"Lucy" is Not the Missing Link!

Compiled and commented by David J. Stewart

"Lucy" - Another hoax of evolutionistsEvolutionists are a sad bunch. They've been desperately searching for centuries for any valid evidence to support the myth of evolution. One concocted theory after another have been disproved, utterly, time and time again. Now it's "Lucy," the alleged prehistoric skeletal remains of a woman, most of which is plaster of Paris. I mean, 'com on, is that the best you've got? The ongoing futile search by evolutionists to find the "missing link" is about is worthless as the ongoing search for Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq. The truth is that "if" evolution were true, then there should be a large supply of such skeletal remains in the earth; but there is not. "Lucy" is nothing more than a stretch-of-the-imagination. There is NO recorded human civilization prior to 4,000 B.C. Egypt was the first around 2,000 B.C. The remains of "Lucy" (photod to the right) prove NOTHING!

Lucy Fails Test As Missing Link

By Editorial Staff
Published December 2007

The science of finding and identifying man’s “prehistoric ancestors” runs in a predictable pattern. A press conference is announced, the discovery of an ape-like “ancestor” revealed with an artist’s impression of what the creature looks like, and the discoverer becomes famous, earning money on lecture tours. The actual fossil bones are scanty and the imagination runs wild. Later, when more evidence is found, the “ancestor” turns out to be totally human or totally ape. The Neanderthal man is an example of one find that turns out to be totally human. Once this find is removed as an intermediate form, you can expect another great discovery to save the day. The latest discovery is “Lucy.”

If you are of the impression that there are many intermediate ancestors to man, take notice of the following statement by an expert in the field: “The fossils that decorate our family tree are so scarce that there are still more scientists than specimens. The remarkable fact is that all the physical evidence we have for human evolution can still be placed with room to spare inside a single coffin.“1

This is still an exaggeration since it concedes that various specimens are part of human evolution. Australopithecines, for example, are not considered transitional forms anymore, but a branch of the primate evolutionary tree. True transitional forms are still missing. (“Transitional forms” refer to those creatures which represent intermediate states of development for a supposed ape-like ancestor down to man.)

But what about Lucy? This most recent discovery in Africa is being heralded by many as a true transitional form, typically a replacement for the outmoded australopithecines. Could this be hasty judgment? Let’s examine the evidence. Lucy is a partial fossil skeleton, about the size of a chimpanzee, supposedly female, discovered by paleontologist Dr. Donald Johanson on November 30, 1974, in Hadar, Ethiopia. It is more complete than most fossil finds in that about 40 percent of the bones of the body have been recovered.

The age is “estimated” to be 3.2 million years. The find includes a V-shaped jaw, part of hip and large bones, and other assorted bones with very little skull fragments.2 There were other finds at the same location, other skulls and U-shaped jawbones.

What evidence makes this creature a transitional form? According to Dr. Johanson, she walked upright! Her brain size is still small, ape-like in proportion, and most of the other features are predominantly ape-like. Some say that anatomically it is not different than a modern chimpanzee. The jaw, in particular, is distinct in that it is V-shaped, totally unlike human jaws.

And what evidence supports the idea that this creature walked upright? The angle that the upper leg bone makes with the lower leg bone at the knee. Looking head on, chimpanzee and gorilla legs have an angle of 0 degrees. Humans have an angle of about 9 degrees. If the angle is much greater it gives a “knocked kneed” condition in humans. Lucy and the australophithecines have a larger angle of about 15 degrees.3

Does this make her an upright walker? Present day orangutan and spider monkeys have the same angle as humans yet are extremely adept tree climbers. Some experts argue that the higher angle makes her a better climber.4 This appears to be a knee-jerk reaction rather than clear scientific thinking.

But hold on, the story gets better. Dr. Johanson gave a lecture at the University of Missouri in Kansas City, Nov. 20, 1986, on Lucy and why he thinks she is our ancestor. It included the ideas already mentioned and that Lucy’s femur and pelvis were more robust than most chimps and therefore, “could have” walked upright. After the lecture he opened the meeting for questions. The audience of approximately 800 was quiet so some creationists asked questions. Roy Holt asked; “How far away from Lucy did you find the knee?” (The knee bones were actually discovered about a year earlier than the rest of Lucy). Dr. Johanson answered (reluctantly) about 200 feet lower (!) and two to three kilometers away (about 1.5 miles!). Continuing, Holt asked, “Then why are you sure it belonged to Lucy?” Dr. Johanson: “Anatomical similarity.” (Bears and dogs have anatomical similarities).

After the meeting, the creationists talked with Dr. Johanson and continued the questions. Dr. Johanson argued that homology (particularly DNA homology) is good proof for evolution. Tom Willis responded that “similar structures nearly always have similar plans, (like) similar bridges have similar blue prints.” After more discussion along this line, Dr. Johanson gave this amazing reply: “If you don’t believe homology, then you don’t believe evolution, and evolution is a fact!“5

What about Lucy? Just another partial find of some primate, put together to look like a human ancestor? Could the wide separation of Lucy’s bones (200 feet by 1 mile) better point to a catastrophic scenario – such as a world wide flood?

