Well, i was suspect of thie “Lucy” claim, and not from a Christian biblical point of view. In a university anthropology museum, I saw a finished model of lucy based on the skeleton in question.
In just plain honesty, I saw a chimp-like thing in both, stature and structure. Im *assuming* the guy is correct about the bones only being able to be bi-pedal, but remembering the tail-dragging T-Rex skeletons we had for 100 years. I dont know how bulletproof his bi-pedal proof truly is.
My big problem is that finding a Bi-pedal ape, doesn’t make it our ancestor. There is no sane proof that this genetic animal lead to homo sapiens. It has to be just as probable that its from a dead end species that went extinct. Even similar DNA (if they are able to do it on a 3 million yr old skeleton) doesnt prove much. Neanderthal is very close to our DNA, and was a separate line that went extinct.
This is just my rumination on it. Not a genesis theory, but i think the proof that lucy is our ancestor is thin, and the motivation for error or boast claims is high. (fame, “proof” of darwin just as some religious types try to do, continued funding to play in africa,,etc)
I want more proof, it moved into accepted fact too quickly for me.
The truth "is what it is." Many studies in all areas of science are based more on what gets the grants than what's true.
The old fossils and bones also serve as Rorschach tests. Dittos for studies of ancient cultures. The conclusions reached often say more about the person doing the studying than the subject. I guess it would be boring if all these studies said, "actually, we know damned little about these bones."