Page 784 - Atlas of Creation Volume 4

close-set eyes, their sharp molars, their jaw structure and their long

arms and short legs are all evidence showing they were no differ-
ent to present-day apes.
Although the Australopithecines were all evidently species
FALSE walk on two legs. This is a blatant deception, because not a sin-
FALSE
of ape, Darwinists describe them as life forms that managed to

gle one of the Australopithecus-related fossils unearthed to date
corroborates this scenario. The evolutionary scenario for these
entities is thus based on no scientific evidence.

According to Darwinists, although there were various
Darwinists went even further and de- species in the Australopithecus family, only Australopithecus
picted the fictitious entity they named afarensis (the species represented by “Lucy”, who was por-
Nebraska Man, on the basis of a single trayed to the whole world as proof of so-called human evolu-

pig tooth, together with his family. tion when she was discovered in 1974) is regarded as a direct
ancestor of man. However even Darwinists have accepted that
the creature in question cannot be put forward as the ancestor
of humans. The French Darwinist journal Science et Vie used

the subject as its cover story in its May 1999 issue. Under the
caption “Adieu Lucy,” the magazine discussed Lucy, regarded as the most important fossil specimen
from the species Australopithecus afarensis, and said that Australopithecus apes were not the forerunners

of human beings, and that they should be removed from the family tree. 41
The world famous paleoanthropologist Richard Leakey also says that Lucy has no evolutionary va-

The similarity between
Australopithecus and chim-
panzee skulls indicates that
Australopithecus is a genuine
species of ape, rather than an
Chimpanzee ancestor of man.

Australopithecus

782 Atlas of Creation Vol. 4