from:
Australopithecus | Characteristics & Facts
"
Australopithecus, (Latin: “southern ape”) (genus
Australopithecus), group of extinct
primates closely related to, if not actually ancestors of, modern
human beings and known from a series of
fossils found at numerous sites in eastern, north-central, and southern
Africa."
Let me help you see the key part of that post. "...known from a series of
fossils found at numerous sites...".
but none of those links have a more complete skeleton other than known ape/monkey ,,,the rest is speculation as to their future
so again no proof they gave birth to humans
So your problem with Lucy was not that she was called a new species. It was because they claim she
may be an ancestor of modern man?
Then, since we have no time machine, you can offer an opinion as to whether or not the claims are accurate. But you cannot call it an outright lie.
I dont recall call her a flat out lie, but to call her an ancestor of man is
you know you never told me how the media dig up a pigs tooth and made a full grown apeman out of it with nebraska man
And you never told me how kangaroos and sloths got on the Ark.
I never said a word about them,,,where as you made a direct claim on nebraska man
The fact remains that you expect me to answer your questions, while you refuse to answer mine.
But here, I'll help you out.
from:
"The existence of the
primate was proposed by Henry Fairfield Osborn in 1922 based on the analysis of a tooth discovered by a rancher named Harold Cook in Nebraska in 1917. Osborn strongly believed it to be the tooth of a primate and gave it the genus
Hesperopithecus which roughly translates as 'ape of the west'. He published his claim in
American Museum Novitates.
Now Osborn was a
paleontologist of some note — he was the first to identify both
Tyrannosaurus rex, and
Velociraptor — and was president of the American Museum of Natural History for 25 years (which, incidentally, was the publisher of the
American Museum Novitates journal).
Having said that, Osborn was also very keen on
eugenics, and among other things insisted that only the "negroid" race had descended from apes in Africa, whereas white people had evolved separately (and earlier). He even received an honorary doctorate from
Hitler for his work on eugenics.
[2]
So it is possible that Osborn had motivation to find evidence which supported his notion of an alternative evolutionary path for hominids. But regardless of Osborn's motives, his belief that he had found a primate tooth was not completely unreasonable.
[3] A fossil of an antelope had been discovered in North America only a few years earlier, and this made the notion of a primate journeying from Africa or Asia plausible. Furthermore as a result of weathering and damage, the tooth did bear a striking resemblance to known hominid teeth.
Prudence would have suggested the best course of action at that time would have been to conduct further investigation. Osborn, however, gave in to hubris and had casts made of the tooth and submitted them to 26 institutions in Europe and North America
. But the lack of corroborating evidence was a major issue, and for the most part, his discovery was ignored. One exception was the British anatomist Grafton Elliot Smith, who was so enthused he arranged for an artist to create a (fanciful) drawing of the new hominid.[3]
However, further investigation in 1925 at the site determined that the tooth was actually from a
peccary
(a pig-like mammal) and was not from a primate at all. Osborn did not mention the find in any of his writings after 1925. By 1927
Science magazine had published a formal retraction of the original claim.
[4]
And thus, the Nebraska Man was consigned to the reject bin of scientific history, along with the tens of thousands of other discarded
hypotheses that are a normal part of
scientificprogress."
