Readers,
I am impressed that Little Foot's legs were longer than her arms, in contrast to those of Lucy. I am also impressed that Little Foot's species was a better walker than a number of Australopithecus species (possibly including Lucy's).
The features of Little Foot relative to those of Lucy do not pose a problem for evolution theory. Scientists, to my knowledge, are not claiming that Lucy's species evolved from Little Foot's species. Instead of evolving from Little Foot's species, Lucy's species could have evolved from a species which coexisted (for a period of time) with Little Foot's species, or from a species which evolved from a species which had coexisted (for a period of time) with Little Foot's species. Evolution proceeds in multiple directions, and largely as an adaptation to the local environment. In one environment having the anatomy of Lucy could have been more advantageous than having the anatomy of Little Foot. Whereas in a different environment the opposite could have been true. For example, monkeys and chimpanzees are better adapted/suited to living in their tree top environment (and to climbing tree limbs and walking on tree limbs) than humans are of living in the same environment (and to climbing tree limbs and walking on tree limbs), but humans are better adapted/suited to walking on land than are monkeys and chimpanzees.
Though biological evolution started with life which already existed, theories (or hypotheses) of chemical evolution (including abiogenesis) deal with how life could have come into existence from non-life. Considerable progress has been made in learning how that could have happened, though much more needs to be learned. Furthermore, according to evolution theory the first cellular life to exist on planet Earth was very likely far less complex than the simplest cellular life which currently exists on Earth. Biological evolution does deal with (instead of avoiding) the idea of what the earliest type of cellular life on Earth might have been; and it also deals with what precellular types of early life might have been. It does not ignore those issues.
Regarding the idea of irreducible complexity, all proposed examples of such have been disproved by some scientists (though a number of proponents of irreducible complexity disagree with the claim). Evolution can take a biological part that serves one function and then later use if for another function. Later changes in the part can evolve to become better at doing the new function than was originally the case. Regarding the idea of the mousetrap, scientists have shown that if certain parts are removed from the mouse trap the device can serve a different function - one such function is as a spit wad shooter. In fact the device is far better as a spit wad shooter if certain parts are removed from the mouse trap.
I could continue to address each of Sea Breeze's points one by one, but I don't want to take the time to do so, since there other things I want to do with the free time of my life. Likewise if I address each of his/hers current points on this topic, the person will likely bring up more points (young Earth creationist apologists are known to do such - it is like a game of wack a mole). As a result I prefer to refer inquiring open minds to various books which already address the claims made by creationists and proponents of intelligent design. As result, if I refrain from refuting future claims of Sea Breeze pertaining to evolution, that does not necessarily mean I don't know how to refute those claims (nor does it mean I can't find answers which refute those claims).
The following are some books I recommend for inquiring open minds who wish to know what answers scientists have in refutation of the claims of creationists and proponents of intelligent design. They also have scientific explanations in support of chemical evolution and biological evolution. These books are ones which I read (at least in part) to answer my own questions and to see how well abiogenesis and biological evolution stand up to the claims of their critics and to make sure if my conviction of philosophical naturalism is firmly grounded (in regards to the subject of how the various kinds of life came to exist). A number of them also address supposed chicken and egg problems.
- Creation: How Science is Reinventing Itself, by Adam Rutherford
- Why Darwin Matters, by Michael Shermer
- Only A Theory: Evolution and the Battle for America's Soul, by Kenneth R. Miller
- "DECODING The Language Of God: Can A Scientist Really Be A Believer? A Geneticist Responds To Francis Collins", by George C. Cunningham, MD, MPH
- God, the Devil, and Darwin: A Critique of Intelligent Design Theory, by Niall Shanks (see https://oxford.universitypressscholarship.com/view/10.1093/0195161998.001.0001/acprof-9780195161991 )
- "Why Evolution Is True" by Jerry A. Coyne
- "Evolution and the Myth of Creationism: A Basic Guide to the Facts in the Evolution Debate", by Tim M. Berra
There are also other books I read on this topic, and also science magazine articles I read on the topic, but at the moment I don't recall the names of those books and articles.