Also Available in:

What to make of Homo naledi?

More pseudo-scientific claims of human ancestry


Published: 22 September 2015 (GMT+10) Homo-naledi






So what are we to make of this latest announcement?













References and notes

  2. Shreeve, J., This Face Changes the Human Story. But How?,, accessed September 2015. Return to text.
  3. Line, P., Australopithecus sediba—no human ancestor, April 2010;; and Australopithecus sediba revisited, September 2011; Return to text.
  7. Rising Star Expedition reveals new species: Homo naledi,, accessed September 2015. Return to text.
  8. McKenzie, D., and Wende, H., Homo naledi: New species of human ancestor discovered in South Africa,, accessed September 2015. Return to text.
  12. Chernick, I., and Dipa, K., Critics rain on H. naledi team’s parade,, accessed September 2015. 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 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.