The Lucy skeleton
© Audio Visual Consultants Inc.
The Lucy skeleton (above) was misinterpreted by evolution scientists to be a hominin (an ape-man) based on false skeletal information provided by Dr. Owen Lovejoy and Dr. Donald Johanson. When a creation scientist used this same misleading data, he misinterpreted Lucy as a human. In reality, Lucy is a quadrupedal savanna ape similar in size and function to a modern chimpanzee (Sarmiento 1998, 43). These misinterpretations of the Lucy skeleton remind us that scientific data must be highly scrutinized before being used to develop a new theory or to interpret a fossil. This article provides a detailed description of the inaccurate data provided, which led to this false conclusion.
Above: Much false information about the Lucy skeleton was provided by Dr. Donald Johanson and Dr. Owen Lovejoy. This photo taken at Dr. Johanson's lab at the Institute for Human Origins, Univerasity of Arizona.
© Audio Visual Consultants Inc.
To cite this article:
Werner, C. 2026, January 24.
Rebuttal of Dr. Rupe’s “Lucy is a Pygmy Human Hypothesis”. The Grand Experiment https://www.thegrandexperiment.com/Lucy
Above: Dr. Rupe's March 2025 article, "Lucy" and the Pygmy Human Hypothesis
Title: Rebuttal of Dr. Rupe’s “Lucy is a Pygmy Human Hypothesis”
​​​
Abstract: In March 2025, creation scientist Dr. Chris Rupe published an online article (below) entitled “Lucy” and the Pygmy Human Hypothesis in which he suggested that Lucy was human, Homo sapiens (Rupe 2025).
His theory collides with nearly all creation and evolution scientists who classify Lucy as Australopithecus afarensis, not Homo sapiens. Dr. Rupe formulated his theory using published images, data, and anatomical arguments developed by evolutionary scientists who were trying to make the case that Lucy walked upright like a human and therefore was an ape-man (hominin). This rebuttal shows that Dr. Rupe's images, data, and claims come from misleading sources, undermining his argument that Lucy was human.
​
Keywords: Lucy, Australopithecus afarensis, Australopithecus africanus, Homo sapiens, A.L. 288-1, anterior inferior iliac spine, lateral flaring, sacrum, ilium, biped, quadruped, A.L. 129, A.L. 288-1.
​
Introduction: The partial skeleton known as Lucy, fossil A.L. 288-1, is classified as Australopithecus afarensis by both evolutionary and creationist scholars (Johanson, White, Coppens 1978; Tobias 1980; Wilford 1982; Bergman, Line, Tomkins & Biddle 2020). Discovered by Dr. Donald Johanson in 1974, Lucy was initially thought to be a bipedal hominin and a direct ancestor of humans, but since the 1980s, many scientists have considered her a side-branch in human evolution, not a direct ancestor (Friend 2001; Werner 2024b, 53, Werner 2024c).
​
Additional research has suggested that Lucy walked with bent knees and bent hips—a mode of walking resembling apes (Stern and Susman 1983; Susman et al. 1984). Numerous evolutionary scientists now recognize that Lucy spent considerable time living and moving among the trees (Stern and Susman 1983; Susman et al. 1984).
Above: Current Smithsonian Museum display portraying Lucy emerging from a tree with ape-like bent knees, bent hips, and abducted great toes. (From Lucy is an Ape, Volume 6 of Evolution: The Grand Experiment.
© Audio Visual Consultants Inc.)
In 1998, Dr. Esteban Sarmiento, Research Associate in Mammalogy at the American Museum in New York (below), categorized Lucy as a “quadrupedal savannah ape,” not a biped (Sarmiento 1998, 43).​
Most creation scientists believe Lucy, Australopithecus afarensis, is an extinct ape (a hominoid). But, in March 2025, Dr. Chris Rupe published an online article (above) suggesting a novel interpretation–that Lucy was Homo sapiens and specifically a member of a pygmy race of humans (Rupe 2025). He subsequently submitted his article for publication in the Creation Research Society Quarterly journal.
However there are serious problems with the evidence he used to substantiate his theory, including: using altered pelvis fossils; disregarding other well-accepted A. afarensis fossils; using misleading figures; misunderstanding the term lateral flaring; misstatement of fact concerning the anterior inferior iliac spines in ape pelvises; misinterpreting the absence of flexor pollicis longus tendons in apes; and misstatement of fact concerning the amount of curvature of the Lucy toe bones—all in an effort to support his case that Lucy was human. Nearly all the inaccurate evidence Dr. Rupe uses to support his hypothesis originates from evolution scientists Dr. Owen Lovejoy and Dr. Donald Johanson, who were trying to prove that Lucy walked upright on two feet in the human manner. This is a stark reminder that all facts, measurements, photographs, and diagrams provided by evolution scientists must be highly scrutinized, especially before forming new theories.
​
This rebuttal will commence with Dr. Rupe’s analysis of Lucy's pelvis, knee, and toe bones, which evolutionary scientists interpret as evidence that Lucy was bipedal and walked upright, similar to humans. Finally, a critique of the scientific approach used by Rupe will be offered. These numerous points nullify both the "Lucy is a hominin (ape-man) hypothesis" and the “Lucy is a Pygmy human hypothesis.” ​​​
1. Rupe’s claim that Lucy’s pelvis needed to be altered because it was in an anatomically “impossible” position.
​
In his article, Dr. Rupe implies that Lucy’s pelvis needed to be reshaped and changed from a flat ape-like pelvis into a round, human-shaped pelvis, because it was distorted and in an anatomically “impossible” position. He demonstrated this in his Figure 3 (below). Notice in his photograph, the lower pelvis bones (pubic bones) are sticking straight out forwards (red arrow below), instead of pointing downwards and inwards as in a normal primate pelvis.
But Rupe’s claim is incorrect because the pelvis (above) was photographed in the wrong anatomical orientation, as if Lucy was in the early stages of doing a back flip. Notice that the bottom of the sacrum is pointing forward approximately +10 degrees as compared to the top of the sacrum. In apes and humans living today, the bottom of the sacrum is naturally oriented backwards -34 degrees or more (red dotted lines below), not +10 degrees forward (above).
Above: The sacrum is typically oriented backwards -34 degrees or more in ape and human pelvises. From Evolution: The Grand Experiment Volume 6, Lucy is an Ape (Werner 2026).
As seen below, if the entire Lucy pelvis in Dr. Rupe’s Figure 3 is simply rotated backwards (with the sacrum pointing at least -34 degrees as in modern pelvises), the so-called “impossible orientation” disappears. Now Lucy’s pubic bones point downwards and inwards as an ape or human pelvis. It is unnecessary to reshape Lucy’s flat, ape-shaped pelvis into a round human-shaped pelvis since the unaltered bones are nearly anatomical (see below).
Above left: Rupe’s Figure 3 with the sacrum pointing forwards +10 degrees.
Above top right: The same Lucy pelvis bones photographed with the sacrum oriented backwards about -34 degrees. Notice the pubic bones now point downward and inward as in any modern primate pelvis (red arrow top right). From Evolution: The Grand Experiment Volume 4, Nine Categories of Overturned Ape-Men (Werner 2024b).
​Above bottom right: The Lucy pelvis photographed at Dr. Johanson’s lab at the Institute of Human Origins at Arizona State University. In his display, Dr. Johanson oriented the Lucy sacrum backwards about -45 degrees. Notice the pubic bones point downward and inward (red arrow bottom right) and are no longer in an “impossible orientation.” From Evolution: The Grand Experiment Volume 4, Nine Categories of Overturned Ape-Men (Werner 2024b).
