Australopithecus sediba

Berger, Lee R. et al.  “Australopithecus sediba:  A New Species of Homo-Like Australopith from South Africa.”  Science 328(5975):195–204.  Apr 9, 2010.  The paper that names the species, by the team that found it.  It describes the juvenile skeleton MH1 as the type specimen and the adult MH2 as the paratype, lists the skull and tooth characters that keep the species in Australopithecus and the hip features it shares with Homo, and proposes it as a candidate ancestor of Homo while noting the timing problem. ↩

1. 1a.

   Page 195:  “The first hominin specimen recovered from Malapa was the right clavicle of MH1 (UW88-1), discovered by Matthew Berger on 15 August 2008. MH2 is an adult individual represented by isolated maxillary teeth, a partial mandible, and partial postcranial skeleton that we designate as the species paratype.” ↩ ↩ ↩

2. 1b.

   Page 195:  “Although MH1 is a juvenile, the second molars are already erupted and in occlusion. Using either a human or an ape model, this indicates that MH1 had probably attained at least 95% of adult brain size”. ↩ ↩ ↩

3. 1c.

   Page 196:  “The minimum cranial capacity of MH1 is estimated at 420 cm3”.  The skull is described as fragmented and slightly distorted, so the figure is a minimum. ↩

4. 1d.

   Page 196:  “small cranial capacity, pronounced glabelar region, patent premaxillary suture”.  The first three of the craniodental features the authors give for placing the species in Australopithecus. ↩

5. 1e.

   Page 200, table 1:  Cranial capacity, species averages in cubic centimetres:  A. afarensis 415, A. africanus 442, A. sediba 420, H. habilis 631, H. rudolfensis 751, H. erectus 900. ↩ ↩ ↩

6. 1f.

   Page 203:  “this species shares more derived features with early Homo than does any other known australopith species (Table 1 and table S2) and thus represents a candidate ancestor for the genus, or a sister group to a close ancestor that persisted for some time after the first appearance of Homo.” ↩

7. 1g.

   Page 203:  “The discovery of a <1.95-million-year-old (16) australopith that is potentially ancestral to Homo is seemingly at odds with the recovery of older fossils attributed to the latter genus (5) or of approximately contemporaneous fossils attributable to H. erectus (6, 30).” ↩

8. 1h.

   Page 203:  “Although the skull and skeleton of Au. sediba do evince derived features shared with early Homo, the overall body plan is that of a hominin at an australopith adaptive grade.” ↩ ↩ ↩ ↩

9. 1i.

   Page 204:  “The pattern of dental eruption and epiphyseal fusion exhibited by MH1 indicates that its age at death was 12 to 13 years by human standards, whereas in MH2 the advanced degree of occlusal attrition and epiphyseal closure indicates that it had reached full adulthood”. ↩ ↩

Wood, Todd Charles, and P. S. Brummel.  “Hominin Baraminology Reconsidered with Postcranial Characters.”  Proceedings of the Ninth International Conference on Creationism, 251–266.  Edited by J. H. Whitmore.  2023.  The first large creationist data set of characters from below the skull:  239 postcranial characters for 14 taxa, analysed alone and with skull characters in 44 clustering runs.  Sediba was the only taxon that changed sides between the skull and skeleton analyses.

1. 2a.

   Page 251, section Abstract:  “The only exception to this trend is Australopithecus sediba, which clusters with Homo taxa with craniodental characters but not with postcranial characters.” ↩ ↩

2. 2b.

   Page 260:  “With craniodental characters, Au. sediba appears in the midst of the Homo taxa, but with postcranial characters, Au. sediba appears to be merely adjacent to the Homo taxa and just as close to other Australopithecus taxa as it is to the nearest Homo taxa.” ↩

3. 2c.

   Page 263:  “In the case of Homo naledi, cultural evidence of body disposal (Dirks et al. 2010) tentatively confirms their status as human, but with Au. sediba, no such supplemental evidence exists and legitimate uncertainty remains.” ↩

4. 2d.

   Page 264:  “With 72.4% of Au. sediba’s postcranial character states scored, this clustering is unlikely to be a statistical artifact. With the combined craniodental and postcranial characters, Au. sediba clusters consistently with Homo taxa again”.  “This difference between clustering with postcranial characters versus the combined character set cannot be attributed to a bias towards craniodental characters, because only 49% of Au. sediba’s craniodental characters are scored.” ↩ ↩ ↩

5. 2e.

   Page 265:  “Thus, we might cautiously interpret our present results as consistent with previous classifications of Au. sediba as human.” ↩

6. 2f.

   Page 265:  “A complete adult skull might support placing Au. sediba outside of the human holobaramin.” ↩ ↩

7. 2g.

   Page 265:  “At this point, a mature Au. sediba skull is likely needed to resolve these questions.” ↩ ↩ ↩

Berger, Lee R.  “Australopithecus sediba and the earliest origins of the genus Homo.”  Journal of Anthropological Sciences 90:117–131.  2012.  Berger's own account of the discovery and his case for sediba as the best candidate ancestor of Homo, written in answer to critics before the 2.8-million-year Ledi-Geraru jaw was published.  It is the source for how the two skeletons were found.

1. 3a.

   Page 117:  “The site of Malapa was first discovered by the author on August 1, 2008, during the course of a geospatial survey for new fossil-bearing cave deposits in the dolomitic region of the Cradle of Humankind World Heritage Site”. ↩

2. 3b.

   Page 118, Fig. 1 caption:  “These blocks had been removed from their in-situ position by late 19th or early 20th Century mining activities and are not in their original positions.” ↩

3. 3c.

   Page 118:  “On the 15th of August 2008, upon the author’s initial return to the site to investigate its fossilbearing potential, the first hominin specimens were discovered by the author’s son, Matthew.” ↩ ↩

4. 3d.

   Page 118:  “the discovery by the author, on September 4, 2008, of a second, well-preserved adult partial skeleton and two associated maxillary teeth (MH2). These latter specimens were importantly found in situ in the calcified clastic sediments of the mining pit, thus giving precise location to the remains and leading to the discovery of the in-situ location of MH1”. ↩

5. 3e.

   Page 118:  “Removal of the block containing MH2 took place in late 2008, and preparation of the specimen revealed a partially articulated upper limb, including most of the right scapula, the lateral half of the right clavicle, parts of the thorax, and lower limb elements.” ↩ ↩ ↩

6. 3f.

   Page 118:  “the remaining parts of the adult right scapula and clavicle were found in a block that also contained the adult’s mandible. The articulation between the scapula pieces, clearly allowed a direct association of these elements.” ↩ ↩

7. 3g.

