Books

Facts and Fallacies of the Fossil Record:
Re-Evaluating the Supposed Evidences for Human Evolution

By Brett A. Rutherford

Lesson Seven

Facts and Fallacies of the Fossil Record of “Homo Habilis”

Supposedly, the star of the next chapter in human evolutionary development is an extremely controversial fellow by the name of “Homo habilis.” One may have already noticed that this little fellow shares the genus, “homo” with modern man. Placing “Habilis” in the genus “homo” has been one of many bones of contention among paleoanthropologists. The word “homo” means “man.” As you may recall, the supposed prior stages in the line of descent were referred to as Australopithecus, which simply means “southern ape.” By calling the “Habilis” fossils “homo,” the paleoanthropologists are making a bold statement about its nature. Is “Homo habilis” man or ape?

A number of debates have also been sparked over labeling these fossils as “habilis.” “Habilis” means “handy.” This designation is based on the assumption that “Homo habilis” used tools. The paleoanthropologists claim to have found crude tools in the same archaeological context of this creature. Fortunately, evolutionist Alberto Angela reminds the interested observer that “one has to be careful not to take the names and ‘labels’ given to fossil remains too literally. They often do not reflect a rational classification and are based on personal convictions....”⁵⁸ In other words, the facts may not support the descriptive name given to these fossils. He is admitting that “Homo habilis” may, or may not be, a human, and that he may, or may not, have produced tools as his name suggests. Throughout this work, one may already be getting the impression that much of what evolutionists claim to know is based on supposition or “personal opinion.”

What about “Homo habilis”? Where was he found? What are the facts that one can reasonably ascertain from his fossil remains, and what unfounded assumptions have been made by the evolutionists? Is he ape or man, or somewhere in between? In this chapter all of these questions will be answered.

The Discovery of “Homo Habilis”

Relatively speaking, there are very few fossils that are said by evolutionists to represent this stage of human evolution. Most of these fossil remains were found by Louis Leakey at Olduvai Gorge in Tanzania, and by his son, Richard, at Lake Turkana in Kenya.⁵⁹ But, of course, the lack of substantial evidence has not stopped paleoanthropologists from wild speculation.

“Homo habilis”: The ape in the big hat

According to evolutionists, “Homo habilis” was not only the first tool maker, but he may also have been the first link in the chain to have developed a spoken language. The bizarre assumption that “Homo habilis” developed a spoken language is primarily based upon the size of the brain. Since “Homo habilis” has a slightly larger cranial capacity (head size) than Australopith-ecus, evolutionists have come to the conclusion that he was capable of considerably more. In other words, they are suggesting that the size of the brain determines intelligence. If the evolutionists have ever had difficulty facing reality, this is it. There cannot be a more untrue statement than for one to proclaim that brain size determines intelligence! If this were true, then the intelligence of whales, elephants, and dolphins would be greatly superior to that of human beings. The brain size of a human being can only be described as tiny in comparison to the aforementioned animals. With this kind of reasoning, one could even say that men are more intelligent than women because men, on average, have larger brains than women. The author thinks you will find more than one woman who has enough intelligence to undermine this ridiculous theory.

Later in this work, readers will be introduced to “primitive” Neanderthal man. The evolutionists do not really know what to do with Neanderthal man because his cranial capacity is considerably larger than that of “modern” humans. If hat size determines intelligence, then one’s impression of Neanderthal as a dim-witted cave man is an incorrect view. Neanderthal would have to be considered “modern” man’s intellectual superior. The inability of evolutionists to recognize these inconsistencies has kept them bound in the dark to a theory that offers no enlightenment. In fact, this author will later argue that Neanderthal is not “modern” man’s intellectual superior, but his equal.

More wild speculation?

If the reader has not already begun to realize that evolution is based on imagination, then the following assumptions by paleoanthropologists about the lifestyle of “Homo habilis” will surely convince the skeptic. The discoverer of “Homo habilis,” Louis Leakey, believed that stone spheres found at the site had been used by “Homo habilis” as hunting bolas (a weapon used by Argentine cowboys). In fact, he described “Homo habilis” as a “hominid gaucho (cowboy).” Paleoanthropologist Donald Johanson admits that “sometimes...enthusiasm colored his [Louis Leaky’s] interpretations of the Olduvai finds...”⁶¹ Unfortunately, Johanson and his colleagues are in no position to criticize the fantasies of Louis Leakey. Johanson and few other paleoanthropologists have spun a few unsubstantiated wild tales about the life style of “Homo habilis” that would make Hans Christian Andersson proud!

