Page 160 - Darwinism Refuted

DARWINISM REFUTED

Homo Habilis
The great similarity between the skeletal and cranial structures of
australopithecines and chimpanzees, and the refutation of the claim that
these creatures walked upright, have caused great difficulty for
evolutionary paleoanthropologists. The reason is that, according to the
imaginary evolution scheme, Homo erectus comes after Australopithecus. As
the genus name Homo (meaning "man") implies, Homo erectus is a human
species, and its skeleton is straight. Its cranial capacity is twice as large as
that of Australopithecus. A direct transition from Australopithecus, which is
a chimpanzee-like ape, to Homo erectus, which has a skeleton no different
from modern man's, is out of the question, even according to evolutionist
theory. Therefore, "links"— that is, transitional forms—are needed. The
concept of Homo habilis arose from this necessity.
The classification of Homo habilis was put forward in the 1960s by the
Leakeys, a family of "fossil hunters." According to the Leakeys, this new
species, which they classified as Homo habilis, had a relatively large cranial
capacity, the ability to walk upright and to use stone and wooden tools.
Therefore, it could have been the ancestor of man.
New fossils of the same species unearthed in the late 1980s were to
completely change this view. Some researchers, such as Bernard Wood
and C. Loring Brace, who relied on those newly-found fossils, stated that
Homo habilis (which means "skillful man," that is, man capable of using
tools), should be classified as Australopithecus habilis, or "skillful southern
ape," because Homo habilis had a lot of characteristics in common with the
austalopithecine apes. It had long arms, short legs and an ape-like skeletal
structure just like Australopithecus. Its fingers and toes were suitable for
climbing. Their jaw was very similar to that of today's apes. Their 600 cc
average cranial capacity is also an indication of the fact that they were
apes. In short, Homo habilis, which was presented as a different species by
some evolutionists, was in reality an ape species just like all the other
australopithecines.
Research carried out in the years since Wood and Brace's work has
demonstrated that Homo habilis was indeed no different from
Australopithecus. The skull and skeletal fossil OH62 found by Tim White
showed that this species had a small cranial capacity, as well as long arms
and short legs, which enabled them to climb trees just like modern apes do.

158