| C r e a t i o n S c i e n c e N e w s l e t t e r Compliments of Creation Science Alive - October 2006 Co-Founders: Nick & Teri Lally, RoseAnn Salanitri Warning!!! Reading this newsletter may be hazardous to your health. Please be sure to recline on the floor before reading to avoid injury from falling off your seat from laughter. Extra! Extra! Read All About Her! By RoseAnn Salanitri Common sense may tell you that if it looks like an ape, talks like an ape and swings from the trees like an ape, it must be an ape. Unfortunately, this is not the case for evolutionists who worship at the shrine of Lucy, and now her media-hyped baby girl. You may recall prior newsletters where we discussed the leap to conclusions reached by Lucy discoverer, Donald Johanson. This discovery was labeled Australopithecus afarensis (A. afarensis) and was dated at 3.2 million years. The skeletal remains of Lucy indicated that she was an extinct species of chimp. Unfortunately, her skeleton did not include feet. The reason she is heralded as a missing link – or a transition from chimp to man – is because 1,000 miles away in an area of Africa called Laetoli, human footprints were found. The conclusion was that these footprints belonged to Lucy and proved that she walked upright (bipedalism). Since the discovery of Neanderthal Man proved that brain size was not an indication of evolution as previously thought (Neanderthal’s brains were larger than ours), evolutionists now regard bipedalism as the trait that marks the evolution of man from apes. What about baby? In 1999 Zeresenay Alemseged discovered a three-year-old A. afarensis. This child was quickly labeled Lucy’s baby girl, although the child was 150,000 years older than Lucy and there is nothing to indicate that she is a girl (as it turns out Lucy is probably a male). To be sure there are many characteristics that define this as being the same species as Lucy. Additionally, this chimp has provided us with a more complete skeleton than Lucy. The reason that Alemseged’s discovery is just making it into the news in 2006, is because the skeleton was buried in extremely hard sediment as a result of a flood (that’s right, I said “flood”) and it has taken all this time to properly excavate most her remains (excluding her feet which remain buried). So what does she look like? She has long curved fingers for grasping tree branches, and her two should blades (missing in Lucy) look like a gorilla’s. The upward facing shoulder socket, which accommodates swinging from trees, is apelike and contrasts sharply with our lateral facing socket. (She swings from trees like an ape.) The hyoid bone that helps to anchor throat muscles indicates that she has a voice box similar to chimps. (She talks like an ape.) She has a short and thick neck like an ape, not slender like humans need to keep the head stable when running. And her brain size was 330 cubic centimeters – the same as that of a chimp. (She looks like an ape.) C. Owen Lovejoy, a leading supporter that A. afarensis was bipedal, stipulates that this animal has an arboreal history (lived in the trees). He also states in Scientific American, Sept. 20, 2006, in the article entitled “Special Report: Lucy’s Baby” that lacking a grasping big toe, A. afarensis could not move about effectively in the trees. The conclusion is that she must, therefore, be bipedal and a transitional specimen. But wait a minute – what about her big toe? Was it found? No, but according to Lovejoy, “The discovery of the famed Laetoli footprints in 1978 closed the debate.” To refresh your memory, the Laetoli footprints were found 1000 miles away from Lucy. Translation: footprints for this baby have not been found. She looks like an ape, talks like an ape, and swings from the trees like an ape. The only connection this baby has to humans are the same Laetoli footprints found in 1978. And that, my friends, is the best evolutionists can come up with! Contact us at creationfacts@aol.com,or look us up on the web at www.creationsciencealive.com |