Lucy's Hands and Feet!
Lucy's Hands And Feet Looked "Human"!
I don't want to be accused of using "Christian/creationist" sources so let me show you a picture from: http://www.vanderbilt.edu/AnS/Anthro/Anth101/The%20Four%20Subfields.htm. There's an even better picture at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australopithecus_afarensis if you'd like to see it.
Let's knock out the first two issues at one time. You be the judge as to whether I'm deceiving someone or not. Do you see any hand or foot bones? The answer is, "No!" That's because they didn't find any from the specimen called "Lucy". Please notice the reconstruction below. Human hands and human feet on Lucy and her mate! Pretty loving couple, don't you think!
I want to make this clear, "Lucy" is a single individual within the Australopithecus afarensis species. They did not
find any hand or foot bones from "Lucy", but they did find hand and foot bones from other Australopithecines or her "cousins" so to speak. So, the real question is, "What did the fossil hand and foot bones they found from Lucy's "cousins" support?"
I think that's a fair question. Does the actual evidence support the reconstructions that we see at the London Natural History Museum (see picture to the left). Come on, why's she doing the pledge of allegiance in London?
Look at the way that her hands are depicted at the St. Louis Zoo exhibit entitled the Living World. (See below!) It looks as if she's thinking about, "What's for dinner?"
These are just a few of the thousands of false reconstructions that we see in museum, TV shows, magazine articles etc.? Christians as well as non-christians need to know the truth.
I was just at the David Koch exhibit on human evolution at the Smithsonian. We took over 150 folks through the exhibit and looked at all of the supposed evidence for human evolution. Lucy was the star there as well. And yes, she was depicted with human hands and human feet there as well. This is supposed to be the latest and greatest and most up-to-datest exhibit in the world and it's inaccurate.
So, what is the truth? Below I'm showing you a chart comparing the curvature of the fingers between, Bonobo (type of chimpanzee), Chimpanzee, Gorilla, Human and AL333 (australopithecine specimen). The further to the right the dark line is, the more curved the finger. Please notice that the circle with the dot inside is Lucy's "cousin". It shows that their fingers were just as curved, if not more curved than a chimpanzee. Hmmm!
(J. Stern & R. Susman, 1983, Am. J. Phys. Anthropology 60:279-212)
Let me give you another source as well showing that Australopithecine hand bones are NOT human. Please pay attention to the write-up below the picture. (Great catch Rich!)
"Description
This cast of an Australopithecus afarensis hand shows the characteristic long, curved finger bones. These are more like the hands of living apes than they are modern human hands. The cross section of the finger bones is also squarish, indicating either a partly arboreal lifestyle or that this is a primitive feature retained after they moved into a more terrestrial lifestyle."
http://australianmuseum.net.au/image/Australopithecus-afarensis-hand-bones-cast/
Anything jump out at you?? How about the line, "These are more like the hands of living apes than they are modern human hands."
If that's true, why can't it be the hand bones of a dead ape??
The exact same thing is true when it comes to the toes of Lucy. Take a look at the picture below to see how Lucy's foot is depicted at the St. Louis Zoo exhibit entitled the Living World. Look familiar? Seriously, a little Nair would fix it up to where you couldn't tell that foot apart from a person living today.
Well, what's the truth? Let's go back to the secular sources and see what we can find. Please notice the chart below clearly shows that the toes of Lucy's "cousin" was more curved than a chimpanzee. So, who's lying?
(J. Stern & R. Susman, 1983, Am. J. Phys. Anthropology 60:279-212)
I know that there are still those that will not agree, (Because I've already heard from you.) so I'll give one more secular source on this issue to support the "fact" that Lucy did NOT have human hands and human feet. Ian Tattersall is not a creationist. In his book, Extinct Humans the following is written:
Did you catch that last part? "In keeping with Lucy having had long and strongly curved finger and toe bones, as do chimpanzees and orangutans"! I rest my case. If you see human hands and human feet on Lucy, you are being lied to!