Why Did Lucy's Pelvis Need to be Reconstructed?

Did evolutionists fraudulently change Lucy's hip to make it seem like she walked upright?

0:00 Intro
0:41 The Pelvis
1:28 NOVA
2:36 Creationist Response
4:15 Lucy's Damaged Pelvis
4:52 Wonky Hips
6:04 Fixing the Pelvis
7:01 Bring Out the Power Saw
7:57 I Fixed Her Hips
10:05 Conclusion

#humanevolution #creationism #australopithecus #fossildiscoveries #ancientmysteries

Image Credits:

Video Clips:

[tamjammy]

Ta Peter. Love the idea for the video . Never thought of doing it before but if I can I'm going to try n get hold of an unreconstructed (cheap😁) copy of Lucy's pelvis amd have a go myself.
Ps. Can i borrow your chaimsaw? 😁
Pps. Sorry that, from reading the comments section, it appears that neither believers nor non believers have a monopoly on unnecessarily offensive behaviour..

[MrDanAng]

3:21 Well... I absolutely think Lovejoy did great scientific work!
He restored the pelvis from being anatomically impossible for any style of locomotion to being consistent with the hip and knee morphology that suggested an upright walk.

And his work also hit two other major scientific hallmarks, repeatability, as we saw in this video, with a slightly different method, we got a very similar result, and predictive power, we have since then found a number of other pelvis bones, both from Afarensis and other Australipithicus species that all corroborate his work.

Although I don't agree with the conclusion, at least you don't paint yourself into a corner by denying the existence of ancient upright walking apes, which forces many creationists to deny both subsequent finds and even extant gibbons that obligatory walk upright on the ground.

[maninalift]

It's very nice to see a creationist who is willing to question some of the arguments on their own side.

It's odd that you say Lucy is one of evolutionists favourite examples. When i hear Lucy brought up by someone taking generally about evolution, it's generally a sign that they are a creationist.

[sandiec]

Hello Peter.. sorry I cant reply to replies, I seem to have upset the YT algorithms for some reason.
Thanks a lot those two papers will be very interesting, also cant wait to see your next Lucy video. It would be great to have you on the SFT channel for open mics and/or debates more often Peter. God bless you !

[imagomonkei]

That PBS documentary was the best gift that YECists could've asked for. I'm glad you produced this video. Hopefully some will change their minds.

[PowerScissor]

I like how the jacket just appears, and then disappears, with no mention at all.

Did you get a sudden chill, and then hot again? It's all I can think about. We need answers....then we can worry about Lucy.

[RickPayton-rd]

The knee joint of a human, walking upright, is different than an ape's, which is very inefficient for upright motion.
Lucy's knee is very human.

[ianchenofficial]

I really enjoyed this video. To see you reconstruct Lucy pelvis was very interesting. My only criticism is to try to avoid the creationists strawman in the language.

For example:

1) Humans are apes technically. But think you mean a more basal common ape ancestor. Rather than apes evolved into humans

2) the group of evolutionists. Implying it’s against religion. The majority of “evolutionists” have religious affiliations. It’s not a word synonymous to atheism as it seems to imply in the video.

[sandiec]

Peter even though you dont think evolutionists fraudulently changed Lucy's hip, do you agree that the parabolic jaw they gave her was deliberately misleading since the other australopiths' jaws are v shaped.

[psalmsofdavidking]

Years ago, when I was in school they taught us about a thing called the "scientific method" which was designed to avoid assumptions and eliminate the influence of coincidence, etc. If something couldn't be proven by actual first-hand experimentation, the scientific method couldn't determine anything to be fact. Yet, this video says some scientists accept as fact the reconstruction of the scientist who never saw first-hand what Lucy's pelvis originally looked. Seems to me, they changed their scientific method. Is that right?

[brunobastos]

you got some nerves we got more pelvis from Australopithecus that preserved the original shape

[ConservativeMirror]

I understand that there are multiple specimens of Australopithecus afarensis. What are the other pelvises like?

[caleblepore]

Lots of silly negative comments on here--thought I'd throw in a positive one. Your video was great, Peter! You demonstrate that being a creationist doesn't mean being dishonest with scientific data, contra what so many people think. We can honestly address the evidence and explain it within a creationist paradigm. Keep up the good work!

[LLPOF]

Excellent video. Still a lot of iffy stuff to me regarding reconstructing things in this manner but you did a good job of presenting it. I wouldn't hang my hat on this one way or the other though.

[anthonypolonkay]

While the quality of the video, and information is great, i am not sure that this really debunks the accusation that lucys pelvis was reconstructed to better fit the evolutionary narrative. Just because the pelvis was likly damaged prior to, or durring fossilization does not mean that the corrective measures taken to restore it were not done towards the aim of getting a more human like pelvis, and therefor hunan like stature/posture out of it.

It almost certiantly is the case that he did in fact do it with that aim in mind. To say he didnt is to suggest he had no preconceived notions of human evolution which is ofcourse nonsense, so even though it was likely not maliciously dirrected at the end of making her appear more human, it is almost definatlly what occured. To what degree may be debatable.

I understand that you are someone who wants to be completly honest with all data available, but in instances like this i think you give them to much leway in cases where ones bias would very obviously effect how they desired the reconstruction to turn out.

There is a difference in being honest with hard data, and pretending that someone whom interpreted said data had no biases that influenced it in circumstances that would allow for it.

The former is how one should be, but the later is a measure of naiveté that would only serve to hinder things.

Ofcourse the issue of bias applies to both sides, this just happens to be an instance where the evolutionary bias is the one that needs to be put in check, or more accurately should be acknowledged in the data.

Something like "this reconstruction from the original damage is towards the end of being more anatomically viable for upright walking posture"

That would be a fair, and honest presentation of what was done instead of pretending like we outright new what the pelvis was definatly supposed to look like before the damage, and that he just reconstructed it as such with no aim of validating, or fitting the evolutionary narrative he is convinced of.

[SwolllenGoat]

So, an honest creationist who simply doesnt accept the larger picture but is willing to accept the facts and not lie about Lucy or what the liars at AiG or Hovinds

OK

Baby steps I

[tsofimoan]

This is a particularly bizarre but intereting set of views to have I guess.

Sorta interested where you draw the line between so called "ape-man" and err well man. Are homo erectus just people or are they ape men, neaderthals?

Are early cromagnon "ape-men" or just people despite their more "archaic" brow ridges?

[walterhelm]

Good video Peter! What do you think about the hypothesis that Lucy died because she fell from a tree? If that really happened, could it explain her damaged pelvis?

[sandiec]

Hey Peter this video was so weird but not in a bad way... it's like you prove the evolutionists are right about Lucy and then say but evolution isnt true.. coz.... God's design is diverse. How to keep everyone happy ... by Paleologos 😁

[goyoelburro]

LOL This channel is hilarious 😂
Are you going to talk about how scientific christian mythology is? 🤣