item 1)
You link to this: http://www.foxnews.com/science/2012/10/ ... rom-trees/
Note that the fossil specimen of A afarensis is 'Selam' and NOT 'Lucy'.
The article states: "Although Lucy and her kin were no knuckle-draggers, whether they also spent much of their time in trees was hotly debated" and also quotes a key scientist as saying "While bipedal like humans, A. afarensis was still a capable climber".

AiG's article - in support of its fraudulent depiction of 'Lucy' as a knuckle-walking extinct gorilla at the Creation Museum - is disgraceful cherry picking of evidence you like (whilst ignoring all other evidence).

Your PROBLEM is that A. afarensis had ape-like shoulder blades and human-like foot arches (it also lived around 3 million years' ago). Thus it SUPPORTS the PREDICTIONS of the theory of evolution - whilst undermining Mr Ham's absurd claims (based on a reference in 2 Thessalonians 2 in the pre-scientific Bible) that the whole theory is just a 'lie'.

"If Lucy and her cousins could be shown to have abandoned the trees, so much the better." It does not matter either way. Because YOU cannot show that the species was not bipedal. Except by ignoring the evidence for upright walking and deliberately depicting the species as a knuckle-walking ape in your so-called museum.

"What is clear, actually, is that the evolutionists have found additional anatomical evidence that Australopithecus afarensis was just an ape." No. YOU ARE A LIAR FOR JESUS. What about other partial specimens of the SAME species? Why are you ignoring these papers - despite all my messages bringing them to your attention: http://www.sciencemag.org/content/331/6018/750.abstract http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2010/ ... 7.abstract

"Nothing about the results screams “human” or “human-in-the-making” but only “ape.”" You are ignoring other results. You are a LIAR FOR JESUS.

"But if Lucy and Selam were not extinct, they’d just be another exhibit in the ape section of the zoo". WHY are they extinct?

Probably because the lived 3 million years ago - before Homo sapiens existed!

YOU ARE ALL FRAUDS FOR JESUS. You HATE science - because it frequently undermines your primitive, literalist beliefs. So you engage in distortions and propaganda.

By the way, Mr Benton DID reply to your previous article attacking his earlier blog: http://evoanth.wordpress.com/2012/10/29 ... evoanth-1/

You are also either doubly dishonest or doubly incompetent or both. THIS is the Abstract of the original science paper from back in 2006 about 'Selam' - which you agree is the SAME species as Lucy: http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v4 ... 05047.html
I quote: "The foot and other evidence from the lower limb provide clear evidence for bipedal locomotion, but the gorilla-like scapula and long and curved manual phalanges raise new questions about the importance of arboreal behaviour in the A. afarensis locomotor repertoire".

MORE CLEAR CONFIRMATION THAT THE EXHIBIT IN YOUR 'CREATION MUSEUM' IS A TOTAL FRAUD - YOU SHOULD BE DEPICTING A SPECIES THAT IS EITHER WALKING BIPEDALLY OR SWINGING THROUGH THE TREES. AND NOT A KNUCKLE-WALKING GORILLA.

I am posting all this on Mr Benton's most recent blog post on A afarensis dated 7 November and also at the British Centre for Science Education community forum. Thus, whilst not a blog, it will be in the public domain.

YOU WILL OF COURSE IGNORE ALL MY POINTS THOUGH."

[a_haworthroberts]

Message to AiG also added here (awaits moderation): http://evoanth.wordpress.com/2012/11/07 ... e-climber/

[Brian Jordan]

As Cathy says, Marc, changes in lifestyle occur gradually. As AA got steadily better at making beer, they got steadily drunker and fell out of the trees more often. Eventually they evolved not to allow children to get drunk and confined children to climbing to the park, sober, while the adults staggered around on the ground, occasionally propping themselves up with their knuckles to avoid falling over. There you have it: a perfect reason for starting to walk and not climb.

This is why BCSE will never be taken seriously. (and this is supposed to be the science only discussion board!)
I sometime wonder why I go to all the trouble engaging with you guys.... I should listen to Dawkins and not bother....

Lighten up, Marc! Do Scottish students not learn of the argument that the main differentiating factor between men and (other) apes is the ability to make alcohol? What dour places their union bars must be. if so!