Click here to view CMI's position on climate change.
Also Available in:

What to make of Homo naledi?

More pseudo-scientific claims of human ancestry


Published: 22 September 2015 (GMT+10)
http://www.timeslive.co.za Homo-naledi

International and local news media have been abuzz the past few days with the public announcement on 10 September of remains found west of Johannesburg, South Africa, that have been named Homo naledi. Some Christians react with apprehension at just how to respond to these types of announcements.1 Today, the Christian community has a well-stocked arsenal from ministries such as Creation Ministries International from which to understand and refute claims regarding an evolutionary view of human origins.

Professor Lee Berger from the University of Witwatersrand, palaeoanthropologist and leader of the team that researched the find at the so-called ‘Cradle of Humankind’ is a ‘celebrity’ scientist who knows well how to extract maximum publicity, something even the evolutionary sympathetic media acknowledge. National Geographic stated that “Berger is a tireless fund-raiser and a master at enthralling a public audience.”2

Journalists from around the world, businessmen, celebrities and politicians attended the official event at Maropeng. Perhaps in an effort to guard against the type of ‘brushing off’ that his announcement of Australopithecus sediba3 received from rival paleoanthropologists in 2010, Berger has included a number of international “young scientists, some with the ink still wet on their Ph.D.’s”2 in the research and publication of their findings on the online journal eLIFE.

The particular cave where the remains were found was discovered by cavers Steve Tucker and Rick Hunter in 2013.2 They reported the find to Berger who, due to the narrow entrance to the cave, advertised on Facebook for skinny scientists to go and investigate the finds. He assembled a team of six women scientists who retrieved the remains during expeditions in 2013 and 2014.

About 1,500 bones belonging to at least 15 individual creatures have so far been retrieved. It is believed that many more remains still lie in this remarkable chamber called Dinaledi (‘stars’ in the local Sesotho language). The chamber was apparently previously undiscovered though other caves in the area have been the site of much exploration in the past, and the site of fossils such as Mrs Ples, Taung Child and more recently, Australopithecus sediba, all classified under the same genus Australopithecus.

So what are we to make of this latest announcement?

The first principle to remember is the nature of the science behind such interpretations of fossil evidence. It involves historical or origins science; the interpretation of unobservable, untestable history of the evidence, in this case bones. The subjective nature of this interpretation is admitted even by such well-known evolutionary paleoanthropologists as Darren Curnoe who said, “Nobody looks at a fossil with a completely open mind. I suppose to some extent also we see what we think. So, you come to a fossil and you have an idea about the way you think human evolution worked, and the first thing you do is try and fit that fossil into your worldview.”4 So he and many other naturalistic scientists increasingly admit that it is the worldview that drives the interpretation of the evidence, not the other way around.

What makes this announcement different is that all previous hominin fossils in the area have been designated as australopithecines. Australopithecus spp. has been dismissed by prominent evolutionary authorities such as Charles Oxnard as unique, extinct primates, irrelevant to human evolution and anatomically more distant from both apes and humans as these are from each other. Regarding A. sediba: “Though the doyens of paleoanthropology credited him (Berger) with a ‘jaw-dropping’ find, most dismissed his interpretation of it. A. sediba was too young, too weird, and not in the right place to be ancestral to Homo: It wasn’t one of us.”2 To regain the spotlight, Berger needed a Homo. H. naledi appears to have enough anatomical overlap to be at least tentatively accommodated in that genus for now.

