We came down from the trees and over millions of years developed into a modern technologically advanced civilization capable of reaching out to the stars.. It's almost too fanciful to believe, and perhaps even reasonably questioned outside the body of evidence that we indeed rose to the dominate species on the planet. And yet despite the mountain of evidence, the human genome project, our homology, physiology, and the fossil record, there remain those who care little about evidence and more about what they want to believe. Especially when such profound realities contradict their deeply held ancient mythological beliefs that some magic being, through incantations, spoke everything into existence as is. They have become a movement of anti-intellectualism, pseudoscience cranks, and sadly victimized children brainwashed into dishonest ideological beliefs that tell them that they are to be insulted by being classified as a primate hominid. Yes the Narcissism and fantasy thoughts that they are above and separate from the animal kingdom they are actually a part of runs insanely deep. And yet despite their ignorance, they are still primates. Through such denial, they argue against the evidence, and demand we present an infinitely endless number of missing links they will never acknowledge. Oh yes, the age old Creationist argument that if Evolutionists can bring forth a missing transitional link of a half human and half ape like creature, they would still never admit to evolution despite when such demanding evidence is in turn presented. These demands disingenuously having been made prior to recent discoveries of hominids bridging the gap between man and his ape ancestry are demands they never planned to accept if met, or believed would ever be met or come to fruition. I think however the intellectual integrity of the average Creationist seems to be, from my experience, entirely non-existent..., always resting their arguments on talking points, quote mined science, dogma, conspiracy theories, and their typical assortment of formal and informal fallacies. I say this not as an ad-hominem, but as an observation of the experiences I have had thus far. At times this is woeful ignorance, and at other times it seems to be of genuine ignorance. Though however the case may be, we will be exploring this problem in review of LUCY, a small bipedal primate with the anatomical traits and homology of modern Homo Sapiens. What I hope to accomplish here is providing you, a fellow Viner, or common observer passing through, important knowledge about our ancestry, evolution, and an awareness of how Creationists distort the facts and truths concerning evolutionary theory. One of these truths often ignored is our Homology with other primates. Though I must say it goes much deeper than this, I will for the purpose of this article focus on our relationship with lucy and early primates. Thus feel free to take a moment to study, compare, and evaluate our traits, physiology, anatomy, and anatomical characteristics in the following presented diagram before moving along. Thus do you think we are of the primate family? :
For some that is a difficult question to answer, but to any common observer, I imagine one can look at just the homology between themselves and other hominids and conclusively conclude we are all primates. I would arguably even say without even needing to get into the human Genome project, a project to which has removed any rational doubt that we are classified as primates. Though amazingly enough, I would often get the argument that such morphological changes are impossible despite me asking how they can explain the morphological divergence between the skull of a wolf and a Bull dog, as within contrast to the morphological differences between Australopithecus and our modern Homo-Sapien as demonstrated below:
Is it really that far fetched and difficult to imagine? Well, I would dare say a Creationist would claim the bull dog never had evolved from wolves should they have found, hypothetically, a wolf's fossilized skull and remains as an extinct common ancestor of the Bull Dog. Such morphology is impossible they say, or that it's micro-evolution and cosmetic. And thus they will demand evidence of millions of transitional stages to which we all know do not exist. This being of course due to the fact that even small microscopic changes in a genome can in fact result in macro-scale morphological changes in a species, or in cases of speciation. Hence gene expression plays a much larger roll than they are willing to admit since they still believe modern evolutionary synthesis and theory is stuck in the Darwinian era before the discovery of DNA, or the establishment of modern genetics for that matter. The changes we see between the wolf and the bull dog are no more drastic in scope than the changes we see between our early primate ancestors and ourselves. Morphological speaking of course since we have since genetically speciated from our primate cousins of the monkeys and the great apes. This Homology is damning evidence that cannot simply just be ignored if we are to have any credulity, and it's not just with the skeletal structure as it is with how and where muscles and tendons are attached, these to which also give away the fact we have evolved from early primates. So in light of this, where does this claim of fraud come from concerning Lucy?, what was so controversial that Creationists cannot come to bare the reality that we have found the very missing link they said we would never find?. Well, when we trot on over to the