• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

3.3 million-year old girl child discovered

kolanuraven

Well-known member
I was gonna post this but knew ' they'd' crawl all over me. So, R2 I'm glad you posted it.

I've been talking to some of my ' scientist' friends and they are soooo excited about this.

Now, the name calling will begin!!!!

P.S. " Lucy" was found by Donald Johansen and they were listening to the Beatles song " Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds" @ base camp.
 

andybob

Well-known member
I thought Mary Leaky was credited with finding 'Lucy", when we are able to DNA test remains this old,I thinkwe will find they were unique creatures, now extinct, that are in no way related to Humans.
 

kolanuraven

Well-known member
Leaky's have found australopithecus skeletons in the Oldavi Gorge area and they are at work there still to this day.

This Austro. skeleton was found in the Afar region of Ethiopia thus the last part of the name.

Lucy was found by Donald Johansen, if I remember correctly some time in the mid 70's, in some ancient lake sediments. So the thinking was that Lucy had died near a lake shore.

I've seen Lucy and it's amazing when you take your time and look at her and compare it side by side to a present day human skeleton!
 

Jassy

Well-known member
This is such a interesting story to me...I just can't make my brain understand the 3 millon yr old age...It's hard to fathom. I know nothin of science in this field, but on a different note, I enjoy visitng the Mammoth Site in Hot SPrings SD, and seeing all they have uncovered. Been there several times and each time they have discovered more remains. Thanks for postin this story..I'm going to try and keep up on "Lucy Baby"...
 

Red Robin

Well-known member
All of the expected Darwinian players were present. The BBC News report proclaimed: “‘Lucy’s Baby’ Found in Ethiopia—The 3.3 million-year-old fossilized remains of a human-like child have been unearthed in Ethiopia’s Dikika region” (see “‘Lucy’s Baby’...,” 2006). James Owen, staff writer for National Geographic declared: “The world’s oldest known child has been discovered in East Africa in an area known appropriately as the Cradle of Humanity” (2006). He further speculated: “The new find may even trump the superstar fossil of the same species: ‘Lucy,’ a 3.2-million-year-old adult female discovered nearby in 1974 that reshaped theories of human evolution” (2006). Kate Wong wrote a piece that appeared on-line in Scientific American, in which she noted that it took “Alemseged [Zeresenay, lead researcher—BH] five years to remove enough of the cementlike matrix to expose the key elements...,” but she continued “till, the specimen has already yielded precious insights into a species that most researchers agree gave rise to our own genus, Homo” (Wong, 2006).

Once again the mainstream media served up their usual hype and propaganda in support of the evolutionary theory of the origin of mankind. Almost without fail, every few months society can expect to be besieged with headlines declaring the “latest and greatest” missing link. Scientists who continue to publicize the evolutionary mantra can be expected to give their spin on what the latest fossil discovery means to science and mankind in general. For instance, in a “News & Views” article titled “A Precious Little Bundle,” George Washington University anthropologist Bernard Wood observed: “The three-million-year old skeleton of a three-year-old child provides an outstanding resource to understand the development of a human ancestor that seems to have both walked upright and climbed through trees” (2006, 443:278). Headlines and catchy slogans are easy to formulate, but what is the truth about this latest find?

The latest find is a juvenile creature discovered in Dikika, Ethiopia. The fossil was dated as part of the strata layers in the Hadar Formation by assumptions of Arg-Arg dating (a method which is based on several unprovable assumptions—see Snelling, 1999). While evolutionists are “sure” this creature is 3.3 million years old, they are left to speculate as to the actual age of the creature. As Alemseged and his team admitted: “So, for now, the chronological age of the Dikika infant must remain an informed guess” (Wood, 2006, 443:279, emp. added). The primary find, a skull, has been designated DIK-1-1. This skull was discovered in December 2000, and over the next three years, fossilized bone fragments from the ribs, phalanges, tibia, femur, foot, patella, and the humerus were found. Now, five years later, after picking bone fragments away from sandstone, the discovery has been published. Consider the following admissions made in the discussion of this latest “missing link.”

Brain Volume of DIK-1-1
Brain volumes can prove useful for comparing different species. The authors stated: “Using regression equations, the EV (endocranial volume—BH) of DIK-1-1 was estimated as 275 to 330cm3. This is not unlike the volume evident in P. troglodytes (chimpanzee—BH) of a comparable dental age of three years” (Alemseged, et al., 2006, 443:297, emp. added). Wood observed: “When adjusted for its body size, the brain of A. afarensis is not much larger than that of a chimpanzee” (2006, 443:278). From the anatomy of the brain cavity, it appears that the brain volume of this creature is similar to that found in chimpanzees.

