Talk:Australopithecus afarensis

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is part of WikiProject Ethiopia, an attempt to co-ordinate articles related to Ethiopia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale.
Mid This article is rated as being of medium importance.
WikiProject Primates Australopithecus afarensis is part of WikiProject Primates, an attempt at creating a standardized, informative, comprehensive and easy-to-use primate resource. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit this article, or visit the project page for more information.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

Contents

[edit] plain english

you have reverted to an earlier version and removed a lot of information recently added.

Why cant you write this in plain english? phrases like

'Further finds at Afar, including the many hominid bones in "site 333", produced more bones of concurrent date, and led to Johanson and White's eventual argument that the Koobi Fora hominids were concurrent with the Afar hominids.'

is pompous and difficult to understand. Better to write

' Johanson and White found further bones dated around the same time as the previous finds at 'Site 333', and they now believe that the hominids at Koobi Fari were alive the same time as the Afar hominids'

If your going to write science, you need to write it in a way that the average person can understand. peppering the text with long latinised words and obscure grammar just drives people away from reading the rest and is elitist. Please write in plain english for the average person. Dont dumb it down, just dont use 20 long latin words when 5 anglo-saxon ones say the same thing.

Please sign your comments with ~~~~ So that everyone knows who you are. As you can see by the edit diff, I did not touch the paragraph you are complaining about. What I did do was remove or modify language that repeats already given informaiton or that talks directly to the reader. This isn't a science magazine, this is an encyclopedia. - UtherSRG 12:32, Mar 7, 2005 (UTC)

Thats as may be, but you still need to make it readable. The sort of person that looks this sort of articlein an encyclopedia may not have a scientific background. No point in an encyclopedia if no one reads it cos its unitelligble to anyone with an IQ less than 150. Do we want to make wikpedia used by all or just by a few over educated elitist snobs ? Better that its read by all , surely!!! In which case, write plain english!!!

193.131.115.253


[edit] Good Pic of Afarensis Skeleton!!!

Please I advise no one else to change Lucy's skeleton pic, this one is better than that old foggy one before. I didn't place that pic but I thank the person who changed it.

that's my first picture to be placed in the wiki! took it on my trip to mexico, you're very welcome!!! :) --Danrha 17:24, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] subtitel of the first picture correct?

I was wondering whether the subtitle under the picture of the original remainings of Lucy is correct. How come that they are in Mexico, whereas the text states that they are preserved in Addis Abeba. The latter would be more comprehensible, since it was found in Ethopia. (A1977 20:19, 27 March 2006 (UTC))

I have investigated and i apologize for my mistake, the skeleton from the picture is a replica... although i was misinformed in the exposition. --Danrha 15:40, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Aramis, Ethiopia?

I was surprised to see this as a live link in the article because I've been working on Ethiopian geography articles, & I've never heard of this place before. So I assumed that I learned something new today, & followed the link. Which led me to an article about a fictional character from The Thee Musketeers -- but there was a link in that article to a disambiguation page, so I followed that one. Which did not include an "Aramis, Ethiopia".

Could the person responsible for that fact please check her/his notes & assure me that the link is spelled correctly (or close enough to how it sounds)? Once that is done, I could start the process of checking my notes & try to write an article for it. -- llywrch 22:35, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Do a Google search. It's legitimate. - UtherSRG (talk) 00:40, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Neutrality

Acording to the resources listed, nearly all of them come from people who very biased towards evolution. Evolution hasn't been proven, and intelligent design hasn't been disproven. I think it would be unfair to simply state all of this information as fact when it hasn't been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt. Many scientists still hold that this "missing link" is nothing more than an extinct form of primate, not a common ancestor for mankind. Wouldn't it do more justice to science to at least make a small note or something that the information in this page isn't accepted by all of the scientific community and give a brief description from a intelligent design perspective, or at least make a note that further testing is needed before it can be said with absolute certainty to be true?

