All text and images are protected under U.S copyright law.
Do not use without permission.
All text and images are protected under U.S copyright law.
Do not use without permission.
Homo Rudolfensis KNM ER 1470
Is KNM-ER 1470 Homo habilis or Homo rudolfensis?
For those of you who have studied the subject of paleo anthropology may know, sometimes fossils are re-categorized as time goes on. This has happened with the fossil remains "KNM-ER 1470".
Skull 1470 was initially called "Homo habilis". To some, these remains appeared different enough from the other Homo habilis fossils, that they believed skull 1470 belonged in its own taxon. As a result "KNM-ER 1470" is now the type specimen for a new taxon: "Homo Rudolfensis"("From Lucy to Language" by Donald Johanson)
The discovery
|
The fossil "KNM-ER 1470" was discovered in August 1972 by Bernard Ngeneo ("From Lucy to Language" by Donald Johanson). The fossil was found in Koobi Fora, Kenya ("From Lucy to Language" by Donald Johanson).
KNM-ER 1470 is said to be 1.8-1.9 million years old ("From Lucy to Language" by Donald Johanson), but Creationists believe the skull is much younger. Most likely a few thousand years old (See my page on Carbon dating)
Skull 1470 was initially said to be 2.9 million yrs old based on the potassium-argon date given to a volcanic tuff above the skull. If this skull from the genus Homo truly was this old, then it left the australopithecines (the oldest of which was claimed to be just half a million years younger) out in the cold. (pg 83 "Lucy's child", Donald Johanson)
How confident can we be of the age of a fossil that was "securely" dated at 2.6 million years ago, and then later claimed to be only 1.8 myo. (on 1470)
("Louis S. B. Leakey Beyond the Evidence” pg 49 , Martin Pickford PhD, Janus Publishing Company London, England 1997)
Richard and his team claim that their fossils are older than they actually are "thereby increasing their value"
("Louis S. B. Leakey Beyond the Evidence" pg xi, Martin Pickford PhD, Janus Publishing Company London, England 1997)
KNM-ER 1470 was reconstructed from a pile of fragmentary bones. The skull itself was smashed and incomplete.
 |
This skull has been pieced together and reconstructed to resemble a creature that is half man and half ape (like in the picture at the above).
The artist had complete creative freedom to shape the skull in any fashion he desired.
Fred Spoor told me that there were only 2 contact points preserved between the face and the braincase of 1470 (3/14/01). With so little contact the face is essentially a hinge, and you can tilt it in or out at varying angles depending on whether you want it to look ape like (face out) or human like (face flat).
The way they reconstructed the skull would have left this individual unable to breath or even eat.
In textbooks the animal like habilis bones are given a human like appearance. This image is pure speculation based on the artists preconception of what a missing link should look like. - Not what the bones would indicate habilis looked like. The person in charge of the reconstruction could have just as easily made habilis look like an australopithecine (its true identity).
 |
 |
on the left is a picture of what Evolutionists claim Homo habilis looked like.
| The angle at which the face itself is slanted is also incorrect. The bones necessary to frame in and support the facial structure were absent. Any angle could be used in the reconstruction to make the face look as animal-like or as human like as the artist wanted. |  |
*(apes have a slanted face, while ours is more flat)
 |
The skull is often attributed to Leakey. But these bones bewildered him. He said: "Either we toss out this skull, or we toss out our theories of early man. It(this skull) leaves in ruins the notion that all early fossils can be arranged in an orderly sequence of Evolutionary change." (-pg 162 Lubenow)
Why did he say this?
Homo habilis was thought to have died 2.8 million years ago. The cranial capacity of Homo habilis skull 1470 is 800 cubic centimeters ( ) . This is smaller than today’s human adults. Evolutionists claim that this is because Homo habilis is "becoming human", and along with bipedalism habilis is getting a larger brain.
Dr. Marvin Lubenow is the author of the book “Bones of Contention”. This work is a creationist assessment of many human and primate fossils. And while I agree with Dr. Lubenow on many points, I also disagree with him on others (*my page on the Homo erectus fossils are a case in point) .
In "Bones of Contention" Dr. Lubenow, states that Homo habilis can be considered human based on its cranial capacity, and that it is slightly smaller than today’s adult because skull 1470 is a human child. And if skull KNM-ER 1470 belonged to a human child then we would expect it to have a smaller brain capacity.
However based on dentition, and other features we know that the skull is not that of an infant child. In fact this individual was almost fully-grown.
Lubenow says this in his book:
"Not only does skull 1470 qualify for true human status based on cranial shape, size and cranial wall thickness, there is also evidence on the inside of the skull of a Broca’s area, the part of the brain that controls the muscles for producing articulate speech in humans" ("Bones of Contention" by Marvin Lubenow pg 162)
Dr. Lubenow says that Skull 1470 is actually a human skull that has been horribly reconstructed in such a way it looks like an ape-man.
I agree that the reconstruction is horrendous and incorrect. But the skull is not human.
Lubenow says that One thing evolutionists don't like to tell you is that skull KNMER-1470 is fully human, AND it was found in rock strata labeled as being from the Triassic period. This is a period in the "Evolutionists time frame" before dinosaurs were around.
So according to Lubenow, not only is this skull fully human, coming before all the alleged evolutionary ancestors to man, but by the Evolutionists own time scale this human skull was deposited before the dinosaurs were around.
Knowing this goes against everything evolutionists believe, they scrambled and changed the date of the skull to fit in-between apes and man.
This is not how science is supposed to work.
I believe that KNM-ER 1470 is a variation of the australopithecine, and not a human ancestor.
When this page is updated, I will give evidence that 1470 is a variety of australopithecine.
In the mean time please click here for an article by A.W. (Bill) Mehlert: "The Rise and Fall of Skull KNM-ER 1470" which gives evidence that skull 1470 was similar to an australopithecine, and not a human skull.
* I have sent a copy of this same article to Dr. Lubenow on 8/00 and am waiting for his response
Leakey changed the reconstruction of 1470 to make it appear more like a human and less like an australopithecine
("Louis S. B. Leakey Beyond the Evidence" pg xi, Martin Pickford PhD, Janus Publishing Company London, England 1997)
1470 is neither as old as it was claimed, nor as humanlike as claimed. The "deliberate remodeling of the skull, as described by Alan Walker and Pat Shipman in their book The Wisdom of the Bones, must go down in history as the low point of palaeoanthropology of the second half of the 20th Century
("Louis S. B. Leakey Beyond the Evidence" pg 152, Martin Pickford PhD, Janus Publishing Company London, England 1997)
The Leakey’s are tremendously territorial. They claim important fossil sites as their own, and do every thing in their power to keep others out. Many scientists are aware of the manipulation that occurs in reconstructing fossil man, but to disagree with the Leakey’s they would no longer have access to the fossils in Leakey’s possession. It appears as if this is the reason that so many people went along with Richard Leakey’s reconstruction of 1470.
("Wisdom of the Bones", and also "Louis S. B. Leakey Beyond the Evidence" pg xi, Martin Pickford PhD, Janus Publishing Company London, England 1997)
Many competent scientists have been denied access to the fossils housed at the National Museums of Kenya. Dr. Cuozzo has been trying to get in for years. How can Science proceed if only the friends of the discoverer, who are too afraid to disagree with his conclusions are the only ones allowed to see the fossils? How will you ever get other viewpoints, some possibly better substantiated. Where is the objectivity?
If you have any questions on Creation, Evolution, or just want to say "Hi" please feel free to email me.
| Main Index | Ape-man Index | 