Bombshell Announcement In Anthropology

It was thought to be one of the biggest discoveries in 1978, footprints found in a layer of volcanic ash dated within the evolutionary time frame, in particular, claimed to be Lucy the chimp’s kind which made their estimate to be 3.6 million years old.

In 1983, New Scientist reported, “The prints themselves are quite human-like “indistinguishable from those of modem humans” (Anderson, 98:373). Also, Tuttle stated, “resemble those of habitually unshod modem humans…. (If the) footprints were not known to be so old, we would readily conclude that they were made by a member of our genus” (Natural History March 1990).

So how could chimp-like Lucy be making the Laetoli human-like footprints?  Years later we see Science daily reporting a bombshell from the University of Arizona School of Anthropology…

“Based on previous analyses of the skeletons of Australopithecus afarensis, we expected that the Laetoli footprints would resemble those of someone walking with a bent knee, bent hip gait typical of chimpanzees, and not the striding gait normally used by modern humans,” [David] Raichlen said.  “But to our surprise, the Laetoli footprints fall completely within the range of normal human footprints.”

Now let me rephrase my question, “How could Lucy chimp-like footprints be making the Laetoli modern human footprints?”  This is not practicing empirical science. When it comes to alleged transitional forms, evolutionary scientists grasp at straws. Biological anthropologist Adam Gordon did not appear ready to drop the evolutionary story but rather reassured readers this can be still fitted into the scheme of chimp to man…

“What is fascinating about this study is that it suggests  that, at a time when our ancestors had an anatomy well-suited to spending a significant amount of time in the trees, they had already developed a highly efficient, modern human-like mode of bipedalism.”

There is an old saying, a human footprint must be made by a human foot! Now we are talking common sense and empirical science rather than what Biological anthropologist Adam Gordon is trying to tell us. As you can see as well, the liberal science media isn’t critical at all about this research!

It has been known for years, that the footprints resembled modern humans. In 2003, Italian geologists said, “to support the idea that they are indeed human and fully bipedal.” The only reason why this story remains alive is because evolutionary scientists claim it was too early for modern humans…


9 thoughts on “Bombshell Announcement In Anthropology

  1. Michael is practicing a fraud on his readers yet again.

    He is plagiarizing someone else’s words without attribution. Michael has trouble constructing a grammatical English sentence,[1] whereas the current post contains no significant mistakes at all. The style is more polished and journalistic, whereas Michael wanders from one subject to another with minimal coherence. In-line quotations are longer and introduced with a comma, whereas Michael uses in-line quotes only for words and short phrases, without a comma.[2] This author uses impersonal passive constructions (“It has been known for years”), a device that Michael himself does not employ. Many other examples of stylistic and compositional differences are present as well.

    Plagiarism is stealing. Taking the work of another without attribution. Apparently stealing, like lying, are considered to be major sins only by scientists, and not by creationists.

    Something else for you to confess, Michael:

    (1) You appropriated this post from someone else.

    (2) You yourself have no qualifications whatever to discuss scientific matters.

    (3) The readership of your blog is minimal.[3]


    [1] For an example of multiple errors, we need go back no further than the first sentence of his preceding post: “One has been refer to as the poster child for the intelligent design movement and used in debates on the issue of irreducibly complexity, the bacterial flagellum has been one of the more interesting studies in science. ”

    [2] Michael also often employs scare-quotes, which are absent in this post.

    [3] I suspect support by an eminence grise, although the evidence is sketchy.

  2. Michael’s unnamed source: “So how could chimp-like Lucy be making the Laetoli human-like footprints? ”

    Because Lucy was not chimp-like. Dud.

    Michael’s source, like the Science Daily article, fails to mention the recent discovery of the Ardipithecus ramidus fossils. Paleontologists had expected that Ardi would not be bipedal at all, or only primitively so. What they found was that Ardi, a million years older than Lucy, was almost fully bipedal in the modern sense.[1] Why would it be amazing then that Lucy had a capability that Ardi had already almost fully acquired a million years previously?

    The footprints were discovered in 1978, after Lucy had been dug up, but before her fossils had been fully analyzed. Even in 1983, therefore, it would have been seen as amazing that a 3.5 My old hominid would have had a modern gait. But no longer.

    This is a common creationist double-shuffle—to trot out old research and compare it to recent findings, while hiding the changes that have occurred in the field of the old research since it was was performed.[2]


    [1[] The still-cloven big toe might slow down a full running gait, but walking was modern.

    [2] In my opinion, this more polished example of the trick is beyond Michael’s abilities, further indicating that it was plagiarized. However it is true that Science Daily might have been complicit for omitting any reference to Ardipithecus ramidus, whose discovery significantly pushed back the history of bipedalism.

  3. “Bombshell Announcement In Anthropology”



    Time to change subjects again, Michael. This one has no traction either.

  4. “After Six Years, Saturn’s Rings Confounds and Delights” (Post dated Mar. 19, 2010)

    Funny thing. When Michael wrote on this subject[1] a few days ago, he blew right by a paper just a few pages farther on in the same issue. Carnall, et al., “Mechanosensitive Self-Replication Driven by Self-organization”[2] describes a set of molecules that replicate themselves, as required for origin of life. Now, a number of these molecules are known. These particular ones, however, are more advanced. They not only replicate themselves without any outside input except energy, they compete with each other for the same nutrient. “Which of the two replicators becomes dominant is influenced by whether the sample is shaken or stirred.” Sounds like a formula for James Bond’s martinis, doesn’t it?

    The finding is that something as simple as mechanical action “can act as a selection pressure” a la Darwinian natural selection.

    Well, we can certainly understand why you skipped over this paper, Michael.


    [1] Cuzzi, et al., “An Evolving View of Saturn’s Dynamic Rings,” Science 327:1470-1475.

    [2] Science 327:1502-1506.

  5. …………..Francisco Ayala Wins Templeton Prize………….

    This $1,500,000 prize is awarded annually by the John Templeton Foundation to “a living person who has made exceptional contributions to affirming life’s spiritual dimension.”

    This year’s recipient is Francisco Ayala, a Catholic priest who is an evolutionary biologist and geneticist at the University of California, Irvine. Prof. Ayala lectures widely on science and religion, and is a vocal opponent of intelligent design.

    Ayala’s recent research focuses on the evolution of micro-organisms and parasites, particularly those that cause malaria. He is a member of the National Academy of Sciences and holds the National Medal of Science.

    His book “Darwin’s Gift” (John Henry Press, 2007) describes the theory of evolution as helping to explain how evil could co-exist with a good and omnipotent God. His newest book, “Am I a Monkey? Six Big Questions about Evolution,” will be published this year by Johns Hopkins University Press.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s