I think it's standard practice for encyclopedia's to assume evolution is true. I believe this is done because articles are usually written by "experts" in that particular field. And the experts (biologists) believe that the evidence for evolution is more than adequate to merit general (if not universal and unequivocal) acceptance. Go figure. Miguel Chavez 20:19, 27 May 2006 (UTC))
The vast majority of scientists studying A. afarensis see the species as an ancestor of Homo spp. If you can provide legitimate, scholarly, peer-reviewed sources that show that some researchers disagree with this view, then perhaps those sources should be added, either to this article or to the transitional fossil article. I would argue, however, that the study of A. afarensis is something that can only be conducted using the scientific method, and since intelligent design inherently precludes the use of the scientific method, to discuss intelligent design on this page would be the equivalent of discussing scientific proof for the existence of Daffy Duck in that entry. QuinnHK 20:18, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
Science vs. the Scientific Method. Intelligent Design theory does not preclude the use of science. To say that it does would be equivalent to implying that scientists cannot through any means make any determination that anything was designed (light bulb, computer monitor, chair, etc.). Science is simply used to gain information. The interpretation of the data gained is another matter. As for the 'scientific method,' History in general does preclude the use of the scientific method, since the first step in the scientific method is the collection of data through observation. You cannot observe the past. This article is technically not neutral in that it heavily promotes one interpretation of the data, namely Darwinian evolutionary theory (example - "lived between 3.9 to 3 million years ago" -- that is an interpretation of the data based on the presupposition that the theory of Darwinian evolution is correct.) I'm not going to dwell on that issue; however, I agree that it would be nice to read some of the findings that tend to indicate that Australopithecus is most likely an extinct ape species. There are other scientists (evolutionary and otherwise) that hold that interpretation from various scientific findings. It would be nice to have them cited here as well. (I'll personally see what I can find on that issue, though my personal library is limited.) User:Hexc0de 01:52, 23 February 2007 (UTC).
Creationism-lite, or Intelligent Design, is poor science. And the only people who doubt evolution are people who don't like the idea that man descended from more primitive species. If Biblical Creationism is to be taught alongside evolution, then should Navajo Creationism, Islamic Creationism, Egyptian Creationism, Norse Creationism, etc. 199.76.152.229 02:43, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

"Australopithecus afarensis is an extinct hominid which lived between 3.9 and 2.9 million years ago." This is a statement of fact. A "fact" is a piece of knowledge which is undisputably proven to true through solid evidence (i.e. multiple witnesses, reliable contemporary documentation, objective analysis, etc.) Unless undisputable proof of a 3 million year old age can be found it's still "best guess." I have yet to find an objective analysis of the method used[1]. I haven't found one that doesn't either assume it is accurate or vise versa. At the minimum it is contraversial and as such it should be noted.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Historiocality (talk • contribs) 22:31, 6 July 2007

It is a matter of scientific fact, as defined by the overwhelming majority of the scientific community. It is subject to religious dispute involving pseudoscience. See NPOV: Pseudoscience, NPOV: Undue weight, NPOV: Making necessary assumptions and NPOV: Giving "equal validity". .. dave souza, talk 23:01, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Who discovered Lucy

Small technical point. Didn't Lucy catch Johanson's eye. His book Lucy portrays it that way, "I noticed something lying on the ground..." (p. 16) and I doubt they saw it at the same time. Also, his book says they discovered the fossil remains on Nov. 30th, not the 24th (p. 13). Am I missing something? Can anyone confirm or refute my understanding of the facts. This would be much appreciated. I am a stickler for the details, and it bothers me still when I hear that it was Louis that discovered Zinjanthropus. Miguel Chavez 20:13, 27 March 2006 (UTC))

[edit] Several changes

I have removed the reference to Lucy's discovery in the opening paragraph. The emphasis in the opening paragraph should be on the species that the article is about, not on a single discovery. It seems to me that the placement of importance on Lucy's discovery in the opening paragraph has only been done because this article is part of 'WikiProject Ethiopia'. Let's not bias our articles towards certain countries.

