Genesis International Research Association

2. Why the human feet?

During the time Johanson was discovering various bone fragments of several afarensis specimens in Ethiopia, Mary Leakey had a field party at Laetoli, Tanzania about 30 miles south of Olduvai (Figure 3). She had also discovered afarensis bone fragments within the Laetoli Beds of Pliocene age (Figures 1 & 3). On the upper surface of the Laetoli Beds, her team discovered a thin layer of volcanic ash in which they found numerous footprints of birds and animals. They found footprints of rabbits, guinea fowl, rhinos, giraffes, elephants and several kinds of animals that no longer exist in Africa. They also found human footprints showing both heel and big toe marks of an adult and a child (p.24 of Human Origins, Leakey). These were human footprints, because apes do not have a heel bone. Mary Leakey also reported the footprints of knuckle walking apes. So, the following season she brought an American footprint expert, Louise Robbins, to confirm the find. Anthropologists Tim Whyte, Peter Jones, Paul Able, and Richard Hay were also on the team. Mary's knuckle walking footprints, a water hole and evidence of a panicky exodus which she had observed the year before were questioned. The arguments regarding her interpretation became so intense, over several days, that Mary became thoroughly exasperated, to the point where she threatened the suspension of the Field Party and that there would be no more excavation that season (Johanson & Edey,p.246-247).

Do you not believe Mary Leakey, Louis Leakey's wife, knew what knuckle walking footprints looked like? She had lived in Africa for years, where modern day, knuckle walking, apes lived.

Is it possible that her peers realized that if these footprints were ape footprints they would then be faced with an unsurmountable problem of having to reconstruct their hominid with apes feet instead of human feet?

It would have destroyed their Darwinian Thesis that afarenses could have been an upright walking human ancestor.

There are two reasons for believing the human-like footprints at Laetoli are about 3 to 3.5 million years old. The first is based upon the association of these tracks with the underlying Laetoli Beds. The second is based upon potassium - argon dating of the volcanic ash.

First, geology maintains that the Laetoli sediments are of Pliocene age of between 2.5 and 7.0 million years old. These dates are estimates but are based upon fossil assemblages, magnetic reversals and the dating of a volcanic basalt intrusive. These sediments are conformable with underlying Miocene and Oligocene beds that in places attain a thickness of about 3,200 feet. When analysing the documentations that Johanson & Edey presents in their above mentioned book and by considering all of these factors together, it becomes quite clear that these beds are of Pliocene age. However, the problem is not with the age of the Laetoli Beds, but with the age of the overlying, surface layer of volcanic ash that contain all of the many footprints.

Secondly, The volcanic ash deposits are lying unconformably upon the Laetoli Beds. They were dated by potassium/argon (K/Arg) dating at about 3 to 3.5 million years old. The source of the problem is the dating method that was used. K/Arg has a half life of about 1.3 billion years with a margin of error in excess of plus or minus 5 million years. For dates less than 5 million years, this method becomes very suspect. This volcanic ash layer could be anywhere from 3.5 million to just a few thousand years in age.

Johanson & Edey's (p. 286) family tree shows A. afarensis as the ancestor of H. habilus, H. erectus and modern Man. Richard and Mary Leakey strongly opposed Johanson's interpretation. They viewed the Australopithecines as outside of the human line, evolving directly from Ramapithecus. This was in keeping with Louis Leakey's thinking that the Australopithecans were not ancestors to Man.

Is it possible that we are face to face with another hominid hoax? In light of more recent scientific information it becomes obvious that Australo- pithecus afarensis, should now be reconstructed with an apes head, an apes body and apes feet. Afarensis can now be scientifically demonstrated to be outside of the human family and within the ape (pongid) family showing an affinity to the Chimpanzee as Stern & Susman maintain.

Is this another example where evolutionists are guilty of distorting science and perpetuating scientific error? Are they guilty of allowing their followers to perpetuate the same errors under the guise of science without correcting them?