   Page 117:  “This opinion however, does not take into account either the poor condition of these fossils, as well as the numerous problems with both the criteria used to associate them with the genus Homo, nor the questionable provenance of each of these specimens.”  “Malapa is almost certainly not the first chronological appearance of Au. sediba, it is only the first known fossil occurrence. Au. sediba should therefore be considered a strong potential candidate ancestor of the genus Homo”.  Page 126:  “and perhaps the best candidate”. ↩

Val, Aurore et al.  “Taphonomic Analysis of the Faunal Assemblage Associated with the Hominins (Australopithecus sediba) from the Early Pleistocene Cave Deposits of Malapa, South Africa.”  PLoS ONE 10(6):e0126904.  2015.  A study of how the bones in the Malapa deposit got there:  which body parts are present, the ages of the animals at death, how the bones broke, and the marks on their surfaces.  It finds a natural death trap with no scavenger access, many articulated skeletons, and some sediment washed in from other chambers.  It is the main evidence on whether the two skeletons could be a mixture.

1. 4a.

   Page 1, section Abstract:  “The diversity of the faunal spectrum, presence of animals with climbing proclivities, abundance of complete and/or articulated specimens, occurrence of antimeric sets of elements, and lack of carnivore-modified bones, indicate that animals accumulated via a natural death trap leading to an area of the cave system with no access to mammalian scavengers.” ↩

2. 4b.

   Page 1, section Abstract:  “The co-occurrence of well preserved fossils, carnivore coprolites, deciduous teeth of brown hyaena, and some highly fragmented and poorly preserved remains supports the hypothesis of a mixing of sediments coming from distinct chambers, which collected at the bottom of the cave system through the action of periodic water flow.” ↩ ↩

3. 4c.

   Page 5:  “The assemblage comprises 18 species of ungulates, carnivores, primates, rodents and birds”.  “Non-hominin primates are represented only by a partial skull assigned to a cercopithecoid (Papio angusticeps)”.  “hominins (MNI: 6; MNE: 160, and NISP: 242)”.  MNI is the minimum number of individuals;  NISP the number of identified specimens. ↩ ↩ ↩

4. 4d.

   Page 9:  “Based on the articulated specimens and antimeric sets of bones, we propose that at least seven complete individuals, including the two hominins MH1 and MH2 (Table 1), accumulated inside a cave chamber where they decomposed and mummified.” ↩ ↩ ↩

Pickering, Robyn et al.  “Australopithecus sediba at 1.977 Ma and Implications for the Origins of the Genus Homo.”  Science 333(6048):1421–1423.  Sep 9, 2011.  The revised date.  A newly exposed flowstone above the fossil-bearing sediment was dated by uranium-lead and found to be reversed in polarity, which ruled out the 2010 match to the Olduvai Subchron and led the team to place the fossils in a short normal-polarity excursion.  Its supporting material gives the data and the reasoning. ↩ ↩ ↩

1. 5a.

   Section Supporting Online Material, Text S3, SOM page 15:  “PM10 records a reversed polarity (Fig. S4) and has been U-Pb dated to 1.975 ±0.142 Ma (2.12-1.83 Ma). Given this age the reversed flowstone PM10 must be older (>1.95 Ma), rather than younger (<1.78 Ma) than the Olduvai Subchron.” ↩ ↩ ↩

2. 5b.

   Section Supporting Online Material, Text S3, SOM page 15:  “The pre-Olduvai excursion (17) at 1.977 Ma is the only validated or suggested excursion between the Huckleberry Ridge event at 2.05-2.03 Ma and the Olduvai sub-Chron at 1.95 Ma (15).”  “the Malapa data is the best terrestrial evidence for this reversal, which had previously only been noted in deep sea sediment cores (18). The pre-Olduvai excursion is estimated at around 3 ka in duration (18) and suggests the sediments accumulated rapidly at 1.977 ±0.002 Ma.”  Reference 18 is a study of geomagnetic excursions in two Ocean Drilling Program cores from the Iceland Basin. ↩ ↩

3. 5c.

   Section Supporting Online Material, Text S3, SOM page 15:  “However, it also shows the complexity of undertaking magnetostratigraphic analysis of such deposits and the potential for misinterpretation of polarities to the wrong Chron or Sub-Chron in the absence of precise stratigraphic control and detailed absolute age dating.” ↩

4. 5d.

   Section Supporting Online Material, Text S4, SOM page 16:  “The resulting MSWD is considerable at 606 and reflects the large scatter of the points away from the slope due to variability in the isotopic composition of the common Pb component.”  Section Supporting Online Material, Text S4, SOM page 17:  “The final U-Pb age for Flowstone 2 (Fig. S6) is relatively precise, with a 7% error, which is typical for the cave sites in the Cradle of Humankind”.  MSWD measures how far the data points scatter from the fitted line compared with their stated errors;  a value near 1 means the scatter is what the errors predict. ↩

5. 5e.

   Section Supporting Online Material, Text S3, SOM page 15:  “U-Pb dated to 1.975 ±0.142 Ma”.  Section Supporting Online Material, SOM page 22, table S3:  The Tera-Wasserberg age column gives 2.048 with a 2SE of 0.140 (7 percent) for the same flowstone, sampled as M6 and M7. ↩ ↩

Holliday, Trenton W. et al.  “Body Size and Proportions of Australopithecus sediba.”  PaleoAnthropology, 406–422.  2018.  Estimates of body mass from the size of the femoral head for three Malapa individuals, with comparisons of limb proportions against apes, australopiths and Homo.  The method has wide error, and the paper says so.

1. 6a.

   Page 408:  “all three Au. sediba individuals had body masses between ca. 30-36 kg, placing them in the size range of smaller individuals of Au. afarensis and Au. africanus, and well below the size range of specimens attributed to early Homo”. ↩ ↩ ↩

2. 6b.

   Page 406, section Abstract:  “In addition, the lower limb does not appear to be as elongated as that of early Homo, suggesting that long-distance terrestrial bipedality was not a regular part of the species' behavioral repertoire.” ↩ ↩ ↩

Churchill, Steven E. et al.  “The Upper Limb of Australopithecus sediba.”  Science 340(6129):1233477.  2013.  A description of the shoulder blade, collarbone and arm bones of the Malapa hominins, excluding the hand. ↩

1. 7a.

   Section Abstract:  “the upper limbs (excluding the hand and wrist) of the Malapa hominins are predominantly primitive and suggest the retention of substantial climbing and suspensory ability.” ↩ ↩ ↩

Schmid, Peter et al.  “Mosaic Morphology in the Thorax of Australopithecus sediba.”  Science 340(6129):1234598.  2013.  A reconstruction of the rib cage from the ribs of both skeletons. ↩

1. 8a.

   Section Abstract:  “The ribs of Australopithecus sediba exhibit a mediolaterally narrow, ape-like upper thoracic shape”.  “The lower thorax, however, appears less laterally flared than that of apes and more closely approximates the morphology found in humans.” ↩ ↩ ↩

Zipfel, Bernhard et al.  “The Foot and Ankle of Australopithecus sediba.”  Science 333(6048):1417–1420.  2011.  A description of MH2's ankle and heel, found articulated with the lower shin bone.  The authors infer a walk unlike that of other hominins and some climbing, and say their reading holds "if present models of foot function are correct." ↩

1. 9a.

   Section Abstract:  “The ankle (talocrural) joint is mostly humanlike in form and inferred function”.  “Au. sediba is apelike in possessing a more gracile calcaneal body and a more robust medial malleolus than expected.” ↩ ↩

2. 9b.

