There is a reason why there is a "Homo" in front of habilis and rudolfensis, you know ;)
They wouldn´t belong to the genus Homo if scientists would classify them as "real apes" and not as "real humans" ;)
even though they might look more like apes than modern humans to you.
If you look for apes look at Australopithecus.
Of course I can understand that you would like to do H. habilis and rudolfensis away as "just apes" so that you can make everaything better fit in the hypothesis of Lubenow and Woodmorappe, that all (except of habilis and rudolfensis) were human races of Babel descendants, but maybe you should think about the prerequisites you would have tgo make for this.
One example, that might be easy enough for even you creationists to understand:
You will find only specimens of Homo sapiens in stone cities and, if I remember correctly you will find only Homo sapiens and neanderthalensis in ceremonial burials. You will also only find metal use in specimens of Homo sapiens.
If Lubenows et al.sthesis were correct and ergaster, erectus and heidelbrgensis were descendants of the people who built the tower of Babel, you would find specimens of them buried ceremonially in graves, you would find cities of Homo ergaster, erectus and heidelbergensis and you would find use of metals (like bronze or at least copper) in tools of Homo ergaster, erectus and heidelbergensis,
as one can assume that humans who are descendants of people who built a huge stone tower and a huge arc that was bigger than any wooden ship ever built, must have extensive knowledge of building stone buildings and manifacturing things like metal axes and metal nails.
I won´t go deeper into this, as the lack of such findings (skeletons of said species together with metal tools, or in the same layer as stone buildings) already disproves the thesis enough