CMI is researching the claims, and will in future publish a detailed technical assessment. Until then we remain uncommitted as to whether the remains are human or ape. What they are not, though, is some kind of missing link between ape-like ancestors and man, which is what Berger and his team are clearly inferring. Already the interpretation as a new species of Homo is experiencing criticism from within the evolutionary community.5 The literature variously describes the creatures as having “feet virtually indistinguishable” from modern humans,6 having “tool using capabilities”,2 engaging in “ritualised … intentional body disposal”7, and finally “Homo naledi could have used fire to light the way”.8

One will have to wait and see whether the evolutionary scientific community come down on the side of the remains being Homo, or just Australopithecus. But why label the remains Homo naledi if there is so much indication that these may have been ordinary humans with some unique anatomical variations just as there are variations today between different people groups but all descended from the first two people created by God—Adam and Eve? University of California’s Tim White, who holds a different interpretation of human evolution, believes the remains belong to the species H. erectus, named in the 19th century. He is reported as saying that “New species should not be created willy-nilly. In order to claim a new species one has to demonstrate that it's different from anything that's ever been known.”5

Indeed, H. naledi has been described as having features “similar to early Homo species including Homo erectus, Homo habilis and Homo rudolfensis9. There are increasing numbers of evolutionary paleoanthropologists who today argue that these are arbitrary species designations of variations of mankind. “In other words, instead of Africa once being home to multiple human species such as Homo erectus, Homo habilis, Homo ergaster and Homo rudolfensis, all of these specimens may actually simply be Homo erectus.”10 Scientists such as Wolpoff as far back as 2001 argued that these should really all be included under H. sapiens, human beings.11

Remains of the elderly, young adults, juveniles and infants were found at the site,2 Three fragmented craniums have been found. Besides the subjective nature of reconstructing the skulls, the stated brain case capacity of around 560 cubic centimetres2 used to justify the ‘primitive’ interpretation of the remains, falls well within the range of sizes for infants and even pathological adults.

A glaring omission is the lack of any effort to date the bones. Hints are given that the scientists involved would like to see them around 2 million years old, which would then help place them as perfect “links” between Australopithecus and Homo by evolutionary assumptions. Berger’s excuse for this omission is that he “didn’t feel it ethical to destroy hominin material until it had been described; dating the specimen would mean the destruction of the material.”12 As more than 1,500 pieces have been removed and examined, and by their own admission possibly thousands more remain in the chamber, surely they could have sacrificed just one bone for radiometric dating?

The Berger et al paper describing the geological context of their finds repeatedly refers to the remains as “bones” and only “partially mineralised”.13 They were not even excavated from lithified sediment but soil “composed of largely unconsolidated sediment … dominated by reworked orange mud clasts embedded in a brown muddy matrix.”13 Many of the bones required no excavation at all. The female crew “plotted and bagged more than 400 fossils on the surface, then started carefully removing soil around the half-buried skull.”2 Thinking about it, this could very well be a description of the removal of bones from a WWI battlefield. All this indicates that the bones may well be quite young, in which case the obvious dating method would be carbon-14.

Of course, the reason 14C dating has not been done on the bones is because the assumptions behind 14C dating known by evolutionary and creation scientists alike, indicate a maximum theoretical ‘age’ of 50,000 to 100,000 years for any specimens found to contain radiocarbon.;14 The presence of 14C in these remains would clearly refute the evolutionary human ancestry. This is a public challenge to those involved in the H. naledi claims. As a ministry, CMI will fund the 14C analysis if they make samples available to us in a manner acceptable to both parties ensuring that contamination has been avoided.

Ironically, these pseudo-scientific claims (which are likely to be increasingly challenged by rival palaeoanthropoligists in the months and years to come),15 have been embraced by politicians eager to bask in the limelight of this ‘scientific’ discovery. Darwinian evolution and its corollaries, race science, social Darwinism and eugenics, were the ideological foundation for much of the racism and white supremacy of the 20th century. This led to black people in Africa being regularly treated like, and routinely called, monkeys, baboons and apes.16 Sadly some of the black leaders, who often were involved in the battle against these injustices, are today lining up to be given the opportunity to kiss (literally in one instance) their supposed ape-like ancestors.

Whatever the final response to these announcements, the fossil remains are either those of an ape ‘kind’, or of mankind, and if the latter, descendants of the historical Adam and Eve. They probably died during the post-Babel period, within the past few thousand years.

