“Aunt Lucy” Revisited

Four different views, four different drawings, four different ideas…from the same evidence?

No doubt, most people are familiar with the apes-to-man charts that show the gradual changes that supposedly took place that transformed “Lucy” into you and me. The chart looks something like this:

You’re also no-doubt aware of the many fallacies, gross misinterpretations, and downright “made-up-stuff” about these drawings. For example, the ramepithecines (the #2 guy on the chart) are not even considered to be ancestral to humans anymore – and haven’t been since the early eighties! Likewise, “Lucy” (#3 on the chart) is regarded by many scientists to be an extinct type of ape.

Another gross misinterpretation of a fossil occurred with “Skull 1470”, a famous Homo Habilis specimen. Only the skull was found, but with major parts missing – the cheeks, teeth, and the entire lower jaw. That was OK, though. The scientists working on this were happy to guide the artist as he recreated, not only these missing parts, but also the exterior of the specimen….exactly the way the scientists wanted him to look!

This sequence appeared in books, and many people swallowed it. BUT, there is NO WAY that the artist or scientist can know, from just the skull, that the shape the nose was ape-like, that the lips stuck out like a chimpanzee’s, and that the color of the skin was dark (all as depicted); nor can they know how long and what color the hair was. Yet, EVOLUTIONARY BIAS has neatly provided the answers!

This was years ago, however. Surely, this type of pseudo-science doesn’t go on today? Well, consider the case of artist Ron Irvin, who was the artist hired to make the illustrations of “Lucy” for an evolution textbook. His drawings complete, he was told that they weren’t satisfactory….that they needed to look more “apelike” in some, and more “humanlike” in others. In other words, “draw the creature as we WANT it to look”. This is bias in the extreme and a terrible abuse of science!

To illustrate this, let’s consider some drawings which appeared in the magazine, Creation ex Nihilo, Vol. 19, No 24. Consider the skull pictured below,. How would you draw the live creature? Note the fierce, pointed teeth at the front. Surely the drawing of the animal to the right of the skull would be an accurate portrayal. Well, it’s not. The real creature is a camel!

An experiment was conducted in which four artists were given identical casts of fossilized bone pieces and were each then asked to draw the “hominid”. Each was told that the creature was a female Homo Habilis. Why would the artists be told that?! Because it might predetermine the outcome of their drawings? Hmmm…

The results, however, were four completely different drawings. They varied on hair length, body posture, and other physical features. Some were drawn to be tree climbers while others were depicted as ground-dwellers. Facial characteristics varied from ape-like to human-like. The director of the experiment said, “Research was completely up to the individual; that’s why their work looks so different. There’s no way to draw her”. Even National Geographic published these results!! Four different interpretations from the same evidence.

In other words – THEY DON’T KNOW! It’s something to remember when you see a drawing of a supposed ancestor of yours! □Back