What about Dr. Johanson’s credibility? To his credit, he does talk about the tentative nature of this type of science. But another evolutionary writer says this about the search for humanlike (homonid) bones; “When it comes to finding a new ‘star’ as our animal ancestor, there is no business like bone business.“6

Tom Willis, the creationist who attended the U. of Missouri lecture puts it this way, “By any reasonable standards, Johanson misrepresented the evidence and he did so for money! A businessman who made claims like those to sell his products would be charged with fraud rather than be paid an honorarium.“7 Regardless of the motives involved for finding our evolutionary “ancestor”, we can be sure that when Lucy is acknowledged as an evolutionary dead end, there will be another press conference with another knee-jerk explanation.

SOURCE: Lucy Fails Test As Missing Link — The Forerunner

Many people think the famous “Lucy” fossil is some kind of missing link or pre-human ancestor. But even some prominent evolutionists have claimed it is not; such as, Dr. Albert W. Mehlert...

"The evidence given... makes it overwhelmingly likely that Lucy was no more than a variety of pygmy chimpanzee, and walked the same way (awkwardly upright on occasions, but mostly quadrupedal).
The 'evidence' for the alleged transformation from ape to man is extremely unconvincing."

SOURCE: Albert W. Mehlert,
Former Evolutionist
& paleoanthropology researcher. "Lucy - Evolution's Solitary Claim for Ape/Man." CRS Quarterly, Volume 22, No. 3, p. 145

Here's some more quotes by prominent evolutionists.

The only "missing link" is man's wicked heart of unbelief (Jeremiah 17:9). Only a fool would deny the existence of God. It has always struck me as hypocritical that the same people who firmly believe in alien life in the universe, refuse to acknowledge the possibility of God, Who is indeed an alien by definition of the word.

Lucy is Not the Missing Link!

“Lucy” is the popular name given to the famous fossil skeleton that American anthropologist Donald Johanson found in Ethiopia in 1974. To many people, Lucy is regarded as some kind of link between ape-like creatures and humans, thus supposedly proving evolution.

But is Lucy really a pre-human ancestor?

According to Richard Leakey, who along with Johanson became probably the best-known fossil-anthropologist in the world, Lucy's skull was so incomplete that most of it was “imagination made of plaster of Paris”. Leakey said in 1983 that no firm conclusion could be drawn about what species Lucy belonged to.

Anatomist agrees

Reinforcing the fact that Lucy is not a creature between ape and man, Dr. Charles Oxnard, Professor of Anatomy and Human Biology at the University of Western Australia, said in 1987 of the australopithecines (the group to which Lucy is said to have belonged):

“The various australopithecines are, indeed, more different from both African apes and humans in most features than these latter are from each other. Part of the basis of this acceptance has been the fact that even opposing investigators have found these large differences as they too, used techniques and research designs that were less biased by prior notions as to what the fossils might have been.”

Oxnard's firm conclusion? “The australopithecines are unique.” They are so different from humans and from African apes that they could not be intermediate between them.

Not ancestor to humans

Neither Lucy nor any other australopithecine is therefore intermediate between humans and African apes. Nor are they similar enough to humans to be any sort of ancestor of ours.

A new species of autralopithecine, Australopithecus garhi, was discovered in 1999 in Ethiopia. Even though this ape was said to be more long-legged than Lucy, it is still just an ape.

In 2002, scientists found another missing link-type suspect. They called this fossil, found in East Africa, the Toumai fossil. It was supposed to be “the oldest trace of a pre-human ancestor”. But even some evolutionists who examined it said it was no such thing.

Jawbone sets Australopithecus apart from humans

As if all this evidence were not enough to show that Lucy had no role in being a human ancestor, more confirmation came in 2007.

Three scientists from the departments of anatomy, anthropology, and zoology at Tel Aviv University reported in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (Vol. 104, pp. 6568-72, April 17, 2007) that the jawbone of the Lucy species (Australopithecus afarensis) is a close match to a gorilla's.

The article's abstract admits that “This finding was unexpected given that chimpanzees are the closest living relatives of humans.”

The scientists concluded that this pretty much discounts these australopithecines as having any role in being a modern human ancestor.

Not a missing link

Lucy and the australopithecines show nothing about human evolution, and should not be promoted as having any sort of “missing link” status. The creationist alternative, that humans, apes and other creatures were created that way in the beginning, remains an explanation consistent with all the evidence.

SOURCE: Lucy isn't evolution's missing link

If you are an honest seeker of truth, then here's a Scripture verse for you to consider. The Bible teaches that God spoke the universe into existence by the very Word of His mouth...

"For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water" (2nd Peter 3:5).

Jesus Christ is Almighty God (John 10:33; Colossians 2:9; 1st Timothy 3:16; Revelation 1:8 - King James Bible) and the Creator of the universe...

"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made ...  And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth" (John 1:1-3,14).

Now doesn't that make much more sense; than to believe that a rock floating in outer space somehow obtained water, somehow began to grow life, somehow developed superior intelligence into mankind (which animals do not posses), and somehow gave a moral conscience to mankind (which animals do not posses)? What are the odds? Impossible.

If that's not enough to convince you of a Divine Creator, then explain how time can have a beginning? Where did the universe come from? Can it have a beginning without a Divine Creator? Where did life begin? ...for only life can begat life. How big is the universe? Can it have an end? If the universe is ever expanding, then what's lies beyond that point? There is only one LOGICAL answer to all these impossible questions — GOD!!!

EVOLUTION: The Big Hoax!

Ye Must Be Born Again! | You Need HIS Righteousness!