What do u think?
Check This Out =
http://forerunner.com/forerunner/X0714_Lucy_fails_test.html
http://72.14.253.104/search?q=cache:VP__E8RZzrMJ:www.straight-talk.net/evolution/misslinks.htm+lucy+fossil+a+fraud+not+a+transitional+fossil&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=4&gl=us
http://www.changinglivesonline.org/evolution.html
(3 Different Websites)
2007-05-20 05:28:36 · 3 answers · asked by ♥...........♥ 5 in Science & Mathematics ➔ Biology
No, Lucy was a gifted movie and TV comedienne who married Desi Arnaz and had several successful sit-coms. Jeez, don't you ever watch television?
2007-05-22 08:44:49 · answer #1 · answered by andromedasview@sbcglobal.net 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Nice try, but the claim is false. All of your references are creationist websites and are inaccurate. I'm not even sure why you included the last one because it has no relevance to Lucy.
Read the link below. It describes how creationist Tom Willis accused Donald Johanson "of fraud claiming that the skeleton known as "Lucy" consisted of bones that had been found at two sites about 2.5 km (1.5 miles) apart. Willis had actually confused two separate finds which belong to the same species." So Willis was wrong, but the claim is used by creationists to show that (a) evolutionists are dishonest and (b) "Lucy" did not walk upright. It successfully shows neither of these things, because it is false. And yet, your link shows that creationists haven't stopped repeating it.
The real debate today is not whether Au. afarensis was bipedal or not. The shape and size of the pelvis and lower limb remains suggest that Au. afarensis was capable of walking bipedally but probably only for short distances. Instead, the debates are about whether Au. afarensis was also arboreal, and about how similar the biomechanics of her locomotion was to that of humans.
2007-05-20 06:14:35 · answer #2 · answered by Niotulove 6 · 3⤊ 1⤋
You should read a science book instead of looking at creationists' web sites.
I recommend "Climbing Mount Improbable" or "The Blind Watchmaker" by Richard Dawkins.
The fossil record is, of course, imcomplete since it is only rarely anything is preserved and ever rarer that the few things preserved are found.
Currently there is DNA research going on in the evolution field. It is filling in details, but more importantly confirming the overall theory of evolution.
Here's a book about current DNA research you should read: "The Making of the Fittest" by Sean Carroll.
The web sites you refer to are full of half truths and even those are being distorted.
2007-05-20 06:01:16 · answer #3 · answered by Joan H 6 · 3⤊ 1⤋