SINCE THE 1970's we have been told that the famous Lucy fossil (Australopithecus afarensis) is the earliest known evolutionary ancestor of modern man. In the past few years, many new fossil finds have created a more and more confusing picture for evolutionists who are working on their theories of human origins. US News & World Report (4/2/01, p12) says of a new fossil, "Given the mess it makes of our family tree, the premiere might as well have been on Springer." This newest confusion has come from a fossil described in the 3/22/01 issue of the journal Nature. This fossil is as "old" as Lucy (according to the Potassium-Argon method used by evolutionary paleontologists), but looks very different. It has been called Kenyanthropus platyops, which means "flat-faced man from Kenya." But it's nothing like a man. It has a brain case the size of a chimp's, like the Lucy fossil.

Suddenly Lucy is in question. Creationists, however, have thought of her as a monkey from the start. CAT scans of her skull have now shown that her organs of balance were not geared for walking upright. We also know that her wrists have the same "knucklewalking" features as modern monkeys that walk on their knuckles.

Daniel E. Lieberman, evolutionary anthropologist at George Washington University says, "There's no simple way to figure out who's related to whom." (Science News, 2/24/01, p180). Fred Spoor, co-author of the paper in Nature and anatomy professor at the University College of London says that this may mean that neither of these ancient fossils is our ancestor! He says, "If we don't have to bet on it, then it is likely it is neither Kenyanthropus or Australopithecus." (MSNBC News Service, 3/21/01). Could it be that these folks are just barking up the wrong family tree? Maybe these little chimp-like things are really just little chimp-like things, and not our grandparents after all.


TALK OF A MARS FLOOD continues among astronomers. New evidence on how the broad mountain called the Tharsis rise formed, suggests that Mars was suddenly flooded with an ocean as wide as the one on Earth, and that it would have been more than 400 feet deep. Evolutionary astronomers believe that this happened about 3.5 billion years ago, and they have begun to call this time in the past on Mars … the "Noachian period." (Science News, 2/24/01, p184). Don't you think it's odd that they’re using a name from something that they consider to be a fairy tale, to scientifically describe how a flood could happen on a planet that is now completely covered with deserts? If they can believe in a disastrous flood on Mars, then why are they so against the idea of a flood just like that here on Earth?

Hello,
My question is, do you have a web site where your previous articles can be found? If not, is there some other way I could get copies of the previous articles - such as in book form or by e-mail? I would like to start a scrapbook of sorts with the articles for my son. Thank you for your time in answering my question.
Sherri in Maryville

You can find all of the articles at the website for the East Tennessee Creation Science Association, (www.etcsa.org). They have been keeping track. Yours, Dr Jackson

Dr. Glenn Jackson holds four degrees in science and education from George Mason University and University of Virginia. He has taught elementary through college level sciences for over twenty years and in four states. He is a lifetime member of both American Mensa and the Creation Research Society.


Return to Main Page