​
Above: A copy of the complete, unaltered Lucy skeleton on display at Donald Johanson’s lab at the Institute of Human Origins at the University of Arizona. Notice Dr. Johanson oriented the sacrum pointing backwards approximately -45 degrees. Here, the pubic bones point downward and inward and reach midline (red arrow) as in any primate pelvis. From Evolution: The Grand Experiment Volume 6, Lucy is an Ape (Werner 2024).
​
It should be noted that the unaltered Lucy pelvis (shown in the four Lucy pelvis pictures above) has three fractures with offsets that have not been corrected. There are two fractures in the pubic bones, which can be easily seen in the four pictures above. There is also a longitudinal fracture of the ilium near the sacroiliac joint (which cannot be seen from this frontal view). When these three fractured offsets of the fossil pelvis are corrected, the pelvis of Lucy becomes anatomical, without the need for cutting and reshaping the ilium from an ape-shaped pelvis into a round human-shaped pelvis. (See Lucy is an Ape, Werner 2026).
2. Rupe’s claim that the Lucy pelvis was
“morphologically human.”
​
Before detailing the problems with Rupe’s claim about the Lucy pelvis, a brief review of the pelvis bones of apes and humans is necessary. The mammalian pelvis consists of the right and left innominate bones (also known as the hip bones or os coxae) and the sacrum. The sacrum, which is in the back of the pelvis, connects the right and left innominate bones. The innominates are made up of three bones: the ilium (red bone below), the pubic bone, and the ischium (the sit bone).
Above: Human pelvis. From Evolution: The Grand Experiment Volume 6, Lucy is an Ape (Wikimedia and Werner 2026).​
​
​
The human pelvis has a unique, rounded shape that allows for an upright, bipedal gait. All other primate pelvises are relatively flat and are used in a quadrupedal gait. There is no other single anatomical character in the skeleton that so clearly distinguishes between a bipedal and a quadrupedal gait. In the human pelvis, the upper blades of the ilium (red bones above) turn forward 90 degrees (red arrow above and below) and reach the front of the body. (You can feel the ilium bone in the front of your body under your belt.) In stark contrast, in all apes (and monkeys), the upper blades of the ilium do not turn forward but are relatively flat (blue arrow below). The upper iliac blades of apes and monkeys (quadrupeds) remain in the back plane of the body.
Above: The upper blades of the human ilia turn forward 90 degrees (red arrow above). In stark contrast, in apes, the upper blades of the ilia remain on the back plane of the body (blue arrow). This skeletal character is the most important anatomical feature to distinguish a quadrupedal ape from a bipedal human. From Evolution: The Grand Experiment Volume 3, Untold Stories of Human Evolution (Werner 2024a).
The muscles that allow humans to habitually walk upright on two feet, the gluteus medius and gluteus minimus, are located on the outside of the human pelvis, on the side. They insert on the lateral surface of the femur. As such, they function as hip abductors (stabilizers) in humans. These two muscles prevent the pelvis from collapsing downwards when standing on one foot. (During each step in the gait cycle, humans stand on one foot briefly while the other leg swings forward.) In apes, the gluteus medius and gluteus minimus are not on the side of the pelvis but are located on the back side of the body and function as hip extensors (not hip stabilizers). Because of this, apes cannot stand on one foot without the pelvis collapsing. When apes attempt to walk upright on two feet, their hips waddle up and down due to this collapsing (Trendelenburg's gait), and their knees and hips remain bent.
This brings us to the next significant issue. In his article, Dr. Rupe incorrectly stated that the Lucy pelvis was round and human-shaped and “distinctly different from chimpanzees.” He wrote: “The ilium [of Lucy] itself is also morphologically human (Rupe 2025).” After seeing his Figure 4 (below), in which the ilium of Lucy turns forward 90 degrees (blue arrow below), just like the modern human pelvis (red arrow below), and unlike the flat chimp pelvis (green arrow below), his claim seems to ring true. Rupe reasoned that since the Lucy pelvis was round, human-shaped, and turned forward 90 degrees, Lucy was human, a Homo sapiens.
​
But Lucy’s pelvis in Rupe’s Figure 4 (above) is not the original fossil pelvis bones of Lucy, but a cut, reshaped, altered resin pelvis. You may ask, “Why would Dr. Rupe place a cut, reshaped, altered pelvis of Lucy in his Figure 4, instead of the original, unaltered Lucy pelvis bones?” The answer comes from evolution scientists themselves and is a bit complicated. (The law of parsimony states that the more complicated an explanation, the more likely it is not true.) Here it is:
​
In 1973, one year prior to the discovery of the Lucy skeleton, Donald Johanson identified a small primate knee joint (fossil A.L. 129). He concluded that it represented a human-like knee from a diminutive primate exhibiting bipedal locomotion, and he designated it as Australopithecus afarensis. One year later, in the same region of Ethiopia, Johanson found a fairly complete Australopithecus afarensis skeleton, which he called “Lucy”. Because of the supposed human-shaped knee, Johanson believed Lucy must have walked upright like a human…but he ran into a problem. When he looked at the Lucy skeleton, the pelvis looked like an ape's pelvis. He specifically said the upper blade of the ilium of Lucy was flat like a chimpanzee pelvis, not round like a human pelvis (Johanson 1997).
​
Because of this anatomical inconsistency of Lucy having a human knee joint and an ape-shaped pelvis, he was forced to make a “correction.” Johanson and his team decided to change the pelvis bones from ape-shaped to human-shaped to match the knee. They made a plaster copy of the original Lucy pelvis, cut up the plaster copy into many pieces with a saw, ground the edges of the pieces with a grinding tool, added mortar between the pieces, and reshaped the upper blade of the ilium from a flat, ape-shaped pelvis into a round, human-shaped pelvis. Johanson, commenting on the reworking of Lucy’s pelvis, said, “It was a tricky job, but after taking the kink out of the pelvis, it all fit together perfectly, like a three-dimensional jigsaw puzzle” (Johanson 1997). You can see Dr. Lovejoy cutting and reshaping the copy of the Lucy pelvis in the NOVA PBS documentary entitled In Search of Human Origins, Episode 1 (Johanson 1997). All of this was circular reasoning. Johanson should have re-examined the knee joint of Australopithecus afarensis and realized it was not human-shaped, but ape-shaped. Subsequent analysis by the Co-Director of the Lucy expedition, Dr. Yves Coppens, and even Dr. Johanson himself indicated that the knee joint was more consistent with ape morphology rather than human (Werner 2024b, 45, Werner 2024d).
​
And herein lies the problem. Rupe placed the cut and reshaped altered Lucy pelvis in his Figure 4 (above), without explaining that it was altered dramatically from the original Lucy skeleton pelvis. If Rupe’s Figure 4 is corrected using the original flat, ape-like Lucy pelvis bones (see below), the pelvis of Lucy does not look “morphologically human” as Rupe stated, but morphologically ape-like.
Above: If Dr. Rupe’s Figure 4 is corrected, and the original Lucy pelvis bones are inserted, the pelvis of Lucy does not look “morphologically human” as Rupe stated, but morphologically ape. Now Lucy’s upper ilium remains in the back plane of the body and is flat.
Above: Six pelvises as viewed from the front. Notice the ilia of the human pelvis turn forward 90 degrees (red arrow), but the upper blades of all the ape pelvises (green arrows) and the Lucy pelvis (blue arrow) do not. This suggests Lucy walked on all fours like an ape. From Evolution: The Grand Experiment Volume 6, Lucy is an Ape (Werner 2026).
​
It should be noted that Johanson’s team not only altered a plaster copy of the Lucy pelvis—changing it from flat, ape-shaped to round, human-shaped—but they also painted the altered pelvis to make it look like natural bone that had not been altered (see below). By hiding the alterations, including painting the mortar between the cut and ground pieces, Johanson’s team committed fraud.