   Section Abstract:  “homoplasy is implied in the acquisition of bipedal adaptations in the hominin foot”.  Homoplasy means a similar feature that arose independently in separate lineages rather than being inherited from a common ancestor. ↩ ↩

Hawks, John, and Lee R. Berger.  “Mandibular ramus morphology and species identification in Australopithecus sediba.”  South African Journal of Science 118(3/4):12544.  2022.  A short reply, by two members of the discovery team, to the 2021 claim that MH1 and MH2 belong to two genera.  It lists the features the two skeletons share across the body and shows the same contrast in jaw shape inside single fossil samples of Homo from Algeria and Spain.

1. 10a.

   Page 1:  “Excavation at Malapa has recovered substantial evidence of the burial position of each skeleton, including joints found in articulation or in close anatomical proximity, with all recovered parts showing a low degree of post-mortem dispersion.” ↩

2. 10b.

   Page 1:  “MH2 is adult and MH1 is juvenile with postcranial and dental elements consistent with a maturational age of between 9 and 11 years when compared to a chimpanzee maturational pattern.”  “The pelvic remains of MH1 and MH2 are closely similar in size, and similar in most aspects of morphology, but differ in features related to sex, suggesting female sex for MH2 and male sex for MH1.” ↩ ↩ ↩

3. 10c.

   Page 1:  “The lateral plantar process of the MH2 calcaneus has a dorsal position not observed in any other fossil hominin except for the immature calcaneal apophysis of MH1.” ↩

4. 10d.

   Page 1:  “Both MH1 and MH2 share a more human-like parasagittal orientation of the ilium, contrasting not only with other Australopithecus pelves but also with pelvic material from Homo erectus and Homo naledi.” ↩ ↩

5. 10e.

   Page 1:  “Both MH1 and MH2 share small molar size and small mandibular corpus area compared to samples of other species of Australopithecus.”  “both have near-identical enamel carbon-13 values that are far below any other contemporary sample of Australopithecus, Paranthropus, or Homo.” ↩ ↩ ↩

6. 10f.

   Page 1:  “But Rak et al. include only 12 fossil mandibles for comparison in addition to MH1 and MH2 in their analysis. Only five of these are used to represent the entire variation exhibited by the genus Homo”.  Page 3:  “The morphological features that Rak et al. describe as derived exclusively in Australopithecus actually occur widely across Homo.”  Reference numerals after "Rak et al." are omitted. ↩ ↩

Kivell, Tracy L. et al.  “Australopithecus sediba Hand Demonstrates Mosaic Evolution of Locomotor and Manipulative Abilities.”  Science 333(6048):1411–1417.  2011.  A description of MH2's nearly complete right wrist and hand, one of the most complete early hominin hands known. ↩

1. 11a.

   Section Abstract:  “The hand presents a suite of Australopithecus-like features, such as a strong flexor apparatus associated with arboreal locomotion, and Homo-like features, such as a long thumb and short fingers associated with precision gripping and possibly stone tool production.” ↩ ↩

Kibii, Job M. et al.  “A Partial Pelvis of Australopithecus sediba.”  Science 333(6048):1407–1411.  2011.  A description and reconstruction of the hip bones of both Malapa skeletons, comparing them with other australopiths and with Homo.  The MH2 reconstruction has been criticised and defended in later papers. ↩

1. 12a.

   Section Abstract:  “These remains share some features with australopiths, such as large biacetabular diameter, small sacral and coxal joints, and long pubic rami. The specimens also share derived features with Homo, including more vertically oriented and sigmoid-shaped iliac blades, greater robusticity of the iliac body, sinusoidal anterior iliac borders, shortened ischia, and more superiorly oriented pubic rami.” ↩ ↩

Williams, Scott A. et al.  “The Vertebral Column of Australopithecus sediba.”  Science 340(6129):1232996.  2013.  A description of the two partial spines, with an estimate of how many lumbar and sacral vertebrae the species had. ↩

1. 13a.

   Section Abstract:  “Au. sediba likely possessed five non-rib-bearing lumbar vertebrae and five sacral elements, the same configuration that occurs modally in modern humans.” ↩ ↩

Villmoare, Brian et al.  “Early Homo at 2.8 Ma from Ledi-Geraru, Afar, Ethiopia.”  Science 347(6228):1352–1355.  2015.  The description of LD 350-1, half a lower jaw with a mix of Homo and australopith traits, now the oldest fossil assigned to Homo.  Its age comes from volcanic ashes above and below the fossil-bearing silts and the rate at which the silts built up.  Locators are to the online first-release version.

1. 14a.

   Section first-release version, page 1:  “The specimen, securely dated to 2.80-2.75 Ma, combines derived morphology observed in later Homo with primitive traits seen in early Australopithecus.” ↩ ↩ ↩ ↩

2. 14b.

   Section first-release version, page 1:  “The LD 350-1 mandible was recovered on the surface of finely bedded fossiliferous silts 10 m conformably above the Gurumaha Tuff (Fig. 1).”  “The Gurumaha Tuff is radiometrically dated to 2.842 Ma ± 0.007 Ma”.  “Based on the current chronostratigraphic framework for Ledi-Geraru, we consider the age of LD 350-1 to be 2.80-2.75 Ma.” ↩

Du, Andrew, and Zeresenay Alemseged.  “Temporal evidence shows Australopithecus sediba is unlikely to be the ancestor of Homo.”  Science Advances 5(5):eaav9038.  2019.  A probability model of how likely it is to find an ancestor's only known fossils 800,000 years after its descendant's first fossils, plus a review of 28 proposed ancestor-descendant pairs of hominins.  The result depends on its assumptions about species lifespans and on LD 350-1 being Homo, and the paper tests some of them.  Mirror:  PMC

1. 15a.

   Section Abstract:  “Australopithecus sediba has recently been proposed as the ancestral species of Homo, although it postdates earliest Homo by 800,000 years. Here, we use probability models to demonstrate that observing an ancestor's fossil horizon that is at least 800,000 years younger than the descendant's fossil horizon is unlikely (about 0.09% on average).”  The model gives both species temporal ranges of 0.97 million years, the average estimated for hominin species by Robinson and colleagues, and assumes fossils are equally likely to be preserved throughout a range. ↩ ↩ ↩

2. 15b.

   Section Discussion:  “Results show that calculated P values are still small even when relaxing the age of earliest Homo to 2.33 Ma ago or hominin temporal durations to 2 Ma. For example, P values exceed 0.05 only when range overlap is at least 70%, and the mean and maximum P values over all possible overlap values are only 0.04 and 0.20, respectively”. ↩

Kimbel, William H., and Yoel Rak.  “Australopithecus sediba and the emergence of Homo:  Questionable evidence from the cranium of the juvenile holotype MH 1.”  Journal of Human Evolution 107:94–106.  2017.  A test of whether MH1's Homo-like face would have stayed that way as the child grew, using growth series of chimpanzee, gorilla and human skulls, and a search for features MH1 shares with the Sterkfontein australopiths. ↩

1. 16a.

