Newly Discovered Human Footprints Undermine Evolutionary Assumptions

Modern evolutionary scientists believe and teach that humans first evolved in Africa from ape-like ancestors. The chimp-like Australopithecus, thought to be among the earliest human ancestors, evolved some 4 million years ago. They had brains no bigger than a chimpanzee’s, and their hands and feet and semi-circular canals in their skulls were all most similar to tree-climbing chimps today (Link).  Yet, for some reason they are still believed to be the ancestors of mankind… mostly because there simply was no other more reasonable option for proposed human evolutionary ancestry. The artist illustration of an Australopithecus family (to the right) is highly misleading…

Additional problems for this story include a long-known fact that modern human footprints have been found in the same layers as the Australopithecine remains, dating some 3.6 million years old (the Laetoli Footprints)… which poses a problem since Australopithecines did not have human-like feet, but feet like tree-climbing chimps.

Now, it turns out, that actual human footprints have been found outside of Africa, in Crete of all places, dating at 5.7 million years old (The age of the footprints were analyzed using foraminifera, a method to analyze marine microfossils, as well as the position of the prints in the sedimentary layer where they were found which were dated by radiometric dating techniques – Link). This makes these footprints quite a bit older, by the dating methods used, than the supposed human ancestors in Africa that had yet to evolve detectably beyond what would today be recognized and nothing more than a tree-climbing chimp. The prints were originally discovered by Polish Geological Institute paleontologist Gerard Gierlinski, while he was on a Crete vacation in 2002. The prints have undergone over a decade of study since then. “The unique shape of the footprints found in Crete reflect a foot that supports upright-standing human beings. The long sole, short toes, one big toe, distinctive foot ball, and absence of claws of this print are undeniably human. If this was a print of a great ape it would more likely resemble a human hand.” (Link)

The most reasonable conclusion is, of course, that all of these creatures lived at the same time… and that these sedimentary layers are not records of millions of years of time and evolution, but of shortly-spaced events in the geologic record.

Gerard D. Gierlińskia, et. al., Possible hominin footprints from the late Miocene (c. 5.7 Ma) of Crete?, Proceedings of the Geologists’ Association, Received 7 April 2017, Revised 24 July 2017, Accepted 25 July 2017, Available online 31 August 2017 (Link).

See also a relevant news article on this latest discovery (Link).

Share on Facebook0Pin on Pinterest1Share on LinkedIn0Tweet about this on TwitterDigg thisShare on Google+0Share on Tumblr0Share on StumbleUpon0Share on Reddit0Print this pageEmail this to someone

6 thoughts on “Newly Discovered Human Footprints Undermine Evolutionary Assumptions

  1. Here we go again. If the footprints upon close examination, are determined not to be from a hominim/hominid, I wonder if Educate Truth (sic) will announce that determination. Or if the date of the surface is determined to be much younger, will there be a notice placed on fundamentalist web-sites. If you believe the answer to these questions are yes, I have a big bridge that I would like to sell you for pennies on the dollar.

      (Quote)




    1
    View Comment
    • I will certainly admit it if things change on this topic – as I have done in the past.

      As an aside, though, where have you ever admitted to any one of the numerous fundamental problems for neo-Darwinism? Where is your viable evolutionary mechanism? Where is your explanation for high detrimental mutations rates that would have killed off all slowly reproducing organisms on this planet (like all mammals for instance) within less than a million years? or radiocarbon in dinosaur soft tissues that is far too high and uniformly consistent to be a contaminant? or the non-independence of amino acid racemization dating despite your original claims? or the preserved proteins and DNA fragments in dinosaur soft tissues? or the lack of expected erosion over hundreds of millions of years? or the widespread purity and uniformity of thick coal and sandstone beds over huge areas? and on and on and on?

      These human footprints in Crete are only one small additional piece of a rather large puzzle that already has the clear weight of evidence strongly against the neo-Darwinian story of origins and strongly in favor of the biblical version of past events.

