A report headed "Skull fuels Homo erectus debate" was published on the BBC web site on July 2, 2004. The article dealt with a fossilised skull unearthed in Kenya by the palaeontologist Richard Potts and his team, estimated to be some 900,000 years old and the debate over the category it belonged to.
Although the fossil discovery had generally Homo erectus features it possessed a smaller skull than usual. Some evolutionist researchers maintained that it belonged to Homo erectus, while others opposed all fossils dating back to that period being classified as Homo erectus and suggested that this finding indicated the existence of another species.
These debates once again show that the fossil records depicted as support for the scenario of human evolution are far from presenting a picture that is objectively acceptable. Evolutionists who categorise these fossils according to their own lights have not set out concrete lines between categories. Potts words in the BBC interview, "To my mind it is very difficult to say, just from the bones, where the species boundaries lie," is a reflection of this.
The category Homo erectus with which this fossil is linked does not document an assumed transition from an apelike creature towards man, and constitutes no evidence of evolution. The category Homo erectus is a totally artificial one produced from a preconceived perspective based on the uncertainties mentioned in this article. Although Homo erectus is separated from modern-day man, Homo sapiens, only by racial differences, these differences have assumed an inter-species dimension and the fossils have been interpreted according to people"s own prejudices.
For a consideration of the preconceptions that have played a role in the formation of the category Homo erectus, depicted as a transitional species by evolutionists, see:
The claim that Homo erectus was a primitive species is nothing but prejudice