Not only is it a soundbite, but it feeds right back to what I was saying: because it's a worthless, factually inaccurate soundbite that lazily and dishonestly attacks evolution without constructing any positive ideas of its own. I ask you again: where exactly in Ethiopia are the creationist scholars doing their groundbreaking work? Where are they publishing? What have they found?
Dr. Johanson gave a lecture at the University of Missouri in Kansas City, Nov. 20, 1986, on Lucy and why he thinks she is our ancestor. (snip) After the lecture he opened the meeting for questions. (snip) Roy Holt asked: "How far away from Lucy did you find the knee?" (The knee bones were actually discovered about a year earlier than the rest of Lucy). Dr. Johanson answered (reluctantly) about 200 feet lower (!) and two to three kilometers away (about 1.5 miles!). Continuing, Holt asked, "Then why are you sure it belonged to Lucy?" Dr. Johanson: "Anatomical similarity."
Not only is this patently false, it's absurd and dishonest. If you bothered to read Johanson's book (sitting on my shelf) or any of the journal articles, you'd know that Johanson went in great detail to describe the location of Lucy as well as the location of the A. afarensis knee and of other remains. At no point did he claim that the A. afarensis knee he found came from the same individual. Where do you guys come up with this nonsense? Do you really believe it?
If I'm not mistaken, Johanson has since admitted "Lucy" was likely a male chimp. I have no problem with it being an extinct species, but if the discoverer admitted it, we should stop using it a distinct species.