Not Loving the Lucy Myth

Ever since a jumble of bones was discovered in 1974, the myth of Australopithecus afarensis — nicknamed Lucy — has been contentious. Many supporters of evolution on social(ist) media accept the propaganda from the secular science industry about how it is a definitive link between humans and apelike ancestors.

If you study for a spell, this smacks of desperation. The skeleton was assembled from several different critters including humans. One of the vertebrae was that of a baboon, a mistake that lasted over forty years that should not have happened. There are more problems as well.

Australopithecus afarensis - forensic facial reconstruction, WikiComm / Cicero Moraes (CC BY-SA 4.0)

Sure, there are similarities between apes and humans. Those can be used to support common design as well as common ancestry. This putative human ancestor was clearly designed to live in the trees. Apes do that. One huge difference not to be kicked away is the feet. Footprints at Laetoli were wrongly used to show that Lucy walked upright, but they were simply human prints. Lucy is not a transitional form between apes and humans, old son, it is a poorly-executed myth.

Most folks consider our ape ancestry as established science, with Lucy as the main link. However, the story that we evolved from the same animal ancestors as today’s apes flies in the face of both science and the Bible.

. . .

Do fossils related to Lucy—the most popular human evolutionary ancestor candidate—demand that God got His history wrong? No. And certain fossil details vindicate creation.

To finish reading, saddle up and ride over to "Busting the Myth about Lucy." Also worth seeing is "Evaluating the Quality of Evidence for Lucy."