Did Lucy Walk Upright?

1. Did Lucy Walk Upright? Richmand and Strait, “Evidence that Humans Evolved from Knuckle-Walking Ancestor,” Nature, 2000. “Regardless of the status of Lucy’s knee joint, new evidence has come forth that Lucy has the morphology of a knuckle-walker.” E. Stokstad, “Hominid Ancestors May Have Knuckle Walked,” Science, 2000. “I walked over to the cabinet, pulled out Lucy, and shazam! – she had the morphology that was classic for knuckle walkers.”

2. Confusion about Lucy Robert Boyd and Joan Silk, (both professors of anthropology), How Humans Evolved, 2000, pp. 331-334. “Anatomical evidence indicates that A. afarensis was bipedal…” …some anthropologists are convinced by the anatomical evidence that A. afarensis was not a modern biped.” Why the confusion? Why aren’t students told about this?

3. Did Lucy Walk Upright? Stuart Burgess (Ph.D. CEng), Hallmarks of Design, 2002, p. 166. “There are so many unique features required for bipedal motion that it is impossible for a quadruped to gradually evolve into a biped.”

4. 10 Unique Characteristics • Fine balance • Flat face • Upright skull • Straight back • Fully extendable hip joints • Angled femur bones • Fully extendable knee joints • Long legs • Arched feet • Strong big toes

5. Did Lucy Walk Upright? Dr Fred Spoor, Anatomist and editor of the Journal of Human Evolution “Dr Fred Spoor has done CAT scans of the inner ear region of some of these skulls. These show that the semi-circular canals, which determine balance and ability to walk upright, resemble those of the extant great apes.” F. Spoor, “Implications of early hominid labyrinthine morphology for evolution of human bipedal locomotion,” Nature, June 1994 (reported in Creation, 2003, p. 17.)

6. Did Lucy Walk Upright? Charles Oxnard (professor of anatomy and leading expert on australopithecine fossils), The Order of Man: A Biomathematical Anatomy of the Primates, 1984, p. 332. “The australopithecines known over the last several decades … are now irrevocably removed from a place in the evolution of human bipedalism,… All this should make us wonder about the usual presentation of human evolution in introductory textbooks…”

7. Textbooks Promoting Bad Science “Lucy’s leg bones indicate that she must have walked upright. She stood about 1 m (3 ft) tall.” Biology: Principles and Explorations, Holt, Rinehart, and Winston, 2001, p. 307.

8. Textbooks Promoting Bad Science Biology: Visualizing Life, Holt, Rinehart, and Winston, 1998, p. 221. “Another important find was the footprints of a group of bipedal animals… They reveal small but very humanlike feet, lacking the ape’s opposable toe. Our ancestors or very close relatives were walking upright only 1.5 million years after diverging from the chimpanzee line.”

9. Lucy and Chimpanzees Joseph Weiner, The Natural History of Man, 1971, pp. 45-46. “The first impression given by all the skulls for the different populations of Australopithecines is of a distinctly ape-like creature… The ape-like profile of Australopithecus is so pronounced that its outline can be superimposed on that of a female chimpanzee with a remarkable closeness of fit.”

10. Situation not good for “Lucy” In 1976, *Johanson said that "Lucy has massive V-shaped jaws in contrast to man" (*National Geographic Magazine, 150:790-810). In 1981, he said that she was "embarrassingly un-Homo like" (Science 81, 2(2):53-55). Time magazine reported in 1977 that Lucy had a tiny skull, a head like an ape, a braincase size the same as that of a chimp—450 cc. and "was surprisingly short legged" (*Time, November 7, 1979, pp. 68-69).

11. Dr. Yves Coppens: Appearing on BBC-TV in 1982, stated: “Lucy’s skull was like that of an ape”.

12. The bones of Lucy come from two different sources? *Peter Andrews, of the British Museum of Natural History, said this: "To complicate matters further, some researchers believe that the afarensis sample [Lucy] is really a mixture of two separate species. The most convincing evidence for this is based on characteristics of the knee and elbow joints."— *Peter Andrews, "The Descent of Man," in New Scientist, 102:24 (1984).

13. So whether Lucy’s bones belong to one creature or two, they are both apes! Johanson, himself, finally decided that Lucy was only an ape. "Johanson himself originally described the fossils as Homo, a species of man, but soon after changed his mind based on the assessment of his colleague, Tim White. They now describe the bones as too ape-like in the jaws, teeth and skull to be considered Homo, yet also sufficiently distinct from other, later australopithecines to warrant their own species.”

14. Conclusion The experts have concluded that Australopithecus afarensis is very similar to the pygmy chimpanzee (known as the bonobo in its homeland, Zaire). Australopithecus again was clearly an ape that was similar to the pygmy chimpanzee, and in no wise bore any resemblance whatsoever to humans.

15. Conclusion on Lucy William Fix, The Bone Peddlers, 1984, p. xxii. “Lucy seemed to be more of a promotion to convince the public that Johanson’s fossils were more important than Richard Leakey’s rather than an attempt to present an evenhanded assessment of current paleoanthropology.”

16. Two More Step Out of Line

17. Homo Habilis1470 Man "Either we toss out this skull or we toss out our theories of early man . . [It] leaves in ruins the notion that all early fossils can be arranged in an orderly sequence of evolutionary change."—*Richard E. Leakey, "Skull 1470," National Geographic, June 1973, p. 819.

18. The Problem: The skull found dramatically changed appearance depending on how the upper jaw was connected to the rest of the cranium! According to Lewin, Walker said: “You can hold the (upper jaw) forward, and give it a long face, or you could tuck it in, making the face short…How you held it really depended on your preconceptions. It was very interesting watching what people did with it.” Lewin reports that Leakey recalled the incident, too: “Yes, If you held it one way, it looked like one thing; if you held it another, itl looked like something else”.

