Page 784 - Atlas of Creation Volume 1

Homo Rudolfensis: The Face Wrongly Joined

The term Homo rudolfensis is the name given to a few fossil fragments unearthed in 1972. The species sup-
posedly represented by this fossil was designated Homo rudolfensis because these fossil fragments were found
in the vicinity of Lake Rudolf in Kenya. Most of the paleoanthropologists accept that these fossils do not belong
to a distinct species, but that the creature called Homo rudolfensis is in fact indistinguishable from Homo habilis.

Richard Leakey, who unearthed the fossils, presented the skull designated "KNM-ER 1470", which he said
was 2.8 million years old, as the greatest discovery in the history of anthropology. According to Leakey, this
creature, which had a small cranial capacity like that of Australopithecus together with a face similar to that of

present-day humans, was the missing link between Australopithecus and humans. Yet, after a short while, it was
realised that the human-like face of the KNM-ER 1470 skull, which frequently appeared on the covers of scien-
tific journals and popular science magazines was the result of the incorrect assembly of the skull fragments,
which may have been deliberate. Professor Tim Bromage, who conducts studies on human facial anatomy,
brought this to light by the help of computer simulations in 1992:

When it [KNM-ER 1470] was first reconstructed, the face was fitted to the cranium in an almost vertical posi-
tion, much like the flat faces of modern humans. But recent studies of anatomical relationships show that in
life the face must have jutted out considerably, creating an ape-like aspect, rather like the faces of
Australopithecus. 76

The evolutionist paleoanthropologist J. E. Cronin states the following on the matter:
... its relatively robustly constructed face, flattish naso-alveolar clivus, (recalling australopithecine dished
faces), low maximum cranial width (on the temporals), strong canine juga and large molars (as indicated by
remaining roots) are all relatively primitive traits which ally the specimen with members of the taxon A.
africanus. 77
C. Loring Brace from Michigan University came to the same conclusion. As a result of the analyses he con-

ducted on the jaw and tooth structure of skull 1470, he reported that "from the size of the palate and the expan-
sion of the area allotted to molar roots, it would appear that ER 1470 retained a fully Australopithecus-sized face
and dentition". 78
Professor Alan Walker, a paleoanthropologist from Johns Hopkins University who has done as much re-

search on KNM-ER 1470 as Leakey, maintains that this creature should not be classified as a member of Homo-
i.e., as a human species-but rather should be placed in the Australopithecus genus. 79
In summary, classifications like Homo habilis or Homo rudolfensis which are presented as transitional
links between the australopithecines and Homo erectus are entirely imaginary. It has been confirmed by many

researchers today that these creatures are members of the Australopithecus series. All of their anatomical fea-
tures reveal that they are species of ape.
This fact has been further established by two evolutionist anthropologists, Bernard Wood and Mark
Collard, whose research was published in 1999 in Science magazine. Wood and Collard explained that the Homo

habilis and Homo rudolfensis (Skull 1470) taxa are imaginary, and that the fossils assigned to these categories
should be attributed to the genus Australopithecus:
More recently, fossil species have been assigned to Homo on the basis of absolute brain size, inferences about lan-
guage ability and hand function, and retrodictions about their ability to fashion stone tools. With only a few ex-
ceptions , the definition and use of the genus within human evolution, and the demarcation of Homo, have been
treated as if they are unproblematic. But ... recent data, fresh interpretations of the existing evidence, and the lim-
itations of the paleoanthropological record invalidate existing criteria for attributing taxa to Homo.

...in practice fossil hominin species are assigned to Homo on the basis of one or more out of four criteria. ... It is
now evident, however, that none of these criteria is satisfactory. The Cerebral Rubicon is problematic because ab-
solute cranial capacity is of questionable biological significance. Likewise, there is compelling evidence that lan-
guage function cannot be reliably inferred from the gross appearance of the brain, and that the language-related
parts of the brain are not as well localized as earlier studies had implied...

...In other words, with the hypodigms of H. habilis and H. rudolfensis assigned to it, the genus Homo is not a good
genus. Thus, H. habilis and H. rudolfensis (or Homo habilis sensu lato for those who do not subscribe to the taxo-

782 Atlas of Creation