A quote from an education website describes Lucy as follows:

As in a modern human's skeleton, Lucy's bones are rife with evidence clearly pointing to bipedality. Her distal femur shows several traits unique to bipedality. The shaft is angled relative to condyles (knee joint surfaces), which allows bipeds to balance on one leg at a time during locomotion. There is a prominent patellar lip to keep patella (knee cap)from dislocating due to this angle. Her condyles are large, and are thus adapted to handling added weight, which results from shifting from four limbs to two. The pelvis exhibits a number of adaptations to bipedality. The entire structure has been remodeled to accommodate an upright stance and need to balance trunk on only one limb with each stride. The talus, in her ankle, shows evidence for a convergent big toe, sacrificing manipulative abilities for efficiency in bipedal locomotion. The vertebrae show evidence of spinal curvatures necessitated by a permanent upright stance.

So they are saying that only bipedal subjects display these evidences. Also most of these references are not made based on Lucy but on other bones found with a 1.5-mile radius. However, for arguments sake lets say all of these bones are from Lucy. Is it possible for a primate (ape, chimp ect.) to walk upright for long periods of time, enough so that bone structure might change somewhat? Not saying it’s changing into a human, just an upright ape. Most people would answer no and certainly in biology class we are taught to all apes can walk upright for a limited amount of time but their bone structure isn’t suited for long periods of bipedal walking. Then how do they explain this:

A black macaque monkey in Israel that for past five years has walked exclusively on two legs and no longer attempts to walk on all fours. This monkey become ill once and had a high fever that doctors believe caused some form of brain damage. So instead of being able to switch from knuckle walking to bipedal it only knows how to walk on its two legs. This doesn't mean that this black macaque is related humans it just shows that primates are capable of this behavior. Notice straight posture, long gait, yet you still have curved hands and feet for tree climbing. Just like Lucy’s description.

Robert Boyd and Joan Silk (both professors of Anthropology), How Humans Evolved, 2000, pp. 331-334.

"Anatomical evidence indicated that A. afarensis was bipedal..."

"....some anthropologists are convinced by anatomical evidence that A. afarensis was not a modern biped.”

The general public is lead to believe that Lucy is a concrete example of life between humans and apes and that it proves we evolved and started walking upright 4 million years ago. What they aren't told is that if you took all of bones associated with Australopithecus you would not even fill up one casket. There simply isn’t enough evidence for true science to make this claim. It is all based on evidence that just isn’t there.

A supposed concrete example that is all imagination and truth is hidden from general public or glossed over as not being important.

Written by:

Steve Baird

Author of "Another Road to Damascus: A Journey from Evolution to Creation."

To subscribe to our newsletter please visit www.EvolutionOnTrial.com and sign up to receive this newsletter in your inbox every couple of weeks or send an email to creation@bairdclan.com with title “Subscribe”

A quote from an education website describes Lucy as follows:

As in a modern human's skeleton, Lucy's bones are rife with evidence clearly pointing to bipedality. Her distal femur shows several traits unique to bipedality. The shaft is angled relative to condyles (knee joint surfaces), which allows bipeds to balance on one leg at a time during locomotion. There is a prominent patellar lip to keep patella (knee cap)from dislocating due to this angle. Her condyles are large, and are thus adapted to handling added weight, which results from shifting from four limbs to two. The pelvis exhibits a number of adaptations to bipedality. The entire structure has been remodeled to accommodate an upright stance and need to balance trunk on only one limb with each stride. The talus, in her ankle, shows evidence for a convergent big toe, sacrificing manipulative abilities for efficiency in bipedal locomotion. The vertebrae show evidence of spinal curvatures necessitated by a permanent upright stance.

So they are saying that only bipedal subjects display these evidences. Also most of these references are not made based on Lucy but on other bones found with a 1.5-mile radius. However, for arguments sake lets say all of these bones are from Lucy. Is it possible for a primate (ape, chimp ect.) to walk upright for long periods of time, enough so that bone structure might change somewhat? Not saying it’s changing into a human, just an upright ape. Most people would answer no and certainly in biology class we are taught to all apes can walk upright for a limited amount of time but their bone structure isn’t suited for long periods of bipedal walking. Then how do they explain this:

A black macaque monkey in Israel that for past five years has walked exclusively on two legs and no longer attempts to walk on all fours. This monkey become ill once and had a high fever that doctors believe caused some form of brain damage. So instead of being able to switch from knuckle walking to bipedal it only knows how to walk on its two legs. This doesn't mean that this black macaque is related humans it just shows that primates are capable of this behavior. Notice straight posture, long gait, yet you still have curved hands and feet for tree climbing. Just like Lucy’s description.

Robert Boyd and Joan Silk (both professors of Anthropology), How Humans Evolved, 2000, pp. 331-334.

"Anatomical evidence indicated that A. afarensis was bipedal..."

"....some anthropologists are convinced by anatomical evidence that A. afarensis was not a modern biped.”

The general public is lead to believe that Lucy is a concrete example of life between humans and apes and that it proves we evolved and started walking upright 4 million years ago. What they aren't told is that if you took all of bones associated with Australopithecus you would not even fill up one casket. There simply isn’t enough evidence for true science to make this claim. It is all based on evidence that just isn’t there.

A supposed concrete example that is all imagination and truth is hidden from general public or glossed over as not being important.

Written by:

Steve Baird

Author of "Another Road to Damascus: A Journey from Evolution to Creation."

To subscribe to our newsletter please visit www.EvolutionOnTrial.com and sign up to receive this newsletter in your inbox every couple of weeks or send an email to creation@bairdclan.com with title “Subscribe”