Piltdown Superman

Over the years, I have featured several articles on the alleged transitional form, the ape with kaleidoscope eyes, commonly known as Lucy. Earnest evolutionists try to slap down biblical creationists and other Darwin doubters claiming the ape from afar ( Afar is far from here, anyway) with talking points. A big problem with popularized science is that folks get notions lodged in their craniums, but retractions and refutations are often ignored. Indeed, knowledgeable creationists often correct believers in universal common descent with the facts. A great deal of information about Lucy in the public mind is wrong. Modified photo by Wikimedia Commons /  Shalom ,  kaleidoscopes from Freeimages /  Frizzy Lee Those who insist in atoms-to-ape evolution frequently present A. afarensis as a link as if scientists were in complete agreement, which is false. Lucy is contested as a link between apes and humans, and the walking upright thing is also a source of disagreement. Its status is sketch

Believers in universal common have been known to patronizingly tell creationists and other evolution doubters to go to a natural history museum and learn. What people see are exhibits with tendentious usages of evidence, displays involving artistic license, and so on. Actual science, not so much. Remember, facts do not speak for themselves, but are interpreted according to worldviews , and then presented. Secularists presuppose evolution and make that their starting point. Unfortunately, many are so convinced that it is true (despite contradictory or nonexistent evidence), they play fast and loose with their presentations. Australopithecus afarensis , WikiComm /  Wolfgang Sauber ( CC BY-SA 4.0 ) Take a look at photos of  A. afarensis  (Lucy) models as well as other illustrations. I found some where a male specimen is gazing heavenward, as if contemplating the mysteries of the universe. Another exhibit has Lucy overjoyed that Alan arrived at the museum — or is that Steve? One model has

Despite protestations of Darwin's Flying Monkeys™ on the internet, knowledgeable people admit that  Australopithecus afarensis — Lucy — has been controversial from the get-go. Despite models in museums (dishonestly showing white eyes, which cannot  be known), the science is sketchy. In fact, among the bones were gathered and selected was one belonging to a baboon . Further analysis goes against the desires of evolutionists, showing that Lucy was a tree-dwelling ape. She ( possibly a he and could be called Lucifer ) was not built for strolling on land. Modified from a public domain image at  Wikimedia Commons Although the bones were scattered over a wide area and found in different layers (plus the fact that the skeleton is mostly incomplete), the evolutionary narrative takes precedence over conducting serious science. Hail Darwin! Blessed be!  However, thinking people who want accuracy are willing to examine the evidence and see through the charade. The link to humans simply wil

While Darwin devotees tell us that there are many fossils and bones to support human evolution, that is not the case. Paleontologists and anthropologists work with some bones and skulls (many are fragments), but teeth are sturdier and last longer, so those are utilized. What about the feet? Credits: Original image, RGBStock /  John Nyberg , cropped and run through PhotoFunia There was an interesting study that showed significant differences between human and ape feet. Our feet are stiff in the middle for running, jumping, taking a stroll in the midst of sagebrush, and so on. Ape feet are very flexible for climbing and such. Then the report took a nasty turn. While there are some honest evolutionists that have been conditioned to think inside the Evolutionists don't play the hand they're dealt, especially regarding Feet. They have to deal from the bottom of the deck and hide cards to play later to get the "results" they want. Since most are utterly committed to

This post contains links to several articles that should prove useful to students, teachers, parents, and other people interested in the human origins debate. It deals with the australopithecines, emphasizing devastating material regarding Lucy. Well, devastating for Darwinists, not for biblical creationists. Background image furnished by Why?Outreach The hands at the Darwin Ranch ( head out Folly Road past Stinking Lake, then head northwest to Deception Pass, avoid the Winkie Guards) are excited about a newly Australopithecus anamensis discovered skull. Like Lucy (some scientists want it called Lucifer because they contend it was male), parts were found scattered in different areas. There is no actual skeleton. Scientists disagree about whether or not it was just another extinct ape, albeit a different variety. Arguing from naturalistic presuppositions, some think it evolved into Australopithecus afarensis (Lucy), others invoke the magic of parallel evolution. The evidence act

In 1974, Donald Johanson and his team found some bones of an Australopithecus afarensis and named it Lucy, inspired by the Beatles song "Lucy in the Sky with Diamons". Evolutionists got themselves worked up into a lather, claiming that this extinct ape (which may or may not have had kaleidoscope eyes) was a part of our family tree. The critter was carted around for idolatrous adoration by the faithful , who acted like some folks over the Vatican Splendors exhibit. Credits: modified from a photo by Wikimedia Commons / Shalom Added kaleidoscopes from Freeimages / Frizzy Lee Fundamentalist evolutionists proclaim this alleged link as conclusive evidence and consensus for their worldview, but conveniently neglect not only the controversy that existed from the discovery of A. afarensis (including feuds between Johanson and the Leakeys ), but also significant facts (such as the differences between ape and human feet ) . After all, facts interfere with proselytizing and arg

