No More Love For Lucy?

No more love for Lucy?
Photo at left by David Menton, photo at right by David Green

The fragmentary nature of most specimens means that reconstructions often have to be largely speculative, i.e. guesswork, leaving free reign for evolutionary bias. Click for larger image
by Daniel Anderson

Published: 4 May 2007 (GMT+10)
Perhaps the most famous icon of human evolution in modern times may now have to be quietly discarded. For over the last thirty years, the supposedly 3.2 million year old Australopithecus afarensis specimen known as ‘Lucy’ has been boldly proclaimed as the ancestor of all humanity in magazines, television shows, books, newspapers, and museums. However, Tel Aviv University anthropologists have published a study casting serious doubt on Lucy’s role as mankind’s ape ancestor.1 based on a comparative analysis of jaw bones in living and extinct primates, researchers concluded that Lucy and members of her kind should be ‘placed as the beginning of the branch that evolved in parallel to ours.’ In other words, by evolutionary reasoning, Lucy should no longer be considered to be our direct ancestor. Lucy’s demise falsifies thirty-three years of evolutionary hyperbole and propaganda. Instead, her proper designation as an extinct non-human, the ancestor of other non-human primates, is completely consistent with the predictions of biblical creation.

Lucy in competing origins models
In the evolutionary model, Lucy was held up as the ideal transitional fossil between ape and man. Only 40% complete, anthropologists speculated that she was a fully bipedal creature possessing the perfect blend of ape-like and human-like anatomical features.2

In the biblical creation model, Lucy is considered an ancient type of ape whose kind was specially created by God on the sixth day of creation about 6,000 years ago. based on comprehensive skeletal analysis, Lucy and other members of the genus Australopithecus were likely tree-dwelling ape-like creatures who possessed very limited bipedality, as do the living apes of today.

Latest discoveries put the nail in the coffin
Photo by David Menton

When the general public view a typical Lucy ‘ape–woman’ statue, it’s not uncommon to hear people say something like: ‘Of course Lucy is obviously on the way to becoming human—just look at her [human-like] feet.’ But such evolutionary representations of Lucy’s feet are not based on the fossil facts. See, e.g. ‘Ape–woman’ statue misleads public: anatomy professor
Last year, a supposedly 3.3 million year old fossil of a very young Australopithecus afarensis strongly corroborated creationist predictions—see The ‘Lucy Child’. This three-year old ape possessed a distinctly ape-like skull, a hyoid bone virtually identical to that of a chimpanzee (crushing any hopes for speech), a curved finger bone typical of tree dwelling apes, a gorilla-like shoulder blade commonly associated with tree climbing and knuckle walking, and inner ear characteristics that confirm a largely quadrupedal locomotion. Researchers have yet to excavate the feet of this specimen, but creationists predict that this extinct ape likely possessed a laterally projecting big toe and curved toe bones characteristic of the other great apes.

This year’s study further strengthens creationist predictions. Tel Aviv University anthropologists determined that Lucy’s mandibular ramus, or lower jaw bone, not only appears in Australopithecus robustus, but closely resembles that of a gorilla. As a result, the evolutionary researchers concluded that Lucy should no longer be considered man’s direct ancestor. As is typically the case in the field of human evolution, a single bone structure overturns years of grossly exaggerated claims.

The rest of this article can be read at:
churinga churinga
70+, M
1 Response Jan 10, 2012

As I recall wan't 'Nebraska man' just a pigs tooth? I am sure its a similar situation with 'lucy' and all such 'missing links'. One deformed monkey or one deformed man will wind up as a whole species by the time the seekers of sin justification get done with him. If we or anything else morphed into what we are over brazillions of years their would be no rarity of fossils in every stage of mutation and development as well as lots of weird branches that never worked out, we would be tripping over them. <br />
<br />
Regardless, I don't need the confirmation of any human discovery other than my own to tell me clearly that GOD IS real and that evolution never occurred, though I certainly see evidence of a degenerative form of 'devolution' going on.