Harun Yahya


Evolution Impasse

Kanapoi Elbow Fossil Fraud, The

The best example of how evolutionists interpret fossils according to their own preconceptions is a fossilized elbow bone found in the Kenyan region of Kanapoi. This fossil, displayed in the Kenya National Museum – East Rudolf under the number KP 271, consists of a part of the upper arm bone near the elbow. Unearthed in 1965 by Bryon Patterson of Harvard University, it has been exceedingly well preserved. The latest tests carried out by evolutionists have shown it to be around 4.5 million years old.;1 The fossil is therefore known as the oldest hominid fossil discovered to date.

In 1967, the researchers Bryan Patterson and W.W. Howells joined forces to describe KP 271. They suggested that the fossil’s anatomy was similar to that of human beings and that it belonged to Australopithecus. Howells and his assistant Patterson announced the report regarding their research in the 7 April, 1967 edition of Science magazine, in which they stated:

In these diagnostic measurements, Kanapoi Hominoid 1 [the original name given to the fossil] is strikingly close to the means of the human sample.;2

Though admitting the close resemblance to the bone of a present-day human, Howells and Patterson still maintained that the fossil belonged to Australopithecus, because to them, it was unacceptable that such an old fossil could belong to Homo sapiens.

But subsequently, studies performed by other researchers using computers again revealed that the fossil KP271 was identical to a human bone. As the result of his computer-assisted research, Henry M. McHenry of the University of California published an article in 1975:

The results show that the Kanapoi specimen, which is 4 to 4.5 million years old, is indistinguishable from modern Homo sapiens…;3

After this, various other researchers (including David Pilbeam and Brigitte Senut) have also performed experiments and comparative studies proving that the bone is identical to H. sapiens. Yet despite all the evidence, even the evolutionists who carried out all this research were unable to admit, on account of their own preconceptions, that this fossil could belong to H. sapiens.

Kenyanthropus Platyops


The 3.5-million-year-old Kenyanthropus platyops fossil skull overturned evolutionists’ imaginary evolutionary tree.

In Kenya, a team led by Meave Leakey discovered a fossilized skull that was referred to as “Flat-faced Man” because of the shape of its facial bones. The fossil was given the scientific name of Kenyanthropus platyops. This 3.5 million-year-old fossil overturned evolutionists’ imaginary evolutionary scenarios because some extinct ape species (such as “Lucy”) that lived after Kenyanthropus platyops were more primitive than it according to evolutionist criteria.;4 (See Lucy Deceit, The.)

In fact, when one looks at all of the fossils discovered to date, it becomes clear that there is no evolutionary progression, beginning from a common ancestor and slowly turning into apes and present day man.

Daniel E. Lieberman of Harvard University’s Anthropology Department commented on Kenyanthropus platyops in an article in Nature magazine:

The evolutionary history of humans is complex and unresolved. It now looks set to be thrown into further confusion by the discovery of another species and genus, dated to 3.5 million years ago. . . The nature of Kenyanthropus platyops raises all kinds of questions, about human evolution in general and the behaviour of this species in particular. Why, for example, does it have the unusual combination of small cheek teeth and a big flat face with an anteriorly positioned arch of the cheekbone? All other known hominin species with big faces and similarly positioned cheekbones have big teeth. I suspect the chief role of K. platyops in the next few years will be to act as a sort of party spoiler, highlighting the confusion that confronts research into evolutionary relationships among hominins.;5

The BBC reported the story under such headlines as “Flat-Faced Man a Puzzle,” “A Confusing Picture” and “A Scientific Contradiction” and went on to say that:

The discovery by Meave Leakey, of the National Museums of Kenya, and colleagues threatens to blur still further the already murky picture of man’s evolution.;6

Fred Spoor, the famous evolutionist in University College London said that “the fossil raises a lot of questions.” ;7

As can be seen from these statements and admissions, the theory of evolution is facing a major dilemma. In particular, every new discovery in the field of paleontology presents a new contradiction for the theory of evolution to explain. Evolutionists who produce diagrams of the supposed evolution of mankind seek to incorporate new discoveries by setting the fossils out among extinct species of ape and to human races.

However, no fossil fits in with their diagrams, simply because human beings and apes did not evolve from any common ancestor. Human beings have always been human beings, and apes have always been apes. For that reason, the theory of evolution faces an ever greater dilemma with every new scientific discovery.

KNM-ER 1470 Fraud, The

KNM-ER 1470 Fraud

In 1972, a fossil was discovered in East Rudolf that would lead to debates in paleoanthropology. This was a complete skull, lacking only the lower jaw, but broken into some 300 parts, which were assembled by Richard Leakey and his wife, Meave. It was later sent to the Kenya National Museum – East Rudolf and classified as Homo habilis. (See Homo habilis.)

Homo habilis shares many features with the apes known as Australopithecus. Like them, H. habilis has a long-armed, short-legged and ape-like skeletal structure. Its hands and feet are well suited to climbing. These characteristics show that H. habilis spent most of its time in the trees.

The volume of the majority of skulls classified as H. habilis does not exceed 650 cubic centimeters. This brain size is very close to that of present-day gorillas. On the other hand, its jaw structure closely resembles that of present-day apes, definitely proving that it was an ape.

In terms of general skull features, it bears a closer resemblance to Australopithecus africanus. Like A. africanus, H. habilis has no eyebrow protrusions. Previously, this feature led to its being misinterpreted and depicted as a human-like creature.