The Hyoid Bone
The hyoid bone is a free-floating bone that helps expand the airway. Alemseged and his colleagues observed: “The find includes many previously unknown skeletal elements from the Pliocene hominin record, including a hyoid bone that has a typical African ape morphology” (443:296, emp. added). Commenting on this structure the research team continued: “It is most similar to that of juvenile African apes, and unlike that of modern humans” (Alemseged, et al., 2006, 443:298, emp. added). In the discussion of the original research paper, Alemseged and his colleagues noted: “Its similarities with Pan and Gorilla hyoids suggest that the bulla-shaped body is the primitive condition for African apes...” (443:300). The hyoid bone of the Dikika find appears to be ape-like rather than human.

The Scapula and Glenoid Fossa
In the abstract of their research, Alemseged, et al., discussed “the gorilla-like scapula” (443:296, emp. added). They continued:

The shape of the scapula resembles the scapulae of juvenile and adult gorillas. In contrast, modern humans at a similar age have a wider infraspinous fossa and a more laterally facing glenoid fossa, with a correspondingly horizontal spine orientation, whereas chimpanzees tend to have a narrower infraspinous fossa and a more superiorly facing glenoid fossa with a corresponding spine orientation.... Nevertheless, comparing supraspinous and infraspinous fossa breadths still groups DIK-1-1 more closely with gorilla than with modern humans (443:299, emp. added).

They continued: “Now that the scapula of this species can be examined in full for the first time, it is unexpected to find the strongest similarities with Gorilla, an animal in which weight-bearing and terrestrial knuckle-walking predominantly characterize locomotor use of the forelimbs” (443:300, emp. added). Regarding the scapula of DIK-1-1, Bernard Wood remarked, “The shoulder-bone (scapula) of the fossil is more like that of a gorilla than a modern human” (443:279, emp. added, parenthetical item in orig.).

Additionally, Alemseged and his colleagues noted: “If functionally relevant, the glenoid fossa orientation in DIK-1-1 could also point to frequent use of the arms above the head, and the activity with which this would be most consistent is climbing” (443:300). The scapula and glenoid fossa of this creature resemble a gorilla and were made to bear weight for a creature that walked on its knuckles and climbed in trees.

Bones of the Hand
Additionally, in the abstract, Alemseged and his colleagues recognized that the “long and curved manual phalanges raise new questions about the importance of aboreal behavior in the A. afarensis locomotor repertoire” (443:296). Just like a chimpanzee, “...the manual phalanges are curved and long” (443:299). As Bernard Wood noted: “...the bones of the only complete finger are curved like those of a chimpanzee. Chimpanzee finger bones begin life only slightly curved, but become more curved when the hands are used to climb branches; this is what seems to have happened in the case of the Dikika infant” (443:279, emp. added).

Ironically, this same characteristic was discovered in the famed “Lucy.” Johanson and his coworkers admitted in the March 31, 1994 issue of Nature that Lucy possessed chimp-proportioned arm bones (see Kimbel, et al., 1994) and that her alleged descendants (e.g., A. africanus and H. habilis) had ape-like limb proportions as well—which is a clear indication that she did not evolve into something “more human.” Moreover, there also is a mountain of evidence that demonstrates Lucy was better adapted for swinging through the trees, like modern-day chimps. After thoroughly examining A. afarensis fossils, Stern and Susman noted: “It is demonstrated that A. afarensis possessed anatomic characteristics that indicate a significant adaptation for movement in the trees” (1983, 60:280). DIK-1-1, like Lucy, possesses definite ape-like structures. The bones of the hand indicate this creature was aboreal, clinging to trees—not an upright walking creature as would be expected if this was a transitional creature.

Semicircular Canals of the Ears
Furthermore, the semicircular canals of the ears provide insight as to how this creature moved around. If this creature was upright and biped like humans we would expect the semicircular canals of DIK-1-1 to be similar to that found in humans. However, Alemseged and his colleagues noted: “One further clue in this context is that the semicircular system in DIK-1-1 is similar to that of African ape and A. africanus. (443:300, emp. added). Wood observed: “Lastly, images of the inner ear of the specimen show it to have semicircular canals more like those of chimpanzees than of modern humans” (2006, 443:279, emp. added). The semicircular canals provide evidence that this creature was more like a chimpanzee than a human.

Pelvis and Lower Extremities
Unfortunately, not much can be gained from the pelvis or lower extremities, as much of it is missing. The research team noted: “Some parts of the specimen—the pelvis, the lowest part of the back and parts of the limbs—are still missing, but what is preserved is remarkably complete” (Wood, 2006, 443:278). This aspect provides no support that this creature was on its way to becoming human.

