"Creatarded? LOL! How creative (excuse the pun).
Creationist sources misrepresent science out of necessity.
Now here are the facts about "Lucy:"
Lucy, as mentioned before, has many detractors, it is a wonder why she is even mentioned as an example of Evolution; Lucy being important because of her ability to walk upright. First, Lucys pelvis was in forty different pieces when found. When they finally put it together, they found it did not fit the model of an upright hominid, so they shaped the distortion to fit the correct model (Donald Johanson, Ansestors, pgs. 64-65, 1994). In a conversation on a NOVA special, Johanson states the following:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/transcripts/2106hum1.html
We needed Owen Lovejoy's expertise again, because the evidence wasn't quite adding up. The knee looked human, but the shape of her hip didn't. Superficially, her hip resembled a chimpanzee's, which meant that Lucy couldn't possibly have walked like a modern human. But Lovejoy noticed something odd about the way the bones had been fossilized.
OWEN LOVEJOY: When I put the two parts of the pelvis together that we had, this part of the pelvis has pressed so hard and so completely into this one, that it caused it to be broken into a series of individual pieces, which were then fused together in later fossilization.
DON JOHANSON: After Lucy died, some of her bones lying in the mud must have been crushed or broken, perhaps by animals browsing at the lake shore.
OWEN LOVEJOY: This has caused the two bones in fact to fit together so well that they're in an anatomically impossible position.
DON JOHANSON: The perfect fit was an allusion that made Lucy's hip bones seems to flair out like a chimps. But all was not lost. Lovejoy decided he could restore the pelvis to its natural shape. He didn't want to tamper with the original, so he made a copy in plaster. He cut the damaged pieces out and put them back together the way they were before Lucy died. It was a tricky job, but after taking the kink out of the pelvis, it all fit together perfectly, like a three-dimensional jigsaw puzzle. As a result, the angle of the hip looks nothing like a chimps, but a lot like ours.
Second, Brian Richmond and David Strait (eminent paleoanthropologist) of George Washington University identified similar morphological features on two early hominids, including Lucy:
A UPGMA clustering diagram illustrates the similarity between the radii of A. anamensis and A. afarensis and those of the knuckle-walking African apes, indicating that these hominids retain the derived wrist morphology of knuckle-walkers (Richmond & Strait, Nature404(6776): 382, 2000 ).
Third, Charles Oxnard (Charles E. Oxnard, Dean, Grad School, Professor Biology and Anatomy, USC) reinforces the fact that Lucy is not in between ape and man, that the uniqueness of Lucy makes her an improbable candidate for the Evolutionary line of man (Charles E. Oxnard, Professor Biology & Anatomy, USC, AMERICAN BIOLIGY TEACHER, Vol. 41, May 79, pg. 274). In 2001, Dr. Meave Leaky (part of the great Leaky family) states:
It is impossible to tell whether we are more closely related to Lucy or K. pltyops. There is too much missing from the fossil record since then (Cohen, Whos your daddy? New Scientist, pg 5, March 2001).
Then there is the trouble of trying to retract what Richard Leaky, renowned anthropologist, stated in 1983 that the scull of Lucy was so incomplete that most of it is imagination made out of plaster of paris (The Weekend Australian, magazine section, pg. 3, May 1983), let alone what kind of species she belonged to. To this date, no true scientist could tell you that a real transitional fossil, or missing link, has been found. Scientists freely admit that there are still too many gaps in the fossil record (Gould, S.J., Is a new and general theory of evolution emerging? Paleobiology 6:119130 (p.127), 1980).
Facts about Lucy from Evos, none from non-Evos.
So, if I take a few bones and mess with them a little bit to make them fit better, can I be an evolutionist too?
:)
She was an australopithocine, one of many hundreds of fossils of such, she was the first, not the only. Are all other australopithocine fossils similarly “discredited” or “misidentified”?