Share
A- A A+

Article from:

Creation  Volume 12Issue 3 Cover

Creation 12(3):32
June 1990

Free Email News
Evolution's Achilles' Heels (DVD)
by Various Ph.D. Scientists

US $19.00
View Item
COSMOS: Created & Young! DVD
by Dr Russell Humphreys

US $15.00
View Item
Adam + The World pack
by Russell Grigg

US $15.00
View Item
Evolution’s Achilles’ Heels pack
by Various Ph.D. Scientists

US $28.00
View Item
frame top left frame top frame top right
frame left
Creation 12(3) coverFirst published:
Creation 12(3):32
June 1990
frame right
frame bottom leftframe bottomframe bottom right

‘Lucy’ isn’t the ‘Missing Link’!

Editor’s note: As Creation magazine has been continuously published since 1978, we are publishing some of the articles from the archives for historical interest, such as this. For teaching and sharing purposes, readers are advised to supplement these historic articles with more up-to-date ones suggested in the Related Articles below.

‘Lucy’ is the popular name given to the famous fossil skeleton found in 1974 in Ethiopia by American anthropologist Donald Johanson. To many people, Lucy is regarded as a certain link between ape-like creatures and man—thus supposedly proving evolution. But is Lucy really a pre-human ancestor?

According to Richard Leakey, who along with Johanson is probably the best-known fossil-anthropologist in the world, Lucy’s skull is so incomplete that most of it is ‘imagination made of plaster of paris’.1 Leakey even said in 1983 that no firm conclusion could be drawn about what species Lucy belonged to.

In reinforcement of the fact that Lucy is not a creature ‘in between’ ape and man, Dr Charles Oxnard, Professor of Anatomy and Human Biology at the University of Western Australia, said in 1987 of the australopithecines (the group to which Lucy is said to have belonged):

‘The various australopithecines are, indeed, more different from both African apes and humans in most features than these latter are from each other. Part of the basis of this acceptance has been the fact that even opposing investigators have found these large differences as they too, used techniques and research designs that were less biased by prior notions as to what the fossils might have been’.2

Oxnard’s firm conclusion? ‘The australopithecines are unique.’3

Neither Lucy nor any other australopithecine is therefore intermediate between humans and African apes. Nor are they similar enough to humans to be any sort of ancestor of ours.

Lucy and the australopithecines show nothing about human evolution, and should not be promoted as having any sort of ‘missing link’ status. The creationist alternative, that humans, apes and other creatures were created that way in the beginning, remains the only explanation consistent with all the evidence.

References

  1. The Weekend Australian, May 7–8, 1983, Magazine section, p. 3. [A more complete skull that was assigned to Lucy's species was found in 1992 (A.L.144-2). However, although more complete, it was highly fragmented (60 fragments) and a lot of imagination was still involved in reconstructing it.]
  2. Dr Charles E. Oxnard, Fossils, Teeth and Sex—New perspective on Human Evolution, University of Washington Press, Seattle and London, 1987, p. 227.
  3. ibid.

Related Articles


Refuting Evolution has sold over 500,000 copies! Impressive? But Richard Dawkins’ God Delusion has sold 8.5 million copies. Please support CMI so we can get more of this information out. Support this site

Copied to clipboard
1172
Product added to cart.
Click store to checkout.
In your shopping cart

Remove All Products in Cart
Go to store and Checkout
Go to store
Total price does not include shipping costs. Prices subject to change in accordance with your country’s store.