Replies

In the posted portion of this article, there are several intentional misstatements.

1. Ardi does not replace Lucy but is a likely ancestor to her as well as to later hominids.
2. Ardi was most likely female, this was not a choice of the artist or the "evolutionist conspiracy".
3. The artist was constrained by the fossils recovered both in terms of size and facial construction. Also, the reconstruction was of one individual fossil. The small canine tooth gives the face a distinctly different look than a chimp. The upright posture is determined for the fossil as well. Ardi was bipedal.

Normally I don't allow distractions while worshiping at my home temple to Darwin, but this article started out with just too much intentional BS.

And you missed the blatant deception in the first paragraph: “Recent research suggested, for example, that many longstanding dinosaur reconstructions were almost double the size of the actual dinosaurs.” If you follow the link, you’ll find that the study referred to body mass, not “size.” Brian wants us to think that dinosaurs weren’t really as big as depicted, when all that’s being suggested is that they might have been skinnier.

==1. Ardi does not replace Lucy but is a likely ancestor to her as well as to later hominids.

Replacement is a perfect word. The Temple of Darwin has kicked Lucy to the back of the bus, and replaced her with Ardi. C. Owen Lovejoy explains the reasons for this evo-religious update in Science:

"Even as its fossil record proliferated, however, Australopithecus [Lucy and her friends] continued to provide only an incomplete understanding of hominid origins. Paradoxically, in light of Ardipithecus, we can now see that Australopithecus was too derived—its locomotion too sophisticated, and its invasion of new habitats too advanced—not to almost entirely obscure earlier hominid evolutionary dynamics."

http://creationsafaris.com/crev200910.htm#20091002a

==2. Ardi was most likely female, this was not a choice of the artist or the "evolutionist conspiracy".

"Most likely"?...LOL! Where do you suppose they found her human-shaped breasts, and the rest of her human looking sex organs?

==3. The artist was constrained by the fossils recovered both in terms of size and facial construction. Also, the reconstruction was of one individual fossil. The small canine tooth gives the face a distinctly different look than a chimp. The upright posture is determined for the fossil as well. Ardi was bipedal.

LOL...Ardi's fossils were supposedly trampled by what they suspect was a herd of hippos, and were in such poor condition that they fell apart or turned into dust at the slightest touch. Indeed, the fossils were in such poor condition that it took your Temple of Darwin co-religionists over 15 years to reconstruct Ardi, and only then with digital reconstruction technology. And after all that, this is all they were able to come up with:

And from that, somehow the evo-artist came up with this...LOL!!!