On page 27 of your
link, in what looks like a newspaper article bylined Walter Sullivan, the second paragraph reads:
The fragments, making up a skull with striking resemblances [sic] to that of modern man, were found in a layer of material that had been deposited about 2.6 million years ago.
But if one reads the next few paragraphs one can see that, in context, this skull’s striking resemblance is only so comparatively.
"Richard Leaky, co-leader of the expedition that found the bones, said the skull seemed to displace two other man-like creatures widely thought to represent the early stages in mans development.
One of them, a beetle-browed type known as Homo erectus, lived far more recently about a million years ago yet is less like modern man than the newly found skull.
The other reputed ancestor, Australopithecus, an ape-like man that walked relatively erect, lived 2.5 to 3 million years ago. It now appears to have been a contemporary of the more modern-looking type, rather than ancestral to the men of today.
Nowhere, however, have I been able to find the claim to the skull being the same shape as modern mans.
AbE: Though it was never evidence for your flood, you now have one less evidence against reality.
Edited by lyx2no, : Fix link.
Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them.
Thomas Jefferson