Ken Ham Ain’t No Kin to Lucy

Everyone knows about Lucy, the fossil of a species now known as Australopithecus afarensis, found in 1974, whose skeleton suggests she could walk upright. Numerous other fossils of that species have been found since Lucy, but that one gets all the press. The usual creationist websites deny the evolutionary significance of Lucy, including the Discoveroids — see Discovery Institute: Casey Luskin and Lucy. Also, Rev. Rives Debunks Lucy.

Creationists don’t like Lucy — or any other human ancestors. That’s certainly true of Answers in Genesis (AIG), the creationist ministry of Ken Ham (ol’ Hambo) — the Australian entrepreneur who has become the ayatollah of Appalachia. The latest from ol’ Hambo himself is Lucy Was a Tree Climber After All. Here are some excerpts — with no bold font added by us, because Hambo has made that unnecessary:

The poster child of human evolution is the well-known Australopithecus afarensis fossil named Lucy, found in Ethiopia in 1974. Evolutionists believe she walked on two legs and therefore represents bipedality in one of our supposed ancestors. Well, according to a new study, Lucy was a tree climber. (By the way, while evolutionary beliefs continue to “evolve,” the Bible stays the same and continues to be confirmed by science over and over again.) [Bold font in Hambo’s original text.]

The new study to which Hambo refers is Human ancestor ‘Lucy’ was a tree climber, new evidence suggests in Science Daily. You can read it online without a subscription. Two excerpts should be enough:

Exactly how much time Lucy spent in the trees is difficult to determine, the research team says, but another recent study suggests Lucy died from a fall out of a tall tree. This new study adds to evidence that she may have nested in trees at night to avoid predators, the authors say. An eight-hour slumber would mean she spent one-third of her time up in the trees, and if she also occasionally foraged there, the total percentage of time spent above ground would be even greater.


“It may seem unique from our perspective that early hominins like Lucy combined walking on the ground on two legs with a significant amount of tree climbing,” says Kappelman [John Kappelman, professor of anthropology at the University of Texas at Austin], “but Lucy didn’t know she was ‘unique’ — she moved on the ground and climbed in trees, nesting and foraging there, until her life was likely cut short by a fall — probably out of a tree.”

It’s not surprising that an ape-like ancestor of humans could climb trees as well as walk. That’s what one would expect of a transitional species. But Hambo doesn’t believe in transitional species. He says:

Apparently special CT scans of Lucy’s limbs showed evidence of tree-climbing behavior: [quote from the Science Daily article]. Secularists are finally catching up with our high-tech Creation Museum exhibit by saying that Lucy was a tree climber! [Bold font in Hambo’s original text.]

BWAHAHAHAHAHA! After that he tells us:

Creationists have been saying for years that Lucy wasn’t some kind of human ancestor. She’s just part of the great variety God built into the ape kind. The more scientists learn about Lucy, the more apparent it becomes that she’s just an ape. [Bold font in Hambo’s original text.]

Hambo finishes by recommending an earlier AIG article, and he also invites you to see his Lucy exhibit at the Creation Museum. That’s the whole post.

Well, dear reader, Darwin’s in big trouble now. Lucy could climb trees and walk. It looks like Hambo was right all along.

Copyright © 2016. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.

add to del.icio.usAdd to Blinkslistadd to furlDigg itadd to ma.gnoliaStumble It!add to simpyseed the vineTailRankpost to facebook

. AddThis Social Bookmark Button . Permalink for this article

15 responses to “Ken Ham Ain’t No Kin to Lucy

  1. Apparently Ham is unaware that humans can climb trees, too, and that some of them spend considerable amounts of time there collecting food. Lucy, being a small, relatively defenseless creature, might well have slept there, too, for safety.

  2. So, the intermediate form between largely arboreal (most apes) and largely terrestrial (humans) has to be an ape and can’t be a transitional?

    What a joke! But then that’s creation “science” as usual, eh?

  3. Poor Ken Ham! Never had the joy of climbing a tree as a boy. Oh, wait — he’s from Australia, isn’t he? Probably grew up on the Nullarbor Plain, never to see a tree until setting foot in Kentucky.

  4. You can’t climb trees on the Nullarbor. The drop bears will have you for breakfast. I thought everyone knew that.

  5. Eddie Janssen

    The only reason Young Earth Creationism has any credibility at all is because it has a rebuttal of the dating methods of modern science (such as it is). At least convincingly enough for YEC’s.
    If it could be shown, without a shadow of a doubt, that modern dating techniques are correct than YEC falls apart. They would loose the support of those who disagree with them, but who tolerate their ideas because these ideas might be true. Then they would become outcasts in the non-scientific part of society as well as in the scientific part of today’s world.

    So maybe, all efforts should go in convincing people that modern dating techniques are what they are: a scientific correct and reliable way of determing the absolute age of vulcanic rocks, and thus of the rocks in between these volcanic layers and thus the fossils in these rocks.

  6. Dave Luckett warns

    You can’t climb trees on the Nullarbor. The drop bears will have you for breakfast.

    Indeed–but I have it on the best authority that a generous smear of Vegemite behind the ears deters attacks from those fell predators.

  7. Coyote – It is almost blindingly dumb, isn’t it. Dismissing what amounts to a kind of behavioral Crockoduck, as it were. What *do* they want? Oh, right, for Jesus to return and kill us. I forgot.

  8. Gosh, when I was a kid, I climbed quite a few trees, does that make me “just an ape”? Actually yes, I am a great ape. Thanks, Ken Ham!

  9. Not to be contrary, but wouldn’t falling out of a tree be more evidence of not being very good at climbing trees?

  10. Isn’t the point of AiG style apologetics that everything proves Ken Ham’s reading of the Bible is true?

  11. Whew, I’m glad to hear Ham say that. He’s not related to any member of the hominid family tree, he’s declared he’s out on his own limb somewhere, all by his lonesome on a dead end.

  12. “the Bible stays the same and continues to be confirmed by science over and over again.”
    If anyone still doubts Ol’ Hambo’s dishonesty (yeah, I know, I’m kicking in an open door) just contemplate this sentence. How does Ol’Hambo arrive at it? By dismissing at beforehand anything that in his view contradicts the Bible as non-scientific.

  13. The people that Ham is talking to know that everyone who read the Bible for a couple of thousand years were mistaken, and they are the first people who know the true, unchanging message of the Bible.

  14. Speaking of the capabilities of various primates, the New York Times reports that a team of researchers in Vienna has decided that, contrary to previous thinking, the vocal tracts of monkeys are theoretically capable of human speech sounds. It is their brains that come up short. They lack both the conceptual apparatus for language and the fine motor control over the tongue, lips, and jaw that makes distinct vowel sounds possible.

    I expect creationists will take this difference between us and monkeys as more evidence that we are made in the image of you-know-who, and other created beings are not.

    Ham claims THIS vindicates how AiG falsely portray ‘Lucy’ at the Creation Museum:

    This is the paper in question:
    It does not suggest that the Lucy species is an extinct gorilla or chimp or that previous conclusions regarding bipedalism were incorrect. But Ken Ham is shouting ‘told you so’.

    What a fraud and a bigot.