Above: In his book From Lucy to Language, Dr. Johanson misled his readers by supplying this image of the Lucy pelvis. The left pelvis looks like real bone, but is actually a plaster copy of the Lucy pelvis, which had been cut into many pieces. The edges of the individual pieces were ground down and reshaped, and mortar was added between the pieces to create a round human-shaped pelvis. This image is considered fraudulent because the team applied realistic paint to the modified plaster pelvis, effectively concealing the mortar between the segments and failing to inform the audience of these alterations.
​
Rupe’s claim that Lucy was Homo sapiens is dependent upon evolution scientists changing Lucy’s pelvis from ape-shaped to human-shaped. This alteration is not justified.
3. Rupe’s claim that Lucy is human, Homo sapiens, because Lucy has an anterior inferior iliac spine (AIIS) on the pelvis.
​
The AIIS bony prominence of the pelvis is where the rectus femoris muscle of the thigh attaches to the pelvis. In his article, Dr. Rupe incorrectly stated that humans have an anterior inferior iliac spine (AIIS), but apes do not. He demonstrated this with these misleading photographs of the pelvis in his Figure 6 (below).
Rupe stated that because this AIIS prominence is present in modern humans (above center) and is not found in modern apes (above right), it is a unique “diagnostic human trait.” From there, he argues Lucy must be human because Lucy also has an AIIS (above left). He wrote, “In the undamaged part of the [Lucy] ilium, there is a bony prominence known as the anterior inferior iliac spine (AIIS) . . . The equivalent of the AIIS in apes is flat; a bony prominence is not found in any non-human primates. It is a diagnostic human trait, and it is well preserved in Lucy’s ilium (Figure 6).” Rupe and some evolution scientists take this to mean that Lucy had a human pelvis and therefore Lucy walked upright like a human (Rupe 2025).
​
But according to multiple evolution scientists, the anterior inferior iliac spine (AIIS) is present in nearly all primates, including monkeys (Hartwig 2002, 38, 110-112, 360); chimpanzees (Dart 1949; Zirkle 2015); gorillas (Zirkle 2015); and extinct apes (Strauss 1963; Harwig 2002). In Rupe’s Figure 6 (above), the photograph of the chimp pelvis did not capture the AIIS bony prominence because the light was flat and the camera angle was flat. When these photographic issues are corrected, the AIIS can be easily demonstrated in all apes living today (as seen below).
Above: The anterior inferior iliac spine (AIIS) as it appears on the four types of modern apes. From Evolution: The Grand Experiment Volume 6, Lucy is an Ape (Werner 2026).
Rupe’s erroneous argument, that apes do not have an AIIS prominence, originated from Dr. Owen Lovejoy (the scientist on Dr. Johanson’s team who hilariously cut up Lucy’s pelvis and reshaped it on NOVA PBS). Lovejoy and his graduate student tried to downplay the presence of an AIIS in apes by claiming that the human AIIS and the ape AIIS develop “differently,” and therefore they are not the same structure (Zirkle 2015). But their criteria are rather vague, subjective, and not supported with corroborating CT scans of ape pelvises at various stages of development. Clearly, both humans and apes have an AIIS, as can be seen in the photos provided above. Therefore, Dr. Rupe's claim that Lucy is human simply because she possesses an AIIS is wrong.
4. Rupe’s claim that Lucy’s sacrum was human-shaped; therefore, Lucy was a human.
In Figure 5 of his article (above), Dr. Rupe shows the sacrum of a chimp, Lucy, and a human, side-by-side. He wrote, “The narrow, elongated sacrum of chimps is distinct from the shorter, wider sacrum of Lucy and modern humans (Rupe 2025).” He then extrapolates this observation into the idea that Lucy walked upright like a human, and therefore, is human.
Although the sacrum of Lucy (above) looks more like a human sacrum than a chimp sacrum, this illustration, provided to him by evolution scientist Dr. Owen Lovejoy, is misleading. ​If the Lucy sacrum is compared to the sacra of all apes living today, not just a chimpanzee, Rupe’s argument becomes hollow. In the comparison below, notice that Lucy’s sacrum stops abruptly instead of tapering down to a point like all the other sacra. It appears that Lucy’s sacrum is incomplete, missing at least one of the lower sacral vertebrae and the coccyx. Because of this, the lowest part of the Lucy sacrum should be ignored, and only the upper part should be compared to the sacra of apes and humans. (The original Lucy sacrum has been kept off limits by the National Museum of Ethiopia despite multiple attempts by the author (CW) to obtain original photographs, museum-quality copies, or to inspect the fossil.)
Above: In this comparison, the upper part of Lucy’s sacrum looks more like the orangutan sacrum than the human. From Evolution: The Grand Experiment Volume 6, Lucy is an Ape.
It is important to recognize that the sacrum exhibits variability in both shape and size across individuals of a single species. In humans, sacral vertebrae number between four and six, while the sacral foramina—openings that accommodate nerves—range from three to five on each side. Notably, females typically possess wider sacra than males. These anatomical variations result in some human sacra with only four foramina (as illustrated in Rupe’s Figure 5) being wider than they are long, whereas others may be longer than wide, with five foramina (as shown in the figure above). Therefore, Rupe’s and Lovejoy’s claim that Lucy’s sacrum belonged to an upright, bipedal creature because it was wider than it was long is unfounded. You cannot rely on the sacrum’s width or length to distinguish whether an animal was bipedal or walked on all fours.
5. Rupe’s claim that another australopithecine pelvis (Australopithecus africanus) is also “human,”
suggesting that all australopithecines preferentially walked upright on two feet.
​In his article, Dr. Rupe makes the case that both the Lucy pelvis (A. afarensis) and the A. africanus pelvis (STS 14) [1] are human-shaped, implying that both species of australopithecines walked upright on two feet like humans. Again, this claim submitted to him by evolution scientists is incorrect. In his Figure 14 (below), Rupe compares photographs of the Lucy pelvis (A. afarensis) to the A. africanus pelvis (STS 14) in two different views. Indeed, both australopithecine pelvises look round and bowl-shaped like the human pelvis. The Lucy pelvis (blue arrows below) and the STS 14 pelvis (orange arrows below) turn forward 90 degrees like the human pelvis (red arrows below). Because of this, Rupe believes both australopithecine pelvises (afarensis and africanus) should be reclassified as human, Homo sapiens. Once again, this figure is misleading. Dr. Rupe fails to make it crystal clear that both the Lucy pelvis and the STS 14 pelvis pictured below had flat upper ilium blades (like a chimpanzee's) when they were found. His Figure 14 does not show the original bones but the altered plaster/resin copies. Both the Lucy pelvis and the STS 14 pelvis were changed from flat, ape-shaped upper ilia into round, human-shaped upper ilia by evolutionists who wanted to make the case that these creatures walked like humans.
[1] As stated earlier, the Lucy skeleton was found in 1974 by Johanson and assigned to the species Australopithecus afarensis. Another australopithecine pelvis, STS 14, was found years earlier, in 1947, by Dr. Robert Broom and assigned to a different species, Australopithecus africanus. ​​
Above: Figure 14 and Figure 4 from Dr. Rupe’s article.
If Figure 14 (above) is corrected, and pictures of the actual fossils are inserted into this figure, the opposite conclusion is reached (as seen below). In reality, the original pelvis fossils of both Lucy and STS 14 are flat (green arrows below) and look like ape pelvises, suggesting both of these australopithecines were quadrupedal apes, not humans. Notice that only the human pelvis turns forward 90 degrees (red arrows below), the australopithecine pelvises and the chimp pelvis stay in the back plane of the body and do not turn forward (green arrows below). This is particularly clear in the superior view (bottom row below).
