When you asked, "What 'problems' would you discuss?" I specifically put down, "See line 101; do you think Lucy should be seen as a empirical observation of Evolution in any textbook?"
"Bitching at me because isn't going to help you at all."
Don't like the "Bitching" slap, stay of Free Republic.
Yes. "Lucy" is but one example of australopithecine. Since the discovery of Lucy there have been several dozen fossils of several dozen individuals discovered. They clearly were early bipedal hominids. The problems you raised have since been addressed and resolved.
Dimorphism in the lumbar spine has been confirmed in both Australopithecus, (appeared about 4 million years ago) and Paranthropus, (appeared about 2.7 million years ago) .This dimorphism has been seen as an evolutionary adaptation of females to better bear lumbar load during pregnancy, an adaptation that non-bipedal primates would not need to make.
Your “criticism” is not valid because they can tell by another Australopithecus afarensis skull (AL 444-2) that Lucy was bipedal plus Australopithecus afarensis bipedality is dramatically confirmed by a set of footprints discovered in fossilized ash.
You really should do some independent research instead of relying on your creationist talking point.