Books
Facts and Fallacies of the Fossil Record:
Re-Evaluating the Supposed Evidences for Human Evolution
By Brett A. Rutherford
Lesson Six
Facts and Fallacies of the Fossil Record of Australopithecus Footprints in the Mud (Australopithecus afarensis)
We have already pointed out that the majority of evolutionists believed (and still believe) that early man must have originated in Africa. To that end, field work began in areas of East Africa where there were known fossil beds rich with a variety of extinct animals. In the 1930’s, work began on the Serengeti Plain in Northern Tanzania. About 45 miles north of Olduvai Gorge, at a place called Laetoli, the first supposed hominids (upright walking apes) were discovered in 1935. However, they were not identified as the earliest upright walking human ancestor until the 1970s. The Laetoli ape fossils were classified as the earliest human ancestor to walk upright and were given the name “Australopithecus afarensis” (Southern ape of the Afar region). The remains were 3.5 million years old according to samples dated by potassium-argon. In addition to the fossilized remains discovered in this area, Mary Leakey found fossilized footprints in 1976. The volcanic ash surrounding the prints was potassium-argon dated to over one million years old. Anatomist Owen Lovejoy, described the Laetoli footprints as the “smoking gun” evidence of the bipedal gait (upright walking) of the Australopithecus afarensis.44
Had the evolutionist found incontrovertible evidence for human evolution in these prints? First of all, the fact that these prints were potassium-argon dated ought to draw immediate suspicion. The incredible inaccuracy of the potassium-argon method has already been well established. Since this method was used to date these foot prints one can safely say they are not over one million years old. In fact, the physical qualities of the prints point to a much younger date. Evolutionist Rod Caird wrote of the Laetoli prints that they
were for all practical purposes that of a modern human foot. The indentations, the shape and distribution of the toes, the relationship between the marks left by the heel and ball of the foot all showed that the individuals who walked that way had acquired the fully upright, two- legged gait used by humans today.45
After reading this analysis of the Laetoli prints, why would anyone think that they belonged to anything other than a modern human? If these prints physically resemble modern human footprints, why should we assume that they belonged to an archaic ape like Australopithecus afarensis? Wouldn’t that be assuming something that the evidence does not allow? If they appear to be modern human footprints, then they probably are modern human footprints! If these footprints prove anything, its that human beings have always walked upright. The author believes Owen Lovejoy’s “smoking gun” was firing blanks!
“Here’s Lucy,” and Other Australopithecus afarensis Stars
Other Australopithecus afarensis sites were found in Middle Awash and Omo, Ethiopia. The oldest of specimens from these sites are potassium-argon dated to four million years ago.46 However, the find that made Australopithecus afarensis a star belonged to Donald Johanson.
In November of 1974, a team led by Donald Johanson and Maurice Taieb discovered bone fragments scattered along the desert floor near Hadar, Ethiopia. While piecing the fragments together the team listened to the Beatles’ song, “Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds.” The song inspired them to affectionately name their find “Lucy.”
The following year, the expedition’s medical doctor, Mike Bush, discovered fossil fragments from 13 more primates. In 1978, Owen Lovejoy of the Cleveland Museum of Natural History, announced that the fragments from Hadar were a part of the new species, Australopithecus afarensis. The fragments were assumed to be 3.2 million years old, and one of the earliest known ancestors of modern man.47 Because Lucy’s skull could not reasonably be constructed from the few fragments available, the determination that Lucy was an early human ancestor had to come from what was left of her pelvis and ribs. After the pelvis was reconstructed it supposedly more closely resembles a human pelvis than that of an ape. However, Lucy’s ribs and shoulders would later call into question the accuracy of Lovejoy’s reconstruction of her pelvis.
Where Did They Go Wrong?
What are the flaws in the evolutionist’s analysis of the Australopithecus afarensis fragments? In the first place, the name is a type of admission. “Australopithecus afarensis” simply means “Southern ape of the Afar region.” Even the evolutionists have to admit the evidence points to the conclusion that Lucy and her family are nothing more than archaic apes. She was not called “Southern archaic human of the Afar region” because the evidence does not warrant such a designation. To call Australopithecus afarensis a human ancestor is drawing an unfounded conclusion.
In the second place, the significance of this discovery was immediately called into question by Donald Johanson’s own team. One of his associates, Tom Gray, was with Johanson at the moment Lucy’s fragments were discovered. Gray’s initial assessment of the fossilized pieces differed from that of Johanson’s. Johanson describes the scene in his book, Ancestors,
Light glinted off a bone. I knelt down for a closer look. This time I knew at once I was looking at a hominid (a primate that walks upright) elbow. I had to convince Tom, whose first reaction was that it was a monkey’s.48
The fact that evolutionists often cannot come to an agreement over the significance of each find should tell us something about the so called “evidence” for human evolution.