Creation Institute's website, much of their main argument is spent focusing on Lucy's primate traits, these oddly to which we expected to find in the very missing link we are looking for. Hence somehow these traits they demand us to find in transition are now somehow an argument of rejecting the transitional missing link we have been tasked to find.. Denial is a pretty potent means to wave past admitting being proven wrong, after all they have a religious belief of Creationism to protect. Thus all transitional fossils will then be denied as such no matter how obvious, or how much evidence there is. What is worse is that they ignore the fact that Lucy wasn't the first of her species found, or the last to which invalidate many of their claims about the anatomical nature of Lucy. This includes spinal curvature and toe bones in which pretty much verify that her species was bipedal. However, the one thing the Creation institute doesn't talk about, this by intention of course, is dealing with Lucy's Pelvis in which had bloomed into a huge controversy Creationists were later embarrassingly debunked on. This very article I write here today stems from a discussion I had on "Debating Christianity" , this involving the reconstructions of Lucy's pelvis in where they claimed Lovejoy had fixed a crushed and compacted section of Lucy's Pelvis. According to Creationists, this was clearly an act of fraud, and therefore Lucy and all the specimens since collected confirming otherwise, are all magically fakes .. Furthermore, and to keep this article short as possible, I will be skipping over much of the arguments about how Lucy's skeleton was found as those rebuttals can be noted by clicking the link to read the whole discussion I had back in 2012. So the parts I am going to focus on here is dealing with Lucy's Pelvis and Bipedal nature in accordance to it. Thus to Start, the controversy:
This is the argument I see time and time again, and it is clear that none of these people have ever actually read into what reconstruction had been done, and why her hips could never have been anatomically like those of a chimp's.. Prior to moving forward with addressing this argument, I recommend reading the following papers and citations:
Now yes I know I am siting a blog from wordpress, but the burden of proof that this is accurate is cited in the published papers linked above. And in case those of you who might not be up for a bit of reading, I will address the issues highlighted regarding the reconstruction and anatomical issue of how and why we know Lucy's pelvis proves that her species was indeed bipedal. To start with, here is a video that explains in detail the reconstruction of Lucy's Pelvis as noted in the published paper "The natural history of human gait and posturePart 1. Spine and pelvis":
The video tells us exactly how and why it was done. There is no Fraud here, and is much to do why we don't see this issue discussed or addressed on the Creation Institute's website as it is a subject they rather not get into. Thus if Creationists don't understand bone fusion and what was corrected, then they can feel free to exit the discussion, or actually do some credible science in which they can actually get published in an accredited peer review journal. They know Lucy was bipedal just by looking at the original pelvis. They know it just by the shape of the sacrum because even their own Creationist Matthew Murdock in the 2006 Creationist pseudoscience Journal of Creation could not reasonably refute Lovejoy's reconstruction, or the facts involved regarding anatomical nature of the Pelvis. :
It is pretty brutal when Creationists repeat a long since gutted talking point to which had been ripped apart by one of their very own dishonest pseudo-scientists. who of course Ironically goes on to claim, despite the evidence, that Lucy has no connection to hominid evolution. This under the assertion, as cited, that they were simply just "made for walking" rather than acknowledging and addressing the obvious homology, anatomical, and physiological evidence in regards to homo sapiens. Essentially Matthew Murdock is using apologetics in the realm of science as an out for what is exactly what they demanded that we must find. Apologetics is both pseudoscience and theology, usually as invented interpretations devoid of evidence, or extracted out of context in woeful ignorance of the evidence to the contrary of their assertions. Furthermore, and in addressing the anatomical position of the pelvis to the sacrum, one of the key issues in resolving this problem is knowing that in order to be anatomically correct, the pubic rami needs to connect.. So the proper position, or anatomically correct position must have the pubic superior (right) and inferior (Left) rami connecting.. You can see this in the following presented video and images below:
Professor Kirkpatrick presents the bones of the pelvis in a two part series.
The video and images not only show you the characteristic differences, but also show you the correct anatomical position of the pelvis to the sacrum. They further show how the femur ball joint goes into the ball socket. It would thus be anatomically impossible for Lucy to have been anything like that of a chimpanzee, and therefore Lucy was indeed Bipedal. It's an inarguable fact! Furthermore, We don't even need the femur to determine this, we only really needed to look at the ball socket itself to make this determination, and to determine that the Creationist claims of fraud are thoroughly rebuked, gutted, and placed into fossilized extinction.