The headline from Discover Magazine claims that two different species of humans walked the same lake at about the same time 1.5 million-years ago. But how reliable is this claim?

Footprints found along a stretch of lake in Kenya belong to various birds, antelopes, and, according to researchers, two different species of humans, and they were made one shortly after the other.

Researchers examined the tracks and found no signs of erosion and no cracks, concluding they must have been laid down in a short period of time before being covered and preserved for 1.5 million years.

But after analyzing their claims, I suggest skepticism is in order.

Firstly, the author of the article makes it clear that fame has “propelled this study.” Fame because the project organizer was Louise Leakey, the granddaughter of famed paleoanthropologists Louis and Mary Leakey, the daughter of paleoanthropologist Richard Leakey, the niece of Philip Leakey, who discovered the “Chellean Man” fossil, and sister of Jonathan Leakey, who discovered skull fragments. All of them were instrumental in promoting human evolution, and that’s notable. Their lifeworks were intended to advance the idea that humans evolved from ape-like ancestors.

Consider, one of their discoveries was a fossilized skull, which they named Zinjanthropus. But this name was problematic because the skull resembled other fossils, like Australopithecus and Paranthropus. Louis Leakey rejected the criticism and stuck with the name Zinjanthropus. But eventually it became recognized as Paranthropus, which some think is synonymous with Australopithecus. So the quest for fame influences how fossils are interpreted.

This may sound a bit confusing, but that’s the nature of fossils, particularly when they’re fragmentary, and most are missing. Even paleoanthropologists get confused, which explains why these fossils are constantly being renamed, reclassified, and debated, and renamed again. There’s also much bickering within the field, and this was apparent when one scientist viewed the photographs and thought there were “Shades of Piltdown,” where Piltdown Man is a known scientific fraud. By this we can get an idea how competition, contention, fame, and even fraud shapes evolutionary thinking; evolutionists will go to great lengths to convince others of an evolutionary link that doesn’t exist.

Regardless of the name, Paranthropus is an ape. It’s not a person. In fact the skull doesn’t look human at all. However, evolutionists have grouped this animal with humans for one basic reason: to convince others that we evolved from apes. They assume an evolutionary relationship. Therefore, when this study was published, the researchers declared their evolutionary bias, claiming that two different early human species walked the same lake at the same time over a million years ago when that is not true. It would be more accurate to state that two modern humans walked the same lake.

Here’s something else to consider… when viewing the photos of the human footprints, notice there are two separate tracks. The evolutionary researchers label one set of human tracks to Paranthropus, and the other to Homo erectus (a modern human). So the question is, how did they determine which set of human footprints belonged to an ape and the other to a modern human, and how did they decide which was which? Both sets of prints look entirely human.

Well, according to the study, “Analyses showed that the footprints were made by individuals with different gaits and stances, and the authors hypothesize these to be Homo erectus and Paranthropus” [Emphasis mine]. So the team used 3D imaging to distinguish the two sets of footprints from the other, and they determined the two tracks required a different pattern of anatomy and locomotion.

Fine. That’s all well and good, but this technology cannot confirm that one set of tracks belonged to a human and the other a non-human (Paranthropus). Note that their hypotheses arise solely from a belief in evolution, not because the evidence demands it. It’s quite possible that the tracks were made by two different modern humans, maybe a brother and sister or mother and father, or father and daughter, or neighbors. The idea that one set of tracks belonged to a “human ancestor” is not warranted.

Now get this… none of the fossil specimens of Paranthropus include feet! Better yet, it’s widely accepted that this animal was a tree climber based on the arm and hand bones of other fossil specimens. Nonetheless, despite evidence to the contrary, evolutionists assume it was bipedal.

So why would they simply assume the footprints were made by an extinct ape instead of a modern human? I think the answer is obvious: evolution requires transitional candidates, and Paranthropus serves that purpose. These researchers wrongly assume one of the tracks is from an ape-like human ancestor because evolution demands evolution. Therefore, this peer-reviewed article is an indoctrination piece. Evolution is blindly assumed, and this article serves as a perfect example.

Rather than basing the conclusion on fossilized feet (which they don’t have), they employ circular reasoning. Since they believe Paranthropus lived at the same time as humans, they assume this ape had evolved human-like feet based on their analysis of the footprints.

To be fair, evolutionists did look at the arm bones, femur and skull, and they still think Paranthropus could have been bipedal, but keep in mind, the evidence doesn’t demand bipedality. It’s only assumed because they believe in evolution.

I’d suggest that Paranthropus was not bipedal. And I’ll make a prediction: if fossilized feet are found, it will conclusively demonstrate that it did not walk upright like humans. In fact, not all evolutionists believe Paranthropus was bipedal, so the debate is open. All the lines of evidence for bipedality are ambiguous. The author even admits there are “limitations” in the skeletal fossil record preventing evolutionists from answering all these questions. Yet evolutionists will accept this article as evidence for human evolution when the opposite is true. I find the evidence consistent with the conclusion that these footprints were made by humans. I think we’re better off being skeptical.

I’ll side with the Bible. It tells us that God created animals to reproduce after their kind, and he created humans separately. And the overwhelming scientific evidence is consistent with this.