By projecting the hunting skills of modern bush men (the Kung of the Kalahari) upon the abilities of “Homo habilis,” anthropologists determined that he was an efficient hunter and part of a “complex society that included division of labor, sharing of food, maybe even language.”⁶²

Stop for just a moment and reflect on the basis upon which the aforementioned cultural structure of “Homo habilis” has been formulated. Was this description of “Habilis” society based on the remains and artifacts found at a “Homo habilis” site? Certainly not! This determination about “Habilis” culture was formulated by observing a modern hunting and gathering society. One cannot make the fundamental error of projecting present cultural circumstances on the past. Past life ways must be evaluated in light of the evidence that comes from those societies. For example, one cannot assume that Queen Victoria traveled by airplane because in the twentieth century airplane travel is a common means of transportation. In like manner, one cannot assume that “Homo habilis” was an efficient hunter who lived in a complex society because modern bushmen do. As archaeologist and evolutionist Lewis Binford said:

It isn’t hard to find gross analogies between the past and present in human behavior. What’s tricky is justifying an interpretation of the archaeological record based only on analogy, without understanding why it was the way it was in the modern case.⁶³

In another frank statement, Binford admitted that “if you assume it, you can make Olduvai fit it.”⁶⁴ In other words, one can twist the facts to a point that anything will appear possible. One does not have to be a trained archaeologist to see this is exactly what the paleoanthropologists have done with the “Homo habilis” finds from Olduvai.

What about the “Homo habilis” “tool kit”?

What about the “Olduwan tools” of “Homo habilis”? Do these “tools” prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that “Homo habilis” was more than just an ape? First of all, one needs to be cautious in referring to chipped and broken pebbles from Olduvai as tools. By looking at the stone “tools” from Olduvai, the average observer would not even recognize them as such. Any archaeologist will tell you that an expert can also be easily fooled into believing that a pebble that appears to have been flint napped into a tool may have simply gained its appearance by natural forces. For example, in many parts of Africa high-level river gravels often contain large numbers of naturally produced, chipped pebbles which can fool experts into believing that they had found an extensive tool industry. In 1958, geologist J.D. Clark demonstrated that this type of flaking can occur naturally when stones fall from the walls of gorges and strike against other rock surfaces. These naturally occurring flaked pebbles are said to belong to the Kafuan type. They were named after the discovery of this phenomenon in beds around the Kafu River in Uganda.⁶⁵ Keep in mind that the flaked pebbles which anthropologists use as proof that “Homo habilis” created a toolkit were located in an ideal setting for naturally occurring Kafuan flaking. Olduvai is a gorge. If you recall, it is the falling rocks from the walls of gorges that produce Kafuan flaking. Could these so-called “Homo habilis” tools be nothing more than a naturally occurring phenomena? The honest observer would have to say it is a distinct possibility.

Just for the sake of argument, suppose that “Homo habilis” used tools, would this necessarily make him human? As any anthropologist will be quick to point out, chimpanzees use tools. For example, chimpanzees have been known to break off reeds and use them to fish for termites in their mounds.⁶⁶ One innovative Australian anthropologist even taught an orangutan to use simple stone tools. But perhaps the most surprising research is being done at the Primate Research Laboratory of Emory University. Researchers have taught a 160 pound bonobo chimpanzee named Kanzi to create and use his own stone tools. Kanzi has even developed his own tool making style. He uses his tools to cut cord and to open boxes containing treats.⁶⁷ Because chimpanzees use tools, are anthropologists and zoologists going to reclassify them as human? Of course not! Then why would one who believes that “Homo habilis” may have used tools necessarily come to the conclusion that he was more than an ape? Primatologist William McGrew of the University of Sterling, and archaeologist Thomas Wynn of the University of Colorado, have suggested that the

cognitive processes of Homo habilis essentially are on par with those of modern apes and the differences that exist are due primarily to ecological, dietary, and technological differences rather than differences in intelligence levels.⁶⁸

Further studies brought Wynn to the conclusion that “Homo habilis” “did not exhibit any cognitive complexity above that of the African apes.”⁶⁹ This is exactly what the creationists have been trying to get the evolutionists to admit. At least some evolutionists and creationists can agree that “Homo habilis” has no more intelligence than a modern ape. The fact that chimpanzees and orangutans have been known to make and use stone tools supports this claim. The reason “Homo habilis” has no more intelligence than a modern ape is another indication that he is nothing more than an ape. The idea that man evolved from this ape creature is unfounded. However, that which can be reasonably ascertained from these facts is that ancient extinct apes were as intelligent and as resourceful as modern apes. Therefore, instead of this evidence indicating evolutionary change, it indicates that things have remained static. Apes are just as intelligent today as they were when the “Homo habilis” ape roamed the earth.

Do the Fossilized Remains of “Homo habilis” Indicate That He Was Anything More Than an Ape?

In the first place, it is no longer necessary to go into an in-depth analysis of the dating methods employed by paleoanthropologists in determining that “Homo habilis” is two million years old. It has already been established that those methods are about as useful as a two-legged mule.

