Lucy and the Human Evolution Ladder
It has been fifty years since Lucy (Australopithecus afarensis) was discovered, but amid secular shouts of joy and dancing in the street, some evolutionists are unconvinced that Lucy (or Lucifer) is such a big deal. Indeed, there have been unconvinced scientists from the beginning.
There are numerous reasons for doubting this ape as a transitional form. Scattered bones over a wide area, mistakes in the mix, other critters also existed, key components are missing, and more. Evolution at that time needed a boost, and this child believes that Lucy was manufactured, not discovered.
.jpg) |
| Australopithecus afarensis, WikiComm / Wolfgang Sauber (CC BY-SA 4.0) |
November 24, 2024, marks the 50th anniversary of the finding of the famous supposed fossil hominin Lucy, but dubious details about paleoanthropology’s “Simian Superstar” have finally been acknowledged by a leading paleontologist. The find was the “now famous moniker given 50 years ago to a fragmentary nearly hominin skeleton recovered from a hillside in the Horn of Africa.” In short, Lucy has not lived up to her status as the most supported fossil evidence of human evolution. One reason for her fame is that she is “one of the most complete early-hominin fossils in terms of the number of bones preserved, even if the quality of their preservation leaves something to be desired.”
For the rest of the article, see "The Human Evolution Ladder Failure Admitted by a Leading Evolutionist." I'd be much obliged if you would come back for the next three articles in this important post.
Although Darwin's acolytes have long been blustering about how human evolution from apelike ancestors is a certainty, murmurings in back rooms were not so confident. Biblical creationists have pointed out evidences for evolution were saturated with logical and scientific difficulties.
Here comes Lucy to save the day! But...there should be scores of indisputable transitional forms instead of a few candidates with little evidence to prop them up. Why is this one supposed to be conclusive proof of evolution?
Lucy had an assortment of bones and several hundred small fragments; the amount in the skeleton was exaggerated. Also, key pieces were missing. This one creature was somehow expected to save evolution and help misotheists feel intellectually fulfilled as they denied the abundant evidence for the Creator.
Textbooks and journal articles have claimed for decades that the evidence for human evolution is irrefutable (example, footnote [1]). Those who dig into the details find otherwise.
The November 2024 issue of Scientific American featured a cover story on what evolutionists consider the central importance of Lucy in documenting human evolution. . . .
After writing that “this iconic fossil remains central to our understanding of human origins” the authors attempted to document their claim that we finally have incontrovertible evidence that humans evolved from an apelike common ancestor.
Secularists were believing in evolution by faith, not compelling scientific evidence. The rest of this article can be found at "Did Lucy Rescue the Human Evolution Story?" Kindly come back as we explore two more pieces.
Charles Darwin was born on February 12, 1809, and Darwin Day was celebrated with religious fervor (under the pretense of science) since 2009. Statues were unveiled, legislation enacted, and more. Unfortunately, Charlie was never formally trained as a scientist. Strange how legitimate scientists who actually benefited humanity do not receive anywhere near this recognition.
Similarly, Lucy is practically a religious icon for atheism. But as we have seen, Lucy is a disputed piece in the human evolution story and of no importance outside of origins studies. Interestingly, it has been suggested that her scattered bones were found so easily is that they had been swept there by a massive flood. (No, not the Genesis Flood.) So we're supposed to think that the bones were doing fine in the solvent of dihydrogen monoxide (also known as water) for 3.2 million years? Not hardly! The disputes continue. Also, Lucy/Lucifer lived with modern animals...
When visiting churches in Europe, one soon is introduced to the sacred bones of the ancient saints. This adulation of sacred bones is mocked by many secularists and condemned by many Protestant sects. The focus of one reference written by a leading atheist in 2008 was the foolishness and ignorance of worshiping icons, including the many bone fragments.
Not only religion, but Science also has its own sacred bone icons. A leading icon of Science in our age is the collection of bone fragments of ‘Lucy’—Australopithecus afarensis—the supposed early ancestor of modern man. In paleoanthropologist Bernard Woods’ words, Lucy is paleoanthropology’s superstar. One example of her icon status is that her bones are securely protected.
Keep reading at "Lucy Worshiped Like a Religious Icon." Do remember to come back for the final installment!
One aspect of the religious adulation of Lucy is fake science. Look at the eyes in the reconstructions, for example. The sclera is white and the beastie has a thoughtful gaze. Humans have white sclera, apes have brown. There is no way to tell what Lucy's eyes were like. Sneaky way to make Lucy seem more on-the-way-to-becoming-human. More than that, however, is that she is made to look like she walked upright.
Well, big deal. Even if she did walk upright, that would not prove evolution. Primates walk upright on occasion when they feel like it. However, that kind of posture is uncomfortable for any long distance, and Lucy did not have that kind of load-bearing structure. She was not designed to do more than spend time in the trees and walk on all fours when walking was needed.
The cover of the 4 April 2024 issue of Science, shown here, bore a reconstruction of how the famous Lucy fossil might have looked. The photo was captioned, “Lucy at 50: An ancestor of us all no longer reigns alone”. The bias in reconstructing it like an ‘apeman’ (apewoman?) is obvious. It is portrayed with attributes such as sparse hair on the front of its body, upright walking posture and human-looking eyes (i.e., with prominent white sclerae, unlike most living non-human creatures, including most chimps).
The full article (our last one today) is found at "Lucy at 50 has not aged well."