And so Christians ought not to be “tossed to and fro by the waves and carried about by every wind of doctrine, by human cunning, by craftiness in deceitful schemes. Rather, speaking the truth in love, we are to grow up in every way into Him who is the head, into Christ, from whom the whole body, joined and held together by every joint with which it is equipped, when each part is working properly, makes the body grow so that it builds itself up in love.” (Eph. 4:14-16)

References and notes

  1. CMI has received numerous call from Christians since the 10 September 2015 announcement, including from Christian radio stations. Listen to the podcast interview on Radio Pulpit, https://soundcloud.com/radiokanselweb/brandpunt-evolution-11092015. Return to text.
  2. Shreeve, J., This Face Changes the Human Story. But How?, news.nationalgeographic.com, accessed September 2015. Return to text.
  3. Line, P., Australopithecus sediba—no human ancestor, April 2010; creation.com/sediba; and Australopithecus sediba revisited, September 2011; creation.com/sediba2. Return to text.
  4. Enigma Man: A Stone Age Mystery, Australian TV documentary. See Grigg, R., Enigma Man: A Stone-age Mystery, July 2014. Return to text.
  5. Reuters article, Critics Question Homo Naledi Fossil Find in South Africa, NBC online news. Return to text.
  6. News 24, 10 fascinating facts about Homo naledi, 10 September 2015. Return to text.
  7. Rising Star Expedition reveals new species: Homo naledi, wits.ac.za, accessed September 2015. Return to text.
  8. McKenzie, D., and Wende, H., Homo naledi: New species of human ancestor discovered in South Africa, edition.cnn.com, accessed September 2015. Return to text.
  9. Berger, L.R., et al., Homo naledi, a new species of the genus Homo from the Dinaledi Chamber, South Africa, eLife 2015(4):e09560 | doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.7554/eLife.09560. Return to text.
  10. Choi, C.Q. What We Learned About Human Origins in 2013, December 28, 2013, LiveScience online science newsletter. Return to text.
  11. Wolpoff, M.H. et al., Modern human ancestry at the peripheries: a test of the replacement theory, Science 291(5502):293–297, January 2001 | doi: 10.1126/science.291.5502.293. Return to text.
  12. Chernick, I., and Dipa, K., Critics rain on H. naledi team’s parade, iol.co.za, accessed September 2015. Return to text.
  13. Dirks, P., Berger, L., et al., Geological and taphonomic context for the new hominin species Homo naledi from the Dinaledi Chamber, South Africa, eLife 2015(4):e09561 | doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.7554/eLife.09561. Return to text.
  14. Wieland, C., Radiometric dating breakthroughs, Creation 26(2):42–44, March 2004. Return to text.
  15. This is already happening at the writing of this article, see Ref. 12. Return to text.
  16. Ambler, M., Herero genocide, Creation 27(3):52–55, June 2005. Return to text.

Helpful Resources

Contested Bones
by Christopher Rupe, Dr. John Sanford
US $29.00
Soft Cover
One Big Family
by Gary and Frances Bates
US $12.00
Hard Cover

