Of all the discoveries that evolutionists believe support the idea of human evolution, one of the most sensational is the discovery in 1978 of a 75-centimeter footprint with clear footprints.
The prints were found in a layer of volcanic ash, which is generally accepted at 3.75 million years old, and was believed to have been made by a human ancestor. Since this date coincides with the date of the Australopithecus "Lucy", found in 1974, the discovery was really important.
The prints were recovered and examined by the recently deceased Mary Leakey (died December 9, 1996 at the age of 83), a member of the famous Leakey family, a fossil explorer whose findings were widely reported and funded by National Geographic magazine.
As for the prints, her data are not questioned, but the interpretation of these data illustrates what evolutionists will go to in order to avoid doubts about the alleged evolutionary origin of man.
The prints themselves are quite humanlike, "indistinguishable from the prints of modern humans" (Anderson, New Scientist 98: 373, 1983).
After extensive research, it was concluded that the footprints were "similar to those of ordinary modern, barefoot people." (If it were not known that the prints are so ancient, we would easily conclude that they were made by a member of our family "(Tuttle," Natural History ", March 1990).
Due to the dates, the prints were assigned to Australopithecus afarensis, which is Lucy's species. But is this justified? Lucy was essentially a chimpanzee. Even discoverer Donald Johansson claims that Lucy was a chimpanzee who walked somewhat more upright than other apes.
The Australopithecus foot was the foot of a monkey, with an opposite thumb and long, curved toes, just right for climbing trees, but not at all like humans. According to researcher Dr. Charles Oxnard in a 1996 interview:
"If you study the bones of the Australopithecus foot more closely, and especially if you study them with a computerized multivariate statistical analysis that allows you to evaluate parts that are not so easy to see with the eye, it turns out that the big toe was a standard toe, indistinguishable from the structure of modern person ".
Why do evolutionists continue to claim that chimpanzee-like Lucy left humanoid footprints, and what exactly does this chimpanzee represent our ancestors? Certainly not for scientific reasons. The desire to prove the animal origin of man is great, since it frees man from responsibility before God the creator.
Thus, we see that it is the creationists, not the evolutionists, who are the empirical scientists. The human footprint must be made by a human foot!
My fellow evolutionists could take an example from Mary Leakey. A staunch evolutionist herself and fully believing in the ancestry of man from apes, she was wary of scientific evidence and especially speculative theories. In an interview with The Associated Press three months before her death, she "agreed that scientists will never be able to pinpoint when prehistoric man became man."
“We will probably never know where humans started and where hominids ended,” she said. Since scientists will never be able to prove this or that scenario of human evolution, Leakey said that "all these trees of life with their branches of our ancestors are complete nonsense."
John D. Morris, Ph.D., President of the Institute for Creation Research