        (Quote)




      19
      View Comment
  2. Perhaps Dr. Pitman would enlighten his readers what on earth “the neo-Darwinian story of origins” might be. Darwin did not address origins. Oh well, such a small mistake like that worth mentioning.

    And I noticed that Sean got 9 up thumbs and I didn’t get any. O’ dear..

      (Quote)




    3
    View Comment
    • Really? Darwin “did not address origins”? – and neither do modern evolutionists? Correct me if I’m wrong, but wasn’t the title of Darwin’s book, “On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life”?

      So, please do explain my “mistake”. Please do explain how Darwinism, to include the claims of modern evolutionary scientists, are not actually about the “origins” of anything – not really. I’m sure many others would be most interested in your explanation of this as well…

      Also, while you’re at it, please do explain to me how Darwinism is not actually tied or at all related, really, to the philosophy of naturalism…

      Until then, it seems to me that William Provine was right. In the words of his 1998 Darwin Day speech the University of Tennessee he noted something that is downright obvious to those who honestly consider these things:

        “Evolution is the greatest engine of atheism ever invented. Naturalistic evolution has clear consequences that Charles Darwin understood perfectly. 1) No gods worth having exist; 2) no life after death exists; 3) no ultimate foundation for ethics exists; 4) no ultimate meaning in life exists; and 5) human free will is nonexistent” (Provine, 1998).

      A year later Provine wrote:

        As the creationists claim, belief in modern evolution makes atheists of people. One can have a religious view that is compatible with evolution only if the religious view is indistinguishable from atheism. (No Free Will, 1999 p.123)

      Earlier in his career he wrote in some detail:

        “In other words, religion is compatible with modern evolutionary biology (and indeed all of modern science) if the religion is effectively indistinguishable from atheism. My observation is that the great majority of modern evolutionary biologists now are atheists or something very close to that. Yet prominent atheistic or agnostic scientists publicly deny that there is any conflict between science and religion. Rather than simple intellectual dishonesty, this position is pragmatic. In the United States, elected members of Congress all proclaim to be religious; many scientists believe that funding for science might suffer if the atheistic implications of modern science were widely understood.” (Academe, January, 1987, pp.51-52)

      Evidently, you don’t agree. But, how is Provine mistaken here? – in your understanding of Darwinism and the very closely associated naturalistic philosophy that usually goes with it? – especially since I’ve personally heard you say that you wouldn’t know what to tell your own granddaughter if she asked you, as an evolutionist, for some evidence of God’s actual existence?

        (Quote)




      12
      View Comment
    • Ervin Taylor:
      Perhaps Dr. Pitman would enlighten his readers what on earth “the neo-Darwinian story of origins” might be. Darwin did not address origins.

      Origins of what?? the first eukaryote??
      Or “origins of mankind”??

      Darwin himself claimed that his own false doctrine on origins was totally incompatible with Genesis and that because of this – Genesis must be tossed under a bus.

      hint: Genesis is an account of “Origins” as we all know — even though “bacteria” and “amoeba” are terms that don’t show up in the text.

      The point remains – Darwin was promoting his own religion on origins totally counter to the Bible doctrine on origins. He himself addresses this point of the two views.

        (Quote)




      5
      View Comment
  3. Ervin Taylor:
    Here we go again.If the footprints upon close examination, are determined not to be from a hominim/hominid, I wonder if Educate Truth (sic) will announce that determination.Or if the date of the surface is determined to be much younger, will there be a notice placed on fundamentalist web-sites.If you believe the answer to these questions are yes, I have a big bridge that I would like to sell you for pennies on the dollar.

    Here we go again … hope piled upon hope…no matter the “observations in nature” that disconfirm the classic evolutionary hypothesis

    Reminds me of “What we still don’t know” by Martin Reese and Leonard Suskind

      (Quote)




    5
    View Comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *