Lucy's Status Sketchy at Best

Our alleged evolutionary ancestor called Lucy was just an extinct ape. Evolutionists still cling to the idea despite the evidence, however.

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 dubious specimens when they claim to have abundant evidence of evolution, with a corral-load of transitional forms? One reason is that they really do not have uncontested transitional forms. Also, because they don't want to reckon with God the Creator, admitting that there really are not all those evidences for lichens-to-Lucy evolutionism.
Australopithecus has been hailed as a key missing link between man and apes since the 1920s, despite a large amount of data that shows it is a unique, extinct ape. Sir Solly Zuckerman, a British anatomist, discovered that very few scientists wanted to hear that Australopithecus was not a missing link. Despite the addition of several new ‘species’, Australopithecus is still fitted into the scheme of supposed human evolution.
To read the rest, click on "More evidence Australopithecus was an extinct ape".