The offending text (humansarefree.com/2013/12/9-sc…)
Evolutionists are going ape over "Ape-Girl"
if by "going ape" you mean acknowledging that the Australopithecus afarensis specimen AL 288-1 (Lucy/Dinkinesh) is a bipedal hominid then yes we are "going ape"?
(there is no such word as evolutionist by the way)
The fossilized bones of a new animal have been found in Ethiopia near the site where "Lucy" was discovered many years ago
and this is? (Side note: further down I realized He was taking about DIK-1/1 (Selam)
By the way, Lucy was a monkey, not an early humanoid. The number of bones of the Ape-girl skeleton are unique because Lucy had only a few head fragments.
Yes and so are you, but I don't see how having few head fragments remaining is "unique" many fossils in this area of the word from this time period are poorly preserved compared to some.
This find gives us a lot of information about the animal because major parts of the skeleton were unearthed (assuming these are all from the same animal).
Yes the most interesting part of the specimen is its pelvis which I have addressed in a previous entry. and when multiple highly similar bones are in the same layer and and very close in proximity and show now signs of being disturbed then assuming otherwise would be daft.
It has teeth in the jaw and is said to also have unerupted teeth still within the jaw. The evolutionists call the animal a "human-like" female child about three years of age and an "individual." This is not a "human-like" fossil. It is an "ape-like" fossil because it was an ape.
Saying "It's not a human it's an ape" is like saying "That's not a car its a Toyota".
The evolutionists call the animal a "transitional species" and a human ancestor even though it has a head exactly like a modern-day ape. The jaw is thrust forward and the forehead pushed back and slanted. The true appearance is more easily seen from side picture below.
This is very deceptive, you ignore the variation in ape skull shapes (including your own) and that we know for a fact that this is an Australopithecus afanesis and even without the skull it is undeniably so. but he ignores this because that would cast quite a bit of shade on his already shaky argument.
Ape-girl also has arms "that dangled down to just above the knees. It also had gorilla-like shoulder blades which suggest it could have been skilled at swinging through trees."
(Du na na na na na na na, Na na na na na na na na na Ape Girl!) A. afarensis was semi-arboreal and had many nonhuman traits, hence Australopithecus afarensis and not Homo afarensis, also it it funny how you only point out the traits that support your argument and nothing else, because 'science can be fully trusted, until it contradicts my preconceived beliefs that is.'
So, it looks like an ape, it has a head like an ape, it has arms like an ape, it has shoulder blades like an ape - It is obviously an ape, not a human, pre-human or humanoid. This animal is simply a young ape. Its size is as would be expected for a young modern-day ape.
Yes they are.
The age of this fossilized animal is also very much in doubt. Scientists many years ago claimed a tooth found was Nebraska Man, a pre-human fossil millions of years old. They determined the age of the tooth. The scientists had sculptured an entire ape-like skeleton from information they found in one tooth. These lies were exposed when real scientists found the tooth to be from a peccary, an animal similar to (and closely related to) pigs.
I really don't get this game of Chinese whispers that you creationists are playing with the whole "Nebraska man" thing, literally everyone and their parrot has talked about this (come to think of it I might have in a previous entry) so I won't waste my time or yours.
'Lucy's baby' found in Ethiopia - BBC News - September 21, 2006
"The 3.3-million-year-old fossilised remains of a human-like child have been unearthed in Ethiopia's Dikika region. The find consists of the whole skull, the entire torso, and important parts of the upper and lower limbs. CT scans reveal unerupted teeth still in the jaw, a detail that makes scientists think the individual may have been about three years old when she died."Remarkably, some quite delicate bones not normally preserved in the fossilisation process are also present, such as the hyoid, or tongue, bone. The hyoid bone reflects how the voice box is built and perhaps what sounds a species can produce.
Judging by how well it was preserved, the skeleton may have come from a body that was quickly buried by sediment in a flood, the researchers said.
"In my opinion, afarensis is a very good transitional species for what was before four million years ago and what came after three million years," Dr Alemseged told BBC science correspondent Pallab Ghosh. [The species had] a mixture of ape-like and human-like features. This puts afarensis in a special position to play a pivotal role in the story of what we are and where we come from."
The news is literally the worst source of information you could go to but in this case ok.
"This early ancestor possessed primitive teeth and a small brain but it stood upright and walked on two feet. There is considerable argument about whether the Dikika girl could also climb trees like an ape.
This climbing ability would require anatomical equipment like long arms, and the 'Lucy' species had arms that dangled down to just above the knees. It also had gorilla-like shoulder blades which suggest it could have been skilled at swinging through trees. But the question is whether such features indicate climbing ability or are just 'evolutionary baggage'."
Evolution is in trouble. The growth of biological knowledge is producing scientific facts that contradict the evolutionary theory, not confirm it, a fact that famous Prof. Steven Jay Gould of Harvard has described as "the trade secret of paleontology."
No it doesn't, none of this contradicts anything we already know, and also you are completely misrepresenting Prof.Gould's views a better quote would be:
"The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology. The evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and nodes of their branches; the rest is inference, however reasonable, not the evidence of fossils. Yet Darwin was so wedded to gradualism that he wagered his entire theory on a denial of this literal record:Darwin's argument still persists as the favored escape of most paleontologists from the embarrassment of a record that seems to show so little of evolution [directly]. In exposing its cultural and methodological roots, I wish in no way to impugn the potential validity of gradualism (for all general views have similar roots). I only wish to point out that it is never "seen" in the rocks. Paleontologists have paid an exorbitant price for Darwin's argument. We fancy ourselves as the only true students of life's history, yet to preserve our favored account of evolution by natural selection we view our data as so bad that we never see the very process we profess to study. For several years, Niles Eldredge of the American Museum of Natural History and I have been advocating a resolution to this uncomfortable paradox. We believe that Huxley was right in his warning . The modern theory of evolution does not require gradual change. In fact, the operation of Darwinian processes should yield exactly what we see in the fossil record. [It is gradualism we should reject, not Darwinism.]"
(the words in square brackets were added after) this is a criticism of gradualism, and a very valid criticism of what most now consider an outdated view. tweaking to already evidenced ideas will always happen as we learn more that is how learning works.
The fossil record simply does not support the evolutionary theory, which claims there once existed a series of successive forms leading to the present-day organism. The theory states that infinitesimal changes within each generation evolve into a new species, but the scientific fact remains. They don't.
Yes it does, you know what it doesn't support, your magic sky-daddy Abracadabra'ing everything into existence all at once.