surprising results (Wood 2010, 2016). First, anatomical study of putative H. habilis cranial remains identified it as human in contrast to previous creationist assessments (Wood 2010). The same cranial analysis also placed the newly-discovered Au. sediba in the human category, a perspective rejected by most creationists (e.g, DeWitt 2010, Habermehl 2010, Menton 2010). Au. sediba refers to two partial skeletons found at the Malapa site in South Africa (Berger et al. 2010). Despite a skeleton that shared features with other Australopithecus species, the skull of Au. sediba had more characteristics in common with H. sapiens than with any Australopithecus. Follow-up studies that included H. naledi showed them clustering in the same group as the Lubenow core, H. habilis, and Au. sediba (Wood 2016), which would reinforce our tentative understanding of H. naledi as human based on the evidence of burial or body disposal. Despite these seeming consistencies, H. floresiensis, which we identify as human based on possible evidence of human cognition, repeatedly failed to cluster with other clear humans (Wood 2010, Sinclair and Wood 2021), despite original anatomical research that expanded the number of known character states from the H. floresiensis fossils. The most recent baraminology results that examine entire skeletons rather than just skulls have largely reinforced these initial assessments, although the clustering is less clear than clustering with skulls alone (Wood and Brummel 2023). The “human” cluster contains the Lubenow core, along with H. habilis and H. naledi, while H. floresiensis still does not cluster with any other taxa, human or non-human. In contrast to the cranial analysis, analysis of the skeleton of Au. sediba did not reveal consistent clustering with members of the human cluster. Instead, skeletal characteristics without skull characteristics separated Au. sediba from the human cluster, but a combination of skeletal and skull characteristics put Au. sediba back in the human cluster. C. Current Assessment: Points of Agreement and of Uncertainty What should we conclude from these results? First and most importantly, creationists remain widely agreed that the Lubenow core is human (Table 2). On the part of Neandertals, this is strongly confirmed by their extensive cultural remains. On the part of H. erectus, their modest cultural remains are balanced by the clear skeletal resemblance to H. sapiens. To the Lubenow core, we feel confident in adding H. heidelbergensis. Though there remains legitimate uncertainty about this taxon’s validity, the fossils referred to it exhibit subtle differences from Neandertals while maintaining an overall strong resemblance. Further, preliminary genome studies indicate that H. heidelbergensis is a variant Neandertal, and baraminology studies continue to place H. heidelbergensis fossils among the humans. Beyond this, the evidence of human cognition in H. floresiensis supports recognizing it as human, even as we acknowledge that the skeletal anatomy is quite surprisingly different from members of the Lubenow core. Cultural and anatomical evidence also supports recognizing H. naledi as human, even though we recognize that this is not a consensus among creationists. In the category of nonhuman or ape, again we remain confident in our understanding of Au. afarensis and Au. africanus as nonhuman, even though recent efforts to delineate the created kinds of apes were at best only marginally successful (Brummel and Wood 2023). Thus, we cannot say for sure whether all non-Homo hominoids belong to the same created kind or to multiple created kinds. We encourage creationists to therefore be cautious and avoid the term “ape kind,” which implies there is only one such created kind. Nevertheless, it seems very clear that Au. afarensis and Au. africanus are not human. Likewise, we can place Au. anamensis and Ardipithecus in the nonhuman category as well, based on consistent clustering patterns seen in baraminology studies. Furthermore, repeated studies of Paranthropus, a “robust” australopithecine, support recognizing them as their own nonhuman created kind (Wood 2010, Brummel and Wood 2023). What then of the less certain taxa? H. habilis has a significant problem primarily among creationists: a lack of agreement on which fossils belong to this species (e.g., contrast Lubenow 2004 with Tobias 2009). If the fossils included under this name do represent a single hominin form, then the baraminology clustering studies have never failed to include them among the humans. If, as some creationists contend, H. habilis represents a mix of Australopithecus and Homo remains, their status is less clear. To resolve these questions, a careful examination of the fossils (preferably the originals or high-resolution scans) ought to be made and studies of baraminology with artificially mixed taxa ought to be undertaken. This work also should entail skull KNM ER 1470 and associated remains (referred to H. rudolfensis). Skeletal remains of H. habilis are associated with only Oldowan tools, giving limited support from cultural artifacts. The consistent results from repeated baraminological analyses leads us to provisionally assign this taxon human status, though we strongly encourage more detailed anatomical study. The results of a baraminological study of both craniodental and skeletal material (Wood and Brummel 2023) make the status of Au. sediba less certain than it was before. With only craniodental information, the close connection of Au. sediba to H. sapiens was robust, appearing in every taxon and character sample tested. The addition of skeletal evidence has rendered this persistent association with known humans less certain. Given the striking post-cranial differences between Au. sediba and humans, this change is unsurprising. We are then left with one of two questions: 1) Why is the body so australopith-like if Au. sediba is human? or 2) Why is the skull so human-like if Au. sediba is not human? Answering the first question might be rooted simply in the post-Flood, intrabaraminic diversity that we observe in many animal and plant groups. Answering the second question might be related to the fact that the most complete skull of Au. sediba is a juvenile and likely to resemble other species more than the adult skulls would. Either answer is quite plausible, and therefore we suggest reserving judgment until new fossil discoveries can aid us in making a more confident diagnosis. We thus consider the status of Au. sediba uncertain. Other poorly attested forms might be provisionally classified as human or ape based on the meager evidence of similarity to other more certain forms, even as we urge caution due to the fragmentary nature of the remains. Probable apes include Sahelanthropus, Orrorin, Kenyanthropus, Au. garhi, Au. deyiremeda, and Au. barelghazali. Probable humans include the fossils of Gran Dolina (H. antecessor), H. luzonensis (a diminutive island form attested by a few bones and teeth), and the dragon man cranium (H. longi). Altogether then, the evidence seems generally well understood withROSS, BRUMMEL, AND WOOD Human History: From Adam to Abraham 2023 ICC 74
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTM4ODY=