   Section Abstract:  “Given the existence of 2.8 myr-old fossils of Homo in eastern Africa, this hypothesis implies a ghost lineage spanning at least 800 kyr.”  “the hypothesis of an extensive ghost lineage connecting A. sediba to the root of the Homo clade is unwarranted.” ↩

2. 16b.

   Section Abstract:  “Based on data from a late-growth series of chimpanzee, gorilla, and modern human crania, we found that key aspects of MH 1's resemblance to Homo can be accounted for by its immaturity.”  “We argue that MH 1 provides clear evidence that A. sediba was uniquely related to A. africanus”. ↩ ↩ ↩

Wood, Todd Charles.  “Baraminological Analysis Places Homo habilis, Homo rudolfensis, and Australopithecus sediba in the Human Holobaramin.”  Answers Research Journal 3:71–90.  May 5, 2010.  The first statistical test of the young-earth claim that fossil hominins divide into human and non-human created kinds.  Wood, a creationist biologist, reanalysed eight published sets of skull and tooth characters by baraminic distance correlation and multidimensional scaling.  It is the paper that put sediba in the human kind, and it lists its own weaknesses.

1. 17a.

   Page 71, section Abstract:  “In contrast to many creationist claims, however, the present results indicate that Homo habilis, Homo rudolfensis, and—most surprisingly—Australopithecus sediba belong in the human holobaramin.” ↩ ↩

2. 17b.

   Page 73, table 2:  The Berger et al. (2010) data set:  10 taxa (7 australopiths, 3 Homo), 69 characters, 55 missing character states (8.0 percent), craniodental.  Wood added characters for Pan and H. sapiens. ↩

3. 17c.

   Page 81:  “The position of Au. sediba is especially clear. It was positively correlated with all Homo species (with bootstrap values >90%) and did not positively correlate with any australopiths. Even conventional paleoanthropologists disagree on the classification of sediba (see Balter 2010). In light of the present findings, it seems more appropriate to refer sediba to genus Homo.” ↩ ↩

4. 17d.

   Page 81:  “As of this writing, there has been no creationist commentary or interpretation of Au. sediba, but given sediba’s extremely ape-like forearms (Berger et al. 2010), it seems likely that many creationists would prefer to place sediba among the australopiths.” ↩

5. 17e.

   Page 83:  “Though the present research unequivocally groups H. habilis, H. rudolfensis, and “Au.” sediba with other species of Homo, this should certainly not be considered definitive.”  Page 84:  “It is possible that inclusion of postcranial characters in future baraminological analyses might support the separation of H. habilis and “Au.” sediba from the human holobaramin.” ↩

6. 17f.

   Page 84:  “Alternatively, including “Au.” sediba and Homo habilis in the human holobaramin would suggest that the mosaic nature of australopith anatomy noted by creationists (for example, Hartwig-Scherer 1999; Wise 1994) may not be uniquely diagnostic of that group.” ↩

7. 17g.

   Page 86:  “Third, the dispersal of the human population from Babel would presumably have been led by H. habilis and H. rudolfensis, specimens of which appear stratigraphically lower than any other human species. Specimens of both of these species (and of “Au.” sediba) are known only from Africa”.  “Any model of post-Babel distribution must account for the appearance and disappearance of these human species in stratigraphic order.” ↩

Sinclair, P., and Todd Charles Wood.  “Revising Hominin Baraminology with Medoid Partitioning and Fuzzy Analysis.”  Answers Research Journal 14:451–462.  2021.  A rerun of the 2010 sediba data set and a larger 391-character set with standard cluster methods, done in answer to Colin Reeves's criticism of baraminology's statistics.  Its Table 1 lists which creationists placed sediba, H. floresiensis and H. naledi where.

1. 18a.

   Page 459:  “We found here that Au. sediba consistently clusters with members of genus Homo, even when using alternative distances and cluster analysis methods.” ↩ ↩ ↩ ↩

2. 18b.

   Page 453:  Moving sediba out of the Homo cluster gave it a silhouette width of −0.611 in the Paranthropus cluster and −0.525 in the other australopith cluster, against a strongly positive 0.525 inside the Homo cluster.  A silhouette width runs from −1, a misfit, to +1, a perfect fit. ↩

Wood, Todd Charles.  “Australopithecus sediba, Statistical Baraminology, and Challenges to Identifying the Human Holobaramin.”  Proceedings of the Seventh International Conference on Creationism.  Creation Science Fellowship.  Edited by Mark Horstemeyer.  2013.  Wood's own test of his 2010 result using the 78 postcranial characters of the 2010 description and 25 hand characters from 2011.  The test was inconclusive, and Wood questions whether the method can identify created kinds from small samples.  The proceedings paper has no printed page numbers;  pages given are the PDF's.

1. 19a.

   Page 10, section Discussion:  “No analysis of the postcranial characters of Berger, et al. (2010) or Kivell, et al. (2011) revealed any strong affinity between A. sediba and H. sapiens or H. erectus. In fact, in all five BDC analyses of postcranial characters in the present study, A. sediba was neither positively nor negatively correlated with any other taxon.” ↩ ↩

2. 19b.

   Page 10, section Discussion:  “Should the failure of the present analysis constitute evidence against including A. sediba in the human holobaramin? I think not, since failure to corroborate a previous result is not the same as falsifying that result.” ↩

3. 19c.

   Page 10, section Discussion:  “Furthermore, the present results seem to arise from the very small set of taxa used rather than for biological reasons.”  “In each case where only craniodental characters were used with small taxon samples (Figures 3 and 6), the clustering seen in Wood’s (2010) original analysis of the same characters is no longer detectable.” ↩

4. 19d.

   Page 11, section Discussion:  “Turning back to basic anatomical and biological considerations, we still find reasons to doubt the humanity of A. sediba. Carlson, et al. (2011) report that the convolution pattern on the frontal lobes of Australopithecus sediba are typically australopith rather than characteristic of Homo.” ↩

Rupe, Christopher, and John Sanford.  Contested Bones.  FMS Publications.  2017.  A young-earth book on the hominin fossils by a geologist and a geneticist, arguing that most fossils are either human or ape and that several "transitional" species are mixtures.  Chapter 9, pages 175–197, is on sediba.  Quotations are from the first edition;  a second edition appeared in 2019.

1. 20a.

   Page 178:  “The broken, fragmentary bones were found in loose-to-close anatomical association—some physically joined together. The bones were buried together in a mixed bed containing thousands of bones from at least 18 different species (including Homo, Australopithecus, and primates).” ↩ ↩

2. 20b.

   Page 183:  “However, the human-looking hip appears to have been mistakenly combined with australopith bones. This is likely, considering the mixed bone bed from which the fossils were recovered.” ↩

3. 20c.

   Page 185:  “Consistent with the funnel-shaped upper thorax, the upper limb bones attributed to Sediba are unmistakably ape-like, revealing an anatomy perfectly suited for tree-dwelling life.”  The bones listed include the scapula, or shoulder blade. ↩ ↩

4. 20d.

