Recent Articles

The Tale of “How Lucy’s Ancestors Looked”

The British science journal Nature reported on 28 August 2019 a fossil skull of an ape species named Australopithecus anamensis.[i] News about this fossil were covered in many publications, introducing the fossil as the so-called ancestor of human beings, and spreading evolutionary propaganda using the fossil’s reconstructions with human eyes.[ii] The new fossil was said to be the ancestor of A. afarensis, known as Lucy, and a section of history was portrayed in illustrations. However, the scientific nature of the publication that the news reports were based on is debatable and it is quite a speculative study. 

Lucy: A Fallacious Story

All of the species under the genus Australopithecus are extinct apes. Despite having a complete ape anatomy, they are portrayed as the “ancestors of human beings” based on the claim that they walked upright like humans. However, the upright walking story has been refuted by comparative anatomy studies. In fact, the well-recognized French journal Science et Vie made the invalidity of this claim its cover story in its May 1999 issue. Using the title “Adieu Lucy” (Goodbye Lucy), the journal wrote that the apes of the genus Australopithecus should be removed from human genealogy.

A. anamensis is too an ape species from the genus Australopithecus. Its humerus and tibia have previously been studied in detail and it has been shown that the species could only walk upright over short distances, like chimpanzees. As the famous fossil scientists Leakey and Walker have acknowledged, the jawbone and cranium of A. anamensis had traits found in apes. Besides, A. anamensis had a tiny external ear canal like chimpanzees do, and it is by no means similar to human beings with a large external ear canal. The fossil subject to the news reports is a skull found in Ethiopia in 2016 and is no different from a chimpanzee with a brain volume of 370cc.

Controversial Ancestor-Descendant Relationships

Evolutionary speculations in the study are criticized even by evolutionist authorities. It is claimed that some features of the fossil found were more primitive, and, therefore, that A. anamensis was the ancestor of A. afarensis. However, Tim White, a fossil scientist at the University of California, Berkeley, who was the doctoral adviser of Yohannes Haile-Selassie, the leader of the team of fossil hunters who unearthed the skull, opposes these comments saying:

“… the studies’ evolutionary implications are “a bridge too far.” He [White] thinks individual variation alone can account for the differences between the two specimens…”[iii]

Anatomist Carol Ward from the University of Missouri School of Medicine in Columbia and fossil scientist William Kimbel from Arizona State University in Tempe say:

“That issue rests on the comparison of the new specimen with the single frontal bone, which is the only A. afarensis specimen suspected of such antiquity… It’s difficult to make a strong argument because we have only the two specimens.”[iv] 


As can be seen, establishing evolutionary relationships between organisms that lived ages ago is only based on speculations. A. anamensis, like other Australopithecus species, is an extinct species of ape and is no different from chimpanzees today. Despite this, evolutionists make speculations on the bones of extinct apes as they wish and produce a controversial sequence. Illustrations published in the media have no scientific value, but may only have artistic value. All of this propaganda is aimed at imposing the false message that so-called “human-like” creatures lived in the past.


[i] Nature Magazine,


[iii] Science Magazine,

[iv] Science Magazine,


Check Also

Darwinist Tales Are Repeated on CNN: Homo Naledi

Science is an important road to truth. But, on the condition that the methods used …