In the second place, the anatomical makeup of the “Homo habilis” is identical to that of the physical makeup of the Australopithecus afarensis. The only major difference between the two is their cranial capacities (head size). However, the difference in their hat size may not necessarily indicate a different species. For example, J. Miller of the University of Southern California, recently took large samplings of skulls from gorillas, orangutans, chimpanzees and even human beings. He found that each animal, including the human samples, showed “a range in cranial capacity equal to or greater than that of ‘Homo habilis’ — and nobody doubts that these are single species.”⁷⁰ The point is that cranial capacity within a single species can vary immensely. Therefore, the larger skulled specimens from Olduvai may not represent a new species at all. They may simply be Australopithecine apes with big heads.

If one goes down to the local shopping mall and looks at the heads of those passing by, he can see the differences in the shapes and sizes of the shoppers’ heads. Just because a human being has a larger than average head does not make him any less a human being. Why is it so hard to believe that “Homo habilis” samples are Australopithecine with big heads? Just because they have big heads does not make them any less an ape.

In a rare moment of honesty, Donald Johanson confesses that “‘Homo habilis’ was built much like an Australopithecine in overall body size and limb proportions.”⁷¹ All fossil remains lead one to believe that “Homo habilis” is not the descendant of Australopithecus. Even in unguarded moments, paleoanthropologists hint that the evidence reveals he is anatomically the same genus and species as Australopithecus.

“Homo Ergaster” and Other Phantom “Links”

Out of a desperate need to fill in huge gaps in the so-called evolutionary line of descent, many evolutionists have renamed some “Homo habilis” remains and presented them as distinct “links” in the chain. For example, some of the larger “Homo habilis” apes from Lake Turkana, Kenya, were renamed “Homo ergaster” and were declared to be more evolved than “Homo habilis.” The paleoanthropologists also took smaller “Homo habilis” from the same area and placed them into a subspecies called “Homo rudolfensis.” “Homo rudolfensis” was proclaimed to represent a distinct “link” in the chain. Some believe that he is a failed branch of the chain. In other words, both “Homo habilis” and “Homo rudolfensis” evolved from Africanus but “Homo habilis” went on to evolve into modern man while poor old “Homo rudolfensis” died out.⁷²

Keep in mind that the only significant anatomical difference between the Australopithecus, “Homo habilis,” “Homo rudolfensis,” and “Homo ergaster” is a slight variation in their sizes. Variation in size is common among all species. For example, there is a great deal of size variation among males of the modern mountain gorilla. One does not assume that a 300 pound male mountain gorilla represents a different species from a 400 pound male mountain gorilla. The same is true of human beings. A seven foot tall, 300 pound modern human adult male is not more evolved than a five foot tall, 115 pound modern human adult male. Size does not make them a separate species! Size variation is not an evolutionary indicator!

Conclusion

“Homo habilis” is anatomically an Australopithecine. As you recall, the only difference between the remains of “Homo habilis” and Australopithecus was the skull size. However, it has been established that the difference in their hat sizes does not necessarily indicate a new genus. Considerable skull size variation occurs in human beings and modern apes. Why is it so inconceivable to think that extensive size variation did not occur among ancient apes like Australopithecus. The evidence provided in the previous chapter firmly established that Australopithecine were nothing more than ancient extinct apes. Therefore, “Homo habilis,” who is anatomically the same creature, is nothing more than an ancient extinct ape.

The suggestion that “Homo habilis” developed a spoken language is preposterous. This theory is unsubstantiated nonsense. Furthermore, the notion that “Homo habilis” developed a spoken language will be completely dismissed in light of evidence discussed in the next chapter.

What about the tool kit of “Homo habilis”? Did not it indicate he was more than just an ape? Not necessarily! The Olduwan “tools” can be reasonably dismissed as naturally occurring Kafuan flaking. If they are not the result of Kafuan flaking, but the production of “Homo habilis,” it only proves that he was no more intelligent than Kanzi, the modern tool-making chimp. The evidence only points to one conclusion. The evolutionist’s little “handy man” was nothing more than an ape!

Review Questions

1. What does the word “homo” mean?

2. What does the word “habilis” mean?

3. What did Alberto Angela say about labels given to fossils?

4. Who discovered “Homo habilis” remains?

5. Where were “Homo habilis” remains discovered?

6. According to evolutionists, what are three things which distinguish “Homo habilis” from Australopithecus?

7. Prove that one’s head size does not determine his intelligence.

8. Louis Leakey compared the hunting skills and weapons to what group of modern people?

9. Why is it useless to project present life ways on past cultures?

10. Naturally produced pebble chipping is referred to as what?

11. Does tool production equal humanity?

12. What is the name of the tool making bonobo chimpanzee at Emory University?

13. What did primatologist William McGrew say about the intelligence levels of modern apes and “Homo habilis”?

14. Is minimal increase in head size an indication of a new genus?

15. Why do evolutionists think that “Homo habilis” developed a spoken language?

16. Is it true that Australopithecus, “Homo rudolfensis,” “Homo habilis,” and “Homo ergaster” are a different subspecies?