What about Lucy’s pelvis? Does Owen Lovejoy’s reconstruction of Lucy’s human-like pelvis prove she is a transitory figure on the human evolutionary scale? In the first place, we must remember the words of Richard Leakey and Roger Lewin, “Similar anatomy does not always indicate evolutionary relationship.”49 In other words, fossilized skeletal structure can often be a difficult tool in determining species and its relationship to other species. It is particularly difficult to determine the species of the remains when those remains are crushed into tiny bits and bent out of shape. This was the state of Lucy’s pelvis when she was discovered. The innominate (the three bones that make up the hip) were smashed into about forty pieces.
Lovejoy spent six months bending and pasting Lucy’s bones until they resembled a human pelvis. The accuracy of Lovejoy’s work was immediately called into question by his own colleagues. Naturalist Alberto Angela who worked with Johanson at Hadar, wrote that the reconstruction of Lucy’s pelvis “was based on supposition.”50 Even Lovejoy could not mutilate the evidence enough to enlarge the birth canal. It would not have been physically possible for Lucy to give birth to a large brained child. Giving birth to such a child would eventually be necessary if Australopithecus afarensis were going to mutate into the next evolutionary stage. Johanson explains this dilemma as
...the sacrum (tail bone) had to narrow throughout human evolution while another of our adaptive landmarks, larger brains, evolved. Lucy’s wider sacrum (tail bone) and shallower pelvis gave her a smaller, kidney-shaped birth canal, compared to that of modern humans.51
In other words, Lucy could only have given birth to an ape.
In the second place, Lovejoy’s reconstruction of Lucy’s pelvis must be reconsidered in light of the work done by Peter Schmid. Schmid, a paleontologist at the Anthropological Institute in Zurich, was sent a cast of Lucy’s skeleton and asked to reassemble it for a display. What Schmid found was not what he expected. His reconstruction of Lucy did not resemble the Owen Lovejoy model. Schmid describes what he concluded as he put Lucy’s remains together:
When I started to put the skeleton together, I expected it to look human. Everyone had talked about Lucy as being very modern, very human, so I was surprised by what I saw. I noticed that the ribs were more round in cross-section, more like what you see in apes. Human ribs are flatter in cross-section. But the shape of the rib cage itself was the biggest surprise of all. The human rib cage is barrel shaped, and I just couldn’t get Lucy’s ribs to fit this kind of shape. But I could get them to make a conical shaped rib cage, like what you see in apes.52
Once again the evolutionists had made an assumption which the facts did not support. If one aspect of Lovejoy’s Lucy model did not add up, would it not be reasonable to assume that he might have made a mistake (intentional or unintentional) in piecing together another aspect of her anatomy, namely her pelvis? This point becomes even more valid when one considers another problem which puzzled Peter Schmid. He noted Lucy’s shoulders were high. According to Schmid, this fact combined with the funnel shaped chest, “would have made arm swinging improbable in the human sense.” Schmid concluded that if Lucy (Australopithecus afarensis) was bipedal (walked only on hind legs) then “it wouldn’t have been able to lift its thorax for the kind of deep breathing that we do when we run.” He goes on to say of Lucy, “The abdomen was pot-bellied, and there was no waist, so that would have restricted the flexibility that’s essential to human running.”53 If Lucy’s upper torso indicates that it would have been near to impossible for her to continually walk upright, then would not it be reasonable to assume that a mistake was made in assessing her lower body? Lucy’s long arms, short legs, chest, shoulders, and ape skull indicate that she was nothing more than a knuckle-walking ape. She is hardly a sparkling jewel in the crown of evolution!
Raymond Dart and the Taung Child (Australopithecus africanus)
In 1924 Raymond Dart was presented with a tiny fossilized face from a limestone quarry in Taung, South Africa. Dart named the tiny skull Australopithecus africanus. It is better known as the “Taung Child.” In an article for Nature magazine, Dart suggested that Australopithecus africanus was an extinct ape living between anthropoids and man.54 Most evolutionists believe the Australopithecus africanus is slightly younger than the afarensis at 2.8 million years old (refer to chart on page 52). Dart’s find is also considered to be of great value to evolutionary theory because of the position of the foramen magnum. The foramen magnum is the small hole at the base of the skull where the spine connects to the head. Evolutionists use it as an indicator of posture. For example, if the foramen magnum is at central base of the skull, evolutionists see that as evidence that the creature walked upright. If it is positioned toward the back of the skull, it indicates that the posture of the creature was slouched. According to Raymond Dart the impression of the foramen magnum in the Taung fossil is very close to the central base of the skull. Therefore, Dart proclaimed that his creature walked upright.
Are there also problems with Dart’s discovery? Again, the answer is “yes.” Once again the name is an admission. Australopithecus africanus simply means “Southern African ape.” Dart did not have the courage to call it an archaic human ancestor because the evidence did not support such a designation. Additionally, even the evolutionists have bickered over whether or not Australopithecus africanus is a human ancestor. Sir Arthur Keith, an expert anatomist and evolutionist, after analyzing the Taung skull, wrote in Nature magazine:
[Dart’s] claim is preposterous. The skull is that of a young anthropoid ape...and showing so many points of affinity with the two living Africa anthropoids, the gorilla and chimpanzee, that there cannot be a moment’s hesitation in placing the fossil form in this living group.55
Even the integrity and scholarship of Raymond Dart was called into question by his colleagues. Donald Johanson and James Shreeve described Raymond Dart as “over enthusiastic for speculation.”56 Unfortunately, this is a trademark of every evolutionist’s character. It takes an incredible gap in reason and an “over enthusiastic” urge to speculate in order for one to conclude that the Taung child is a human ancestor.