Above: Upon discovery, the Lucy pelvis and the STS 14 pelvis exhibited a flat upper blade (as indicated by green arrows), a characteristic comparable to that of chimpanzees. In contrast, the human pelvis is round in this region (see red arrows). This distinction is most apparent in the bottom row of images. From Evolution: The Grand Experiment Volume 6, Lucy is an Ape.
Once again, evolution scientists provided specious information and altered fossils to make their case that australopithecines walked upright like humans. Dr. Rupe then inadvertently accepted this incorrect data to make his case that Lucy was human.
6. Rupe’s claim that Lucy was Homo sapiens
because Lucy’s ilium could be fitted onto
a diseased human pygmy pelvis.
​
The Hobbit skeleton, Homo floresiensis, was found in 2003 on the island of Flores, Indonesia. Some evolution scientists believe it is a severely diseased pygmy human, with either a severe genetic mutation or a severe dietary deficiency that caused it to have an extremely short stature (Rupe 2025). The hobbit skeleton is 3 feet 7 inches tall, making it significantly shorter than present-day pygmy humans, who are typically over 4 feet 5 inches in height (Le Bouc 2017).
​
In his Figure 11 (below), Rupe shows a photo of the Hobbit’s sacrum articulated with the ilium of Lucy. He makes the case that because the ilium of Lucy fits onto the sacrum of the Hobbit skeleton, this means Lucy was a pygmy human. He wrote: “The 'perfect fit' makes sense when we recognize that Lucy was an adult small-bodied human.”
But there are many problems with this argument. Bony joints are nearly universal in their design and function. Because of this, a bone from one animal will articulate with the bone of another animal, even though they are not the same genus or species. To demonstrate this, I have photographed several modern ape bones articulated with human bones (below). Just because these ape bones articulate with human bones does not make any of these apes Homo sapiens. In this same line of logic, just because the Lucy ilium articulates with the sacrum of a severely diseased pygmy does not make Lucy a human.
Above: The ability to articulate two bones does not necessarily indicate that they belong to the same species. Illustrated here are three examples: a gorilla ilium articulated with a human sacrum, an orangutan pelvis articulated with a human femur, and a chimpanzee humerus articulated with a human scapula. From Evolution: The Grand Experiment Volume 6, Lucy is an Ape.
Furthermore, comparing the pelvis of a typical afarensis specimen with a diseased pygmy pelvis is not methodologically sound, and concluding that they are the same species solely because their pelvic bones can be articulated lacks scientific rigor. This would be analogous to aligning the ilium of a healthy chimpanzee with the sacrum of a genetically compromised, institutionalized human of short stature and then declaring the chimpanzee is a Homo sapiens. Comparing healthy animal bones with those of diseased individuals does not establish relatedness or species distinction.
7. The claim that because the bone thickness of Lucy was similar to that of a human, Lucy walked upright like a human and was a human.
​
As seen in the diagram below, a long bone can be divided into the thick outer layer called the “cortex” and the inner “spongy bone” where the bone marrow is located. When a bone experiences physical stress, such as repeated running, the outer cortex becomes thicker at the point of stress, making the bone stronger and more reinforced.
Above: Bone structure (Wikimedia).
​​​​
Pro-evolution scientists Donald Johanson and his close associate Owen Lovejoy promoted the idea that you could tell the difference between an upright walking creature (humans) and a quadrupedal ape simply by noting the thickness of the cortical bone in the neck of the femur. According to their theory, humans have a thin cortex on the top of the femoral neck (yellow arrow below), whereas apes (quadrupeds) have a thick cortex on the top (red arrow). Johanson and Lovejoy provided the illustration below, which Dr. Rupe quoted in his article.
Above: From Ancestors: In Search of Human Origins (Johanson 1994).
Dr. Rupe then provided a photo of a broken afarensis femoral neck and compared the cortex thickness to a chimp and a human (see below). Rupe (and pro-evolution scientists Johanson and Lovejoy) argued that since afarensis (red arrow below) has a thin upper cortex like humans (yellow arrow below), this means that Lucy walked upright like a human. This claim seems a bit obtuse but somewhat persuasive at first glance.
But Lovejoy, who provided these images to make his case that Lucy walked upright like humans, failed to provide conflicting images that were available at that time.
​
For example, this x-ray of a chimp femur (below), published in 1991, reveals a thin upper cortex (yellow arrow below left) as compared to the lower cortex (red arrow below left). But a chimpanzee is a quadrupedal ape. This challenges Dr. Lovejoy’s theory.
Above: CT scan through a chimpanzee and human femur showing thinner cortex superiorly, similar to a human. (From Stern and Susman 1991.)
Lovejoy also omitted this colobus monkey x-ray from 1998 (below), which shows a thin upper cortex as compared to the lower cortex. Since colobus monkeys walk on all fours, this x-ray challenges the premise that only humans and Lucy have a thinner cortex at the top.
Above: X-ray of a modern colobus monkey femur showing thin cortex at top (from Rafferty 1998).
Above: Modern colobus monkey (Wikimedia).
More recently, a CT scan was performed on the original, unbroken femoral neck of the Lucy skeleton. The CT images showed that Lucy's femoral neck cortical thickness was thin at the top (red and yellow arrows below), similar to that of the pygmy chimpanzee CT scan (above). This suggests Lucy walked on all fours, not on two feet like humans.
Above: CT scan of the actual Lucy femur. The red and yellow lines show where the CT cross-sectional scan was performed. Both slices show a thin upper cortex and a thick lower cortex, similar to the pygmy chimp femur and colobus monkey femurs above (from Ruff et al, 2016).
In 1997, Lovejoy contradicted his own theory when he demonstrated that many living primates have a thin cortex superiorly, similar to humans (Ohman, Lovejoy 1997).
​
In 1998, Dr. Katherine Rafferty noted that gibbons, chimps, and spider monkeys have a thin superior cortex as compared to the inferior cortex, once again negating the entire idea that a thin upper cortex equates with bipedalism (Rafferty 1998).
​
In 2000, evolution scientist Dr. Jack Stern pointed out that most nonhuman primates have a thinner superior femoral neck bone compared to the inferior side. He wrote, “. . .most of the nonhuman primates in our sample also had thinner cortical bone on the superior aspect of the femoral neck than on its inferior aspect (Stern 2000).”
​
In 2002, Lovejoy performed a CT scan of a chimpanzee femoral neck (below). In every slice, the superior cortex of the chimp was thinner than the inferior cortex, the same pattern as in humans.
​
​
Above: 2002 CT scan through a chimp femoral neck performed by Lovejoy. In every slice, the superior cortex of the chimp was thinner than the inferior cortex. This is the exact opposite of what Lovejoy had been promoting since 1994 (from Lovejoy et al. 2002).
After this, Lovejoy distanced himself from his own theory. He wrote, “A common assumption that has long pervaded interpretations of the hominid postcranium is that the distribution of bone, in both its cortical and cancellous forms, can be viewed as an uncomplicated “record” of the bone’s loading history. However, during the past decade, highly aggressive research protocols, together with their continual reintegration into novel theoretical approaches, have cast strong doubt on this presumption. It can no longer be used as a perfunctory basis for the direct interpretation of skeletal form. Too many data have accumulated which negate so simplistic an approach (Lovejoy et al. 2002).”
This once again is an example of bad science emanating from Owen Lovejoy, who has demonstrated a robust capacity to create factitious information to support the theory of human evolution. There are parallels with his work and the work of Dr. Raymond Dart. Both evolution scientists provided many evidences for the theory of human evolution that ultimately proved false. Both scientists were storytellers. (See Chapter 4 of Untold Stories of Human Evolution (Werner 2024a).)
