Genesis Impact Clip - Homo Habilis

The next in the line for human evolution is homo habilis, correct?

Yes.

Okay, how many complete homo habilis creatures have they found?

Like, a few hundred skeletons?

No, not that many.

I'm guessing a dozen skeletons?

Actually, they haven't found any.

You're losing me here.

They haven't found any?

Well, of course they've found fossil pieces.

Fewer than a hundred they believe belong to homo habilis, but they haven't found any complete creatures.

Okay, so this creature is shown in complete form, even with human -looking eyes, with eye

whites, in museums around the world.

But they haven't found any complete creatures?

What is the best shot for homo habilis, the most defining fossil set?

Are there enough bones from the same creature to recreate it as they do in the museums?

Well, they've never found even a partially complete habilis skeleton, but they do have up to 100 bone pieces

categorized in this species and a few partial skulls.

The best set they have is a small collection of bones they refer to as the official type specimen.

It was found over a widely excavated area and was mixed with bones from species from the cow,

the pig, the horse, and the tortoise families, and a few catfish and birds.

This defining specimen consists of a jawbone with 13 teeth, a molar, a couple of skull

fragments, and 21 finger, hand, and wrist bones.

How did they know all these bones were from the same homo habilis creature?

Well, they went through some revisions.

They later found out that six of the 21 finger bones did not belong, and one of the finger bones

was a vertebral fragment.

Two others belonged to a monkey.

Originally, they described the hand as human, and because it looked like it had precise grasping abilities, they called it

homo habilis, which means handyman.

They suspected that it was a slightly larger -brained early human that made the thousands of stone tools found in the same

area.

Interesting.

Do they know whether the stone tools they found near the fossils were used by homo habilis, or if they

were used on homo habilis by humans?

They don't know.

In the same archaeological bed, several sites were found where thousands of animals of different kinds were butchered and eaten,

along with thousands of stone tools of many varieties.

They also found the rock foundation on a 12 -foot circular hut nearby, also in the same archaeological bed,

and they described this circular stone foundation as having a striking similarity to the shelters made by present -day

nomadic people in the same area today.

I also heard they found the stone circle on a layer beneath the typeset bones for homo habilis.

Is this the case?

Yes.

So, wouldn't this mean that whoever was there working with tools and making huts was on the

scene before homo habilis even showed up on the fossil record?

Well, I guess it would.

So, how does using this creature support the evolutionary theory?

It seems backwards to me.

Yes, I see what you mean.

I mean, it seems out of order compared to what we would expect.

It's a good point.

Could you please go back to the slide showing the stone hut foundation they found?

Sure.

What types of animal bones are shown scattered all around the hut?

Well, there are bones from species in the croc, crow, hippo, elephant, horse,

tortoise, and pig families.

How many bones did they find outside the hut area?

It looks like 348.

And how many were found inside the hut foundation?

Only 11 small fragments, mostly toes and teeth.

And what about the leftover rock pieces that get chipped off when they're making tools called debitage?

Debitage.

Was that found mostly inside or outside of the hut foundation?

Well, this slide shows that they found 50 pieces of debitage and 48 of

50 were found outside the stone hut foundation.

You've got to be kidding me.

So just to be clear, they found a 12 -foot stone hut foundation below Homo habilis bones with almost

all discards from tool making outside the hut.

And they also found over 300 bones from eight different types of butchered animals outside the hut.

And the paleo experts who discovered the site said it was similar to how nomadic people still live, even

today.

It seems quite obvious that humans were living here, not apes.

Well, that line of thinking would agree with Mary Leakey.

She was the lead paleo expert over the site.

And she said that the two key giveaways that the stone hut foundation was an artificial, like a man

-made site, were the six mounds of heaped rocks, evidently for support poles, and the

disproportionate number of bones and tools they found outside the hut, not inside.

Along with the two -foot buffer around the circle.

Without a lot of tools or bones.

She said it was a lot like the one that people in the same area build today.

Can you please tell me about the types of stone tools they found at the site where the hut foundation was found?

They found choppers, polyhedrons, discoids, and many small tools like scrapers,

burrins, and flakes.

Where did they get the materials to make the stone tools?

And did they just use any kind of rock?

Actually, they mostly used a rock called quartzite, because it can be flaked to a razor -like

edge.

That type of rock was not found in the area.

They had to quarry it from a location miles away and bring it to where they used it to butcher the animals.

What steps would need to be taken to turn this quartzite rock into the tools they found?

These animals butchering sites.

I mean, is it easy to do?

Actually, it's really difficult to do, and there are several steps that have to be taken.

Well, first, you've got to have the right kinds of rocks, like the quartzite they found, because it can be flaked

and shaped into sharp, handheld tools for animal butchering.

Then you have to shape the rock using percussion or pressure tools like pointed hammer

stones or cylindrical hammers, like long bones.

Most of the stone tools found were sized to be held in the hand for processing the meat off of

animals, like a primitive slaughterhouse.

One more thing.

Didn't the Leakeys, the very scientists who discovered Homo habilis, find fossil evidence

that led them to believe that Australopithecus, Homo habilis, and Homo erectus all

lived at the same time?

How is one supposed to evolve into the other if fossil evidence points to them living at the same time?

Well, actually, they did say that, and their position perplexed many evolutionary scientists.

And many do not agree with me.

But I respect their opinion because their families spent more years excavating and mapping the areas where these early fossils were found

than anyone else did.

That sounds a lot like nomadic tribes of humans were setting up camp, making specialized hand tools using

special rocks found miles away, and butchering and eating animals, including apes, just like

people have been doing for a long time.