Page 683 - Atlas of Creation Volume 2

Harun Yahya

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. 187

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.
These interpretations of the Laetoli footprints demonstrate one important fact. Evolutionists support

their theory not based on scientific findings, but in spite of them. Here we have a theory that is blindly de-
fended no matter what, with all new findings that cast the theory into doubt being either ignored or dis-
torted to support the theory.
Briefly, the theory of evolution is not a scientific theory, but a dogma kept alive despite science.

The Bipedalism Problem

Apart from the fossil record that we have dealt with so far, unbridgeable anatomical gaps between men

and apes also invalidate the fiction of human evolution. One of these has to do with the manner of walking.
Human beings walk upright on two feet. This is a very special form of locomotion not seen in any other
mammalian species. Some other animals do have a limited ability to move when they stand on their two
hind feet. Animals like bears and monkeys can move in this way only rarely, such as when they want to
reach a source of food, and even then only for a short time. Normally, their skeletons lean forward and they
walk on all fours.

Well, then, has bipedalism evolved from the quadrupedal gait of apes, as evolutionists claim?
Of course not. Research has shown that the evolution of bipedalism never occurred, nor is it possible
for it to have done so. First of all, bipedalism is not an evolutionary advantage. The way in which apes move
is much easier, faster, and more efficient than man's bipedal stride. Man can neither move by jumping from
tree to tree without descending to the ground, like a chimpanzee, nor run at a speed of 125 km per hour, like

a cheetah. On the contrary, since man walks on two feet, he moves much more slowly on the ground. For the
same reason, he is one of the most unprotected of all species in nature in terms of movement and defence.
According to the logic of evolution, apes should not have evolved to adopt a bipedal stride; humans should
instead have evolved to become quadrupedal.
Another impasse of the evolutionary claim is that bipedalism does not serve the "gradual development"
model of Darwinism. This model, which constitutes the basis of evolution, requires that there should be a

"compound" stride between bipedalism and quadrupedalism. However, with the computerized research he
conducted in 1996, Robin Crompton, senior lecturer in anatomy at Liverpool University, showed that such a
"compound" stride was not possible. Crompton reached the following conclusion: A living being can either
walk upright, or on all fours. 188 A type of stride between the two is impossible because it would involve ex-
cessive energy consumption. This is why a half-bipedal being cannot exist.

The immense gap between man and ape is not limited solely to bipedalism. Many other issues still re-
main unexplained, such as brain capacity, the ability to talk, and so on. Elaine Morgan, an evolutionary pa-
leoanthropologist, makes the following confession in relation to this matter:

Four of the most outstanding mysteries about humans are: 1) why do they walk on two legs? 2) why have they
lost their fur? 3) why have they developed such large brains? 4) why did they learn to speak?

The orthodox answers to these questions are: 1) 'We do not yet know;' 2) 'We do not yet know;' 3) 'We do not yet
know;' 4) 'We do not yet know.' The list of questions could be considerably lengthened without affecting the mo-
notony of the answers. 189

Adnan Oktar 681