Was Paleontologist Richard Leakey Biased?
“Dr. [Richard] Leakey produced a biased reconstruction based on erroneous preconceived expectations of early human appearance that violated principles of craniofacial development,” said Dr. Bromage, whose reconstruction, by contrast, shows a sharply protruding jaw and a brain less than half the size of a modern human”s.
Dr. Timothy Bromage is a paleoanthropologist and Adjunct Professor of Biomaterials and of Basic Science and Craniofacial Biology at New York University College of Dentistry
Click HERE to read the rest of the article. Click HERE for Science Daily article on this and HERE for the presentation details.
This is the same skull which was found in strata originally dated at over 200 million years, but the date was explained away as “excess argon” and redated. Hmmm … Why was it redated? Was it because of the fossils that were found there?
Click HERE and HERE for some good creationist articles on this topic.
So really, now that the dust has settled, what Richard Leakey found was probably an extinct ape … nothing more. Think of how much effort and expense was expended researching this supposed human ancestor! The truth is, the pre-Darwinian view of nature–a Creationist view–fits the data that science continues to uncover much better than today’s evolutionary paradigm.
I really don’t understand the point you are making here. The Nature article you quote and link to says quite specifically that
‘Modern man’s earliest known close ancestor was significantly more apelike than previously believed, a New York University College of Dentistry professor has found.
‘A computer-generated reconstruction by Dr. Timothy Bromage, a paleoanthropologist and Adjunct Professor of Biomaterials and of Basic Science and Craniofacial Biology, shows a 1.9 million-year-old skull belonging to Homo rudolfensis, the earliest member of the human genus, with a surprisingly small brain and distinctly protruding jaw, features commonly associated with more apelike members of the hominid family living as much as three million years ago.’
This in no way supports a creationist view based on Biblical literalism and I fail to see how you think it can. And are you sure that Bromage’s use of the word ‘biased’ is intended in the way you seem to think it is? Also, if you look into more detail on the discovery, analysis and description of Homo rudolfensis you will find the matter a good deal more complex than the simplistic way you have presented it here. A good place to start is here:
http://www.archaeologyinfo.com/homorudolfensis.htm