Page 124 - The Evolution Deceit

122 THE EVOLUTION DECEIT

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. 97
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 present-day 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 in-
distinguishable from those of modern humans. 98
Impartial examinations of the footprints revealed their real owners. In
reality, these footprints consisted of 20 fossilised footprints of a 10-year-
old present-day human and 27 footprints of an even younger one. They
were certainly normal people like us.
This situation put the Laetoli footprints at the centre of discussions
for years. Evolutionist paleoanthropologists desperately tried to come up
with an explanation, as it was hard for them to accept the fact that a con-
temporary man had been walking on the earth 3.6 million years ago. Dur-
ing the 1990s, the following "explanation" started to take shape: The
evolutionists decided that these footprints must have been left by an Aus-
tralopithecus, 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 foot-
prints 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. 99
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 Australo-
pithecus was the 3.6-million-year-old volcanic layer in which the footprints
were found. The prints were ascribed to Australopithecus purely on the as-
sumption that humans could not have lived so long ago.
These interpretations of the Laetoli footprints demonstrate one im-