KNM-ER 1470’s long, broad forehead, its less obvious eyebrow protrusions, the lack of the structure in the gorilla skull known as the sagittal crest, and its 750 cubic centimeter brain volume show that it did not resemble human beings. J. E. Cronin describes why:

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 . . . 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.;8

C. Loring Brace of the Museum of Anthropology, Michigan University says this on the same subject:

. . . 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.;9

Another well known paleontologist, Bernard Wood, makes this comment:

There is no evidence that this cranium particularly resembles H. sapiens or H. erectus according to either phenetic or cladistic evidence. Phenetically, KNM-ER 1470 is closest to the remains from Olduvai [considered apes by creationists] referred to as H. habilis.;10

The reason why the fossil KNM-ER 1470 was interpreted as human for a while lies in the biased and leading interpretation of its discoverer, Richard Leakey. He sought to give the impression that although the fossil had ape-like features, the skull was too large to be that of an ape. The aim was to describe the creature as an intermediate form.


Professor Tim G. Bromage, a researcher into the anatomy of the human face, summarizes the facts he revealed with computer-aided simulations in 1992:

When it [KNM-ER 1470] was first reconstructed, the face was fitted to the cranium in an almost vertical position, much like the flat faces of modern humans. 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.;11

KNM-ER 1470’s 750-cubic centimeter skull does not in any way make it a hominid and prevent it from being an ape species, because there are apes with just such a skull volume. In referring to ape skulls, evolutionists generally point to chimpanzees, with a smaller-sized brain, but never mention gorillas. Chimpanzees have an average brain volume of 400 cubic centimeters. Gorillas have an average brain size of 500 cubic centimeters, although in larger individuals, this may rise to 700 and even 750 cc centimeters.

Therefore, KNM-ER 1470’s large brain size shows that it was a large ape (estimated to be a male), rather than a hominid. Indeed, the fact that KNM-ER 1470 has large teeth and a broad skull volume indicates that its body was correspondingly large.

From all this, it appears that structurally, KNM-ER 1470 was an ape resembling Australopithecus. Many features, such as its forward-looking face, abnormally large molars and brain volume too small to belong to a human being, reveal this clearly. In addition, KNM-ER 1470’s teeth are identical to those of Australopithecus. ;12

This indicates that there is no significant difference between fossils of the Homo habilis class and those of the Australopithecus class. These all consist of different species of ape that were unable to walk on two feet and had smaller brains compared with those of man. All evolutionists do is to pick out certain features of these and use them as anatomical links in the myth of evolution from ape to man.

KNM-ER 1472 Lie, The

KNM-ER 1472 is the identifying “serial number” given to a thigh bone that is identical to one of modern man. That this bone was found in the same stratum as Homo habilis fossils, but a few kilometers away from them, led to the false interpretation that H. habilis was a two-legged creature. The fossil OH 62, discovered in 1987, showed that contrary to what had been thought H. habilis did not walk on two legs. KNM-ER 1472 was thus included under the classification Homo erectus. (See Homo erectus.)

KNM-WT 15000 (The oldest known human fossil)

KNM-WT 15000, otherwise known as the Turkana Boy skeleton, is perhaps the oldest and most fully preserved human remain found to date. (See The Turkana Boy.) Research into the fossil, said to be some 1.6 million years old, has shown that it belonged to an individual aged around 12, who would have been some 1.80 meters (5’11) tall on reaching adulthood. This fossil, which exhibits close similarities to the Neanderthal skeletons, is one of the most striking proofs to undermine the myth of human evolution. (See Neanderthal Man: A Human Race.)

KNM-WT 15000

Turkana Boy skeleton is the most complete example of Homo Erectus up till now. It is interesting that this 1.6 year-old skeleton and that of present day humans has no distinct difference.

Knuckle Walking —See Bipedalism

KP 271 (Kanapoi Hominid or Kanapoi Elbow Fossil) — See Kanapoi Elbow Bone Fossil Fraud, The

Bryan Patterson, Anna K. Behrensmeyer, William D. Sill, “Geology and Fauna of a New Pliocene Locality in Northwestern Kenya,” Nature, Vol. 226, June 6, 1970, pp. 918-921.



1.Donald C. Johanson & M. A. Edey, Lucy, The Beginnings of Humankind, New York: Simon & Schuster, 1981, p. 250.

2.“The Leakey Footprints: An Uncertain Path,” Science News, Vol. 115, 1979, p. 196

3.Gordon Rattray Taylor, The Great Evolution Mystery, London: Abacus, 1984, pp. 36-41.

4.Richard Dickerson, “Chemical Evolution,” Scientific American, Vol. 239:3, 1978, p. 75,

5.Richard Leakey and Alan Walker, “Unearthed,”National Geographic, November 1985, p. 629.

6.Richard Leakey, The Making of Mankind, London: Sphere Books, 1981, p. 116.

7.Richard Lewontin, “Billions and billions of demons,” The New York Review, January 9, 1997, p. 31.

8.“Old Bird,” Discover, March 21, 1997.



11.Isabelle Bourdial, “Adieu Lucy,” Science et Vie, May 1999, No. 980, pp. 52-62.

12.Roger Lewin, “Evolutionary Theory Under Fire,” Science, Vol. 210, 21 November, 1980, p. 883.

Chapters of the Book

Desktop View