Posted on 03/06/2009 8:10:07 AM PST by GodGunsGuts
Some scientists have estimated that sets of human footprints found on two separate but close sedimentary layers in Kenya are around 1.51 and 1.53 million years old1 and were made by humans like the “Turkana Boy,” an anatomically human fossil discovered within the same general area in 1984.2 But do these footprints clarify or confound the standard evolutionary explanations?
The obvious “humanness” of these footprints highlights the fact that clear distinctions exist between humans and other creatures. LiveScience reported that these prints have “modern foot features such as a rounded heel, a human-like arch and a big toe that sits parallel to other toes…By contrast, apes have more curved fingers and toes made for grasping tree branches.”2 For example, despite museum depictions of the extinct ape Australopithecus having fully human feet, fossils show that they had typical ape feet.3
The LiveScience article also noted that “modern feet mark just one of several dramatic shifts in early humans.”2 What is not mentioned is that the evolutionary “shifts” are not recorded in these footprints or any other fossils. Either the shifts were too “dramatic” in speed to have left any evidence, or they never occurred. Judging strictly by the fossil record, it is as if apes and humans never changed from one to the other, but instead retained the stable basic forms from their beginnings. Anthropologist John Harris of Rutgers University remarked after considering the creatures that left these tracks, “We’re seeing a very different hominid at this stage.”2 Indeed, the human form is “very different” from apes and always has been.4
This new find will also, according to Harris, “bring up controversy again about the Laetoli prints,”2 discovered in Tanzania in 1976 and considered at the time the earliest evidence for bipedal (upright) walking. One question never resolved is why such clearly human foot features would have existed on a creature that supposedly lived over 3 million years ago.5 Paleoanthropologist Russell Tuttle of the University of Chicago concluded, “In sum, the 3.4 million-year-old footprint trails at Laetoli site G resemble those of habitually unshod modern humans. None of their features suggest that the Laetoli hominids were less capable bipeds than we are.”6 In other words, even after 3.4 million years of evolution, human feet remain virtually the same.
The Laetoli tracks are not considered human, a conclusion that is not based primarily on diagnostic observations but rather on the evolutionary reasoning that human features should not have existed so long ago in rocks that predate humanity’s alleged ancestors. But if they were made by humans, as would be apparent to an unbiased observer, then they present a contradiction to evolutionary assumptions: How could humans have existed prior to the creatures from which they evolved?7
Despite fossil interpretations that deliberately exclude the historical framework provided by God in the Bible, the evidence stubbornly insists that human evolution never took place, and that people were created fully-formed and fully-functional from the beginning.
References
ping!
Evolution is still just a “theory” because the preponderance of the evidence fits. There has been no conclusive scientific proof proving or disproving the theory, only subtly modifying it.
Articles from ICR are neither News nor Activism.
Evolutionists have it all backwards.
Animals did not become human, but humans are becoming animals.
I just hate it when evidence gets in the way of a good story! Just ONCE I’d like to see real evidence of evolution in the human species.
Modern?
You mean, like, “Air Jordan” can be seen written backwards on the print?
under that standard we could theorize that evolutionists have only half a brain, based upon...
Silly comments
nobody has seen it in it’s entirety.
No concrete evidence exists to prove you have a full brain.
and we are unable to conclusively open your head to visually inspect it.
..but we can modify our theory as they post more information...though it will remain a theory.
::rolls eyes::
As defined by whom?
Oh...the same folks that believe they are related to primates.
Yeah, those people.
circular reasoning at best.
Perhaps you could explain to us how "scientific process" deals with any hypothesis and how that should be different in the case of evolution.
I’ll be gracious and accept your premise for the sake of asking:
If evolution is a “theory” why is it presented and guarded by education fascists as “fact”?
This thread has at least as much merit.
Get over it.
Inneresting.
comprising multicellular organisms that have a well-defined shape and usually limited growth, can move voluntarily, actively acquire food and digest it internally, and have sensory and nervous systems that allow them to respond rapidly to stimuli
Where do you disagree?
Really, I was just trying to inject a smart-assed little joke into this thread. You know, nothing too serious.
Thanks for the ping!
Ping
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.