19. Then you have the evolution of the skull itself!

20. Leakey “fought hard” "Leakey fought hard to win a place for his 1470 because most anthropologists thought the skull was simply 'too modern-looking' to be as ancient as he at first claimed." R. Milner, Encyclopedia of Evolution (1990), p. 217.

21. John Cuozzo In a 4-page report complete with two drawings and seven photographs, provides intriguing evidence for his contention that Skull 1470 may have been that of an early teenage human being, and that damage to the skull after death caused the ape-like characteristic in the nasal opening, etc. Creation Research Society Quarterly, December 1977, pp. 173-176

22. Peking Man

23. Like Rats from a Sinking Ship

24. Java Man

25. Cro-Magnon Man Cro-Magnon Man is not a missing link, he fits in within the range of variation within a species that we see today. Cro-Magnon Man is just an evolutionary name for a “modern” man.

26. Neanderthal Man These were the first fossils proposed as links between apes and mankind. They were the “cave men” given the name Neanderthal. Neanderthal was originally portrayed as a “beetle-browed, barrel-chested, bow-legged brute.” Neanderthals were just plain people. Indeed, scientists now classify Neanderthals as Homo sapiens, the same scientific name given to you and me.

27. Neandertals Original Drawing of Neandertal

28. MarcellinBoule • A French paleontologist named *MarcellinBoule said the remains found belonged to ape-like creatures, but he was severely criticized for this even by other evolutionists who said this fossil was just modern man (Homo sapiens), deformed by arthritis.

29. Neanderthals discovered came from harsh inland environments in Europe They could easily have (like many of our own American-plains Indians) suffered skeletal abnormalities, especially from lack of iodine in the diet and shortage of sun-induced vitamin D necessary for calcium absorption during the long winters. The bones were examined by both scientists and evolutionists, and for a number of years all agreed that these were normal human beings.

30. Thomas H. Huxley Even that ardent evolutionist and defender of *Darwin, *Thomas H. Huxley, said they belonged to people and did not prove evolution. *Rudolph Virchow, a German anatomist, said the bones were those of modern men afflicted with rickets and arthritis. Many scientists today recognize that they had bowed legs due to rickets, caused by a lack of sunlight.

31. Neandertals • Constructed to look ape-like • Brain capacity about 200 cc larger Initial construction discovered to be wrong

32. Neandertal Burial Cites Marvin Lubenow, “Recovery of Neanderthal mtDNA: An Evaluation,” Creation Ex Nihilo Technical Journal, 1998 p.89. “Most anthropologists recognize burial as a very human, and a very religious, act. But the strongest evidence that Neandertals were fully human and of our species is that at four sites Neandertals and modern humans were buried together.”

33. Rearranging the Data From Buried Alive by Dr. Jack Cuozzo Drawing of a Neandertal fossil purchased at the souvenir counter at the museum in Berlin giving an ape-like appearance Lower jaw 30 mm (over an inch) out of the socket

34. Rearranging the Data From Buried Alive by Dr. Jack Cuozzo Flat, human appearance Lower jaw 30 mm (over an inch) out of the socket

35. Neandertal Anatomy Thick brow

36. Neandertal Anatomy B. Endo, “Experimental Studies on the Mechanical Significance of the Form of the Human Facial Skeleton,” J. Fac. Univ. Tokyo, 1966. Biochemical models have demonstrated that chewing muscles working through the teeth generates intensive concentration of compression in the nasal and forehead region…i.e. a bigger brow ridge.

37. Neandertal DNA Nicholas Comninellis, M.D., Creative Defense: Evidence Against Evolution, 2001, p. 195. (citing Marvin Lubenow, “Recovery of Neanderthal mtDNA: An Evaluation,” Creation Ex Nihilo Technical Journal, 1998.) “Analysis of Neanderthal DNA failed to demonstrate any significance from DNA of modern humans.”

38. Neandertals Were Human Dave Phillips (Physical Anthropologist), “Neanderthals Are Still Human,” Impact Article #223, May, 2000 “Neanderthals were human. They buried their dead, used tools, had a complex social structure, employed language, and played musical instruments. Neanderthal anatomy differences are extremely minor and can be for the most part explained as a result of a genetically isolated people that lived a rigorous life in a harsh, cold climate.”

39. Neandertals Were Human R. Ward and C. Stringer, “A molecular handle on the Neanderthals”, Nature, pp. 225–226. “If early human populations were ‘very small and isolated from one another’, gradually each would accumulate ‘different losses’ [in mitochondrial DNA] until they all came to look really different from each other because of the drift. … Nothing in the new data rules out the possibility that Neandertals interbred with ordinary Homo sapiens, which would make them part of the same species.”

40. Neandertal Population • Common dates for Neandertals are 130,000 to 30,000 years ago • Neandertals existed for about 100,000 years (2,500 generations: 40 years per generation)

41. Neandertal Population From year 1 to 2,000 the population has grown from about 300 million to 6 billion (100 generations) There should have been over 50 billion Neandertals that lived during this time! The Problem Where are the fossils?

42. Neanderthals David Menton, (Ph.D. Cell Biology and 30 years Professor of Human Anatomy), “Making Monkeys Out of Man”, www.answersingenesis.org/docs2/4371gc8-28-2000.asp “Despite the overwhelming evidence that Neanderthals were simply a race of stocky humans, imaginative artists (with the encouragement of some evolutionists) have consistently rendered them as stooped ‘ape-men.’”

43. Neandertal man, reconstructed from a skull found in La Chapelle-aux-Saints, France Conclusion About Neandertals • Isolated population of people • Lived in a cold, harsh climate • 100% human

44. Museum in Erkrath, Germany