« Back to Articles
Lucy and Other Proto-Humans
by Dr. Johnny O. Trail, LMFT
My eleven year old son started the sixth grade last week. His mother and I always make it a point to speak with him about the events of his school day. In less than a fortnight, his ancient history class had already started talking about proto-humans. In a somewhat disturbed voice, he remarked, “Dad we talked about ‘Lucy’ in our class today.” After that, he went on to say that the teacher said Lucy was about “3.5 million years old.”
Much ink could be spilled on the fallacy of our planet being millions (or billions) of years old. When one considers that the sun is burning off at a constant rate, and adds that rate back to the circumference of the sun, the lunacy of such a claim is apparent. This is one example of many that could be referenced to refute any ancient earth theory. Still, there remains the question of alleged skeletal evidence in the evolution of human beings. 
Public schools typically do not share all of the information about alleged human ancestors in the evolutionary chain. It is easier to take for fact the incomplete research of paleontologists and anthropologists with an agenda—to prove evolution regardless of what the evidence says. These things are done so that programs continue to receive funding for their efforts at continued research. That is, there is money to be made in promoting evolutionary theory. One journal that supports evolutionary research opines, 
A false and sentimental glow surrounds science in the minds of many outside the science world. A reverent belief in the purity of scientists, so tender and mild (except for those intelligent-design scoundrels), is a badge of membership for the enlightened. The cult of science all but denies that professionals in the field are human beings, subject to the familiar corruptions that go with money, power, and prestige. 
When one examines the “evidence” that they use to support a false theory of human evolution, it destroys the preconceived notions surrounding evolution.
What do the facts teach about Lucy and other creatures that are supposedly on the human evolutionary chain? For one thing, Lucy, like so many other creatures, has very little skeletal evidence to support the artistic license that many exaggerate to create the images that are displayed to the public. Consider this fact:
Unfortunately, there is very little fossil evidence to go on. Even though Lucy is fairly complete for a mammal fossil (47 of 207 bones found), the bones are mostly small fragments with many pieces missing. Other specimens have been found, but they are far more fragmentary. No matter how complete, all fossils must be interpreted. Some interpretation is always left to the imagination of the person doing the reconstruction. 
From just a few incomplete fragments, scientists and artists have recreated this icon of evolutionary history.
Lucy, like so many other proto-humans, is really an ape that has been given human characteristics. Scientists have agreed with this conclusion. One writer avers,
Rak and colleagues studied 146 mature primate bone specimens, including those from modern humans, gorillas, chimpanzees and orangutans and found that the "ramus element" of the mandible connecting the lower jaw to the skull is like that of the robust forms, therefore eliminating the possibility that Lucy and her kind are Man's direct ancestors. 
Thus, there is more evidence to connect ‘Lucy’ with apes than humans.
Questions regarding the authenticity of Lucy’s human ancestry are being asked by people other than creationists. Many researchers question the alleged link between Lucy and humans. A team of Israeli scientists have disputed the links that others have sought to affirm. They write, 
Mandibular ramus morphology on a recently discovered specimen of Australopithecus afarensis closely matches that of gorillas. This finding was unexpected given that chimpanzees are the closest living relatives of humans. Because modern humans, chimpanzees, orangutans, and many other primates share a ramal morphology that differs from that of gorillas, the gorilla anatomy must represent a unique condition, and its appearance in fossil hominins must represent an independently derived morphology. This particular morphology appears also in Australopithecus robustus. The presence of the morphology in both the latter and Au. afarensis and its absence in modern humans cast doubt on the role of Au. afarensis as a modern human ancestor. 
If Lucy is the strongest evidence that evolutionists have to offer regarding the human evolutionary chain, it fails miserably in light of the evidence!
Another problem that Lucy has to overcome is bipedalism. The reconstruction of her pelvis region is problematic at best. Instead of allowing the evidence to dictate the results, Lucy’s bipedalism is connected to footprints discovered over one thousand miles away from where her remains were found. Note the following information,
Johanson bolstered his claims after Mary Leakey’s 1976 discovery of the Laetoli footprints in Tanzania, roughly 1000 miles away from the site of Lucy’s 1974 discovery in Ethiopia. Leakey unearthed a trail of fossilized footprints belonging to several bipeds (two, three, or four—possibly including a juvenile stepping in the bigger prints—depending on whose analysis you accept). The prints look like those of habitually barefoot people, and their morphology and evident gait demonstrate that whoever made them walked upright on two legs. 
Furthermore, many scholars have asserted that Lucy’s pelvic bones are more closely related to chimpanzees than humans. This adds credence to the fact that Lucy was most likely a tree-dwelling primate and not another link on the chain of evolution. Russell Tuttle, an anthropologist from the University of Chicago is quoted as saying,
Tuttle agrees that, based on anatomical data, A. afarenis must have been arboreal, but he goes even further, arguing that Lucy’s pelvis shows a flare that is better suited for climbing than for walking. More importantly, he says, the Laetoli footprints so not match the foot bones found in Hadar; where the Hadar foot is ape-like, with curved toes, the footprints left in Laetoli are ‘virtually human.’ Tuttle concludes that the bipedal species which lived in Tanzania is a different species from A. afarensis—and one more closely related to humans. 
`Moreover, Lucy’s rib cage is reminiscent of a primate rather than a human being. That is, “Lucy’s rib cage is conical like an ape’s, not barrel shaped like a humans.” The ribs of Lucy were rounder in shape than what one would expect from an organism that is allegedly humanoid in anatomical features. Instead of fitting into a more human shaped barrel design, the ribs of Lucy seemed to fit into a conical shaped ribcage.
Finally, one might consider the wrist bones that were linked to Lucy’s discovery. Upon close examination, many scholars have concluded that the anatomy of these bones was most closely akin to the bones of tree-dwelling primates. 
The “evidence” among those who believe in the theory of evolution is fragmented at best and experts are not in harmony about the true identity of Lucy’s family tree. These things being evident, why do textbooks and instructors talk about Lucy as if she is concrete proof of a human evolutionary chain? Amos’ words in this instance ring true, “Can two walk together, except they be agreed?” (3.3).