Default Style
Wood Paneling
Girly Style
Shag Carpet
Green Grass
Big City
Colorful Grunge
Nice Leather
Outter Space
“Aunt Lucy” Revisited

**Article taken from www.natureofcreation.org

Four different views, four different drawings, four different ideas…from the same evidence?

 No doubt, most people are familiar with the apes-to-man charts that show the gradual changes that supposedly took place that transformed Uncle Ramram (ramepithecus) & Aunt Lucy into you and me.  The chart looks something like this:


 

You’re also no-doubt aware of the many fallacies, gross misinterpretations, and downright “made-up-stuff” about these drawings.  For example, the ramepithecines (the #2 guy on the chart) are not even considered to be ancestral to humans anymore – and haven’t been since the early eighties!  Likewise, “Lucy” (#3 on the chart) is regarded by many scientists to be an extinct type of ape.

Another gross misinterpretation of a fossil occurred with “Skull 1470”, a famous Homo Habilis specimen.  Only the skull was found, but with major parts missing – the cheeks, teeth, and the entire lower jaw.  That was OK, though.  The scientists working on this were happy to guide the artist as he recreated, not only these missing parts, but also the exterior of the specimen….exactly the way the scientists wanted him to look!

This sequence appeared in books, and many people swallowed it.  BUT, there is NO WAY that the artist or scientist can know, from just the skull, that the shape the nose was ape-like, that the lips stuck out like a chimpanzee’s, and that the color of the skin was dark (all as depicted); nor can they know how long and what color the hair was.  Yet, EVOLUTIONARY BIAS has neatly provided the answers! 

This was years ago, however.  Surely, this type of pseudo-science doesn’t go on today?  Well, consider the case of artist Ron Irvin, who was the artist hired to make the illustrations of “Lucy” for an evolution textbook.  His drawings complete, he was told that they weren’t satisfactory….that they needed to look more “apelike” in some, and more “humanlike” in others.  In other words, “draw the creature as we WANT it to look”.  This is bias in the extreme and a terrible abuse of science!

To illustrate this, let’s consider some drawings which appeared in the magazine, Creation ex Nihilo, Vol. 19, No 24.  Consider the skull pictured below... (Click here to continue reading)


Share on FacebookJoin our Facebook Group
Show Comments

You need to upgrade your Flash Player to version 9 or newer.