What About . . . “Lucy”? Part 1

One of the most “famous” of all supposed ape/human ancestors is “Lucy”!  Is she a missing link?

The “star” of the show, ‘Lucy!’
A while back a friend of mine posted information that I use in my talk on human evolution on his Facebook page.  Well, it certainly lit up my page!   We had LOTS of visitors come, some friendly and some . . . well, not so friendly.  I’m trying to be gracious.  You just can’t believe the number of “haters” there are in the world.  It just blows my mind.  Just because I disagree with someone doesn’t mean that they’re necessarily a bad person deserving of the wrath of Khan.
When folks get wound up about what  I teach all I can do is share the sources that I use and let them do more research for themselves to see if what I’ve said is true or not.  So, here’s some of the information that I use when given the opportunity to share about our supposed evolutionary ancestor, ‘Lucy.’
Whenever we go to museums or see pictures of ‘Lucy’ in articles ‘she’ is depicted as an upright-walking, apelike ancestor, essentially a missing link between man and ape.

On a side note, the scientific community has long made the claim that ‘Lucy’ was a ‘she’.  However, in 1996 in an article in Discover Magazine it was revealed that two German scientists discovered that ‘Lucy’ wasn’t a ‘she’ after all, but was a ‘he’.  One of the names that they suggested they rename ‘her/him’ to was ‘Lucifer’.  Hmmm!  Pretty ironic, but very accurate seeing as how this set of bones has been used more to cause people to doubt the existence of God than any other fossil.
In this series of articles we’ll check out the evidence and see if it backs up what we see depicted in  museums, television programs, movies and magazines.

What I’ll normally  do is start by showing photographs and/or video of the actual evidence that was found for “Lucy”.
By the way, I don’t use “Christian” sources when talking about these issues.  I actually use video clips  and/or images from secular sources to back up what I’m saying.  Even though I am a creationist, I believe that it’s important that we show that we don’t have to use “Christian” or “creationist” materials to back up our position.  Teach a generation “how” to apply their faith in the ‘real’ world and they can then turn any zoo, museum or aquarium into a “creationist” facility.
We’ll show you in this series of articles that the claims of ‘Lucy’ being a “missing link” are not supported by the  actual ‘observational’ evidence.  The reality is that a LOT of  presuppositional interpretation is being used to support the “missing link” claim.
Let’s just give one specific example in this article that you can see for yourself.  Look at the actual fossil evidence  for ‘Lucy’.  Please notice how much of the skull was discovered.  There are 7 fragments of the skull there.  That’s what was found, that’s the actual evidence.
So, the question is how did they get from that, to the  “glamour shot” of Lucy below?  

Does the evidence support that reconstruction?
In the PBS documentary entitled, “In Search of Human Origins” Bill Kimbel tells us:
“The world has been waiting for a complete skull of Lucy’s species for a long, long time. And it’s going to take a great deal of work to assemble it, to see what the brain size might be, what the relationships might be between the various components of the skull, but even already, we can see that as we assemble larger pieces from smaller pieces, joining them together, we’re beginning to get a fairly impressive picture of a species that has a very ape-like face with big protruding brow ridges, very ape-like.”
Did you notice the emphasis on “very ape-like” appearance?  Please look at “Lucy” again.  Now, take a look at an ape and you tell me if the reconstruction above fits with what Bill Kimbell said about it and what the actual, physical evidence supports.

What can you see just from these two photo’s?  How about, the teeth?  Did the “Lucy” fossil have teeth like a chimp or like a human?  The answer is . . . we don’t know because none of the teeth were found.  Take a look at a skull reconstruction and notice the color differences.

Do you see the dark area’s?  That’s the actual, physical evidence.  Notice the teeth, they are all white which means that nothing was found.  The showing of much smaller canines on the museum reconstruction is not because of physical evidence for “Lucy”.  It is because of a belief of what role “she” played in our history.
Not only are huge stretches made with the skull.  Whenever you see a reconstruction of ‘Lucy’ it routinely shows ‘it’ with:
1.  Human Hands
2.  Human Feet
3.  Human Knees
4.  Human Hips
5.  Human Eyes
In the next 5 articles in this series we’ll comment specifically on each one of these claims and show what the actual evidence is and what it supports.  Then you be the judge and make an informed decision for yourself.
If you’d like to see the transcript from the NOVA program “In Search of Human Origins” with Dr. Don Johanson for yourself, just go here.  
If you find material that should be there, let us know because we’ll add it.
If you find incorrect material, let us know, we can fix it.  You can do this by e-mailing us or contacting us on Facebook.
Please keep in mind that just because you don’t like what is written, it doesn’t make the information incorrect.  We really hope this helps!
1.  Lucy’s Hands And Feet Looked “Human”?
2.  Lucy’s Knee Was Shaped Like a “Human”?
3.  Lucy’s Hip Was Shaped Like a “Human”?
4.  Lucy Had Human “Eyes”?
5.  Lucy was a ‘missing link’ between apes and humans?

We’ll add more as time goes on.  By the way, here are a few articles for you to read that will give you more information on Lucy:
1. “Farewell to Lucy” by Dr. David Menton.  I love this guy!
2.  “Making Man Out of Monkey’s“ by Dr. David Menton.
3. “Did Lucy Walk Upright?” by Michael Oard
4. “Lucy Had  a Spring in Her Step” This is a great News to Note article.
Remember, don’t be deceived by the big claims.  Investigate, study for yourself to find out the truth, deBunk the misinformation and most of all, Stay bold!