Christianity · creationism · evolution · philosophy · religion

‘Human ancestor’ Lucy has baboon bone, calling evolutionists into question

lucyEvolutionary scientists are being called into question again over just how they really conduct their research. While creationists have long expressed doubt over the so-called “Lucy” discovery–since it’s so fragmentary and the popular museum display relies on artists’ renderings of what they think Lucy may have looked like–evolutionary scientists swore up and down for years that “Lucy” was an ape-like ancestor to homo sapiens.

Now they are backtracking yet again on some of their findings. Last week, after close analysis by scientists at New York’s Museum of Natural History, scientists released their findings that Lucy had some oddities, including at least one bone which is clearly from a baboon. So, do you mean to tell me after many years of promoting Lucy in the media, in science textbooks, and in museums, they just now noticed the pieces didn’t fit and that something didn’t add up? I guess when you’re so intent on embracing the lie of evolution, the truth becomes inconvenient and gets pushed aside.

Yet despite evolution’s long history of blatant mistakes, falsehoods, and outright lies, you can best believe this Lucy information will be ignored by mainstream media and she’ll still continue to be promoted as a homo sapien ancestor. When the Bible’s true account of creation is rejected even with all its evidence to back it up, people will embrace lies no matter what. How sad. I pray that God will continue to open at least the eyes of some evolutionists as these things are brought to light.

Source: Garrett Haley, Evolutionary Embarrassment: Part of Famous ‘Ape-Man’ Skeleton Actually Came from Baboon,, April 23, 2015.


2 thoughts on “‘Human ancestor’ Lucy has baboon bone, calling evolutionists into question

  1. And the evolutionary propaganda mill quickly steps in to state that “the mislabelled baboon bone fragment doesn’t undermine Lucy’s important position in the evolution of our lineage.” (

    However, at the Institute of Human Origins, we still find the following emphatic statement: “Although several hundred fragments of hominid bone were found at the Lucy site, there was no duplication of bones. A single duplication of even the most modest of bone fragments would have disproved the single skeleton claim, but no such duplication is seen in Lucy. The bones all come from an individual of a single species.” (

    IHO, it seems, have been a little tardy in their damage control. Perhaps, they think that because it wasn’t a bone duplication, their statement is still valid. It most certainly is not! An out of place baboon bone is far more damaging than a duplication. Not only is Lucy now not a single skeleton, the contentious bone is from a different animal! Let’s see how long they take to attempt a positive spin on this inconvenient truth.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.