In summary, Rupe’s conclusion that Lucy was a Homo sapiens because she had a thin upper cortex of the femoral neck is incorrect. His interpretation was based on misinformation provided to him by evolution scientists.
8. Rupe, Johanson and Lovejoy claim Lucy
has a “human” knee.
​
Rupe wrote there was "conclusive evidence" showing that Lucy had a knee similar to modern humans. His reasoning aligns with that of Drs. Johanson and Lovejoy, who argued this same point, suggesting that Lucy walked upright in a way that resembled humans. Rupe explained that the afarensis knee joint had four human characteristics. He wrote, “The presence of all [four] of these traits together in one knee joint—i.e., high bicondylar angle, raised lateral patellar lip, deep patellar groove, inferiorly flattened and laterally elongated condyles—is conclusive evidence of bipedality and modern human anatomy (Rupe 2025).” To illustrate these four human traits of the knee, he provided Figure 12 below.
Above: The large fossil knee on the left is the famous A.L. 129 knee, the first afarensis knee Dr. Johanson found in 1973. (Evolution scientists use A.L. 129 to study the knee joint of afarensis because the Lucy knee was broken and distorted.) On the right are three horizontal rows, a human knee at the top, an afarensis knee (A.L. 129) in the middle, and a chimp knee at the bottom. This figure is convincing because it shows the afarensis knee looks more like the human knee than a chimp in all three characters. But this figure omits important contradictory evidence.
8a. The raised patellar lip and patellar groove.
As seen in Rupe’s Figure 12 (above) and the figure below, humans and afarensis have a raised patellar lip and a patellar groove for the kneecap, but chimpanzees, gorillas, and orangutans have a flat surface (orange lines below center). This suggests to Dr. Rupe that afarensis walked like a human. However, modern gibbons, which are apes, and modern mandrills, which are monkeys, possess two elevated patellar lips similar to those of humans (indicated by green arrows below) as well as a patellar groove (indicated by red arrows below). Notably, both gibbons and mandrills are quadrupedal. For this reason, a raised patellar lip and a patellar groove do not distinguish between animals with a bipedal or a quadrupedal gait.
Above: Gibbons, mandrills, and humans have two raised patellar lips (see green arrows) and a central groove for the kneecap (red arrow), whereas afarensis only has one raised patellar lip and an off-center groove. Because the knees of quadrupedal gibbons and mandrills resemble those of humans more than A. afarensis in this view, these traits alone are not reliable for distinguishing quadrupeds from bipeds. From Evolution: The Grand Experiment Volume 6, Lucy is an Ape.
8b. The bicondylar angle of the femur.
The second comparison Rupe makes in his Figure 12 (above), and his Figure 10 (below), is the angle of the femur. The chimpanzee femur shown in these figures is oriented nearly straight up and down, whereas the human femur and afarensis femur angle inwards, from top to bottom, making them more knocked kneed with the feet centered under the body. The angle of the femur is called the bicondylar angle.
Dr. Rupe wrote, “Lucy’s high bicondylar angle falls within the human range.” He then argues that since humans and afarensis have high bicondylar angles, afarensis walked like a human with the feet centered under the body. In contrast, in apes, the femurs are oriented straight up and down, and the feet are more aligned under the shoulders. He wrote, “the bicondylar angle measured in humans is ‘at least one standard deviation above the largest angle seen among extant [living] primates’” suggesting the bicondylar angles of humans and living apes do not overlap. However, this information is patently false and originates from Lovejoy, Johanson, and other evolution scientists. They omitted the most important facts.
In Figures 10 and 12 above, Rupe is showing the average bicondylar angle of humans, chimpanzees, and afarensis, not the range.
Above: In order to make their case that afarensis walked like humans, evolution scientists provide the average femur angle measured by various evolution scientists, not the range of femur angles of all bones available. This creates the faulty narrative that the bicondylar angle of humans and modern apes do not overlap and that humans and afarensis have a high bicondylar angle. From Evolution: The Grand Experiment Volume 6, Lucy is an Ape.
But, if one compares the range of femur angles for all apes, humans, and afarensis, measuring the angles of all bones available, a different picture emerges. Apes, humans, and afarensis overlap extensively (as seen below).
Above: When the range of bicondylar angles of humans, quadrupedal apes, and afarensis is reported, there is extensive overlap. As a result, this metric is insufficient for reliably differentiating modes of locomotion. From Evolution: The Grand Experiment Volume 6, Lucy is an Ape (Werner 2026).
As seen in the chart above, all gorilla femurs (quadrupeds) fall within the range of human femurs (bipeds). In other words, you cannot tell if an animal is a biped or a quadruped simply by measuring the bicondylar angle of the knee. Some evolution scientists have known about this dilemma for decades but have failed to explain it to their colleagues and the public (Czarnetzki et al. 1998, Werner 2026). Even today, evolution scientists promote the idea that the bicondylar angle is a distinguishing trait between apes and humans (Miller and DeSilva 2023, 1).
Above: The range of bicondylar angles of femurs among afarensis, apes, and humans when these angles are measured across various available specimens of each group. From Evolution: The Grand Experiment Volume 6, Lucy is an Ape by Dr. Carl Werner. See Appendix A in Lucy is an Ape for sources (Werner 2026).
8c. The lateral condyle of the afarensis knee.
Rupe noted that humans have a flat-bottomed, elongated lateral knee condyle, which allows humans to lock their knees straight and have an upright bipedal gait (see his Figure 12 above). Rupe indicated that afarensis knees have this same shape. In contrast, chimpanzees have a round condyle, making it impossible to lock their knees straight or walk like a human. He wrote, “The distal part of the [afarensis] femur preserves inferiorly flattened condyles that are elongated in lateral view. This feature is both measurably and visually distinct from apes (Rupe 2025).” But, once again, evolution scientists and Rupe left out the most important contradictory comparison photographs. When other quadrupedal ape and monkey knees are included, and they are all proportionally sized to account for animal size differences (ten blue dots below), afarensis looks more similar to a mandrill (a modern quadrupedal monkey) than to a human. The mandrill’s lateral condyle is nearly as flat (5 red dots below). This challenges Rupe’s claim of “conclusive evidence of bipedality and modern human anatomy” of the Lucy knee (Rupe 2025).​
Above: Lateral view of the knee of afarensis, a human, and various primates shows that afarensis’ knee looks more like a modern mandrill (a quadrupedal monkey) than a human. From this, it can be concluded that an elongated lateral condyle associated with a flat surface on the bottom of the knee cannot be used to determine if an animal walks upright on two feet or on all fours. From Evolution: The Grand Experiment Volume 6, Lucy is an Ape.
All this information about the knee contradicts Rupe’s, Johanson’s, and Lovejoy’s statements that Lucy had a human knee. In fact, the opposite seems to be true. In 2020, Dr. Yves Coppens (the Co-Director of the Lucy expedition in Ethiopia) stated in an interview that Lucy had an “ape-like” knee, not a human-like knee (Werner 2024b, 45, Werner 2024d). Furthermore, Dr. Duane Gish reported that during a class conducted by Dr. Johanson, Johanson presented data to his graduate students suggesting that Lucy exhibited characteristics of an ape-like knee. However, according to Gish, Johanson disregarded this information and told the students that Lucy possessed a human knee (Werner 2024b, 45, Werner 2024d). If Lucy did not have a human knee, then Lovejoy and Johanson lost their justification for cutting and reshaping the Lucy pelvis into a human-shaped pelvis.
9. Dr. Rupe’s claim that Lucy’s toe bones were less curved than chimpanzee toe bones, implying Lucy’s foot is human.​​
Above: Curved modern ape toes. From Evolution: The Grand Experiment Volume 6, Lucy is an Ape.
