Is Lucy a Fraud?

Question

Check these out -
http://forerunner.com/forerunner/X0714_Lucy_fails_test.html


http://72.14.253.104/search?q=cache:VP__E8RZzrMJ:www.straight-talk.net/evolution/misslinks.htm+lucy+fossil+a+fraud+not+a+transitional+fossil&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=4&gl=us

What do u think?

Answer 1

Absolutely. Every time Charlie Brown goes to kick the football, she pulls it away!

---

OK ... to answer your question, you really need to read something a little more scientific than "the forerunner" (an evangelical campus newspaper).

For example, it says:
> "But what about Lucy? This most recent discovery in Africa is being heralded by many as a true transitional form, typically a replacement for the outmoded australopithecines. "

Lucy *IS* an australopithecine (specifically, Australopithecus afarensis). And no paleontologist believes that the australopithecines are "outmoded" (whatever that means).

And "most recent discovery"?? Lucy was discovered in 1974! Now there's a web site to trust to be up on the latest scientific research and to give you accurate scientific information and analysis!

So I didn't have to scratch very deep to find that the site is based on really *BAD* science. And yet this is the level of "science" offered (and believed) by creationists.

Oh ... and your second link is a result of your Google search for the keywords: "lucy fossil fraud not transitional" ... that is your idea of "unbiased research"?

What happens if you just Google "Lucy fossil"?

What do we look like? Charlie Brown?

Answer 2

I think you've posted a couple links to articles by biased religious people with no science education.
They are both laughable.

The first one has the most recent quotes from Johansen in the mid 1980's. Hey, we are in the new millenium, get something recent.
The second one is particularly error filled. I think it is hilarious that creationists still bring up Piltdown man as a fraud. Yes it was, and the fraud was discovered by scientists (not creationists) and published, and it has been a dead issue for 75 years.

Answer 3

Lucy has always been controversial, even (or especially) among scientists.

Controversy, debate, and argument is the backbone of science.

Lucy arguments may be wrong, but not fraudulent.

But I find it disingenuous that these fundy moron factories are always grabbing common scientific arguments and re-arranging them as if to say "there's a massive scientific conspiracy to trick you into believing something that isn't true, but we have the TRUE FACTS!!"

Gag me with a spoon, why doncha....

.

Answer 4

I don't know but it wouldn't be remotely relevant either way. A small number of frauds, falsehoods and errors do nothing to undermine the wealth of evidence supporting evolution.

Answer 5

I think you and whoever wrote this stuff are a bunch of morons. You have no understanding of evolution, and distort science in an attempt to hang on to your ridiculous bible story.

I would suggest you take a biology class, anthropology, archeology, and life science too.

Answer 6

Honey, that train came and left the station years ago.

Also, the Beatles broke up!

Answer 7

I don't think I could have said it any better than secretsauce above. In fact, I know that I couldn't.

Answer 8

I don't know, but at one museum they once found out a bone in a dinosaour skeleton was an animal bone.

Science trying to piece things together and make BOLD extraoplations always seems akin to Astrology.

Answer 9

I think that I'm not going to read that whole spiel.

Answer 10

No.

It shows how creationists are prepared to lie and distort the truth to support their claims:

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC003.html

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC030.html

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC040.html

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC051_1.html

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC001.html

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC002.html

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC052.html

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC050.html