Talk:Lucy (Australopithecus)/Archive 2

Lucy - Speculation

Almost all of a creatures biology is found in its soft tissue - bones do not tell a story other than "it lived" and "it died". Any thoughts about how those bones moved or looked with skin on are speculation, not fact. Do those bones (found scattered, not together) really all go together? In that particular arrangement? If so, you can only guess at what the creature was, if it was an abnormal specimen, if it was afflicted by disease or deformation, dwarfism, giantism, premature aging, etc... They are just bones. We can't know if "Lucy" had (or could have been capable of having, due to age, defect, or lack of a mate) offspring. I think the article might be a bit biased towards the beliefs of the people who put the bones together. This article should be approached with the scrutiny it deserves.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.232.152.191 (talk • contribs) 16:50, 5 July 2007

Your ignorance of anthropology and forensic science is not a sound basis for "speculation" about scrutiny of the article. .. dave souza, talk 17:35, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Dave, you are both right but looking from two points of view. I'll suggest a third. Many areas of 'settled' science are nonetheless surrounded by controversy ('attacked') by various groups. This controversy, whatever you thinks of its merit, it per se interesting from a sociological point of view. Since Lucy, deservedly or not, is embroiled in that argument, the Wikipedia seems incomplete without reference to it. On the other hand, the argument is not about Lucy specifically, but about some well known issues of the 'art' aspect of physical anthropology. My suggestion is to Add a section called 'controversies' and provide a description of challanges particular to Lucy and perhaps links to other pages that discuss the broad issues brought up by our anonymous friend regarding the broader challenges of interpretation faced by scientists in the field.--72.196.196.207 (talk) 22:45, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I think these would fall under WP:Fringe and so should be excluded. Can you supply sources that suggest otherwise? GameKeeper (talk) 23:58, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

wrong data

I've came this wiki page to get some ideas for a paper i am wrtting up on this particular find... it has alot of mistakes, it also speaks largely about certain fetures which were not found in association with Lucy but other Australopithecus afarensis finds. This article should probably focus only on the significance of Lucy, and her fossil material, not on general knowledge found from all Australopithecus afarensis finds. Also citations are missing from the Notable characteristics section, and some of that info is not very good. If anyone cares to fix it I'd suggest looking at some primary sources. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.179.253.44 (talk) 21:21, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Dates of exhibit

The Houston Museum website http://www.hmns.org/exhibits/special_exhibits/lucy.asp?r=1 currently says the exhibit in Houston will go through April 27, 2008, not April 20. Scott Tillinghast, Houston TX (talk) 05:22, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

BIASED

this article is BIASED. there is no talk of intelligent design or desputes AND NO WHERE DOES IT SAY LUCY IS A FAKE!!!!! no where is there any mention of lucy being a fraud. someone change this please! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.249.135.22 (talk) 02:15, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Dear anon, I hesitate to tell you this, but unfortunately sometimes verifiable reality is biased. Particularly against fraudsters like the "intelligent design" cdesign proponentsists. Not sure about these desputes, any relation to Despute Dawg? . . dave souza, talk 08:15, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

What makes this human?

What exactly makes this skeleton more "human" than monkey? 65.101.237.204 (talk) 15:52, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

The creature who possessed this skeleton was more closely related to a modern day homo sapiens than a monkey, just as you are more closely related to your mother than your cousin. GameKeeper (talk) 18:41, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Well said. A longer answer.... The article notes "Lucy was only 1.1 m (3 feet 8 inches) tall, weighed 29 kilograms (65 lb) and looked somewhat like a Common Chimpanzee, but although the creature had a small brain, the pelvis and leg bones were almost identical in function with those of modern humans, showing with certainty that these hominids had walked erect." A Chimpanzee is more like a human than a monkey is, and indeed is the closest of the apes to humans. The implication of Lucy walking upright is that she was probably on the branch that led from a common ancestor with chimpanzees off towards humans, and from analysis it has been thought that her species Australopithecus afarensis was ancestral to both the genus Australopithecus and the genus Homo, which includes the modern human species, Homo sapiens. An alternative analysis suggests the species may have belonged to the robust australopithecines branch of the hominid evolutionary tree and so not a direct ancestor of man. The articles will give you a bit more detail. . . dave souza, talk 18:56, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Secular dispute?

I know some secular scientists have "proved" that Lucy is a "fake" made out of a chimpanzee. Should we make a controversy section? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.166.140.94 (talk) 03:37, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Your "knowledge" is inadmissable original research and such alleged proof has to be verified from reliable sources, then presented if at all without giving undue weight to fringe viewpoints. Which your assertion looks like. . dave souza, talk 09:18, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Which museum?

"The museum is making arrangements for the exhibits to be shown" -> not clear which museum is "the museum": Smithsonian, Cleveland, Houston, et cetera. SalineBrain (talk) 06:31, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Move over 2001

Subsequent fossil discoveries have also placed doubt on the placement of Lucy in the evolutionary tree. < ref>http://www.tri-cityherald.com/1211/story/136462.html</ ref> cites an AP news item from 2001 titled Move over 'Lucy': Fossil may redefine human evolutionary tree about a skull identified by Meave Leakey. If we show anything, we need to refer to the Nature article and subsequent findings rather than this old news item. . dave souza, talk 17:33, 28 October 2008 (UTC)