"KNM-ER 1470, which has now been shown to have a spuriously old date, was a key part of this argument. It is a cranium lacking teeth but showing the large cranial vault, slight mid-facial prognathism, post-orbital expansion, relatively small temporal fossae and unpronounced supraorbital tori generally associated with the genus Homo. However 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.Gish, who is trying to show that ER 1470 is an ape, quotes the italicized text ("its relatively robustly constructed face....A. africanus"), but omits information from the previous sentence, shown in bold text ("showing the large cranial vault...the genus Homo"), which would contradict his claims.
The specimen probably represents a member of the earliest species of the genus Homo, H. habilis (or H. modjokertensis), also known in Africa from Olduvai, Omo, Sterkfontein and Swartkrans. KNM-ER 1470, like other early Homo specimens, shows many morphological characteristics in common with gracile australopithecines that are not shared with later specimens of the genus Homo (Table 1); in fact, Walker has classified ER 1470 as australopithecine." (Cronin et al., 1981)
Gish D.T.: Evolution: the challenge of the fossil record, El Cajon, CA:Creation-Life Publishers, 1985.
Go to ER 1470 page
Creationist arguments about Homo habilis
This page is part of the Fossil Hominids FAQ at the talk.origins Archive.
Home Page |
Illustrations | What's New | Feedback | Search | Links | Fiction
Copyright © Jim Foley || Email me