Mislead by Lucy

How many times have people been swayed against believing God's account of Creation because of supposed "missing links"? Finds like "Peking Man" which was a fraud, "Nebraska Man" which was only one tooth (which happened to be from a pig) or fossils like Cro-Magnon man and Neandertal man which are nothing more than modern, fully human skeletons suffering from arthritis or rickets (vitamin D deficiency). Finally there is the last group of supposed "missing links" such as "Ida", "Ardi" and Lucy which are fully primate.

Secular scientists blasted the claim that Ida is anything more than an extinct Lemur. "Ardi" is again a full primate. Claimed to be bipedal based on finger and toe length (which actually fit perfectly fine in primate categories) and a supposed bump found on its highly crushed pelvis. I will post more on Ardi in a later segment. For this segment, I want to focus more on the much more well-known "Lucy" fossil.

Lucy is from a group of fossils known as "Australopithecus afarensis". She was found in Ethiopia and has made her rounds in several museums and text books as the "missing link" between human and primates. We see her here walking with her mate and looking very human-like. Notice the straight posture and the fully human hands and feet. Not bent over with the "knuckle walking" hands and grasping feet of the primate at all. Very convincing and looking at this lovely couple, one does see the human likeness in her. However, here lies the problem.

What you see here is not Lucy. It is an artists rendition of what he imagined she might look like. So, how accurate was the artist? Lets look at the real Lucy.

Here is the real Lucy. Or rather this is a picture of all the bones found of her. Do you notice anything? Here's a hint: remember the human hands and feet in the model? Do you see them? No, because they aren't there! The human-like hands and feet were added by the artist not because Lucy HAD human-like hands and feet, but because they hoped she had them.

Through the years, more fossils of Australopithecus have been found and guess what? Their hands and feet are completely primate. So why do the museums and text books still show Lucy with human-like hands and feet?

But the hands and feet were only part of the case. Lucy also stands upright. This is partially determined by more bones that weren't found (leg this time) and partially by her hip bone. See, primate hips are very wide and flat. Human's hips are more curved. This changes the center of balance and allows us to stand upright. Here is Australopithecus' hip:


Very wide and flat. But that means primate, right? When the original fossil was found, they 'knew' Lucy stood upright because she had to. So what did they do? Click on the following picture to watch a video clip and see:



That's right! The pieces didn't fit, so they took a rotary tool to them and reshaped them until they fit together how they wanted them to fit. The only reason Lucy stands upright is because they so badly wanted her to that they were willing to do whatever it took to make her stand upright.

Fortunately, further discoveries of Australopithecus have continued to show the primate pelvis, hands and feet and now nearly all scientists, including secular ones, agree that Lucy did not stand upright and is merely an extinct primate. Unfortunately this has not changed the recreations in museums, zoos and text books. Why you ask? Because they have no other missing link to fill their gap.

In His service