Page 185 - Darwinism Refuted

Harun Yahya (Adnan Oktar)

The arch is raised — the smaller individual had a higher arch than I do —
and the big toe is large and aligned with the second toe … The toes grip the
ground like human toes. You do not see this in other animal forms. 222

Examinations of the morphological form of the footprints showed
time and again that they had to be accepted as the prints of a human, and
moreover, a modern human (Homo sapiens). Russell Tuttle, who also
examined the footprints, wrote:

A small barefoot Homo sapiens could have made them... In all discernible
morphological features, the feet of the individuals that made the trails are
indistinguishable from those of modern humans. 223
Impartial examinations of the footprints revealed their real owners.
In reality, these footprints consisted of 20 fossilized footprints of a 10-year-
old modern human and 27 footprints of an even younger one. They were
certainly modern people like us.
This situation put the Laetoli footprints at the center of discussions
for years. Evolutionary paleoanthropologists desperately tried to come up
with an explanation, as it was hard for them to accept the fact that a
modern man had been walking on the earth 3.6 million years ago. During
the 1990s, the following "explanation" started to take shape: The
evolutionists decided that these footprints must have been left by an
Australopithecus, because according to their theory, it was impossible for a
Homo species to have existed 3.6 years ago. However, Russell H. Tuttle
wrote the following in an article in 1990:
In sum, the 3.5-million-year-old footprint traits at Laetoli site G resemble
those of habitually unshod modern humans. None of their features suggest
that the Laetoli hominids were less capable bipeds than we are. If the G
footprints were not known to be so old, we would readily conclude that
there had been made by a member of our genus, Homo... In any case, we
should shelve the loose assumption that the Laetoli footprints were made by
Lucy's kind, Australopithecus afarensis. 224
To put it briefly, these footprints that were supposed to be 3.6 million
years old could not have belonged to Australopithecus. The only reason
why the footprints were thought to have been left by members of
Australopithecus was the 3.6-million-year-old volcanic layer in which the
footprints were found. The prints were ascribed to Australopithecus purely
on the assumption that humans could not have lived so long ago.

183