All of the expected Darwinian players were present. The BBC News report proclaimed: “‘Lucy’s Baby’ Found in Ethiopia—The 3.3 million-year-old fossilized remains of a human-like child have been unearthed in Ethiopia’s Dikika region” (see “‘Lucy’s Baby’...,” 2006). James Owen, staff writer for National Geographic declared: “The world’s oldest known child has been discovered in East Africa in an area known appropriately as the Cradle of Humanity” (2006). He further speculated: “The new find may even trump the superstar fossil of the same species: ‘Lucy,’ a 3.2-million-year-old adult female discovered nearby in 1974 that reshaped theories of human evolution” (2006). Kate Wong wrote a piece that appeared on-line in Scientific American, in which she noted that it took “Alemseged [Zeresenay, lead researcher—BH] five years to remove enough of the cementlike matrix to expose the key elements...,” but she continued “till, the specimen has already yielded precious insights into a species that most researchers agree gave rise to our own genus, Homo” (Wong, 2006).
Once again the mainstream media served up their usual hype and propaganda in support of the evolutionary theory of the origin of mankind. Almost without fail, every few months society can expect to be besieged with headlines declaring the “latest and greatest” missing link. Scientists who continue to publicize the evolutionary mantra can be expected to give their spin on what the latest fossil discovery means to science and mankind in general. For instance, in a “News & Views” article titled “A Precious Little Bundle,” George Washington University anthropologist Bernard Wood observed: “The three-million-year old skeleton of a three-year-old child provides an outstanding resource to understand the development of a human ancestor that seems to have both walked upright and climbed through trees” (2006, 443:278). Headlines and catchy slogans are easy to formulate, but what is the truth about this latest find?
The latest find is a juvenile creature discovered in Dikika, Ethiopia. The fossil was dated as part of the strata layers in the Hadar Formation by assumptions of Arg-Arg dating (a method which is based on several unprovable assumptions—see Snelling, 1999). While evolutionists are “sure” this creature is 3.3 million years old, they are left to speculate as to the actual age of the creature. As Alemseged and his team admitted: “So, for now, the chronological age of the Dikika infant must remain an informed guess” (Wood, 2006, 443:279, emp. added). The primary find, a skull, has been designated DIK-1-1. This skull was discovered in December 2000, and over the next three years, fossilized bone fragments from the ribs, phalanges, tibia, femur, foot, patella, and the humerus were found. Now, five years later, after picking bone fragments away from sandstone, the discovery has been published. Consider the following admissions made in the discussion of this latest “missing link.”
Brain Volume of DIK-1-1
Brain volumes can prove useful for comparing different species. The authors stated: “Using regression equations, the EV (endocranial volume—BH) of DIK-1-1 was estimated as 275 to 330cm3. This is not unlike the volume evident in P. troglodytes (chimpanzee—BH) of a comparable dental age of three years” (Alemseged, et al., 2006, 443:297, emp. added). Wood observed: “When adjusted for its body size, the brain of A. afarensis is not much larger than that of a chimpanzee” (2006, 443:278). From the anatomy of the brain cavity, it appears that the brain volume of this creature is similar to that found in chimpanzees.
The Hyoid Bone
The hyoid bone is a free-floating bone that helps expand the airway. Alemseged and his colleagues observed: “The find includes many previously unknown skeletal elements from the Pliocene hominin record, including a hyoid bone that has a typical African ape morphology” (443:296, emp. added). Commenting on this structure the research team continued: “It is most similar to that of juvenile African apes, and unlike that of modern humans” (Alemseged, et al., 2006, 443:298, emp. added). In the discussion of the original research paper, Alemseged and his colleagues noted: “Its similarities with Pan and Gorilla hyoids suggest that the bulla-shaped body is the primitive condition for African apes...” (443:300). The hyoid bone of the Dikika find appears to be ape-like rather than human.
The Scapula and Glenoid Fossa
In the abstract of their research, Alemseged, et al., discussed “the gorilla-like scapula” (443:296, emp. added). They continued:
The shape of the scapula resembles the scapulae of juvenile and adult gorillas. In contrast, modern humans at a similar age have a wider infraspinous fossa and a more laterally facing glenoid fossa, with a correspondingly horizontal spine orientation, whereas chimpanzees tend to have a narrower infraspinous fossa and a more superiorly facing glenoid fossa with a corresponding spine orientation.... Nevertheless, comparing supraspinous and infraspinous fossa breadths still groups DIK-1-1 more closely with gorilla than with modern humans (443:299, emp. added).
