They were disproved a long time ago to be part pig bones. So why do evolution still teach it like its a fact that backs them up? It's sad, they are misleading people.
2006-09-23
18:59:54
·
11 answers
·
asked by
geeeezzzzeeee
3
in
Society & Culture
➔ Religion & Spirituality
If what I'm saying is a lie why don't you look it up? :-)
2006-09-23
19:03:48 ·
update #1
The Lucy skeleton is supposed to be an intermediate between ape and man. There has been a lot of discussion of Lucy's knee joint by creationists and much misunderstanding. The best I can now determine is that there were 2 knee joints, one found nearby and one far away. The one found far away was found two to three kilometers away from the skull and 60-70 meters deeper in the strata. Dr. Johansen does not claim that the knee joint belonged to Lucy. Instead, it was part of another fossil he found some time earlier. He does put them together logically, though, claiming that they were of the same species. Thi Lucy is an example of Australopithecus afarensis, and other examples of this species have been found since then.
Dr. Charles Oxnard completed the most sophisticated computer analysis of australopithecine fossils ever undertaken, and concluded that the australopithecines have nothing to do with the ancestry of man whatsoever, and are simply an extinct form of ape (Fossils, Teeth)
2006-09-24
05:39:46 ·
update #2
Lucy - these bones were promoted as a pre-human ancestor. But the evidence shows that Lucy is just species of chimpanzee. See http://www.icr.org/pubs/btg-b/btg-011b.htm
2006-09-24
05:40:18 ·
update #3