>> If the claim is sustained, then it is evidence that Darwinist
>> preconceptions have clouded scientists' minds for twenty years.
>> It is the assumed dimorphism to explain Lucy's small size. As I said, it
>> turns Lucy from a "ladder" into a "bush".
Not at all. Lucy was identified as a female from the day she was found,
*before* the other larger afarensis fossils from Hadar were found.
Johanson implies in "Lucy" that this identification was on the basis of
her pelvis. Even if the size was also a factor, it's not because
Darwinism "clouded scientists' minds". Most primates have smaller
females, so if a fossil is small compared to other similar fossils (the
other australopithecines that were then known), it makes sense to assume
that it is probably female, *even under a creationist framework*.
Some scientists have always thought that Lucy was a bush (i.e. that the
Hadar fossils belong to two separate species). Whether they are one or
two species will be decided based on the evidence. Either view is
compatible with evolution.
>> OK. Thanks for this insight about "mirror-imaging". But arguably this
>> only makes it worse for evolution. The greater the evidence, the more
>> likely they should have got it right.
As they quite probably did. The new claim is by no means proved.
>> Thanks for this info. It may now be that Lucy was just an ape, after
>> all and nothing to do with human evolution?
Except that the pelvis is surprisingly humanlike (if you want to check,
see "Lucy's child" for a photo of the pelvises of a chimp, human and
Lucy). The teeth of A.afarensis are also somewhat humanlike (less so
than those of A.africanus, but quite a bit more so than those of chimps.
See "Lucy" for pictures). Doesn't that sound like a "transitional
form"?
-- Jim Foley Symbios Logic, Fort Collins, COJim.Foley@symbios.com (303) 223-5100 x9765 I've got a plan so cunning you could put a tail on it and call it a weasel. -- Edmund Blackadder