Apes possess curved toes (above), which they utilize to grasp branches when climbing in trees. In contrast, human toes are relatively straight. In his online article, Rupe wrote that Lucy’s toe bones were “less curved than a chimpanzee,” implying that Lucy had a humanlike foot (Rupe 2025). But this statement is flawed. The toe bones of Lucy are more curved than a chimpanzee’s (see below), suggesting Lucy used her toes to grasp limbs while climbing in trees.
Above: Proximal fourth phalanx of Lucy’s foot (fossil AL 288 1Y) compared to the same bone in humans and apes. All bones were scaled to the same length to compare curvature. Notice Lucy’s toe bone is more curved than the chimpanzee's. From Evolution: The Grand Experiment Volume 4, Nine Categories of Overturned Ape-Men.
Above: From Evolution: The Grand Experiment Volume 4, Nine Categories of Overturned Ape-Men (Werner 2024b).
In summary, Lucy’s toe bones look more like an ape’s toe bone than a human’s, suggesting Lucy was a quadruped.
10. Rupe omits most afarensis skulls to make his case that Lucy was a human pygmy.
As seen below, the lower facial bones of humans do not project out far in front of the braincase (green dotted line below). In stark contrast, the lower facial bones of all apes jut out dramatically in front of the brain case and form a large snout (red dotted line below). In all three adult afarensis skulls discovered so far (Lucy, AL 444, and AL 822), the lower face juts out dramatically in front of the brain case (blue dotted lines below), suggesting afarensis was an ape.
Above: The human face is relatively flat and does not project out in front of the brain case (green dotted line). In modern apes (red dotted line) and all afarensis skulls (blue dotted lines) the lower face sticks out dramatically in front of the brain case, forming a snout. This is a major problem for Rupe’s theory that Lucy is a human. Lucy’s skull fragments, shown above, were placed in this position by Dr. Johanson and displayed at Johanson’s Institute of Human Origins. From Lucy is an Ape. (A.L. 444 photo from Johanson 1996, A.L. 822 photo from Kimbel and Rak 2010, other skulls Werner 2026).
​Dr. Rupe categorizes the more complete afarensis skulls (AL 444 and AL 822) as “afarensis” but reclassifies Lucy's fragmentary skull as Homo sapiens. This distinction removes a major challenge for his theory through the selective use of evidence. If Lucy is a human, as Rupe suggests, how could one of these ape-like skulls (such as the Lucy skull, A.L. 444, or A.L. 822) be part of a human body? By deeming the Lucy skull too incomplete for facial projection determination, Rupe sidesteps this issue. He simply tosses out the other two more complete afarensis skulls that would highlight this problem (Rupe 2025).
11. Rupe believes another australopithecine, Australopithecus africanus, also walked upright like humans and was a human.
As discussed earlier, in 1947, Dr. Robert Broom found an almost complete pelvis of another australopithecine, Australopithecus africanus (STS 14), in South Africa. When this A. africanus pelvis was found, it was flat and ape-like (below left). But because evolutionary scientists believed that africanus walked upright like humans, they made a resin copy of the africanus pelvis and changed it from a flat, ape-shaped pelvis into a round human-like pelvis. (This modification should be viewed skeptically since it is an example of circular reasoning—altering fossils to fit preconceived ideas.) Rupe accepted this reconstruction and concluded both Lucy and africanus were human (a position not shared by evolution or creation scientists).
​
However, his theory faces a challenge. A nearly complete africanus skull with a pronounced protruding snout, known as Mrs. Ples (STS 5, depicted below right), was found just six feet from the STS 14 africanus pelvis and skeleton (below left). The National Museum of South Africa, which holds both fossils, maintains that both the pelvis and the skull belong to the same individual, as indicated by the museum signage below.
Above: Australopithecus africanus pelvis, ribs, vertebrae, and skull found at Sterkfontein, South Africa by Dr. Broom. From Evolution: The Grand Experiment Volume 4, Nine Categories of Overturned Ape-Men.
Above: This display at the National Museum of South Africa suggests that the Australopithecus africanus STS 14 pelvis (and partial skeleton) and the Australopithecus africanus Mrs. Ples skull with a large snout are from the same individual since they were found less than 6 feet apart. From Evolution: The Grand Experiment Volume 6, Lucy is an Ape.
When Rupe accepted the unnecessary alteration of the STS 14 africanus pelvis as legitimate and claimed it was human—specifically, Homo sapiens—he inadvertently put himself in a difficult position. The related Mrs. Ples skull features a prominent snout (highlighted by the yellow dotted line above right) is ape-like. How could this ape-like skull be considered part of a human body? Dr. Rupe did not address this contradiction.
12. Rupe and Lovejoy Reverse the All-Important Definition of Lateral Flaring.
As previously mentioned, the upper iliac blades of the human pelvis rotate forward 90 degrees. You can feel them in the front of your body, just below your belt. In contrast, the original unaltered Lucy skeleton, and the original unaltered STS 14 Australopithecus africanus pelvis have pelvic blades that are flat, do not turn forward, and instead stay aligned with the back of the body, similar to modern apes. This characteristic of a flattened upper pelvis is known as "lateral flaring" (Vansickle 2017). While human pelvises do not show lateral flaring, ape pelvises and these australopithecine pelvises do. The diagram below demonstrates this difference.
Above: Diagram defining “lateral flare” of the pelvis bones (from Vansickle 2017).
Lateral flaring is the key anatomical trait distinguishing quadrupeds from bipeds. Even so, both Lovejoy and Rupe reverse this definition. For example, Lovejoy wrote, “Humans [have]…a pronounced lateral iliac flare (Lovejoy et al. 2002).” Dr. Rupe wrote, “…only human pelvises can have flaring ilia” and “apes have flat-lying iliac blades that do not flair laterally” (Rupe 2025).” Both statements are wrong (see diagram above).
13. Flexor pollicis longus.
Rupe contends that an afarensis thumb bone unearthed in Ethiopia (A.L. 333-159) further substantiates the classification of Lucy as “human.” He incorrectly argues that a protuberance on this afarensis thumb bone serves as the insertion point for the flexor pollicis longus (FPL) tendon. He incorrectly asserts this protuberance is exclusive to humans and afarensis, but absent in apes. He wrote, “‘A distal pollical phalanx confirms the presence of a human-like flexor pollicis longus muscle in A. afarensis’ . . . Apes lack the FPL muscle (Rupe 2025).”
​
However, this interpretation, which originates from evolution scientists (Ward, Kimbel, Harmon, and Johanson 2012), is extremely misleading. Both apes and humans possess a tendon that inserts at the base of the thumb bone to facilitate thumb flexion. In humans, this tendon is connected to the forearm muscle called the flexor pollicis longus (FPL), whereas in apes this tendon attaches to the flexor digitorum profundus (FDP) muscle. Therefore, a protuberance on the thumb bone indicative of a flexor tendon insertion is not unique to humans; it also exists in apes. Tendon insertions at the thumb's base occur in 100% of gibbons, 48% of chimpanzees, 28% of gorillas, and 4% of orangutans (Strauss 1942). You cannot distinguish which muscle is attached to the protuberance on a fossil thumb bone; therefore, you cannot determine if a thumb bone is from an ape or a human based on the presence of a protuberance for the insertion of a flexor tendon.
14. Methodology.
In his article, Rupe frequently compares the Lucy skeleton—an enigmatic and debated fossil particularly regarding its locomotion—with three other controversial fossils, including Homo floresiensis, Homo naledi, and Homo luzonensis. These other three incomplete, controversial fossil species have received diverse interpretations by evolutionary scientists, being classified as an ape-man (hominin) or a human. Dr. Rupe then utilizes selected features from these undiagnosed incomplete skeletons to argue that Lucy is of human origin (Rupe 2025).