Teeth
Because DIK-1-1 was a juvenile, not as much can be discerned from its teeth. However, in discussing the teeth, Wood observed: “The best match is with three-year-old chimpanzees” (p. 279, emp. added). Patricia White noted that University of Pittsburgh professor Jeffery Schwartz believes not only that is the specimen “not from Ethiopia” but also that the “classification is premature” (2006). She continued:

“Since the chewing surfaces of the Dikika child’s teeth have not yet been exposed, one cannot compare it with any of the Hadar specimens or with the type specimen of A. afarensis from Laetoli,” Schwartz explained. “Until this can be done, one cannot tell whether the Dikika child really is the first specimen of Ethiopian A. afarensis or, if not, whether it compares favorably with one of the hominids from Hadar or it represents a different taxon altogether” (White, 2006).

Wood said it best—the best match is with a three-year old chimp. We can’t argue with that.

CONCLUSION
The media proved once again that they are less concerned with the truth than with eagerly supporting the humanistic and atheistic views espoused by Neo-Darwinians. An unbiased analysis of the anatomy of this creature clearly demonstrates that greater care should be given when reporting to the public. To assign this creature as a “missing link” or “Lucy’s Baby” is misleading, when the evidence points more towards this creature being simply an ape (probably chimpanzee). If the evolutionary ages had not been previously assigned to the Hadar region, this creature would have been quickly identified as a knuckle-walking ape. The semicircular canals demonstrate this creature was not a biped, and the remaining anatomical findings argue strongly that the latest “missing link” is still missing.
 

peg4x4

Well-known member
read where most if not all the child skulls(fossels)found had predator marks,some from a huge eagle,some leopard---so,if you wern't a good protective mom,you didn't get to pass any genes along..
 

Aaron

Well-known member
Red Robin said:
peg4x4 said:
some from a huge eagle,some leopard---
How would they know what made the marks Peg? Do you remember? Seems odd that they could tell that.

Diameter of tooth, spacing of teeth, type of tooth (based on tooth layer ridges/immediate force indentation) would be used to determine what type of animal made the marks. Eagle would be difficult, but any cat marks would be easy. Also the depth of the marks provides an general idea of jaw pressure.
 

Red Robin

Well-known member
Aaron said:
Red Robin said:
peg4x4 said:
some from a huge eagle,some leopard---
How would they know what made the marks Peg? Do you remember? Seems odd that they could tell that.

Diameter of tooth, spacing of teeth, type of tooth (based on tooth layer ridges/immediate force indentation) would be used to determine what type of animal made the marks. Eagle would be difficult, but any cat marks would be easy. Also the depth of the marks provides an general idea of jaw pressure.
From (so they say) 3.3 million years ago?
 

Aaron

Well-known member
Using the first diagram as a template for all cat species, we can then look at each species individually.

Cat.gif


The leopard (#1) and cheetah (#2) teeth alignments could be mistaken to be the same to the untrained eye. Even if we did, we could make conclusions that the teeth did belong to some cat species of mid-size.

The leopard has a greater jaw surface area than that of the cheetah. They also possess a sizable gap between the canine and the first pre-molar. The first pre-molar is not only longer, but wider as well. The first pre-molar in the cheetah is barely visible as a speck behind the canine. The bottom canines are longer and straighter in the leopard than in the cheetah. There is also noticeable differences in the incisors, with the cheetahs being incredibly small and thin compared to the leopards. Sorry I didn't add a picture of the incisors, as I didn't want to bog down the thread with a lot of pictures. Basically, the two species jaws are designed for different roles. The leopard jaw and teeth have evolved for intense crushing pressure (with heavier, straighter teeth that are closer to the skull). The cheetah has smaller, thinner (ie razor edge teeth) that are closer to the outside, which results in less jaw pressure, but is more efficient in catching (with outwardly curved bottom canines) and cutting their prey.

With the Lion, the difference in size of the teeth is enough to set it apart from the other two species. Their are other morphological differences in the teeth set in the lion compared to the other two, but I am too lazy to go into depth when teeth size is enough to set them apart.

LEOPARD
leoprad.jpg


CHEETAH
cheetahm.jpg


AFRICAN LION
bc-72-lg.jpg
 

Red Robin

Well-known member
Thanks for the info Aaron. I'm not sure I'm convinced those marks would be evident for 3.3 million years but I'm not trying to dispute you. Thanks for the info.
 

peg4x4

Well-known member
Thanks ...Holes on the skull stay in the skull..the eagle was kin to one in the Phillipens(sp) That one can go thro a 2/4board with it's hind claw..the prehistoric one was bigger..
 
Top