I removed a short sentence that tells us that Australopithecus afarensis belongs to the genus Australopithecus, which I think will be obvious to the reader.

'There are differing views on how Lucy or her ancestors first became bipedal full-time.' It is not universally agreed upon that A. afarensis did move on two legs all the time. Indeed, the article goes on to say 'In fact these hominines may have occasionally walked upright but still walked on all fours'. I have ammended this.

My 2004 copy of The Cambridge Encyclopedia of Human Evolution puts the known date of A. afarensis at >4 to 2.5 millions of years ago. This is somewhat different to 3.9 to 3 million years ago in this article. User:Paul_P —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.46.196.230 (talk • contribs) .

I agree about the emphasis on the species. I have been working on creating pages for major finds. Does anyone object to me breaking Lucy out onto her own page? I mean we have pages for Taung Child and Mrs. Ples. I think Lucy is just as deserving. And when we have individual pages for the finds, we can add a lot more detailed pictures and info about the fossil itself and why it is significant. Nowimnthing 23:40, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
I think you should go for it. User:Paul_P

[edit] Lucy's child

Cool story: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/5363328.stm

[edit] Aquatic Ape

The Aquatic Ape theory is pseudo-scientific nonsense and does not deserve an entire paragraph under Bipedalism. It should be entirely removed or significantly trimmed down. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 131.107.0.73 (talk • contribs) . - UtherSRG (talk) 03:16, 21 September 2006 (UTC)


[edit] More Changes

As referred to just above, I have removed reference to the Aquatic Ape theory (recently re-inserted). Whether a valid theory or not, it is not relevent to a specific entry on one particular hominin taxon such as A. afarensis. If it is to be discussed/debated, this should happen either on the Aquatic ape hypothesis page, or on more general pages on human origins. AAH enthusiasts, I request that you adhere to the spirit of this request and note that I have also removed general discussion of the savanna hypothesis from this entry as well (see bipedalism for further discussion). I feel that taxon specific pages should not discuss too deeply broader evolutionary theories, but should stay focussed on that taxon alone.

While keeping it impartial to the differing academic views on A. afarensis locomotion, I have tightened up the English in the bipedalism section, and added some information on shoulder joint orientation, and pelvic and lower limb morphology. I've edited and retitled the "brain size" section to reflect a short but more general section on craniodental morphology as well as brain size. I also changed the section on Social Behaviour, making it more reflective of the consensus view of this issue.Ucgaweh 04:23, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WikiProject Ethiopia

Now that the bulk of Lucy's discovery has been moved to a seperate page, can we remove this page from WikiProject Ethiopia? Paul P 14:13, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Shouldn't edit wikipedia while sleep-deprived.

I added a bit to the bipedalism section based on criticisms of the part-time arboreal hypothesis that I think ultimately go back to Owen Lovejoy. Unfortunately I have no citation beyond "I learned it my Paleontology class from a Lovejoy fan".

[edit] assumptions!

you authors of wikipedia are very bias! the earth has not been around for these millions of years, and you are incredibly derrogatory towards creationism. 64.6.121.48 21:04, 6 February 2007 (UTC)Courtney M.

I think current scientific thinking agrees with you. The Earth hasn't been around for millions of years but, billions.131.91.92.184 (talk) 22:41, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
Nope. No assumptions. Just good examination of the facts. - UtherSRG (talk) 23:13, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
I see nothing derogatory in the article; in fact the article doesn't mention creationism once. QuinnHK 20:07, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
I'm a creationist, and I also see no derision in this article. it does, however, promote one particular interpretation of the data, namely the Darwinian theory of evolution. Though, I can't agree with UtherSRG that there are no assumptions made. When dealing with the unobservable past, one has to make assumptions. Many assumptions are made here, as well as in many articles that deal with the remote past -- assumptions based on the presupposition that Darwinian evolution is true. A creationist working with the same data, can easily interpret the data to fit into the model of supernatural creation. The difference isn't the data. The difference stems from the interpretation of the data -- an interpretation which is influenced by your individually held world view. User:Hexc0de Friday, 2007-02-23 T 01:52 UTC.

