You are arguing that Australopithecus, the entire genus as a whole, resembles more modern chimpanzees than humans. The takeaway being that these fossils are nothing more than just an extinct variety of chimpanzees and irrelevant to human evolution. Your base assumption that there are similarities between chimpanzees and Australopithecus is perfectly fine. In fact, there are even a bunch of similarities between modern humans and modern chimpanzees. Australopithecus being different however in that it has a more recent common ancestor with the chimpanzees and the lineage they are derived from. The stronger similarity between Australopithecus and chimpanzees than from humans and chimpanzees is that humans have spent millions of years longer diverging away from the common ancestor with chimpanzees.
But it isn’t as your implying that there aren’t stark similarities between Australopithecus Afarensis and modern humans. Similarities shared with modern humans and not with other great apes. This also includes (counter to what you were describing), bipedalism.
Latimer B1,
Ohman JC,
Lovejoy CO. “Talocrural joint in African hominoids: implications for Australopithecus afarensis” American Journal of Physical Anthropology 74:155-175 (1987)
“Our review of the anatomical features of the hominoid talocrural joint demonstrates the changes that occurred in the adaptive transition to habitual bipedalism. We have further shown that these anatomical and functional adaptation had clearly taken place in the early hominid lineage by the appearance of the Pliocene hominid species. A. afarensis. Thus, despite the pongidlike appearance of some isolated traits, the total functional pattern of the proximal ankle joint in A. afarensis was fully adapted to a bipedalism equivalent to that of Homo sapiens.”
the sexual dimorphism of Australopithecus was more similar with humans than other great apes:
Philip L. Reno, Richard S. Meindl, Melanie A. McCollum, and C. Owen Lovejoy "Sexual dimorphism in Australopithecus afarensis was similar to that of modern humans" NATL ACAD SCIENCES 100, 9404-9409
“Extensive simulations using modern humans, chimpanzees, and gorillas confirm that this technique is accurate and that skeletal size dimorphism in A. afarensis was most similar to that of contemporary Homo sapiens”
The bones used in this experiment were those from both male and female Australopithecus Afarensis, modern humans, gorillas and chimpanzees. Bones like the distal humerus, proximal radius/ulna, proximal femur, distal tibia/fibula and other bones found in both male and female A.Afarensis.
Similarities like the ribs, arm bones and spine of humans and afarensis:
Yohannes Haile-Selassie,b,c,1, Bruce M. Latimera,b,c, Mulugeta Alened , Alan L. Deinoe , Luis Giberte , Stephanie M. Melillof , Beverly Z. Saylorg , Gary R. Scotte , and C. Owen Lovejoy “An early Australopithecus afarensis postcranium from Woranso-Mille, Ethiopia” Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2010 Jul 6;107(27):12121-6
“The “bar–glenoid” angle has been used to orient the glenoid plane in A.L. 288–1 (29), but the specimen’s small size may have had scaling effects (30, 31), an observation supported by the fact that its bar–glenoid angle can be matched exactly by comparably sized humans”
“The ulnar tuberosity is well preserved and is most similar to those of humans”
“Even lower limb length, as now evidenced by KSD-VP-1/1, no longer remains an argument against “human-like” bipedal kinematics in Au. afarensis (58), because the distribution of relative lower limb length/relative forelimb size appears to have overlapped substantially with that of Homo. Moreover, judged in this manner, relative hindlimb length is likely to have been even more Homo-like than exhibited in Fig. 5, because the modern human forelimb (and thereby forelimb joint size) has been reduced substantially since Au. afarensis (42)”
That last point is especially important as it was one of Oxnard’s original arguments.
Sarmiento EE. 1996. Quadrupedalism in the hominid lineage: 11 years after. Am J Phys Anthropol Suppl 22:208
“There is no real dispute that A. afarensis progressed bipedally when on the ground”
Your text from Oxnard is arguing that A. afarensis has a skull and teeth that are primitive as compared to both A. africanus and H. habilis, whereas its limb proportions are more human-like. This article is arguing that this species was a physical intermediary between chimpanzees and humans also sharing a common ancestor with both. He’s using a taxonomic model which recognizes Australopithecus as being from the genus Paranthropus. Even other proponents of that model suggest that a subsection of these Paranthropus gave rise to the genus homo. For example, Australopithecus garhi from Asfaw et. al (2004) "Australopithecus garhi: A New Species of Early Hominid from Ethiopia"
Also that book you gave by Solly Zuckerman, Beyond The Ivory Tower was published in 1970. The first bones for Australopithecus afarensis was in 1974.
Looking more at your responses I’m noticing a pattern between your responses and the ones found on this website:
http://www.darwinismrefuted.com/origin_of_man_02.html http://www.darwinismrefuted.com/embryology_02.html
The same sources, pictures, and even writing style: “The whole assumption is quite unscientific, and is based entirely on insufficient knowledge” You seem to have added “idiotic” on your own though.
Also, how do you fit all of this in your time frame? Did Adam live among Australopithecus Afarensis? 3 million years ago? Even if we’re using the Oxnard model with a different genus Praeanthropus for afarensis there’s still a genus homo that had to have lived concurrently with the praenthropus. Oxnard is proposing a homo erectus-like ancestor in his article. Isn’t it strange that we have to wait millions of years before finding any of Adam’s children’s remains?