However, this methodology is problematic because there remains significant uncertainty about the classification and locomotor capabilities of all four fossils in question. A more rigorous approach would be to compare one unknown specimen (the Lucy skeleton, an extinct animal with an undetermined mode of locomotion) to modern apes and modern humans. But Rupe compares Lucy (an unknown animal) to these other unknown animals (Homo floresiensis, Homo naledi, and Homo luzonensis, which he reclassifies as human) and then makes his conclusion that Lucy is a human, Homo sapiens. Using this approach, any conclusion could be drawn about any unknown animal, focusing on features and interpretations that make your case and ignoring features that do not.
15. Lack of priority/relevance of data.
Rupe does not prioritize certain features or assess their relevance. To show why this matters, marsupial moles in Australia and placental moles in North America look almost identical with their clawed, paddle-like front feet, large forelimbs, elongated snouts, and tiny, concealed eyes and ears. Yet, they are not closely related: one is a marsupial, the other a placental mammal. Their similar anatomy does not mean a close relationship and should be ignored. Similarly, Rupe prioritizes certain pelvic measurements in Lucy, such as the height versus width of the ilium, instead of focusing on diagnostic features that are integral to bipedalism, including the flatness of the ilium. He highlights a protuberance on a thumb bone of A. afarensis while giving less attention to the pronounced muzzle observed in all A. afarensis skulls, which is indicative of ape-like morphology. Additionally, he places greater emphasis on the shape of the glenoid fossa than on the configuration of the jaw symphysis, the latter being a distinct ape-like trait present in ape jaws.
SUMMARY:
Rupe made many errors in his
Lucy is a Pygmy Human hypothesis.
1. Dr. Rupe formed his hypothesis that Lucy belonged to Homo sapiens because he incorrectly believed Lucy's pelvis was in an anatomically “impossible” position and therefore required reconstruction. He came to this conclusion because he mistakenly rotated the pelvis backward into an unnatural "back flip" position, based on a photograph given to him by creation scientist M. Murdock.
​
2. Because Rupe mistakenly thought Lucy's original pelvis was in an “impossible” anatomical position, he accepted, without proper scrutiny, the major modification made to the Lucy pelvis by evolution scientists Dr. Owen Lovejoy and Dr. Donald Johanson. Lovejoy and Johanson changed the flat, ape-like Lucy pelvis into a rounded, human-like one, which transformed Lucy from a quadrupedal ape to a bipedal ape-man. These revisions were unnecessary because the unaltered pelvis bones of afarensis are nearly anatomical, with the pubic bones reaching the midline as seen in Johanson’s reassembled Lucy skeleton at the Institute of Human Origins (above). (Once the obvious offset fractures of the pubic bones and the ilium in the Lucy pelvis are corrected, it becomes fully anatomical without changing its basic structure of a flat, ape pelvis.)
​
3. Apes, humans, and afarensis have an AIIS (anterior inferior iliac spine) on their pelvis. Even so, Rupe accepted a bogus anatomical point promulgated by evolution scientist Owen Lovejoy that apes do not have an AIIS, which is not true. Dr. Rupe then wrongly concluded that since only humans and Lucy have an AIIS, Lucy was a human.
​
4. Rupe agreed with Owen Lovejoy's incorrect assertion that Lucy's sacrum resembled a human sacrum more than an ape's. But comparing Lucy’s sacrum to a human sacrum and the sacra of all of the apes living today shows that Lucy’s is more similar to an orangutan than to a human.
​
5. Rupe accepted, without scrutiny, evolution scientists' major orthopedic revision of the flat Australopithecus africanus pelvis (STS 14) into a round, human-shaped pelvis. Again, this revision changed this animal from a quadrupedal ape into an upright walking individual. He then concluded that both A. afarensis and A. africanus were human.
​
6. Dr. Rupe also assumed, incorrectly, that an animal could be identified simply by fitting two bones together at a joint, despite the fact that chimpanzee, gorilla, and orangutan bones can be articulated with human bones.
​
7. Rupe accepted the anatomical argument promoted by evolution scientist Owen Lovejoy that a thin cortex of the superior margin of the femoral neck equated to bipedalism (human form of walking). However, several evolutionary scientists have easily debunked this overly simple test for bipedalism. Lovejoy himself gave up on this idea by 2002. Despite this, Rupe still cites it to argue that Lucy was human.
​
8a. (Knee part 1). Rupe and Lovejoy also promoted the idea that the afarensis knee had an elevated patellar lip and a patellar groove, indicating that afarensis walked upright on two feet like humans. But gibbons (a living quadrupedal ape) and mandrills (a living quadrupedal monkey) also have this feature, making it a nondiagnostic criterion for bipedalism.
​​
8b. (Knee part 2). Dr. Rupe accepted many spurious reports from evolution scientists that humans and afarensis have highly angled femurs (bicondylar angles), whereas apes do not. But this is not true. When bicondylar angles are measured in a series of ape and afarensis femurs, they overlap with human femurs nearly completely (see graph above).
​
8c. (Knee part 3). Rupe adopted the premise, as presented by some evolutionary scientists, that afarensis was bipedal based on the presence of an elongated and flat lateral condyle of the knee—a characteristic shared with humans but not chimpanzees. However, the lateral condyles of mandrills and baboons are also flat and elongated and bear greater resemblance to afarensis than does the afarensis condyle compared to a human, making this a non-diagnostic feature of human bipedalism.
​
9. Dr. Rupe stated that Lucy’s toe bones were not curved like a chimp's, indicating that Lucy did not climb in trees. In fact, Lucy’s toe bones are more curved than a chimpanzee's, suggesting an arboreal lifestyle (see photos above).
​
10. Rupe discounted the most complete afarensis skulls (with a protuberant, ape-like snout) to make his case that Lucy was a human. He instead cherry-picked the incomplete and fragmentary Lucy skull to assemble a “human” Lucy.
​
11. Rupe also disregards the nearly complete ape-like A. africanus skull (Mrs. Ples), with a protuberant ape-like muzzle, to build the case that the A. africanus pelvis was also human.
​
12. Dr. Rupe reversed the definition of lateral flaring, which is the most important anatomical concept in evaluating if a pelvis is from a biped or a quadruped. He learned this false definition from evolution scientist Dr. Owen Lovejoy.
​
13. Rupe made an anatomical error, implying that humans and afarensis have a flexor tendon of the thumb, while apes do not, which is not true.
​
14. Instead of comparing Lucy to human bones and ape bones to argue she is human, Dr. Rupe compares Lucy to incomplete and controversial fossils like Homo floresiensis, Homo naledi, and Homo luzonensis, which he concludes are human.
​
15. Rupe focuses on specific measurements from Lucy’s pelvis (height vs width of ilium) to make the case that Lucy is a human, placing greater emphasis on these details over other more important factors such as the diagnostic ape-like flatness of the ilium.
FINAL COMMENTS
It is dangerous to convince believers in creation that Lucy is a human, Homo sapiens. If a creationist repeats this in public, evolutionists will laugh them out of the room. Lucy—a clear-cut quadrupedal ape misinterpreted as an upright walking ape-man—is a gift to creationists. Showing video clips of evolution scientist Owen Lovejoy cutting and reshaping Lucy’s pelvis into a human-shaped pelvis because he believed Lucy walked like a human is hilarious. It is one of the strongest visual proofs to show evolution bias and can be used to throw evolutionists (and their theory) under the bus.
​
Furthermore, if some creationists say Lucy was an extinct ape and other creationists claim they were small humans, the evolutionists will rightly point out that Lucy’s kind must then be a wonderful transitional hominin and proof of human evolution. This would be an ‘own goal’!
