Why is the evolutionary evidence of "Lucy" a farce?

It is a composite. All of the "missing links" eventually turn out to be frauds. Funny how the media doesn't talk much about this.

It was NOT fake, its just that the creationist don't trust scientist that don't agree with their theory.

Also

I agree "Lucy" isn't the missing link bc it is closer to primates then humans

BUT

That only prove that primate INDEED evoled and that their is or WAS a "in between" (50/50) human-primate hybrid speices which humans evoled from.

And

Just bc "Lucy" isn't the missing link doesn't mean were not related to her, with the discovery of more fossils were are getting closer to the missing link every day the newest fossil is of a 3yr old Australopithecus anamensis it is said

"What the new discovery does is very nicely fill this gap between the earliest of the Lucy species at 3.6 million years and the older [human ancestor] Ardipithecus ramidus, which is dated at 4.4 million years," White said.

Problem one-evolutionary evidence would be a fossil or some remains of an intermediate creature which of course we do not have. So of course we have no evolutionary evidence. Problem two-most if not all of the "evolutionary finds" have been proven to be complete hoaxes.

From what I recall, when the discovery first broke National Geographic pictured "Lucy" on their cover as an apelike, hunched over creature with a sloping forehead, when in fact the footprints produced by this creature were exactly analogous to a modern day human.

Lucy is not a missing link. Shes proven Chimpanzee.

evolution doesnt disprove God and in case you think of that there is "NO information that a God exists" you have needless to say no longer looked for different perspectives. you probable observed a prepare on Discovery Channel speaking approximately evolution and commited your existence to that concept. so attempt to be somewhat greater open minded

Isn't this the skull made of fragmented bone and then built up to look as if it was an early **** sapian. It looks quite questionable for sure put together like a puzzle. Lots of those "discoveries" have proved to be hoaxes.

ok how about this more recent find?

http://www7.nationalgeographic.com/ngm/0611/featur...

Lucy wasn't a complete skeleton, so perhaps you can try to debunk her, but this skeleton was completely intact, as the bones had fused together at death. I'm sorry that you can't accept that australopithecus afarensis is one of our ancestors.

Lucy was debunked a long, long time ago. Nobody thinks Lucy was real. Welcome to 1955! We hope to catch you up to speed on things right away!

What does I love Lucy have anything to do with this category

The only farce is that creationists refuse to accept scientific data that indicates they are wrong.