Evolutionary paleontologists and anthropologists are rummaging around in their saddlebags in an attempt to validate an australopithecene as part of human ancestry. "Little Foot" was given an age based on index fossils related to the strata where they found it. Standard radiometric dating methods were "unreliable". Now the dates are being revised according to cosmogenic nuclide dating. However, this method has serious flaws, and the selection of eleven samples is suspect, especially only two were in close proximity to the fossils.
All of this galloping around, trying to change "facts", making assertions and whatnot will not make evolution true and negate the Creator's work.
Australopithecus prometheus (StW 573)—nicknamed “Little Foot”—began in 2014 to make a bid for the attention accorded to the more well-known australopithecine Lucy. Would Little Foot, from the evolutionary point of view, finally fill the shoes of its mythological promethean namesake by offering humanity an appropriately mythological gift, the gift of identifying our oldest hominid ancestor?To finish reading, click on "The Latest on “Little Foot’s” Bid for Status as Humanity’s Most Ancient Ancestor". Also, you may want to check out a related (but shorter) article that focuses on cosmogenic nuclide dating, "Myths Dressed as Science".
Little Foot’s age has been a matter of great debate since discovery of its nearly complete skeleton buried in a South African cave in the 1990s. Research we reported here one year ago aged Little Foot significantly by showing that the fossil was the same age as the breccia (a kind of conglomerate rock) in which it was buried and not the flowstone insinuated later amongst its pieces.