Finally, the impression of the foramen magnum in the Taung skull is not as clear as Dart would have everyone to believe. In fact, many paleoanthropologists who have closely examined the skull cannot even find the foramen magnum depression that Dart bragged about. Furthermore, the foramen magnum is an unreliable means in determining the posture of a creature. Its position on the skull varies in both humans and apes. Other anatomical evidence from Australopithecus africanus remains indicates that he did not walk upright. The Taung child (Australopithecus africanus) is nothing more than what it looks like — an ape. Any other conclusion would be nothing more than unfounded speculation!
Unsuccessful Thick-Skulled Relatives of Africanus?
According to evolutionists, there were two branches of the Afarensis line. One line supposedly succeeded in evolving into a higher life form. This “successful” line was Africanus. As already discussed, he allegedly went on to be a link in the human evolutionary chain. The less successful branch of the Australopithecus Africanus line was Australopithecus Robustus (Paranthropus). This poor ape is called “robustus” because of his unusually thick skull. He is also distinguished from Afarensis and Africanus by a bony ridge that runs the length of his cranium. The oldest of the Robustus family, Australopithecus aethiopicus (Black Skull), was discovered in West Turkana, Kenya and has been potassium-argon dated to 2.5 million years ago. Paleoanthropologists believe that Robustus did not make the necessary adaptations to the changing environment and therefore became extinct about one million years ago.57
The validity of the claim that Robustus was 2.5 million years old can quite obviously be undermined because of the already established inaccuracy of the potassium-argon dating method. The anatomical structure of Robustus makes him appear to be even more primitive than Africanus. The enormous thickness of its skull makes it more ape-like than its predecessor. If Africanus and Afarensis are apes, then there can be no question that Robustus is also one. Again, one finds the paleoanthropologists making a “mountain out of a mole hill”. Robustus was a common ape and nothing more! Their uncritical assessment of Robustus has resulted in evolutionists making yet another incredible leap of faith.
Conclusion
A reasonable assessment of the fossils of Australopithecus africanus and her “younger” cousin, Afarensis, is that they were no more than an extinct subspecies of the ape family. Modern apes differ anatomically. For example, a gorilla is not anatomically the same as an orangutan. Why do we assume that ancient apes are any different? Because the Australopithecus afarensis is slightly anatomically different from the Australopithecus robustus does not indicate that one is more evolved than another. Zoologists do not consider variation in skeletal structure in modern apes as an indication that one ape is more highly evolved than another. The same can also be said of human’s in the twenty-first century. Humans vary anatomically from race to race. However, evolutionists do not assume that one race is more highly evolved than another. Why do they change that line of reasoning when it comes to the animal kingdom? In other words, variation is not an indication of evolution!
One other point that needs to be considered is the extinction factor. Many animals from a variety of species have become extinct. For example, the Woolly Mammoth is an extinct elephant. Not even the evolutionists assume that because the Woolly Mammoth is extinct that present day elephants evolved from it. If elephant types are subject to extinction, why would we think that certain ape types were immune to the threat of extinction? Could not Lucy or the Taung child be nothing more than extinct apes? Just because there are extinct ape types does not mean that present types evolved from them just as none assumes that the African elephant evolved from the Woolly Mammoth. To assume that there is an evolutionary connection between modern ape types and extinct ape types would be to jump to an unfounded conclusion.
Review
Questions
1. Where do evolutionists believe man originated?
2. The evolutionists thought they had found the first upright walking apes at a place called...?
3. Australopithecus afarensis is a Latin name meaning...?
4. Who discovered fossilized footprints at Laetoli in 1976?
5. What method was used to date the footprints?
6. Is this a reliable dating method?
7. The Laetoli footprints were those of a ...?
8. What did Donald Johanson and Maurice Taieb call their Australopithecus afarensis fossils?
9. What was Tom Gray’s initial assessment of Lucy’s bones?
10. According to evolutionist Alberto Angela, the reconstruction of Lucy’s pelvis was based upon ...?
11. What problems arose related to the size of Lucy’s birth canal?
12. What did Peter Schmid’s reconstruction of Lucy’s skeleton reveal?
13. What anatomical features prove that Lucy was an ape?
14. Who discovered the “Taung child”?
15. Who said that the “Taung child” showed “...so many points of affinity with the two living African anthropoids, the gorilla and chimpanzee, that there cannot be a moment’s hesitation in placing the fossil form in this living group”?
16. Can the position of the foramen magnum be an accurate indicator in determining the posture of a creature?
17. Is the Australopithecus robustus more than an ape?
18. Prove that there are extinct species of apes using the elephant analogy.
|