​
For those interested in the ongoing discussion regarding whether Lucy was a quadrupedal ape or a bipedal, upright-walking hominin, the book “Lucy is an Ape” (Werner 2026) is recommended. This publication provides side-by-side comparisons of Lucy’s skeletal remains with those of humans and apes. The book features hundreds of photographs to facilitate a detailed examination of these anatomical similarities and differences.
Acknowledgments
I wish to formally recognize Carol Adams and Andrea Reitan for their significant contributions to this article's development. Their extensive research on Lucy's biomechanics and thorough review of relevant literature have been invaluable. Also, my heartfelt thanks to Dr. Don Batten, Dr. Peter Line, and Dr. Jerry Bergman, who offered many practical suggestions for improving this manuscript.
Bibliography
Bergman, J., Line, P., Tomkins, J., Biddle, D. 2020. Apes as Ancestors, Tulsa, Oklahoma: BP Books.
Czarnetzki, A., Dollhopf, K.-D., Gieseler, W., & Vacca, E. 1998. “Features of Human Bipedalism: A New Look at an Old Problem.” Anthropologie (Brno), 36, 1-2: 17-34.
Dart, R. 1949. “Innominate fragments of Australopithecus prometheus.” American Journal of Physical Anthropology, Volume 7, No. 3 (September 1949): 304-305.
Friend, T. 2001. “Discovery rocks human-origin theories.” USA TODAY. March 21, 2001.
Hartwig, W. 2002. The Primate Fossil Record. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Johanson, D. C., White, T. D., and Coppens, Y. 1978. “A new species of the genus Australopithecus (primates: Hominidae) from the Pliocene of Eastern Africa.” Kirtlandia. No. 28: 1-14.
Johanson, D., Johanson, L., and Edgar, B. 1994. Ancestors: In Search of Human Origins, Villard Books, New York, p.70-71.
Johanson, Donald C., and Blake Edgar. 1996. From Lucy to Language. Simon and Schuster, New York.
Johanson, D. 1997. “In Search of Human Origins Part One.” Nova, Public Broadcasting Service (PBS). Air Date: June 3, 1997. Transcript accessed November 30, 2017, from https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/transcripts/2106hum1.html
Johanson, Donald. 2017. "The paleoanthropology of Hadar, Ethiopia." Comptes Rendus Palevol. 16, No. 2: 140-154.
Kimbel WH, Rak Y. 2010. “The cranial base of Australopithecus afarensis: new insights from the female skull.” Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 2010 Oct 27; 365 (1556): 3365-76. doi: 10.1098/rstb.2010.0070.
Le Bouc, Y. 2017. “Have we finally solve (sic) the enigma of the small size of Pygmies?” Annales d’Endocrinologie. Volume 78, Issue 2: 83-87.
​
Lovejoy, C. O., Meindl, R. S., Ohman, J. C., Heiple, K. G., & White, T. D. 2002. “The Maka femur and its bearing on the antiquity of human walking: applying contemporary concepts of morphogenesis to the human fossil record.” American Journal of Physical Anthropology. 119(2), 97-133.
​
Miller, C.K., and DeSilva, J.M. 2023. A review of the distal femur in Australopithecus, Evolutionary Anthropology. 33(1), 2023.
​
Murdock, M., 2006. “These apes were made for walking: the pelves of Australopithecus afarensis and Australopithecus africanus.” Journal of Creation. 20(2), 2006.
​
Ohman JC, Krochta TJ, Lovejoy CO, Mensforth RP, Latimer B. 1997. “Cortical bone distribution in the femoral neck of hominoids: implications for the locomotion of Australopithecus afarensis.” Am J Phys Anthropol. 104:117–131.
Rafferty KL. 1998. Structural design of the femoral neck in primates. J Hum Evol. 34:361–383.
Ruff CB, Burgess ML, Ketcham RA, Kappelman J. 2016. “Limb Bone Structural Proportions and Locomotor Behavior in A.L. 288-1 ("Lucy").” PloS ONE 11(11): e0166095. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0166095
​
Rupe, Chris. 2025. “‘Lucy, and the Pygmy Human Hypothesis.” Back2Genesis. March 28, 2025. https://www.back2genesis.org/articles.
Sarmiento, E.E., 1998. Generalized quadrupeds, committed bipeds, and the shift to open habitats: an evolutionary model of hominid divergence. American Museum Novitates. No. 3250.
Stern JT Jr, Susman RL. 1983. “The locomotor anatomy of Australopithecus afarensis.” Am J Phys Anthropol. 60: 279–317.
Susman RL, Stern JT Jr, Jungers WL. 1984. “Arboreality and bipedality in the Hadar hominids.” Folia Primatol. 43: 113–156.
Stern, J.T. 2000. “Climbing to the top: a personal memoir of Australopithecus afarensis.” Evol Anthropol. 9:113–133.
Stern JT Jr, Susman RL. 1991. "Total Morphological Pattern” Versus The “Magic Trait”: Conflicting Approaches to the Study of Early Hominid Bipedalism in: Coppens Y, Senut B, editors. Origine(s) de la bipédie chez les hominidés​. Paris: CNRS, (Kindle Book) p 99–111. P. 103.
Straus, W. L. 1942. “Rudimentary Digits in Primates.” The Quarterly Review of Biology. 17(3): 228–243. http://www.jstor.org/stable/2809086.
Strauss, W. 1963. “The Classification of Oreopithecus” in Classification and Human Evolution, edited by Washburn. S. L., Chicago: Aldine Pub. Co. Viking Fund Publications in Anthropology.
Tobias, P.V., 1980. “Australopithecus afarensis and A. africanus: critique and
an alternative hypothesis.” Palaeont. Afr. 23, 1–17.
Vansickle, C. 2017. “Measuring Lateral Iliac Flare by Different Methods Risks Obscuring Evolutionary Changes in the Pelvis.” Anat. Rec., no. 300: 956-963. https://doi.org/10.1002/ar.23581
Ward, Carol V., William H. Kimbel, Elizabeth H. Harmon, and Donald C. Johanson. 2012. "New postcranial fossils of Australopithecus afarensis from Hadar, Ethiopia (1990–2007)." Journal of Human Evolution. 63, No. 1 (2012): 1-51.
Werner, C. 2024a. Untold Stories of Human Evolution, Volume 3 of Evolution: The Grand Experiment book series. St. Louis: Audio Visual Consultants Inc.
Werner, C. 2024b. Nine Categories of Overturned Ape-Men, Volume 4 of Evolution: The Grand Experiment book series. St. Louis: Audio Visual Consultants Inc.
Werner, C. 2024c. Evolution: The Grand Experiment video series. St. Louis: Audio Visual Consultants Inc.
​
Werner, C. 2026. Lucy is an Ape, Volume 6 of Evolution: The Grand Experiment book series. St. Louis: Audio Visual Consultants Inc.
​
Wilford, J. N. 1982. “Age of Man’s Oldest Ancestor in Doubt,” The New York Times, December 16, 1982.
Zirkle, D. 2015. “The Development of the Anterior Inferior Iliac Spine: A Comparative Analysis Among Hominids and African Apes [Master’s thesis, Kent State University with Dr. Owen Lovejoy advisor].” OhioLINK Electronic Theses and Dissertations Center. http://rave.ohiolink.edu/etdc/view?acc_num=kent1427206046 ap. 1.
To cite this article:
Werner, C. 2026, January 24. Rebuttal of Dr. Rupe’s “Lucy is a Pygmy Human Hypothesis”. The Grand Experiment https://www.thegrandexperiment.com/Lucy
This article and original photos © 2026, Audio Visual Consultants Inc.