Lucy: Our Relative?

From 1:1 Answers In Genesis, volume 23, issue 1 (January 2016)

DID YOU KNOW that according to evolutionary thinking, a fossil creature named “Lucy” is claimed to be a close relative between apes and humans? It’s thought to be among our first relatives to walk on two legs. Last year, President Obama hailed it as an ancestor of ours.

Lucy’s fossil bones, however, look like ape fossils. So why do evolutionists think it has human features? Largely it’s because a set of clearly human footprints was found in the area, supposedly dated 400,000 years earlier. But humans weren’t supposed to have evolved yet, as the story goes. So, because Lucy was missing feet, evolutionists stuck human-looking feet on it and declared that its ancestors must have made the footprints!

Instead of believing in evolutionary stories about the past, we should start with God’s Word. As a major display in the Creation Museum reveals, there were no ape-like relatives like Lucy, and Lucy was just an ape.

My Note:

Lucy’s actual remains did not include hands or feet and reconstructions are commonly presented with human or near-human hands and feet despite the fact that other skeletons of the same creature have hands and feet which are clearly those of an ape, with curved fingers for moving about in trees. Mary Leakey in fact had found clear tracks of human footprints in the same strata and location as Lucy’s remains and the assumption is that at least one australopithicus MUST have had human feet. Asked whether a better explanation would be that the tracks were simply produced by humans, Leakey and others replied that was impossible since the tracks were millions of years old. The obvious explanation of course is that a human made the footprints and “Lucy” was simply that human’s pet monkey.

I read an appropriate quote on the Internet today: If we evolved from apes, why are there still apes?