Page 111 - The Evolution Deceit

The Sce nar io of Hu man Ev o lu tion 109

C. Loring Brace from Michigan University came to the same conclu-
sion. As a result of the analyses he conducted on the jaw and tooth struc-
ture of skull 1470, he reported that "from the size of the palate and the
expansion of the area allotted to molar roots, it would appear that ER 1470
retained a fully Australopithecus-sized face and dentition". 79
Professor Alan Walker, a paleoanthropologist from Johns Hopkins
University who has done as much research 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. 80
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 Australopithe-
cus series. All of their anatomical features reveal that they are species of
ape.
This fact has been further established by two evolutionist anthropolo-
gists, Bernard Wood and Mark Collard, whose research was published in
1999 in Science magazine. Wood and Collard explained that the Homo ha-
bilis and Homo rudolfensis (Skull 1470) taxa are imaginary, and that the fos-
sils assigned to these categories should be attributed to the genus
Australopithecus:
More recently, fossil species have been assigned to Homo on the basis of ab-
solute brain size, inferences about language ability and hand function, and
retrodictions about their ability to fashion stone tools. With only a few excep-
tions , 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 limitations
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 absolute
cranial capacity is of questionable biological significance. Likewise, there is
compelling evidence that language 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 as-
signed to it, the genus Homo is not a good genus. Thus, H. habilis and H.