Readers’ comments

Jeremy Z.
As usual, these "scientists" used one of the three ways that they create "missing links":
1. Emphasizing ape-like characteristics in a human skeleton
2. Emphasizing human-like characteristics in an ape skeleton
3. Building a skeleton using fragments from different finds
In this case, it seems that they decided to use the second strategy, and emphasize the human-like characteristics in an ape's skeleton. Even so, these supposed characteristics aren't very convincing. . .
David B.
............... obviously proof that God Created man in His Image via Recombinant DNA......Homo naledi an obvious "prototype."
Marc Ambler
What is "obvious" if we take God at His Word is that He created the first man, Adam, on the sixth day of creation from the "dust of the ground" (Gen 2:7), and the first woman, Eve, from the flesh of Adam's side. As obvious is that God only created one type or "kind" of man from whom "every nation of men" (Acts 17:26) is descended.
joseph S.
If they don't at least try to carbon date a bone their claim is not "scientific".
John W.
To the gentleman complaining about lack of "secular" references realize they also want to be paid in order to access the information in many cases. Modern "science" is often simply a business sadly. Hence the need for sensationalistic claims to obtain grants, jobs, ect. I have frequently encountered this when trying to evaluate the claims made, particularly with regards to evolution oddly enough.
Marc Ambler
As I said in an earlier reply, the 'secular' references are all there, just not hyperlinked.
Vic A.
I wonder why no comment has been made as to the curious circumstance how and why this group of individuals, without any of the modern lighting and caving equipment could have penetrated and apparently used this remote and difficult cave.
Rick H.
There has been huge media hype in the UK in the last few weeks about this "new" find. I feel it has been orchestrated. I got the National Geographic (NG) yesterday to see the evidence. Once again the models of John Gurche add human like appearance. In NG March 1996 p.109 he stated "I wanted to get a human soul into this apelike face, to indicate something about where he was headed." Meaning artistic licence is hard at work. This bias continues with H.naledi! Gurche's models appear regularly in NG over the years. (Sep 1995, mar 1996, Aug 1998, Apr 2005, Nov 2006, July 2006).
The splayed H. naledi skeleton in the new NG is a composite made from some of the bones found, not one individual. They do say "The Sum of Its Parts." This is important to note. This is not science but a media performance. The many clues that show it is not Homo, including the shape of the jaw that is not human, and the small brain and there are others in the comments above. In this NG p 55, the "Place in Time." does at least place H. naledi in three possible positions.The lowest one with the australopithecines. p 55, probably where it belongs. Once again NG is trying to make a man of an ape.
It is all presented as science, but it is not so. It is an example of bias and publicity to feed our Godless society who are being brainwashed into believing in evolution. An idea that is actually crumbling as the missing links just cannot be found. So they attempt to create them with carefully prepared TV documentaries, newspaper spreads and using NG as a good publicity instrument. It will slowly fade into the background and once again never be retracted.
I wait for the carbon dating results you have asked for.
Geoff C. W.
This "missing link" stuff is all nonsense anyway. They're scratching around and claiming a link here and a link there. We should be wading through links knee deep if the evolution axiom is correct!
If they did manage to find something that appeared to be halfway between man and ape, what would that prove? It could just be a creature created by God that is now extinct, along with most dinosaurs.
To illustrate, what if all apes had become extinct some time ago, and then an ape skeleton was discovered. They would say that this was a link between some other creature and man - when all it would be is an ape. Finding such in-between creatures doesn't prove anything, if they're so rare. What they need is a series of creatures showing gradual development. Good luck with that!
Marc Ambler
As it is the non-physical (i.e. soul, spirit) that primarily distinguishes man as made in God's image, and animals; it is interesting that the primary evidence that leads evolutionists to classify as ape-like creatures such as Australopithecus or Homo, are evidence of human behavior such as use of tools, art, use of religious symbols, burying of the dead and so on. These behavior patterns in Neanderthals were leading scientists increasingly to conclude that they were just a variation of mankind before DNA confirmed this.
Louise B.
I have been waiting for this article and thank the team for supplying it after careful consideration. As it it perfectly clear, media just churn out what they can scoop up from any source. Real journalism is a thing of the past. It is all about sensationalism. We also know that when the waters receded from the face of the earth, it would have sucked remains down into recesses left by the huge upheaval. Vast modern-day floods do exactly the same today. However, the description of the area of retrieval would indicate that most unlikely. A simple scenario of a large group using a cave as a shelter being trapped by a large rock fall or an earthquake. And yes, a small population of any animal in-breeding will produce accentuated physical features/defects. The general media are not going to retract their publication unless it is to be followed by an expose of intended duping.
Reed C.
How has this challenge been issued? was the offer sent directly to the researchers involved or is the challenge being issued another way?
Marc Ambler
An email has been sent to the head of the geosciences department under which anthropology falls. We make the offer in that email. We will update the article if we receive a response.
Mike W.
Have you seen the Richard Dawkins video where he plays with his toy model of the eye and slowly puts it together? Then mocks creationists for saying the eye is evidence against evolution. Maybe he can put together a model of the assumed full form of Homo naledi. That would show us primitive herdsmen what's up! I'm being sarcastic if you can't tell. I feel so bad for people who can't see past arrogance.
It is frightening that the media will jump on these stories as fact but not cover so much evidence for the contrary.
Piet S.
Recommended (revised) name for 'Homo naledi': 'Ridiculipithecus conjecturalensis'
Jeff H.
No doubt these are the remains of one or more groups of "skinny" scientists or explorers from days gone by that answered an ad, but didn't have the appropriate equipment to get back out of the cave. :)
Dalene L.
As someone with a little bit of clinical knowledge as a physiotherapist, if the photo of the skeleton in our local papers here in South Africa, is of the one supposed individual we are discussing, then there are many mistakes i.e. feet bones not similar in anatomical shape, left tibia actually a right tibia, what I could see from the photo. Of course I am biased in favour of creation:)
Terry W.
Marc could add a link to the Neandertal genome article by Robert Carter to his reply on Robert B's comment:

Neil A.
One obvious fact has been missed in the media coverage that I have seen - if the entrance to the cave required unusually small scientists, then any regular users of the cave in "prehistoric" times would also have had to be small. ie. This is not a random sample of the population alive at the time, but a selected group limited in size by the entry to the cave. Thus it is not possible to draw any sensible conclusions about the wider population by measuring the sizes of the skeletons found.
Caleb L.
Could it be possible that, like Homo habilis, this could be a combination of human and ape bones?
Marc Ambler
It is possible but unlikely. The various remains that have been included under the "garbage bag" classification of H. habilis were generally from different locations. These are all from one location and if it were a mixture one would expect to also find the remains of other mammals. The research paper reports that the chamber was almost entirely bereft of any other animals besides some bird remains.
Nathan V.
Interesting article. I'm very curious what will be left from all speculation after proper research by other parties (including CMI hopefully).

Anyway, thank you for this article. Hopefully CMI will be able to do 14C-analysis on some fragments. Keep up the good work!
Tommy S.
Just adding to my previous comment. I think this is a golden opportunity to do both carbon 14 dating and DNA analysis. Not only could you show that these bones are only thousands of years old, but you could also prove beyond doubt that they are fully human. At the same time, you could irrefutably prove that these scientists did not do due diligence and that they are only interested in supporting their pre-conceived beliefs and not following the evidence where it leads and thus are only practitioners of pseudo-science. It would certainly make them reconsider making any more such claims in the future without doing these tests themselves.
Steve S.
We know evolution is impossible at the genetic level, so there is nothing to fear with bones. There are no missing links, transitions of one kind into another, only in the figment of an evolutionist's imagination and their hired artist.
Michael I.
My wife mentioned this to me after having seen it in a post browsing Facebook. She knows of my interest in the creation evolution conflict and showed me the post when she saw it. I immediately went to creation.com and searched it. Of course nothing had come up on the search, I even checked my spelling, but I knew it would only be a matter of time. I look forward to the technical article. God bless.
Doug L.
Shouldn't this just be case closed, end of discussion? Sloping face, jutting jaw, small cranium: this is an ape skull isn't it, not a human? Can there realistically be any doubt?
Robert B.
Would CMI also fund attempts at soft tissue recovery or even analysis of DNA fragments found? If this is homo-sapiens, that should be evident in the DNA if any is present. The supposed 65 my age of the dinosaur discoveries of organic material should make these researchers optimistic that such helpful data exists in these 1 my old samples. Unless. like you suggest with radiometric dating, that they are curiously incurious,
Marc Ambler
We would certainly consider it should such an opportunity arise. However as there is overlap between human and ape DNA, due to similar morphology, this may be inconclusive.
Terry W.
Ugh, here we go again with a fragmentary "transitional" skeleton where the media is spazzing about the confirmation of Evolution, ignoring the controversy and in a few months, not publishing the inevitable retraction.

D. S.
You curiously don't directly link to any of the secular sources cited in your article, but do link to all of the creation sources. Why?
Marc Ambler
All the information you need to find the references is in the footnotes.

Comments are automatically closed 14 days after publication.