   Page 195:  “What Berger and colleagues reconstructed is not a new species but rather appears to be a chimeric skeleton (a mixture of human and non-human bones).” ↩ ↩

The ratios divide the age of the Malapa fossils, 1.977 million years,⁵ by the time a young-earth chronology allows since the cave filled.  On Creation Ministries International's figure of "some 4,500 years" since the caves formed,⁶² 1,977,000 / 4,500 = 439.  Hardy and Carter put the Flood "certainly between 3386 bc and 2256 bc,"⁶³ so at most 5,411 years before 2026, and 1,977,000 / 5,411 = 365.  Using the capping flowstone's lowest age, 1.83 million years,⁵ instead of 1.977 gives 407 and 338.  If sediba was human and arrived after the dispersal from Babel, the time available is shorter and the ratio larger.  The figures are the factor by which uranium decay would have to run faster than today, for the whole time since the flowstones formed, for the measured ages to fit.  The same arithmetic for the other South African caves is in The South African Australopiths. ↩ ↩

Dirks, Paul H. G. M. et al.  “Geological Setting and Age of Australopithecus sediba from Southern Africa.”  Science 328(5975):205–208.  Apr 9, 2010.  The companion paper on the cave's geology and the first age estimate.  It dates the flowstone under the fossils by uranium-lead in two laboratories, reads the magnetism of the flowstone and sediments, and brackets the age with the animals found in the deposit. ↩

1. 22a.

   Page 205:  “cave is located 15 km north-northeast of Sterkfontein”. ↩

2. 22b.

   Page 205:  “dolomite of the late Archaean [2.64 to 2.50 billion years ago (Ga)] Malmani Subgroup”. ↩

3. 22c.

   Page 205, section Abstract:  “The two hominin specimens were buried together in a single debris flow that lithified soon after deposition in a phreatic environment inaccessible to scavengers.” ↩

4. 22d.

   Page 207:  “These ages thus bracket the depositional age of the fossil hominins.”  The bracket is the first African appearance of several species at about 2.36 million years and the last appearance of the extinct cat Megantereon whitei at about 1.5 million years. ↩

5. 22e.

   Page 205, section Abstract:  “immediately above a flowstone layer with a U-Pb date of 2.026 ± 0.021 Ma. The flowstone has a reversed paleomagnetic signature and the overlying hominin-bearing sediments are of normal polarity, indicating deposition during the 1.95- to 1.78-Ma Olduvai Subchron.”  Page 207:  “The dates of 2.024 ± 0.062 Ma (Bern) and 2.026 ± 0.021 Ma (Melbourne) are identical within error and provide a maximum”.  The dated seams lie 20 cm below the adult skeleton. ↩ ↩

6. 22f.

   Page 207:  “The flowstone mainly preserves reverse polarity, but near its base, a normal polarity excursion occurs that is interpreted as the Huckleberry Ridge Subchron at 2.06 ± 0.04 Ma”. ↩

Williams, Scott A. et al.  “Malapa at 10:  Introduction to the Special Issue on Australopithecus sediba.”  PaleoAnthropology, 49–55.  2018.  The introduction to a nine-paper special issue that gives full descriptions of most of the skeleton.  It counts the material and summarises each paper and the debate. ↩

1. 23a.

   Page 50:  “The minimum number of fossil elements represented in this material is 135 (MNE=135), representing a minimum of three individuals (MNI=3).” ↩

2. 23b.

   Page 50:  “To date, two partial skeletons, MH1 and MH2, have been analyzed, while additional individuals await excavation/preparation”. ↩ ↩

Carlson, Kristian J. et al.  “The Endocast of MH1, Australopithecus sediba.”  Science 333(6048):1402–1407.  2011.  A virtual cast of the inside of MH1's braincase, made from synchrotron scans.  It describes the brain's surface pattern and argues that some reorganisation toward the human pattern came before any increase in size. ↩

1. 24a.

   Section Abstract:  “reveals generally australopith-like convolutional patterns on the frontal lobes but also some foreshadowing of features of the human frontal lobes, such as posterior repositioning of the olfactory bulbs.” ↩

Irish, Joel D. et al.  “Dental Morphology and the Phylogenetic "Place" of Australopithecus sediba.”  Science 340(6129):1233062.  2013.  A comparison of 22 tooth-crown traits in MH1 and MH2 with eight other African hominin samples, followed by a cladistic analysis.  It places sediba closest to A. africanus. ↩

1. 25a.

   Section Abstract:  “Like other skeletal elements, the teeth present a mosaic of primitive and derived features.”  “However, Au. sediba links with Au. africanus to form a South African australopith clade.” ↩ ↩

de Ruiter, Darryl J. et al.  “Mandibular Remains Support Taxonomic Validity of Australopithecus sediba.”  Science 340(6129):1232997.  2013.  A description of new jaw material from both skeletons, arguing that sediba is a distinct species and not a late form of A. africanus. ↩

DeSilva, Jeremy M. et al.  “The Lower Limb and Mechanics of Walking in Australopithecus sediba.”  Science 340(6129):1232999.  2013.  A reconstruction of MH2's walk from the shapes of the hip, knee and ankle joints.  The gait is a hypothesis from joint anatomy, not an observation. ↩

1. 27a.

   Section Abstract:  “Initial contact of the lateral foot with the ground resulted in a large pronatory torque around the joints of the foot that caused extreme medial weight transfer (hyperpronation) into the toe-off phase of the gait cycle”. ↩ ↩

Williams, Scott A. et al.  “New fossils of Australopithecus sediba reveal a nearly complete lower back.”  eLife 10:e70447.  Nov 23, 2021.  A description of two newly found lumbar vertebrae that fit MH2, with three-dimensional shape analysis and measurements of how the vertebrae are wedged.  It finds a lower back curved for upright walking but leaves the size of the curve open. ↩

1. 28a.

   Page 1, section Abstract:  “We show that MH2 possessed a lower back consistent with lumbar lordosis and other adaptations to bipedalism”. ↩

2. 28b.

   Page 13:  “Therefore, current interpretations of lumbar curvature of A. sediba range from hyperlordotic to hypolordotic.” ↩

MH1's minimum cranial capacity is 420 cc and it had reached "at least 95%" of adult brain size,¹ so an adult's would be at most 420 / 0.95 = 442 cc.  The figure is an upper bound on the adult size implied by MH1, not a measurement of an adult. ↩

Gunz, Philipp et al.  “Australopithecus afarensis endocasts suggest ape-like brain organization and prolonged brain growth.”  Science Advances 6(14):eaaz4729.  2020.  A CT study of eight A. afarensis skulls with a large comparative sample of living apes.  It is cited here only for its chimpanzee brain-volume figure.

1. 30a.