See NPOV: Making necessary assumptions .. dave souza, talk 08:18, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ludwig Kohl-Larsen

What was wrong about my edits? Ludwig Kohl-Larsen really found a jaw of Australopithecus afarensis in 1934 in Laetoli. You have to read the German aricle about him. He discovered Australopithecus afarensis in Tanganyika. But he didn't know, how important that could be. His work is missing completely in this article. - Suedwester93 12:18, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Put the info in with good formatting, and in a good position. Most of what you added was already in the article. - UtherSRG (talk) 12:21, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
In addition, your English was incorrect, and your information was unsourced. - UtherSRG (talk) 12:25, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Reverted name of section to "Current Debate"

Contrary to Gamekeeper's last edit summary, the title "Current Debate" is clearer, and does not necessarily reflect any creationist bias. Scientists Yoel Rak, Avishag Ginzburg, and Eli Geffen are not "creationist" scientists.

Hi I don't think 'current debate' is a a good title as it does not give any information as to what the current debate is about. I prefer Lineage Question or even more simply Lineage , which should follow after the physical characteristics section as lineage arguments tend to rely on the physical characteristics. I would like to see the subject of Lineage expanded, as this is the reason for much interest in this topic.
On a separate note: the research referenced is used by a lot of creationist websites to cast doubt on evolutionist theories. Some misrepresent the data as showing that this is descended from Gorilla's which is not what the research shows, they also link this to Lucy whereas the jaw bone in question was not Lucy's. I don't think this research should be excluded because of its interest to creationist quite the contrary, as long as it is represented factually. GameKeeper 09:44, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
Thanks Dave for filling out the lineage section. I have altered it slightly as the paper here does not conclude that the Australopithecus afarensis could be a gorilla ancestor, just that the shape of the jaw had followed a path of Parallel evolution. This is a precursor to the evolution of the 'robust' brunch of the Hominina sub-tribe and as humans are part of the 'gracile' branch means that 'Australopithecus afarensis' is not a common ancestor of modern man. GameKeeper 16:57, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, that was something I'd picked up incorrectly in skim reading the same paper. It looks as though the jaw bone was from found near the first family site though found much later, and other fossils from various sites had similar morphology. Now what we need is more info on Ardipithecus ramidus, and probably a correction to the "Related work" section which says it was "contemporaneous with Australopithecus afarensis" – if I've read the paper correctly it was about a million years earlier, perhaps there was an overlap. Also, the Tim White article didn't seem to mention Lucy, must try to fix that sometime. .. dave souza, talk 19:05, 19 October 2007 (UTC) got mixed up, the original link to the comparison photos showed a First Family site fossil, the specimen discovered in 2002, A. L. 822-1 which closely matches that of the gorilla was found in the Unda Hadar, a tributary of the Awash River running parallel to the Kada Hadar, 2.5 km east of A. L. 288 (Lucy's site)... dave souza, talk 21:59, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
After thinking about this for a while I have removed the discussion of this from the summary as 1) This is primary source info 2) A single piece of evidence like this is not enough to be considered conclusive. 3) The conslusion of the paper just suggest this casts doubt, it certainly should not be seen as conclusive. ('casts doubt on the postulated role of Au. afarensis as the common ancestor of later hominins')

[edit] Forgery?

Some IDiots claim lucys hips etc have been altered, where does this come from? I assume there is no indication of it being true.--203.192.91.4 (talk) 13:36, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

See TalkOrigins Archive, [1] and [2] both mention hip and knee joints, and you can use the search function to find other articles about the subject. Thanks, .. dave souza, talk 15:06, 18 May 2008 (UTC)