Evolution versus Creation

Lucy, The “Missing Link”:

Australopithecus afarensis

The pictures below show all the remains that were uncovered of this creature.[i]

A skull and bones of an individual with the skeleton missing.

[i] https://www.skullsunlimited.com/products/replica-lucy-skull-bh-021

Several things should be noted:

  1. First, there are very little remains of the skeleton by which to determine anything about this creature’s appearance or even its classification.
  • The major elements of the bone structure that are necessary to determine whether it can walk upright, what its face is shaped like, what its hands looked like are completely missing from the remains. (See next section “Walking with Lucy”)
  • There is no way to develop a scientific theory with only a single sample size. Any structure found on these remains that might be used to support evolution could simply be the result of other factors, such as the following:
    • Birth defect: How can it be known if this creature is even normal and not the result of some type of birth defect?
  • It could just be an abnormality of a normally recognizable species. There are certainly a wide range of sizes and features of modern humans, from dwarfism to gigantism. So then, why do we believe that the fossil record has only remains of creatures that are “typical” or “representative” of the species living at that time?
  • The fact remains that all we really know of this creature is that it lived and died. We cannot know if it is representative of the entire species at that time. We cannot know whether it had offspring. We certainly cannot know if those offspring evolved into homo sapiens. We would need to know all these things to say with confidence that this creature is an ancestor to Homo sapiens.
  • If evolution is true, why are there not many more examples of intermediary species, or “missing links”? While some may cite other archeological samples, the fact that this skeleton is held up as a major link, even though there are only fragments of a skeleton remains, indicates that there really is little if nothing else for evolutionists to point to as evidence. If there were more complete skeletons, then they surely would not be using Lucy to support their view. Even Darwin himself recognized the problem of no intermediary links to his theory and spent a considerable part of his Origin of Species to provide potential explanations of their absence. Yet, he ultimately cannot discount the danger it poses to his theory. He writes:

“Lastly, looking not to any one time, but to all time, if my theory be true, numberless intermediate varieties, linking closely together all the species of the same group, must assuredly have existed; . . .”[i]

After more than 150 years, the fossil record is just as lacking in those intermediary forms as it was in Darwin’s time. What is the explanation from those who still hold to this theory?

  • There is no tissue, muscle, skin, or hair. Any reproduction of a face is pure speculation without any data to support it.

[i] Charles Darwin, On The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life (Norwalk, Conn.: The Easton Press, 1993. Reprint of the definitive sixth edition of 1872), 140.

Walking with Lucy:


The text for the video linked above from the California Academy of Sciences, asks, “Can you spot the similarities and differences amongst the skeletons?” Then it proceeds to list those things in the video. Discrepancies are provided in red font:

Lucy and chimpanzees share:

  • Elongated skull with small brain case (cannot be determined from such few remains)
  • face and jaws that jut out from the brain case (cannot be determined from such few remains)
  • Shoulder blades and joints that are suited for climbing trees (No shoulder blades and very few, if any, joints in the remains)
  • Long arms and hands with curved fingers (If anything, the arms look well proportioned, and there is barely one small bone of one hand. How can it be said that the hands are long with curved fingers?)

Lucy and modern humans share:

  • Spine connection beneath the skull to keep the head steady (There are NO remains of the spine from the rib cage to the skull. The portion of the skull where the spine would connect is completely missing)
  • Robust and broad basin-shaped pelvis to support the upper body and hold it upright (While there are some remains of the pelvis, there is not enough of the rest of the skeleton to be able to make this assertion. Who is to say how big or small the upper body was? And if the upper body dimensions cannot be determined, then how can any ratio between the size of the upper body to the size of the pelvis be calculated?)
  • Angled thigh bones that place the weight directly over strong knee joints (Same problem as above. Also, except for one vertebra, the spine is completely missing from the pelvis to the bottom of the rib cage. Plus, there is not enough of the upper body to say what the angel of the upper body to the thigh bones is.)
  • Compact and arched feet that support the full body weight with each step (What feet? This statement is based on zero evidence.)


What can be said? If what passes for “science” today is ok with creating educational material like this and believing that these remains of “Lucy” carry any weight, then any attempt at a rationale debate is pointless.