   Comparative sample:  Pan troglodytes adults, N = 240, mean endocranial volume 369 ml, SD 37. ↩

Wood, Todd C.  “Baraminology, the Image of God, and Australopithecus sediba.”  Journal of Creation Theology and Science Series B:  Life Sciences 1:6–14.  Jul 8, 2011.  Wood's reply to the four creationist critiques of his 2010 result.  He argues that the objections from the image of God and from salvation fail, that Berger's own character list is biased against Homo, and that critics should run their own analyses;  he also concedes the result rests on one data set.

1. 31a.

   Page 8:  “For example, A. sediba and H. erectus share 51 character states out of the 69 listed, while A. sediba and A. africanus share only 33 character states (Table 1).” ↩ ↩

2. 31b.

   Page 11:  “it is important to note that the position of Australopithecus sediba in the genus Homo, though strongly supported by the data used in my study, is only supported by one character set.” ↩

3. 31c.

   Page 11:  “In contrast, the equal weighting scheme of statistical baraminology has an advantage, in that it uses “a suite of characters to define ‘human’” rather than reducing “humanness to cranial capacity, limb proportions, ... bipedality,” or any other specific characteristic that might have varied in the past (Wood 2010a).” ↩ ↩

4. 31d.

   Page 12:  “If some creationists are uncomfortable with including A. sediba in the human holobaramin (which they certainly are), they ought to do their own statistical analysis to demonstrate discontinuity between A. sediba and members of the true human holobaramin (whatever species that might encompass).” ↩

5. 31e.

   Page 12:  “At this point, however, preliminary results from an evaluation of postcranial characteristics for A. sediba are inconclusive (Wood 2010b).” ↩

6. 31f.

   Page 12:  “If A. sediba descended from Adam, then he is human not animal. Likewise, australopiths like africanus or afarensis are animals. They did not evolve into humans, and they could not evolve the image of God.” ↩

Pickering, Robyn et al.  “U–Pb-dated flowstones restrict South African early hominin record to dry climate phases.”  Nature 565:226–229.  2019.  A study of 29 uranium-lead dates on flowstones from eight caves in the Cradle of Humankind.  It finds that flowstone grew in six short wet intervals between 3.2 and 1.3 million years ago and that the fossils accumulated in the drier times between them.

1. 32a.

   Section Supplementary Information:  “SED4 (1.82-2.00 Ma) sees sediments accumulating at Drimolen, Malapa, Sterkfontein Member 5 and Swartkrans Member 1.”  Reference numerals after the site names are omitted. ↩

Menton, David et al.  “Sediba with a Little Sleight of Hand.”  Answers in Genesis.  Sep 14, 2011.  Answers in Genesis's response to the September 2011 Science papers, by an anatomist, a geologist and a science writer.  Its section on the date, which draws on the dating paper's supplement, is the only young-earth critique of the Malapa dating found.

1. 33a.

   Section Au. sediba, "Too Young to Date":  “First, a reachable age goal had to be set. Then, the fossils needed to be re-dated to conform to expectations.”  “which the “textbooks” teach, would automatically disqualify the data from providing any valid age information”.  A footnote numeral after "teach" is omitted.  “The date was obtained by comparison to the Huckleberry Ridge Tuff, which was itself dated using argon-argon dating.”  “Thus, the whole process is quite circular, producing an attractive “precise” date of completely unknown accuracy.” ↩ ↩ ↩

Line, Peter.  “Australopithecus sediba revisited.”  Creation Ministries International.  Sep 15, 2011.  Line's review of the five Science papers of September 2011.

1. 34a.

   Paragraph 1:  “Australopithecus sediba still shows that it is not an apeman or missing link but likely to be another variety of australopithecine.” ↩

2. 34b.

   Paragraph beginning "In September 2011":  “other creationists who have examined the method described in the paper to obtain the revised date note that “the whole process is quite circular, producing an attractive ‘precise’ date of completely unknown accuracy.””  Line's note 4 cites Mitchell, Menton and Snelling at Answers in Genesis. ↩

Menton, David N. et al.  “Baraminological Analysis Places Homo habilis, Homo rudolfensis, and Australopithecus sediba in the Human Holobaramin:  Discussion.”  Answers Research Journal 3:153–158.  Aug 25, 2010.  Three separately signed replies to Wood 2010, printed together:  by David Menton of Answers in Genesis (pp. 153–155), the independent writer Anne Habermehl (pp. 155–156) and David DeWitt of Liberty University (pp. 156–158).  All three reject the human placement, on different grounds.

1. 35a.

   Page 153:  “Like other creationists who have commented on Australopithecus sediba (Line 2010; Thomas 2010 a, b), I do not agree that it is human, and neither do most evolutionists.”  Menton's section. ↩

2. 35b.

   Page 153:  “This is further complicated by the fact that these presumed “similarities” are the biased opinions of evolutionists.”  Menton's section. ↩

3. 35c.

   Page 153:  “In the case of Australopithecus sediba, there are only two published specimens (Berger et al. 2010). One is said to be a male (MH1) and the other a female (MH2). This presents a problem because there is a substantial sexual dimorphism in primate skeletal anatomy. To make matters worse, MH1 is a juvenile and MH2 is an adult.”  Menton's section.  The 2010 description itself judged the size difference between the sexes "slight." ↩

4. 35d.

   Page 155:  “Will we now accept these obvious apes (such as Australopithecus sediba—and, yes, Wood is totally correct that this sure is a surprise) as human, because somebody’s manipulation of statistics tells us that we should do this?”  Habermehl's section.  She holds, following Jack Cuozzo, that the long-lived Neanderthals are the only early humans. ↩

5. 35e.

   Page 157:  “Regardless of the bootstrap BDIST calculations, sediba should not be considered a human.”  Page 158:  “it would appear that the statistical baraminology results placing Homo habilis, Homo rudolfensis, and Australopithecus sediba within the human holobaramin is a false positive result.”  DeWitt's section. ↩

6. 35f.

   Page 157:  “Further, since sediba was found in South Africa, it is a descendant of Noah that made it quite some distance from anyone’s suggested location for the Tower of Babel.”  DeWitt's section. ↩

Hawks, John et al.  “Comment on "Early Homo at 2.8 Ma from Ledi-Geraru, Afar, Ethiopia".”  Science 348(6241):1326.  2015.  A technical comment by three members of the sediba team, arguing that LD 350-1's comparison with sediba used wrong measurements.  Its abstract reads:  "When correctly used, these data demonstrate that specimen LD 350-1 cannot be unequivocally assigned to the genus Homo." ↩

Villmoare, Brian et al.  “Response to Comment on "Early Homo at 2.8 Ma from Ledi-Geraru, Afar, Ethiopia".”  Science 348(6241):1326.  2015.  The describers' reply.  Its abstract reads:  "Our reexamination of the evidence confirms that LD 350-1 falls outside of the pattern that A. sediba shares with Australopithecus and thus is reasonably assigned to the genus Homo." ↩

Kimbel, William H. et al.  “Systematic assessment of a maxilla of Homo from Hadar, Ethiopia.”  American Journal of Physical Anthropology 103(2):235–262.  1997.  The description of A.L. 666-1, an upper jaw found with stone tools 0.8 m below a volcanic ash dated by argon to 2.33 ± 0.07 million years.  Its abstract attributes the jaw to "Homo aff. H. habilis," a looser identification than a firm species name. ↩

Robinson, Chris et al.  “Temporal ranges and ancestry in the hominin fossil record:  The case of Australopithecus sediba.”  South African Journal of Science 114(3/4):20170327.  2018.  An estimate of how long hominin species last, about 0.97 million years on average, used to argue that one site's date cannot show when a species began.  One author is a member of the sediba team.  The authors say they are not arguing that sediba is the ancestor, only that dates alone cannot refute it.

