Page 671 - Atlas of Creation Volume 2

Harun Yahya

ogists accept that these fossils do not belong to a distinct species, but that the creature called Homo rudolfen-
sis 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 realized that the human-like face of the KNM-ER 1470 skull, which frequently appeared on the covers of
scientific 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 com-

puter simulations in 1992:

When it [KNM-ER 1470] was first reconstructed, the face was fitted
to the cranium in an almost vertical position, much like the flat faces
of present day humans. But recent studies of anatomical relation-
ships show that in life the face must have jutted out considerably,
creating an ape-like aspect, rather like the faces of
Richard Leakey misled both himself and
Australopithecus. 156
the world of paleontology about Homo
The evolutionary paleoanthropologist J. E. Cronin states the rudolfensis.

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. 157

C. Loring Brace from Michigan University came to the same conclusion. As a result of the analyses he
conducted on the jaw and tooth structure 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." 158
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. 159
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 anatomi-

cal features reveal that they are species of apes.
This fact has been further established by two evolutionist anthropologists, Bernard Wood and Mark
Collard, whose research was published in 1999 in Science. 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 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...

Adnan Oktar 669