There is another aspect to bring up.
Every time there is a mistake or a misrepresentation of information, whether it is one of the infamous ones like piltdown man or the lesser ones like Haeckle's drawings, it has NOT been creationists that have exposed them, but scientists. And they are then removed from the science except as a footnote.
Compare this to creatiortionista sites that continue to display exhibits that have been exposed as frauds (like paluxy river tracks).
The issue of Lucy's hands and feet have been discussed before. This is not a matter of "putting hands on lucy" but of assembling a composite skeleton from all the known
Australopithicus afarensis fossils (making some adjustments for sizes of bones in common or fit to joints). Another good set of bones comes from what is known as the "first family" -- a set of 13 individual skeletons all found together -- but there are many (hundreds?) fossils from this time period that all reinforce each other (rather than contradict).
There is another piece of information from the same time period as Lucy, and that is the set of footprints from Laetoli discovered by Mary Leakey. The footprints match the size and gait of
Australopithicus afarensis, but more than that: they do NOT show the gait of a chimpanzee OR any "knuckle" walking.
see this site for some more information:
Evolution: Humans: Riddle of the Bones
Note in particular the parallel tracks on the first page, one larger than the other and consistent with the sexual dimorphism in size of other fossils from this period.
Note too that Lucy has one wrist bone and one hand bone in the set, that can be related to the same bones in the other fossil sets which includes a more complete hand that is the main basis for that part of the reconstruction. If this was a mis-matched hand to the lucy base, then these two bones would not agree in relative size\shape with the ones from the specimen known as AL 333-105, a nearly complete hand from the same time period and general area.
see
http://www.fortunecity.com/victorian/palette/100/aafar61.jpg
The assembled skeleton is a composite based on the best scientific information available, and I don't believe it is presented as anything more than that.
Many reconstruction exhibits have gone through changes when new evidence shows that errors were made: the t-rex and others are typical examples.
That doesn't make early exhibit frauds, just that they were based on insufficient information.
Finally there is an analysis of
Australopithicus afarensis hands at
Entrez PubMed Abstract: Morphological affinities of the Australopithecus afarensis hand on the basis of manual proportions and relative thumb length (click).
Don't look for the exhibit hands (or feet) to change significantly as more information becomes available.
we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel
AAmerican
.Zen
[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}