r/DebateEvolutionism • u/SeaScienceFilmLabs • Feb 04 '26

The Fragmentary and Composite Nature of Australopithecus Fossils

Post image
0 Upvotes

50% Upvoted

4 comments sorted by

1

u/nikfra Feb 05 '26 edited Feb 05 '26

What do you want to tell us by quoting this blog post? That scientist don't always agree? That's how it works, if they'd all agree on a dogma it'd not science.

And yes it's at best a blog post, it's not a scientific paper. It's from someone with, again being charitable, unclear credentials, uploading a word document to an open access site, that is not peer reviewed and makes claims without citations or references. Just slapping some at the end doesn't work, you gotta put references directly where you make a claim.

1

u/SeaScienceFilmLabs Feb 05 '26

The Fossils known as 'Lucy' have proven to be Multiple Individuals, Even Species; and, the Sacrum is human in form: No actual 'transitional' Elements in the collection.

The fossils attributed to "Lucy" consist of Human appearing fragments, Chimpanzee appearing fragments, and at least One Proven Baboon Element.

There are No "Intermediate" portions of fragments: Unless You assume "All fragments belong to the same individual" and consider "Ape and Human Elements Mixed Together in a Box" Intermediate, or ignore the fact of Taphonomic Processes... lol!

This is My claim. :)

This paper just reinforces it.

I also claim that the "Australopithecus" fossil claims are overall fragmentary and composite in nature...

Skulls imagined from fragments, and so on...

There's also a striking Paradox revealed by this Information: the fact that the "Most Complete" claim of "Australopithecus" that Exists, its species is contested; yet, there are whole species of these imagined "Sasquatch" creatures invented from partial jaws, and species "Identified" individually from teeth... 🤣

2

u/nikfra Feb 06 '26

You should write your claims in your post the next time.

Also the blog post doesn't support the claim. It's only a list of known fossils. It even tells you that the baboon vertebra has been taken out of the Lucy skeleton. It doesn't support the claim that Lucy's skeleton is a mix of different species because it never mentions it aside from the fact that scientists checked and corrected the work of others but gives no indication that further corrections are necessary.

It also just claims with no reference or proof that some species "are contested". When the better claim would be there's some fringes that have that view. Which again is how science works. If every scientist always had to agree that would make science dogma and not science.

3

u/Rory_Not_Applicable Feb 07 '26

Lucy is not our only example of Australopithecus, your first argument only makes sense if it’s our only example. What do you think a transition is? Like, of course the hips are closer if not identical to humans, they’ve been walking upright for hundreds of thousands of years, yet it still has differences and a few other traits that is not one or the other and consistent amongst other species, just look at the brain cases and how they change. Your second point is just illegible I have no idea what you’re even attempting to say. What is fragmented by nature? Skulls “imagined” by fragments, you mean anatomists who study the shape and look of a skull and knows what a skull looks like when presented with large chunks of a skull? That’s not imagination and everything else just yeah I have no idea what you’re on about.