Lucy: Fact Vs. Fiction

By Author: Steve Baird
Total Articles: 1
Comment this article

Lucy "Australopithecus afarensis" originally found by Johansen with
the discovery of a kneecap, which he said proved we were looking at a
transitional species. Then over the better part of 5 years the rest or 40%
of a skeleton emerged and is now hailed as a prime example of a transitional
species between Humans and apes. They claim that the skull shows
characteristics of both ape (sagital crest) and human (incisor teeth).

Now let me stop right there for a second. Whenever I make the above
statement, many evolutionists jump on this and say, See transitional
fossil, has both ape and human characteristics, making it a prime example of a direct link to modern humans. What they are failing to grasp is one very
important, Lucy's mandible didn't have intact teeth. The teeth that are
supposed to represent Lucy were scattered and collected over the entire site
area consisting of approx. 1.5 miles. Within this area were many, many
modern primate skeletons. Plus several modern primates have incisor teeth very similar to humans (after all, we all have the same designer.)
...
... br />Evolutionist claim that based on the angle of the knee, that Lucy must
have walked upright, yet they then tell us that her hands and feet were
curved very much like a pygmy chimp, very adaptive to tree climbing. (What they fail to be mentioned here is that no feet or hands were found with
Lucy, they are using bones found from some other skeletal remains found
within the area of 1.5 miles, which covers the same area where Lucy was found).

Johansen also admits within his report that the skull that is shown in
all books as belonging to a reconstructed Lucy, was actually pieced together from 13 different "individuals" which they then make the claim are all
related to Lucy, because they were found in the same vicinity. Speaking as
an archaeologist, I would never be allowed to take materials found over such
a large area and combine them together in order to make a "complete"
picture.

Lucy's supposed knee angle (where the tibia and femur meet) is said to be 15 degrees. The angle for humans is 9 degrees (the same as spider
monkeys and orangutans) if it was more we would have knocked knees. The
common consensus is that Lucy would have been a very adept tree climber.
Again, most evolutionist point to this to show dual characteristics, but
fail to remember that most paleoanthropologist don't believe that these
bones all came from the same individual an also that Lucy is put together
completely wrong.

Peter Schmid, a Swiss anthropologist, claims Lucy was not a bipedal walker, but instead would have rotated her torso much like a gorilla. He
points to further flaws in her reconstruction. If Lucy is put together properly then her bone structure isn't correct. Shcmid says if Lucy is
correct, then the ribs are too heavy and upper thorax is too small to take
in oxygen to cool her. He claims with this setup Lucy would have panted much
like a dog to cool itself off. Despite showing semi-human characteristics,
Australopithecus afarensis is nothing more than an extinct ape.

As a matter of fact, even the famous Richard Leakey considered by most
to be the greatest hominid fossil hunter doesn't agree with Lucy. He says,
no determination could be made concerning the species of Lucy and that the skull was merely "imagination made of plaster of paris."

Here is some stuff that most people are not aware of....

Joseph Weiner, The Natural History of Man, 1971, pp.45-46.

"The ape-like profile of Australopithecus is so pronounced that its
outline can be superimposed on that of a female chimpanzee with a remarkable
closeness of fit."

Richmond and Strait, "Evidence that Humans Evolved from
Knuckle-Walking Ancestor," Nature 2000.

"Regardless of the status of Lucy's knee joint, new evidence has come
forth that Lucy has the morphology of a knuckle-walker."

The other problem here is that truly no bipedal bones have been
recovered to support the upright walking of Australopithecus. The majority
of all the recovered fossils consist of isolated teeth, mandible fragments,
skull fragments (the top portion of the head) and a few fragments of arm
bones. With this sketchy evidence they have concocted a hugely fabricated
story about Lucy and her "relatives".

A quote from an education website describes Lucy as follows:

As in a modern human's skeleton, Lucy's bones are rife with evidence
clearly pointing to bipedality. Her distal femur shows several traits unique
to bipedality. The shaft is angled relative to the condyles (knee joint
surfaces), which allows bipeds to balance on one leg at a time during
locomotion. There is a prominent patellar lip to keep the patella (knee cap)from dislocating due to this angle. Her condyles are large, and are thus
adapted to handling the added weight, which results from shifting from four
limbs to two. The pelvis exhibits a number of adaptations to bipedality. The
entire structure has been remodeled to accommodate an upright stance and the
need to balance the trunk on only one limb with each stride. The talus, in her ankle, shows evidence for a convergent big toe, sacrificing manipulative
abilities for efficiency in bipedal locomotion. The vertebrae show evidence
of the spinal curvatures necessitated by a permanent upright stance.

So they are saying that only bipedal subjects display these evidences.
Also most of these references are not made based on Lucy but on other bones
found with a 1.5-mile radius. However, for arguments sake lets say all of these bones are from Lucy. Is it possible for a primate (ape, chimp ect.)
to walk upright for long periods of time, enough so that bone structure
might change somewhat? Not saying it's changing into a human, just an
upright ape. Most people would answer no and certainly in biology class we
are taught to all apes can walk upright for a limited amount of time but
their bone structure isn't suited for long periods of bipedal walking. Then
how do they explain this:

A black macaque monkey in Israel that for the past five
years has walked exclusively on two legs and no longer attempts to walk on
all fours. This monkey become ill once and had a high fever that doctors
believe caused some form of brain damage. So instead of being able to
switch from knuckle walking to bipedal it only knows how to walk on its two
legs. This doesn't mean that this black macaque is related humans it just
shows that primates are capable of this behavior. Notice the straight
posture, the long gait, yet you still have curved hands and feet for tree
climbing. Just like Lucy's description.

Robert Boyd and Joan Silk (both professors of Anthropology), How
Humans Evolved, 2000, pp. 331-334.

"Anatomical evidence indicated that A. afarensis was bipedal..."

"....some anthropologists are convinced by the anatomical evidence
that A. afarensis was not a modern biped.

The general public is lead to believe that Lucy is a concrete example
of life between humans and apes and that it proves we evolved and started
walking upright 4 million years ago. What they aren't told is that if you
took all of the bones associated with Australopithecus you would not even
fill up one casket. There simply isn't enough evidence for true science to make this claim. It is all based on evidence that just isn't there.

A supposed concrete example that is all imagination and the truth is
hidden from the general public or glossed over as not being important.

Written by:

Steve Baird

Author of "Another Road to Damascus: A Journey from Evolution to Creation."

To subscribe to our newsletter please visit www.EvolutionOnTrial.com and sign up to receive this newsletter in your inbox every couple of weeks or send an email to creation@bairdclan.com with the title Subscribe


About the Author Steve is the founder of Evolution On Trial Ministries (www.EvolutionOnTrial.com). He holds a Masters of Archaeology and lectures to audiences about the weaknesses of evolution.