1. 39a.

   Page 1, section Abstract:  “As these scenarios are all equally plausible, and 2.95 Ma predates the earliest specimens that some have attributed to Homo, we cannot refute the hypothesis that the species A. sediba is ancestral to our genus based solely on currently available temporal data.”  The scenarios place sediba's first appearance at 2.95, 2.47 or 1.98 million years, depending on where in its range the Malapa fossils fall. ↩ ↩

Dembo, Mana et al.  “Bayesian analysis of a morphological supermatrix sheds light on controversial fossil hominin relationships.”  Proceedings of the Royal Society B 282:20150943.  2015.  A dated Bayesian analysis of 380 skull and tooth characters across the hominins, testing Berger's four proposed positions for sediba.  The best-supported tree makes sediba the sister group of all Homo.  Mirror:  PMC

1. 40a.

   Page 4:  “Thus, the Au. sediba lineage must be at least 300 000–500 000 years older than the current hypodigm suggests, and may be as much as 800 000 years older.”  The page number is the PDF page of the accepted version. ↩

Mongle, Carrie S. et al.  “An updated analysis of hominin phylogeny with an emphasis on re-evaluating the phylogenetic relationships of Australopithecus sediba.”  Journal of Human Evolution 175:103311.  2023.  A re-scoring of the skull and tooth characters of sediba with attention to MH1's youth, analysed by parsimony and Bayesian methods.

1. 41a.

   Section Abstract:  “we could not reject the hypothesis that A. sediba shares its closest phylogenetic affinities with the genus Homo. Therefore, based on currently available craniodental evidence, we conclude that A. sediba is plausibly the terminal end of a lineage that shared a common ancestor with the earliest representatives of Homo. We caution, however, that the discovery of new A. sediba fossils preserving adult cranial morphology or the inclusion of postcranial characters may ultimately necessitate a re-evaluation of this hypothesis.” ↩ ↩

Rak, Yoel et al.  “One hominin taxon or two at Malapa Cave?  Implications for the origins of Homo.”  South African Journal of Science 117(5/6):8747.  2021.  A shape analysis of the rising branch of the lower jaw in MH1 and MH2, compared with 115 modern human, chimpanzee and orangutan jaws and a few fossils.  It argues that the two skeletons belong to two genera and that sediba therefore cannot be an ancestor of Homo.

1. 42a.

   Page 1, section Abstract:  “According to our results, the specimens represent two separate genera: Australopithecus and Homo.” ↩ ↩ ↩

2. 42b.

   Page 5:  “MH2 falls in the generalised group (assigned as most likely an orangutan, with p(ki) = 0.76), whereas MH1 is assigned as most likely Australopithecus (p(ki) = 1.00).”  The "generalised" group is the jaw shape the authors find in modern humans, chimpanzees, bonobos and orangutans. ↩

Ritzman, Terrence B. et al.  “Mandibular ramus shape of Australopithecus sediba suggests a single variable species.”  Journal of Human Evolution 100:54–64.  2016.  A comparison of the jaw-branch shapes of MH1 and MH2 with variation inside living gorillas, chimpanzees, orangutans and humans, testing whether the difference reflects age, sex or two taxa.

1. 43a.

   Page 54, section Abstract:  “we conclude that MH1 and MH2 represent a single species and that the relatively large degree of variation in this species is due to neither ontogeny nor sexual dimorphism.” ↩ ↩

Line, Peter.  “Developments in paleoanthropology no. 3.”  Creation Ministries International.  Jun 28, 2024.  A survey that reports the 2021 two-genera paper on the Malapa jaws and the 2022 reply.

1. 44a.

   Section Conclusions:  “The apparent widespread variation of ramus features in mandibles appears to make them unsuitable as a taxonomic diagnostic tool on their own.” ↩ ↩

Line, Peter.  “Sediba:  New alleged hominid ignites debate, but is no missing link.”  Creation Ministries International.  Apr 13, 2010.  The first young-earth response to the 2010 description, by a Creation Ministries International writer on human origins.

1. 45a.

   Paragraph beginning "The above contrary opinions":  “The above contrary opinions may well be resolved if Australopithecus sediba is a small-brained specimen of the type evolutionists have often classified as Homo habilis.”  Line adds that Homo habilis is commonly regarded as an invalid taxon whose members belong in Australopithecus. ↩

Thomas, Brian.  “A New Evolutionary Link?  Australopithecus sediba Has All the Wrong Signs.”  Institute for Creation Research.  Apr 15, 2010.  An ICR news article published a week after the species was named.

1. 46a.

   Paragraph 1:  “But the remains of this extinct ape provide several solid clues that contradict any evolutionary relationship to man.” ↩

Line, Peter.  “Gautengensis vs sediba:  a battle for supremacy amongst 'apeman' contenders, but neither descended from Adam.”  Creation Ministries International.  Jun 15, 2010.  Line's reply to Wood's 2010 baraminology paper.

1. 47a.

   Section on Wood's baraminology:  “Wood's analysis at best raises issues for further investigation, and certainly does not warrant sweeping conclusions that effectively extend the range of human variation to apish creatures swinging in trees like Tarzan.” ↩

Lubenow, Marvin L.  “The Problem with Australopithecus sediba.”  Answers in Depth 5.  Aug 11, 2010.  A short essay by the author of Bones of Contention, the standard young-earth book on human fossils, arguing that sediba is a variety of ape and too young to be a human ancestor.

1. 48a.

   Section final section:  “The most parsimonious explanation regarding Australopithecus sediba is that it and Australopithecus africanus are both extinct varieties of the original Genesis ape kind.” ↩

Wood, Todd C.  “Lubenow on sediba.”  Todd's Blog.  Aug 13, 2010.  Wood's blog reply to Lubenow's essay.

1. 49a.

   “Since I don't think sediba is an ape, I must not be a biblical creationist.” ↩

Wood, Todd C.  “Sediba, the bad, and the ugly.”  Todd's Blog.  Aug 24, 2010.  Wood's blog response to the five creationist critiques of 2010.

1. 50a.

   “all five of the sediba critics are absolutely, positively convinced that it isn't human”. ↩

Wood, Todd Charles.  “An Evaluation of Homo naledi and "Early" Homo from a Young-Age Creationist Perspective.”  Journal of Creation Theology and Science Series B:  Life Sciences 6:14–30.  2016.  Wood's analysis of Homo naledi, which also reruns his method on a second, larger skull-and-tooth data set that includes sediba.

1. 51a.

