Splainin’ Lucy – Part 2

24 Jan

Splainin’ Lucy – Part 2

australopithecus_afarensis1-682x1024http://smithsonianscience.org/2010/03/hall-of-human-origins/

“My, What Beautiful Eyes You Have!”

In the first installment of this series we set the stage to deal with some very specific claims about the most famous of all the supposed evolutionary ancestors, “Lucy”.  In this article we’ll apply the simple principal of asking, “Where’s the beef?” to the  “evidence” found in the reconstruction.

First, take a look at the picture of Lucy below and observe it critically.  Keep in mind,  you won’t become famous in the world of paleontology by finding human or monkey bones.  It’s finding the bones of “apelike” ancestors that gets the attention of both the media and the scientific community.  In order to be considered bones of apelike ancestors there must be features of both humans and apes.  Sure enough, Lucy fits that requirement.  Just look at the reconstruction of her face!

Australopithecus_afarensis_adult_male_-_head_model_-_Smithsonian_Museum_of_Natural_History_-_2012-05-17

Lucy Reconstruction
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/73/Australopithecus_afarensis_adult_male_-_head_model_-_Smithsonian_Museum_of_Natural_History_-_2012-05-17.jpg

hooting-chimp

Chimp

http://www.hellofelix.com/images/primates/hooting-chimp.jpg

Take a look at Lucy’s eyes.  The iris and the sclera (the white of the eye) look human!  This would lead you to believe thatLucy was an apelike, human ancestor because of the human and apelike characteristics. 

Notice Lucy’s brow ridges as well.  It’s not nearly as pronounced as a normal chimpanzee.  That would lead you to believe that Lucy was an apelike ancestor, because it is much less prominent than an ape’s.

In addition, notice the coloring of Lucy’s face— it’s much darker than a chimpanzee’s face.  Put all of this together and you have a perfect “ape-like” ancestor.

So, the question is, “Where’s the beef?” or what’s the truth?  Always ask, what does the observational evidence?  Below is the actual evidence that was found. 

Lucy_blackbg

Notice that a fossilized eyeball was not found.  So how would anyone know that the sclera was white, which would cause it to look more human.  The reconstruction is pure speculation about how Lucy’s eye looked. 

As for the brow ridges, does the observational science (the bones discovered) show that Lucy had smaller ridges than a chimp?  No, all they have are fragments.  Search the internet for “australopithecsu afarensis” & “skull” & “reconstruction”.  Classify the search for “images” and see what comes up.  Below are three different reconstructions from the same evidence:

  Australopithecus_afarensis_reconstruction

http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australopithecus_afarensis

bh-001-lg

http://www.boneclones.com/BH-001.htm 
Hominid_Skull-Australopithecus_afarensis-composite(DukeA)_001http://www.dlt.ncssm.edu/tiger/360views/Hominid_Skull-A_afarensis-composite(DukeA)_1200x900/index.html

It doesn’t take a PhD to see the differences in these reconstructions. 

The reason the reconstruction varies so much is because of what was actually found — only FRAGMENTS!  When all you have is fragments you must create the rest of the reconstruction with your own thinking, which is influenced by your beliefs and world view.  If you believe man evolved from apes, you’ll fill in the missing information with that mindset.

Ask yourself, which reconstruction is closer to the observational evidence (the actual bones discovered)?  Watch this video clip from, “In Search of Human Origins”. 

Did you catch that, “very ape-like!”  Hmmm, so where do the human features fit in with a “very ape-like” skull. I can say this with all certainty, there is one thing that all of these reconstructions have in common — none of them found fossilized human eyes!!!  We’ve already dealt with that, so let’s move on!

Perhaps you are thinking, “Carl, You’re a creationist.  You’re biased!”  Well, you’re right, I am biased.  My presupposition is that I believe what God said in His Word.  So let’s look at only the observable evidence, the “beef”, and follow  it to a logical, testable conclusion. 

To support my claims, I’ll share additional quotes from Don Johanson, the man who discovered Lucy.  In the documentary, “In Search of Human Origins with Don Johanson”, he spoke about what they found and described what it looked like.

DON JOHANSON: “We think Lucy’s skull might have looked something like this, with a receding forehead and a prominent face. And with a brain case no larger than a chimps, this was no smart ape.”

DON JOHANSON: “And what about Lucy, herself. What did she look like? We know from the teeth, the jaw and now the skull fragments we found, that Lucy had an ape-like face with a brain just a little larger than a chimps. She may have had dark skin and patchy hair to protect her from the sun.”

(Emphasis mine)

So, according to the man who discovered the bones and reconstructed them she had an “ape-like face, with big protruding brow ridges, very ape like.”

We’ve already addressed both of those claims by looking at the observational evidence.

Lastly, let’s deal with the “dark skin” to protect her from the sun.  Is there any evidence to support that depiction?  And the answer is, NO!  No one knows the color of Lucy’s skin.  They just supposed it to be dark.  Andy why is that, why suppose the skin to be dark?

People may not like this, but it’s because evolution teaches that some common ancestor between apes and humans, which many claim Lucy to be, evolved into humans in Africa and were “black” to be able and help survive the strong sun.  Over time these first “black” humans started eating fish which helped develop their brain and made them smarter.  As the populations grew these “black” hominids starting moving north and turned “white.”  Evolution is a racist philosophy!  (If you think I’m making this part up, watch this clip from the History Channel program entitled, “Ape to Man.”)

If the observational evidence clearly shows that Lucy had a “very ape-like” skull, why do we see the human-like features on the reconstructions?   Well, I’ll let the sculptor who created one of the depictions of Lucy answer that question:

“I wanted to get a human soul into this ape-like face, to indicate something about where he was headed.”

John Gurche, sculptor, National Geographic 189(3): 96-117, March, 1996 

Well, I beg to differ.  The observational evidence shows an “ape-like face” (Don Johanson’s very words) so the depiction should be ape! 

Let’s address getting “a human soul into this ape-like face.”  All the sculpting in the world can’t create a human soul.  Only God can create a soul! Remember… “in the beginning, God created…” (Genesis 1:1)

In the next article we’ll deal with the human hips, hands and feet!

If you’d like more information on some of the other supposed ape-like human ancestors , check out the “Becoming Bold:  Know it! Live it! Share it!” DVD series.  The talk “Human Evolution: Is That All You Got?” deals with Ida, Ardi and Lucy!!  Another talk, “Jurassic Park of Jesus?” deals with how our worldview influences the way in which we interpret observational evidence.

Stay bold!

Carl Kerby & the rforh Team

 

Carl Kerby

Carl Kerby is an inspiring, motivating and highly respected Christian speaker. With more than 20 years of ministry experience, Carl shares his extensive knowledge and understanding of God’s creation in his presentations, outreach events, books and other resources as the President and founding board member of Reasons for Hope, Inc.