Scream from Afar: Humans, Apes Coexisted in Ethiopia, Too

Human evolution is in trouble again.
Homo co-existed with alleged ape ances-
tors in Ethiopia as well as in South Africa

A few days ago, Dr Jerry Bergman reported that a dig site in South Africa yielded fossils of Homo, Paranthropus (an alleged human ancestor), and Australopithecus, that suggested the three species co-existed (12 Aug 2025). Now, a similar find in the Afar region of Ethiopia (home country of Lucy) has come to light.

ASU scientists uncover new fossils — and a new species of ancient human ancestor (Arizona State, 13 Aug 2025). Science Daily gave its copy of this press release a more provocative title: “Ancient fossil discovery in Ethiopia rewrites human origins.” How many times have we heard that refrain before? But of course, such rewrites are always put in a positive light: the new fossils “shed new light on human evolution.” It would be more accurate to say that evolutionary paleoanthropologists are stubbing their toes in the dark.

Most interesting in the press release is this statement that demolishes (again) the iconic March of Human Progress:

“This new research shows that the image many of us have in our minds of an ape to a Neanderthal to a modern human is not correct — evolution doesn’t work like that,” ASU paleoecologist Kaye Reed said. “Here we have two hominin species that are together. And human evolution is not linear — it’s a bushy tree; there are life forms that go extinct.”

The “new species of ancient human ancestor” alluded to in the headline is another ape: another Australopithecine, but not Lucy’s brother.

A team of international scientists has discovered new fossils at a field site in Africa that indicate Australopithecus and the oldest specimens of Homo coexisted at the same place in Africa at the same time — between 2.6 million and 2.8 million years ago. The paleoanthropologists discovered a new species of Australopithecus that has never been found anywhere.

The new ape fossil evidence is fragmentary, however: only 13 teeth. (Reminder: mistakes were made with teeth before in early man studies: for instance, Nebraska Man). But the researchers have convinced themselves that the teeth are not from the same species as Lucy, which was named by its discoverer, Donald Johanson, Australopithecus [Southern Ape] afarensis [from the Afar region of Ethiopia]. They need more fossils to figure out what to call this new ape species that screeched from Afar.

The late Jack T. Chick, a Christian illustrator, had some fun with the iconic progression, pointing out flaws in the interpretation.

The Afar region is part of the great rift system. The Arizona State team calls the project Ledi-Geraru:

The Ledi-Geraru Research Project is led by scientists at Arizona State University, and the site has previously revealed the oldest member of the genus Homo and the earliest Oldowan stone tools on the planet.

That “oldest member” was cause for a previous version of the paleoanthropologists’ favorite song, “Everything you know is wrong” (5 March 2015). Additionally,

This field site has been famous before. In 2013, a team led by Reed discovered the jaw of the earliest Homo specimen ever found at 2.8 million years old. This new paper details new teeth found at the site that belong to both the genus Homo and a new species of the genus Australopithecus.

“The new finds of Homo teeth from 2.6- to 2.8-million-year-old sediments — reported in this paper — confirms the antiquity of our lineage,” said Brian Villmoare, lead author and ASU alumnus.

Hot Dates

But how do they know the ages of the fossils, given the range (within assumed error) of 200,000 Darwin Years? “Volcanoes,” is their answer. The geologists use radiometric dating on volcanic rocks above and below the fossils. Radiometric dates on volcanic rocks, though, are highly prone to error, creation geologists have pointed out. But the paleontologists trust the geologists, and vice versa, so that they come up with a neat set of numbers to tell the press.

Scream from Afar

Were the early Homo and this unidentified species of Australopithecus eating the same things? Were they fighting for or sharing resources? Did they pass each other daily? Who were the ancestors of these species?

No one knows — yet.

Watch and share the Short Reel about this article! Click to view.

Conclusion: how much do evolutionary paleoanthropologists know? Now much (see 7 Aug 2025), less about human history, and nearly nothing about the origin of the human brain with its capacity for reason, language, and abstract thought (9 July 2025). Would you trust the word of scientists who think humans emerged from apes by mistake? (see 16 Aug 2025).

The most notable take-away from this typical yarn is the first quotation above:

“This new research shows that the image many of us have in our minds of an ape to a Neanderthal to a modern human is not correct — evolution doesn’t work like that,” ASU paleoecologist Kaye Reed said. “Here we have two hominin species that are together. And human evolution is not linear — it’s a bushy tree; there are life forms that go extinct.” 

It obliterates one of the most iconic propaganda tools of the Darwin Party (see also 17 April 2025). But notice, too, that the icon has survived (“many of us have in our minds”) decades of other falsifying discoveries like this one. Real paleoanthropologists have known for a long time that the March of Progress is “not correct.” This shows the power of an iconic image that distorts truth but lodges itself in cultural memory. Having these members of the “March of Progress” co-existing and eating the same food destroys the picture, collapsing it into a crowd of contemporaries practicing their moonwalk dance. Like we said last time (12 Aug), the icon should be redefined with a new caption: “Three humans taking their pet apes for a walk.”

Classic book on Darwinism by the late journalist Tom Bethell.

Reed says “evolution doesn’t work like that.” More accurately she should stop earlier and say, “evolution doesn’t work.” Is there any one part of evolution (speaking of Darwinian macroevolution by mutation and selection) that works at all? Name one. It’s all a house of cards. Calling it a “bushy tree” picture of evolution is overly generous. It’s more like a lawn, with separate groups of organisms coexisting and diversifying after their kind within limits. That’s the Genesis history. The “millions of years” stuff is a distraction. It gives the Darwin Party an unfair advantage for their storytelling. We should demand they stick to observational evidence, not grant them an enormously long line of closets in which to hide their skeletons.