Is it time to kiss Lucy goodbye? the ape that is?

Question

Three Israeli scientists have reported in the most recent issue of the Proceedings of the National Academy of Science1 that Au. afarensis may not be our ancestor at all. It all hinges on the jaw of these creatures (pardon the pun). Alas, Au. afarensis has a lower jaw bone (mandible) that closely resembles that of a gorilla—not that of a human or even a chimp. The scientists conclude that this “cast[s] doubt on the role of Au. afarensis as a modern human ancestor.”

This should not come as a huge surprise, since even Donald Johanson, the discoverer of the first Au. afarensis “Lucy,” conceded that its V-shaped mandible was very ape-like, and certainly nothing like that of a human.2

see Farewell to Lucy
http://www.answersingenesis.org

Answer 1

Let's look at www.answeringenesis.org

Their Mission Statement:
* We proclaim the absolute truth and authority of the Bible with boldness.
* We relate the relevance of a literal Genesis to the church and the world today with creativity.
* We obey God’s call to deliver the message of the Gospel, individually and collectively.

In other words, this is a site dedicated to promoting the Scientific Creationist view of the universe (cough, ahem.) You'll note there links-a-plenty on the site showing where you can donate money. Always the sign of a good, solid, science based organization.

The two CEO's are as follows:

1) Ken A. Ham - A highly controversial figure with no peer acceptance in the scientific community. He's a public speaker (in case you don't know, those who can't do, public speak) a Christian radio show host, and a self-proclaimed best selling author. His "best seller" The Lie: Evolution, was published by Master Books, the publishing arm of the Institute for Creation Research, an organization that was recently criticized by PEER (Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility) for putting out a book that promoted a "young earth" view of the Grand Canyon. They concluded the book "does not use accurate, professional and scholarly knowledge; is not based on science but a specific religious doctrine; does not further the public's understanding of the Grand Canyon's existence; [and] does not further the mission of the National Park Service"

I could find no scholarly or scientific journals that have reviewed Ham's "best seller" nor could I find any circulation statistics, so it wouldn't be a bit surprising if the "best seller" badge was given out by the publishers themselves.

Wikipedia lists Ham as having an BS in Applied Science from Queensland Institute of Technology. At the end of his so called best seller, he claims "Satan invented evolution theory." REALLY?

2) Dr. Monty White - got his doctorate in Chemistry 36 years ago (he's only a little out of date) by studying Gas Kinetics (the reaction rates in gaseous chemical reactions.) Hardly an authority on evolution, or any related field like paleontology, geology, archeology, biology, medicine or astronomy. He supports a literal interpretation of Genesis, and believes the universe is about 6000 years old.

This is from 20 minutes of digging on these hucksters. Imagine what you'd learn in a few days?

Answer 2

That's a selective reading of the article in PNAS which suggests that Lucy (3.2 million years old) was on the line that evolved into Australopithecus robustus. The authors suggest that this is not the line that became human. Instead, "Lucy" is a different branch that did not become human and Ardipithecus ramidus is the closest common ancestor of humans and chimps.

Answer 3

If it is, it is.

Lucy is not the only link to our ancestry that anthropologists possess. So, all this would mean is that we may not be related to the species from which Lucy came.

Despite what the article claims, the results of this study do nothing to disprove evolution, because Lucy (and the rest of her species) would still have evolved from another, more primitive ancestor.

Proof is proof, we can accept it whether it supports our views or not.

Answer 4

The only reason for which I could think you would put this in the R&S section, is that you are trying to disprove evolution. We know evolution is true, just as we know gravity exists. We are just trying to figure out the details as to how they work.

Answer 5

HUU... HAA... HUU... HAA! Never mind Lucy!....
I think that most of you guys, CREATIONISTS, are the missing link... judging by most of your questions and answers!

Answer 6

"Lucy" was debunked long ago...