sediba, H. floresiensis, H. luzonensis, H. naledi, and the Denisovans) along with impressive skeletal remains from previously known taxa (e.g., Ar. ramidus, Au. afarensis, H. erectus). These new discoveries made creationist assessment of fossil hominins both clearer and more complex. Table 2 samples young-age creationists’ perspectives on hominins from four book-length treatments (Bergman et al. 2020; Cuozzo 1998; Lubenow 2004; Rupe and Sanford 2017), a substantive book chapter from Mere Creation (Hartwig-Scherer 1998), and a recent summative baraminological analysis (Sinclair and Wood 2021), in order to provide a sense of the perspectives that developed following Lubenow’s first edition. Several areas provided clarity. On the one hand, Australopithecus finds such as the Kadanuumuu skeleton (Haile-Selassie et al. 2010), the Dikika juvenile (Alemseged 2006), and the Little Foot skeleton (Clarke 2019) seem to reinforce earlier judgments that these creatures were not human. Also supportive is the evidence of Neandertal culture that has steadily accumulated with new discoveries of artistic expression, hunting prowess, and even an elaborate stone construction of unknown purpose inside Bruniquel Cave in southwestern France (Jaubert et al. 2016). Efforts to sequence Neandertal genomes uncovered evidence of Neandertal genes in the genomes of living people of Eurasian descent, indicating that our ancestors had children with Neandertals, and those children were able to have children with other H. sapiens, leaving behind a distinct Neandertal signature in our modern genomes (Green et al. 2010). The level of Neandertal genes in H. sapiens genomes indicates that this intermingling was likely ongoing and not merely the result of occasional sexual assault. Consequently, the Neandertal genes in our genomes further reinforces our judgment that Neandertals were human. They were human enough to be seen as suitable mates for H. sapiens, and the hybrid offspring were human enough to also be seen as suitable mates by other H. sapiens. The same reasoning can be applied to Denisovans as well, since Denisovan DNA is also found in modern human populations, indicating past hybridization (Reich et al. 2010). A Denisovan/Neandertal hybrid has also been found, indicating that Denisovans, Neandertals, and H. sapiens were all cross-fertile with each other (Slon et al. 2018). Interbreeding has long been considered a hallmark evidence that the taxa in question belong within the same biblical kind (Marsh 1941; Scherer 1998; Wood et al. 2003). Other taxa and analyses proved controversial. Cuozzo’s (1998) assignment of H. erectus to apes has found little support among creationists, while Rupe and Sanford (2017) are thus far alone in asserting that both Au. afarensis and Au. sediba are artificial taxa consisting of material of different species (gorilla with another ape in the case of Au. afarensis and human with ape in the case of Au. sediba). Wood’s work in hominin baraminology produced several Table 2. Summary of hominin fossil assessments from prominent YEC books and studies. Shown in yellow are the fossil members of the “Lubenow core.” Hominin Taxon Lubenow (1992, 2004) Hartwig-Scherer (1998) Cuozzo (1998) Rupe & Sanford (2017) Bergman, Line, Tomkins, & Biddle (2020) Sinclair & Wood (2021) Present Study Ardipithecus (all species) ape ape - ape ape ape ape Australopithecus afarensis ape ape - mixed ape ape ape Australopithecus sediba - - - mixed ape human uncertain Australopithecus (other species, including “robust australopithecines”) ape ape ape3 ape ape ape ape Homo habilis & H. rudolfensis mixed Possibly mixed2 - mixed mixed human human H. floresiensis - - - human human human4 human H. naledi - - - human - human human Mid-Pleistocene Homo1 human human - - human human human H. erectus (including H. ergaster) human human ape human human human human Neandertals human human human human human human human Denisovans - - - human human - human 1“Mid-Pleistocene Homo” includes H. antecessor, H. bodoensis, H. heidelbergensis, and H. rudolfensis. The taxonomic validity of these species is less certain than others, but all are reliably assigned to Homo. 2 “mixed” indicates that the authors believe the taxon to be composed of multiple species, including both ape and human remains. 3Cuozzo considers the genus Australopithecus to be an ape (p. 101), but does not discuss particular species. 4The statistical evaluation by Sinclair & Wood did not find H. floresiensis clustering with the human baramin (Homo sensu lato), but they considered the species human based on evidence from cultural artifacts. See text for further discussion. ROSS, BRUMMEL, AND WOOD Human History: From Adam to Abraham 2023 ICC 73
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTM4ODY=