I wasn't going to post about "Lucy" again so soon, but more information has come in and this will be a link-loaded resource, including articles and a new video. The hands at the Darwin Ranch have been mighty glum lately. News about the alleged transitional form known as Lucy have been going from bad to worse, and it's not only because of biblical creationists. That's right, even evolutionists are admitting that Lucy's status upright-walking link is poor. Some of Darwin's Cheerleaders will deny the evidence (preferring outdated material and uninformed opinions to credible evidence). Do they know that one of the bones assigned to the creature was actually from a baboon ? Modified from a public domain image at Wikimedia Commons First, an article. Further studies show that this extinct ape was swinging from the trees, but they still cling to their story and say that maybe perhaps somehow she spent part of the time on the ground. Pretty desperate to p

Mention Australopithecus afarensis, and you invariably get proponents of algae-to-ape evolution get all worked up and claim it's evidence of humanity's first ancestor, and if you disagree, you're a liar. Such excitement shows not only intolerance of other views, but ignores controversy among evolutionists about the bones. This ape is commonly called Lucy (although researchers Häusler & Schmid claim that Lucy is a male, and should be renamed Lucifer ). One anthropologist seemed to be trippin' out when he had a vision of it falling out of the tree, bless her heart. So, did Lucy have a great fall? Maybe she had a great summer, too. That fall may have looked like this "Far Side" fantasy . Full replica of Lucy's ( Australopithecus afarensis ) skeleton in the Museo Nacional de Antropología at Mexico City. Image credit: danrha / Wikimedia Commons There are many stories swirling around Darwin's home world that are put together to support the s

Advocates of atoms-to- Australopithecus  evolution are great at telling tall tales and asserting opinions as facts, followed by the sensation-seeking press giving their stories credibility. Go to a museum to see Lucy, and you won't get the whole story. However, you'll see displays with the ape having very human-looking eyes, standing upright, and more. The rest of the story about how the bones were found scattered over a wide area (which should make anyone mighty suspicious), how not all the bones are found, disputes in the scientific community — you don't hear that so much. But if you deny that this was our ancestor, some atheists get mighty riled. Australopithecus afarensis  ("Lucy") public domain image I suspicion that one of the hands at the Darwin Ranch has been into the peyote buttons or something. He had a vision of Lucy falling out of a tree, poor dear, and that might explain some of the fracture marks in the bones. Uh huh. Other evolutionists aren

Australopithecus afarensis ("Lucy") as a transitional form between humans and apes has been dubious from the beginning. Evidence shows that Lucy was designed to walk on all fours, not upright like humans. In 1995, Häusler & Schmid proposed that Lucy was a male, and should be called "Lucifer". The skeleton was not all found in the same place, indicating that the bones are contestable, so we shouldn't be surprised that a baboon bone was found in the mix . There are other "relatives" of Lucy in all the confusion, and the press went wild over the announcement of a few more bone fragments that were named as a Lucy relative . Despite all the evidence, old and new, against A. afarensis being anything other than an extinct ape, evolutionary paleontologists want to slap leather with actual evidence and reason, saying, in essence, "You'll take my transitional form when you pry it from my cold, dead hands ". Why do they cling to a few dub

What is the most ironclad kind of fact known to man? To many, it's a fact based on science. "I don't reckon you should dispute that, pilgrim, it's a scientific fact!" Of course, a claim , consensus , or theory is not the same as a fact, but people put a lot of stock in something when you preface it with, "Scientists say..." Then it's promoted to "fact" status in the eyes of a passel of people. Many think that science is the ultimate source of truth, and they forget (or do not even know) that many indisputable science facts have been discarded over the years. Take a look at phlogiston , f'rinstance. For that matter, the "scientific method" itself (whichever "scientific method" you choose) evolves . Pay attention to the news from creation science ministries, and even from the secular science press. You keep getting news about something that has changed that had previously been established. Evolutionary "

No, it's "Ledi Jaw", not  "Jedi Law", Luke. The Evo Sith want it both ways: Either there's an abundance of fossils, artifacts, and transitional forms to make goo-to-you evolution an indisputable fact, or there's still a big search for the "missing link" between humans and our alleged ape-like relatives. Seems that whenever anthropologists and paleontologists come up with something, there's a big uproar in the scientific community and the press proclaiming triumph. What do they have now? Part of a jaw. Mighty sparse bit of material to make pronouncements by. There's nothing to compare it with, no skull, no way to judge the overbite. Not much at all, but they're still talking "missing link" material. This reminds me of another critter that was built up from very little — watch yourselves, you may wind up with another Nebraska Man fiasco if you're not careful. Some misotheists got burrs under their saddles when

Have you noticed that paleontologists and anthropologists will find a fragment of something, believe it's conclusive proof of evolution, and then find out later that they were wrong? They try to quietly drop their embarrassment. The process of making something out of nothing reminds me of this: Anyway. The scientists at major creationist organizations seldom have time for small-time bloggers who think that they are the smartest people on the short bus. In this case, they made an exception. "Lucy" at the Creation Museum  Adam Benton took exception to the "Lucy" exhibit at the Creation Museum , and decided to show how stupid and evil creationists really are. Except that he had several things working against his "analysis": He did not actually see the exhibit Ignorance of facts that he tries to present Ignorance of facts that he tries to refute Exceptional bias in his worldview Unwillingness to examine the evidence more completely  He