This is more typical erroneous evolutionist babble. Lucy was found in different layers and the pieces were miles away.
Another
LIE.
Lucy (Australopithecus) - Wikipedia
By Johanson's later (
published) accounts, both he and Tom Gray spent two hours on the increasingly hot and arid plain, surveying the dusty terrain. On a hunch, Johanson decided to look at the bottom of a small
gully that had been checked at least twice before by other workers. At first view nothing was immediately visible, but as they turned to leave a fossil caught Johanson's eye; an
arm bone fragment was lying on the slope. Near it lay a fragment from the back of a small skull.
They noticed part of a femur (thigh bone) a few feet (about one meter) away. As they explored further, they found more and more bones on the slope, including vertebrae, part of a pelvis, ribs, and pieces of jaw. They marked the spot and returned to camp, excited at finding so many pieces apparently from one individual hominin.
[2][12]
Over the next three weeks the team
found several hundred pieces or fragments of bone with no duplication, confirming their original speculation that the pieces were from a single individual; ultimately, it was determined that an amazing 40 percent of a hominin skeleton was recovered at the site. Johanson assessed it as female based on the one complete pelvic bone and sacrum, which indicated the width of the pelvic opening.
[13]
Further
Lucy's Knee Joint
Creationists have been making the claim that Donald Johanson found the knee joint of "
Lucy," a 40%-complete skeleton of the species
Australopithecus afarensis, in a location "Sixty to seventy meters lower in the strata and two to three kilometers away" (
Willis 1987). They have sometimes gone on to add the claim that "Only under questioning did [Johanson] admit that the knee was found over a mile from Lucy. To the best of our knowledge this admission has
not appeared in print!" (
Willis 1987; emphasis in original; Also see
Brown 1989a, p. 44) The claim is used by creationists to show that (a) evolutionists are dishonest and (b) "Lucy" did not walk upright. It successfully shows neither of these things, because it is false. (Even if it were true, it would not demonstrate (b), for reasons given in Lippard (
1989-90)--the knee joint is not the only evidence of bipedality in
A. afarensis.)
The claim is not only false, it is clearly shown to be false in Johanson's published writings about "Lucy" (e.g., Johanson and Edey 1981, ch. 7-8) and it has been pointed out repeatedly to its proponents that it is false. Despite this, none of the major proponents of the claim has publicly retracted it. One major proponent has privately agreed that it is false, and a few creationists have agreed to stop repeating it. One minor proponent made a public retraction.
The claim originated with Tom Willis, head of the
Creation Science Association for Mid-America, in an article he wrote for the Bible-Science Newsletter (1987). In his article, Willis reported on a lecture by Johanson at the University of Missouri on November 20, 1986. Willis reported that the following exchange occurred during the question-and-answer session which followed Johanson's lecture:
Q. How far away from Lucy did you find the knee?
A. Sixty to seventy meters lower in the strata and two to three kilometers away.
This question was perhaps intended by the questioner to mean "How far away from Lucy did you find Lucy's knee?", but was clearly interpreted by Johanson to mean "How far away from Lucy did you find the 1973 knee joint?" Willis does not recognize the confusion in his article, even though the discoveries of both the original knee joint (1973) and Lucy (1974) are described in detail--including the locations of the finds--in Donald C. Johanson and Maitland E. Edey,
Lucy: The Beginnings of Humankind (
1981) and in the articles in the April 1982 issue of the
American Journal of Physical Anthropology. The creationist misunderstanding would never have occurred had either of these sources been consulted.
Johanson's writings have always been clear about the fact that his 1973 knee joint was a separate find from Lucy. All of the bones shown in photographs of Lucy were found at a single location.
Dishonest and repeated lying is another mark of pseudoscientist like the creationist groups of US.
Letter by Don Johanson.
Letter from Donald Johanson, August 8, 1989
This is the knee joint from 1973 expedition, belonging to a different member of the Afarensis species
Here is the "Lucy" skeleton discovered year later
They have always been considered two different individuals but form the same species
Again, you do not understand that creation scientists are not recognized in today's science.
Lying conmen usually are not recognized. It would be troubling if they were.
Most are atheist scientists that refuse their theories. That isn't traditional science and the way science was taught to me. Thus, when it comes to evolution the creation scientists had to peer-review their own work. You're being disingenuous not recognizing it. Your use of New Scientist as a source is pop science and not a serious source if you're going to criticize the Daily Mail. I would put SAE as more serious creation science, but not on the level of it being peer-reviewed. It's a good overall creation science source.
The Creation Museum in Kentucky has their own exhibit of Lucy. These guys are serious --
https://creationmuseum.org/creation-science/lucy/ .
In the dishonest world of creation pseaudoscience, bones apparently can be put together in any way and form, despite the fact that every person who has suffered from dislocated joints or arthiritis are going to vouch for the fact they cannot. In actual science where the shape and configuration of bines is actually and carefully used to determine the structure of skeletons of extinct species, the bones of Lucy and other A. Afarensis specimens point to only one conclusion
, a creature that walked upright in two legs.
The reconstruction is done by Carol Ward, a foremost scientist in the bone structure of hominids.
https://scholar.google.com/citations?hl=en&user=ASeQcyEAAAAJ&view_op=list_works
Please cite the papers that justify the reconstruction of Afarensis as a chimpanzee in the creationist "amusement park" and his/her training etc.? Thanks.