They continued: “Now that the scapula of this species can be examined in full for the first time, it is unexpected to find the strongest similarities with Gorilla, an animal in which weight-bearing and terrestrial knuckle-walking predominantly characterize locomotor use of the forelimbs” (443:300, emp. added). Regarding the scapula of DIK-1-1, Bernard Wood remarked, “The shoulder-bone (scapula) of the fossil is more like that of a gorilla than a modern human” (443:279, emp. added, parenthetical item in orig.).
Additionally, Alemseged and his colleagues noted: “If functionally relevant, the glenoid fossa orientation in DIK-1-1 could also point to frequent use of the arms above the head, and the activity with which this would be most consistent is climbing” (443:300). The scapula and glenoid fossa of this creature resemble a gorilla and were made to bear weight for a creature that walked on its knuckles and climbed in trees.
Bones of the Hand
Additionally, in the abstract, Alemseged and his colleagues recognized that the “long and curved manual phalanges raise new questions about the importance of aboreal behavior in the A. afarensis locomotor repertoire” (443:296). Just like a chimpanzee, “...the manual phalanges are curved and long” (443:299). As Bernard Wood noted: “...the bones of the only complete finger are curved like those of a chimpanzee. Chimpanzee finger bones begin life only slightly curved, but become more curved when the hands are used to climb branches; this is what seems to have happened in the case of the Dikika infant” (443:279, emp. added).
Ironically, this same characteristic was discovered in the famed “Lucy.” Johanson and his coworkers admitted in the March 31, 1994 issue of Nature that Lucy possessed chimp-proportioned arm bones (see Kimbel, et al., 1994) and that her alleged descendants (e.g., A. africanus and H. habilis) had ape-like limb proportions as well—which is a clear indication that she did not evolve into something “more human.” Moreover, there also is a mountain of evidence that demonstrates Lucy was better adapted for swinging through the trees, like modern-day chimps. After thoroughly examining A. afarensis fossils, Stern and Susman noted: “It is demonstrated that A. afarensis possessed anatomic characteristics that indicate a significant adaptation for movement in the trees” (1983, 60:280). DIK-1-1, like Lucy, possesses definite ape-like structures. The bones of the hand indicate this creature was aboreal, clinging to trees—not an upright walking creature as would be expected if this was a transitional creature.
Semicircular Canals of the Ears
Furthermore, the semicircular canals of the ears provide insight as to how this creature moved around. If this creature was upright and biped like humans we would expect the semicircular canals of DIK-1-1 to be similar to that found in humans. However, Alemseged and his colleagues noted: “One further clue in this context is that the semicircular system in DIK-1-1 is similar to that of African ape and A. africanus. (443:300, emp. added). Wood observed: “Lastly, images of the inner ear of the specimen show it to have semicircular canals more like those of chimpanzees than of modern humans” (2006, 443:279, emp. added). The semicircular canals provide evidence that this creature was more like a chimpanzee than a human.
Pelvis and Lower Extremities
Unfortunately, not much can be gained from the pelvis or lower extremities, as much of it is missing. The research team noted: “Some parts of the specimen—the pelvis, the lowest part of the back and parts of the limbs—are still missing, but what is preserved is remarkably complete” (Wood, 2006, 443:278). This aspect provides no support that this creature was on its way to becoming human.
Teeth
Because DIK-1-1 was a juvenile, not as much can be discerned from its teeth. However, in discussing the teeth, Wood observed: “The best match is with three-year-old chimpanzees” (p. 279, emp. added). Patricia White noted that University of Pittsburgh professor Jeffery Schwartz believes not only that is the specimen “not from Ethiopia” but also that the “classification is premature” (2006). She continued:
“Since the chewing surfaces of the Dikika child’s teeth have not yet been exposed, one cannot compare it with any of the Hadar specimens or with the type specimen of A. afarensis from Laetoli,” Schwartz explained. “Until this can be done, one cannot tell whether the Dikika child really is the first specimen of Ethiopian A. afarensis or, if not, whether it compares favorably with one of the hominids from Hadar or it represents a different taxon altogether” (White, 2006).
Wood said it best—the best match is with a three-year old chimp. We can’t argue with that.
CONCLUSION
The media proved once again that they are less concerned with the truth than with eagerly supporting the humanistic and atheistic views espoused by Neo-Darwinians. An unbiased analysis of the anatomy of this creature clearly demonstrates that greater care should be given when reporting to the public. To assign this creature as a “missing link” or “Lucy’s Baby” is misleading, when the evidence points more towards this creature being simply an ape (probably chimpanzee). If the evolutionary ages had not been previously assigned to the Hadar region, this creature would have been quickly identified as a knuckle-walking ape. The semicircular canals demonstrate this creature was not a biped, and the remaining anatomical findings argue strongly that the latest “missing link” is still missing.