*Sigh*, They just can't leave us alone about the transitional fossils, can they? Dr. David Menton has done a video series down at Answers in Genesis, called "Lucy- She's No Lady!" In this video he leaves his specialty of cell biology and dives right in to paleontology. It attempts vigorously to destroy the famous fossil as a human ancestor, and does so mainly by deceit. I'm not going to address every fallacy this man makes, but I will address the most important ones. First of all, we should know that this man is dishonest because in one segment of the film he claims that "Human evolution is imagination rich and data poor"; while in discussing Lucy he admits that all the Australopithicus specimens found do give us a good idea of what she looked like. He then proceeds to give us his opinion that all "Ape-Men" are either exaggerated Apes or 'down-played' humans. This statement is made in spite of the fact that Lucy is 40% complete; and in spite of the fact that other fairly complete homind fossils exist. Now, the first substantial charge he makes against Lucy is that her pelvis was 'doctored' to make it appear more human-like. Talk Origins wrote a refutation to this claim (though they addressed another creationist):
"This is based on the first episode of the NOVA series In Search of Human Origins, where Johanson does make statements that could, for those of a conspiratorial turn of mind, be interpreted as an admission of having doctored the bones. Reading the transcript carefully, however, it is clear that the bones had been originally been broken and the pieces fused together during fossilization. As scientist Owen Lovejoy explained on the show, the bones were originally in an 'anatomically impossible position', so he broke a cast of the fossil (not the original!) in an attempt to reverse the damage which occurred during fossilization."
So the bones were broken and fused together during fossilization, making them impossible to fit together. Those pieces were removed, and Lucy was reconstructed the way she would have been. No deception there, eh?
Moving on, Menton quotes Dr. David Pilbeam from his review of Leakey's Origins (In the May-June 1978 issue of American Scientist) as saying:
"My reservations concern not so much this book but the whole subject and methodology of paleoanthropology…Perhaps generations of students of human evolution, including myself, have been flailing about in the dark; that our data base is too sparse, too slippery, for it to be able to mold our theories. Rather the theories are more statements about us and ideology than about the past. Paleoanthropology reveals more about how humans view themselves than it does about how humans came about."
It appears as if Dr. Pilbeam is admitting a horrible truth about evolution: It's all based on your "world view" and there isn't enough evidence to say for sure. But did he really say that? A trip to American Scientist shows that no review for Leakey's book was written in the May-June 1978 issue. Not only that, but there is no article by Dr. Pilbeam in that issue. A google search for the quote only turned up creationist sites, so I am inclined to be suspicious, especially knowing creationists' long track record of misquoting.
All in all, he hasn't presented any objections which are both correct and verifiable; and it is safe to say he poses no threat to Lucy.