What About . . . Lucy? Part 2

Are reconstructions in museums depicting  “Lucy” with human hands and feet correct?
Remember, one of the best ways to deal with these issues is to show the actual fossil evidence and let it speak for itself.  So, let’s just show the evidence again.

We can knock this out pretty easily.  Do you see any hand or foot bones for “Lucy”?  The answer is, “No!”  and that’s because they didn’t find any from the specimen called Lucy.
Now, please notice the reconstructions below.

Do you notice that “Lucy’s” hands are depicted the same as a human hand.  Does the empirical evidence support that reconstruction?  How do they know that “she” had human hands when they have no hand bones?
 
Before I go any further, please allow me to make very important point, “Lucy” is a single individual within the Australopithecus afarensis species.  
What I mean by that is the same way that I’m an individual within the “human race”, “Lucy” is an individual within the Australopithcus afarensis “race”.  And as I showed you above, they did not find any hand or foot bones from “Lucy”.  
But, they did find hand and foot bones from other Australopithecines or her “cousins” so to speak.  The question we have to ask is,
“What did the fossil hand and foot bones they found from “Lucy’s” “cousins” support?”

That’s an excellent question, so let’s see if we can give an excellent answer!
If you were to answer that question based on what you see in text books and in museums, you’d have to say they looked human.  Seriously, take a look at her to the left in the London Museum of Natural History.
Come on, why’s she doing the pledge of allegiance in London?
 
Or the St. Louis reconstruction the you saw above where “Lucy” has her hand on her chin as if she’s thinking about, “What to make for dinner?”
Or, if you really want to see someone who has put a lot of time and effort into imagining what “Lucy” looked like, you can go to Japan where you will see something that blew me away.
In full disclosure, I had to Photoshop the dress on “Lucy” because they show her totally naked walking down the dirt path, with lunch in her hand of course.  You can tell from what I’ve not

covered up she has a totally human physique including the human hands and human feet AND no hair on her body!
Do you notice how different each of these four reconstructions are?  The reason they are so different is because everyone is guessing at what she looked like.
A while back I was blessed to be able and take over 150 young folks through the David Koch exhibit on human evolution at the Smithsonian Institute in Washington, D.C..
I lectured these young men and women for 3 hours on the various supposed ancestors and what the actual evidence was.  We then we took off for the museum.  “Lucy” was a star attraction, and yes, she was depicted with human hands and human feet.  Remember, this is supposed to be the latest and greatest and most up-to-datest exhibit in the world and it’s inaccurate.
These are just a few of the thousands of false reconstructions that we see in  museums, TV shows, magazine articles, etc.?  Christians, as well as non-christians, need to know the truth.
So let’s quit “guessing” and take a look at what the actual evidence is.  All of the movies and reconstructions we see around us can be quite deceiving if you don’t know what the actual evidence is.
 
So, what’s the truth?  Below I’m showing you a chart comparing the curvature of the fingers between, Bonobo (type of chimpanzee), Chimpanzee, Gorilla, Human and AL333 (australopithecine specimen).  The further to the right the dark line is, the more curved the finger.  Please notice that the circle with the dot inside is Lucy’s “cousin.”  It shows that their fingers were just as curved, if not more curved than a chimpanzee.  Hmmm!

(J. Stern & R. Susman, 1983, Am. J. Phys. Anthropology 60:279-212)
Allow me to give you one more source  showing that Australopithecine hand bones are NOT human.  Please pay attention to the write-up below the picture.   (Great catch Rich!)

“Description
“This cast of an Australopithecus afarensis hand shows the characteristic long, curved finger bones. These are more like the hands of living apes than they are modern human hands. The cross section of the finger bones is also squarish, indicating either a partly arboreal lifestyle or that this is a primitive feature retained after they moved into a more terrestrial lifestyle.” reference: australianmuseum.net.au
Anything jump out at you??  How about the line, “These are more like the hands of living apes than they are modern human hands.”
If that’s true, why do we always see human hands on the “Lucy” reconstructions?
The exact same thing is true when it comes to the toes of “Lucy”.  Take a look at the picture below to see how Lucys’ foot that used to be depicted at the St. Louis Zoo exhibit entitled the Living World.

Do you notice that “Lucy’s” feet are depicted exactly the same as a human’s.  I ask again, does the empirical evidence support that reconstruction?  How do they know that “she” had human feet when they have no foot bones?
Well, what’s the truth?  Let’s go back to the secular sources and see what we can find.  Please notice the chart below clearly shows that the toes of Lucy’s “cousin” was more curved than a chimpanzee.  So, who truly is lying? Me, for pointing out the false claims? Or the myriad of reconstructions and depictions with false information?

(J. Stern & R. Susman, 1983, Am. J. Phys. Anthropology 60:279-212)
I know that there are still those that will not agree, (Because I’ve already heard from many of them.) so I’ll give one more secular source on this issue to support the fact that Lucy did NOT have human hands and human feet.  Ian Tattersall is not a creationist.  In his book, Extinct Humans the following is written:

Did you catch that last part?  “In keeping with Lucy having had long and strongly curved finger and toe bones, as do chimpanzees and orangutans”!
I rest my case.  If you see human hands and human feet on Lucy, you are being lied to!
Stay bold!