   Page 22:  “In contrast to the previous study, Au. sediba appears to be more of an outlier in this MDS analysis, even though it remains positively correlated with other Homo members in the BDC results.” ↩ ↩

Thomas, Brian.  “Evolutionary "Game Changer" Doesn't Change Anything.”  Institute for Creation Research.  Nov 30, 2011.  An ICR essay on the 2011 Science papers.

1. 52a.

   Section closing paragraphs:  “It was not a transition toward man, but an extinct ape kind.” ↩

O'Micks, Jean.  “Homo naledi Probably Not Part of the Human Holobaramin Based on Baraminic Re-Analysis Including Postcranial Evidence.”  Answers Research Journal 9:263–272.  2016.  A creationist baraminology study that adds 37 postcranial characters, weighted by hand, to an analysis of Homo naledi, with sediba among the comparison taxa.

1. 53a.

   Page 271:  “Similarities between these two species in the structure of the upper limb, thorax, and feet suggest that they might be similar, if not the same species of australopithecine.” ↩

O'Micks, J.  “Likely Discontinuity Between Humans and Non-Human Hominins Based on Endocranial Volume and Body Mass With a Special Focus on Homo naledi:  A Short Analysis.”  Answers Research Journal 10:241–243.  2017.  A short creationist analysis that clusters fourteen hominin species by average brain volume and body mass.  It is a crude measure, two numbers per species.

1. 54a.

   Section Results:  “The second cluster is made up of Homo habilis, Homo naledi, Australopithecus sediba, Australopithecus africanus, Australopithecus afarensis, Paranthropus boisei, Paranthropus aethiopicus, and Ardipithecus ramidus.” ↩

Thomas, Brian.  “Anthropologist Wows Scientists.”  Institute for Creation Research.  Jun 27, 2022.  An ICR report on a talk by the paleoanthropologist Jeremy DeSilva.  Its footnote for the mixture claim is a 2014 New Scientist news story.  The article is reproduced on ICR's fossilization topic page.

1. 55a.

   “Now, enough have been published to reveal sediba as just a mixture of bones from different creatures.”  “Australopithecus sediba wasn't a real creature. It's just a mixture of human and ape bones that never belonged together.” ↩

Nalin, Ronny.  “Review of Contested Bones.”  Geoscience Research Institute.  2018.  A review of Rupe and Sanford's book by a geologist at the Seventh-day Adventist Geoscience Research Institute, sympathetic to the book's aims and critical of its sediba chapter.  It is the only creationist review of the book found.

1. 56a.

   “Bones of the Au. sediba MH2 right wrist and hand were uncovered in a cluster and in close association with the remainder of the right upper limb.”  Nalin is quoting the supplementary material of Kivell and colleagues' 2011 paper on the hand. ↩ ↩

2. 56b.

   “If each partial skeleton indeed comes from a single individual, there would be no other option but to admit that “mosaic” forms are represented in the hominin fossil record, a conclusion Rupe and Sanford seem to resist.”  “none of Berger's et al. original publications seem to contain a diagram showing the spatial representation of individual fossil fragments positioned where they were encountered during excavation.” ↩ ↩ ↩ ↩ ↩

Wood, Todd C.  “Hominins:  Was I wrong????”  Todd's Blog.  Nov 3, 2021.  Wood's plain-language summary of the 2021 reanalysis with Sinclair.

1. 57a.

   “None of this work proves me right or proves that Au. sediba is human or that Homo naledi is human. I simply failed to falsify my original conclusions that Au sediba and Homo naledi were human.” ↩

Line, Peter.  “Developments in paleoanthropology 2.”  Journal of Creation 36(1):89–98.  2022.  A survey of recent hominin finds for a young-earth readership, including the 2021 lumbar vertebrae of MH2.

1. 58a.

   Page 93:  “the ape-like ones (small brain, shoulders and long arms suited for climbing, conical rib cage and weak heel) appear to indicate unambiguously that it was an apish primate.”  “Hence, if Australopithecus sediba walked upright it was likely not as a human”. ↩ ↩

Rupe, Christopher.  “"Lucy" and the Pygmy Human Hypothesis.”  Creation Research Society Quarterly 62:208–227.  2026.  Rupe's argument that Lucy was a small-bodied human and that human bones have been misfiled as Australopithecus.  It is cited here for what it now says about the sediba pelvis and shoulder.

1. 59a.

   Page 220:  “Indeed, it may therefore be another example of a misclassified human pelvis (Figure 13).”  Figure 13 caption:  “Examples of potentially misclassified human pelvises. Left to right: Lucy (A.L. 288-1); Au. africanus (STS 14); Au. sediba (MH 1/MH 2 composite).” ↩

2. 59b.

   Page 220:  “The iliac blades of Au. sediba are described as more derived compared to other australopiths, in that they are less flared and more vertically oriented, as in later Homo (Kibii et al., 2011).” ↩

3. 59c.

   Page 221:  “Note that the anatomical association of the MH 2 scapula with a morphologically human hand strongly suggests the scapula is also human.”  Rupe gives the MH2 shoulder joint angle as 131.6°, against 132.3° for Lucy, 142.3° for modern humans and 127.8° for chimpanzees. ↩ ↩

Berger, Lee R. et al.  “Homo naledi, a new species of the genus Homo from the Dinaledi Chamber, South Africa.”  eLife 4:e09560.  2015.  The type description of Homo naledi, by the excavating team.  It is cited here only for the brain size of the species Wood counts as the smallest-brained human.  Mirror:  PMC

1. 60a.

   Section Description:  “H. naledi has a range of body mass similar to small-bodied modern human populations”.  Endocranial volumes of about 560 and 465 cc for the two composite crania. ↩

Reeves, Colin R.  “A Critical Evaluation of Statistical Baraminology:  Part 1, Statistical Principles.”  Answers Research Journal 14:261–269.  2021.  A creationist's critique of the statistics behind Wood's baraminology, published in Answers in Genesis's own research journal.  It prompted Sinclair and Wood's 2021 reanalysis.

1. 61a.

   Page 261, section Abstract:  “This paper will argue that these methods are based on a shaky understanding of statistical principles, and that their use ought to be abandoned.” ↩

“What date would you like?”  Creation 45(2):10.  Apr 2023.  An unsigned news item in Creation Ministries International's magazine about the South African cave dates.  It states plainly where the ministry places the australopith caves in time.

1. 62a.

   Paragraph 2:  “The caves formed late in Noah's Flood some 4,500 years ago. The remains of these apish primates at Sterkfontein (australopithecines) were interred after the Flood after the animals had dispersed into the area from the Middle East.” ↩

Hardy, Chris, and Robert Carter.  “The biblical minimum and maximum age of the earth.”  Journal of Creation 28(2):89–96.  2014.  A young-earth paper that works out the earliest and latest dates the biblical numbers allow for creation and the Flood, across the Masoretic, Samaritan and Septuagint texts.

1. 63a.

   Page 96:  “The Flood probably occurred between 2600 bc and 2300 bc, but certainly between 3386 bc and 2256 bc (table 5).” ↩