P. 1
The Evolution Deceit

The Evolution Deceit

|Views: 19|Likes:
Published by Justin Best

More info:

Published by: Justin Best on Nov 14, 2011
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

01/25/2013

pdf

text

original

The term Homo rudolfensisis the name given to a few fossil fragments
unearthed in 1972. The species supposedly represented by this fossil was
designated Homo rudolfensisbecause these fossil fragments were found in
the vicinity of Lake Rudolf in Kenya. Most of the paleoanthropologists ac-
cept that these fossils do not belong to a distinct species, but that the crea-
ture called Homo rudolfensisis in fact indistinguishable from Homo habilis.
Richard Leakey, who unearthed the fossils, presented the skull desig-
nated "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 Australopithecusto-
gether with a face similar to that of present-day humans, was the missing
link between Australopithecusand humans. Yet, after a short while, it was
realised that the human-like face of the KNM-ER 1470 skull, which fre-
quently 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 cra-
nium in an almost vertical position, much like the flat faces of modern hu-
mans. 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.75

The evolutionist paleoanthropologist J. E. Cronin states the following

on the matter:

... its relatively robustly constructed face, flattish naso-alveolar clivus, (recall-
ing australopithecine dished faces), low maximum cranial width (on the tem-

THE EVOLUTION DECEIT

98

porals), 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.76

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".77
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.78

In summary, classifications like Homo habilisor Homo rudolfensis
which are presented as transitional links between the australopithecines
and Homo erectusare entirely imaginary. It has been confirmed by many re-
searchers today that these creatures are members of the Australopithecus
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 Sciencemagazine. Wood and Collard explained that the Homo ha-
bilisand 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 Homoon 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 Homoon 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

The Scenario of Human Evolution

99

brain are not as well localized as earlier studies had implied...

...In other words, with the hypodigms of H. habilisand H. rudolfensisas-
signed to it, the genus Homois not a good genus. Thus, H. habilisand H.
rudolfensis(or Homo habilis sensu latofor those who do not subscribe to the
taxonomic subdivision of "early Homo") should be removedfrom Homo. The
obvious taxonomic alternative, which is to transfer one or both of the taxa to
one of the existing early hominin genera, is not without problems, but we
recommend that, for the time being, both
H. Habilisand H. Rudolfensis
should be transferred to the genus Australopithecus.79

The conclusion of Wood and Collard corroborates the conclusion we
have maintained here:"Primitive human ancestors" do not exist in history.
Creatures that are alleged to be so are actually apes that ought to be as-
signed to the genus Australopithecus. The fossil record shows that there is
no evolutionary link between these extinct apes and Homo, i.e., human
species that suddenly appears in the fossil record.

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
scribd
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->