The Middle Pleistocene Muddle: The Creationist Literature

Line, Peter.  “Developments in paleoanthropology no. 2.”  Journal of Creation 36(1):89–98.  Apr 2022.  A review of recent papers, with a section on the Homo bodoensis proposal written before the published replies appeared.  Its Roksandic quotations match the paper.

1. 1a.

   Pages 89–90, section Homo bodoensis and the muddle in the middle:  “In his book Craig also wrote, “surely we can get used to the idea that Adam and Eve looked like Homo heidelbergensis rather than us.”  I have no issue with Adam and Eve being ‘robust’ humans, and hence possibly looking like Homo heidelbergensis.  However, Craig’s acceptance of evolution (including human evolution), with its eons of death and suffering before sin, as well as some of his other views for example, that Adam lived at least 750 ka and that Genesis 1–11 “need not be read as literal history”, makes his take on Adam untenable from a biblical perspective”.  Craig is the philosopher William Lane Craig.  The same sentences, shortened, are in Line's 2024 magazine piece on Homo bodoensis. ↩

2. 1b.

   Page 90, section Homo bodoensis and the muddle in the middle:  “Whether they are called Homo heidelbergensis, Neanderthals, ‘archaic’ Homo sapiens, Homo bodoensis, or some other name, the fossil specimens assigned to these categories do not represent evolutionary ‘apemen’ stages between Homo erectus and modern Homo sapiens.  Rather, they were fully human, that is, descendants of Adam and Eve, as also were the fossil specimens assigned to Homo erectus.  As such, they belonged to various subgroups of the same species, Homo sapiens, whose individuals were capable of interbreeding with one another.  The few differences were caused by factors such as human variation, genetic drift, as well as environmental influences.”  “For as long as the fossil specimens are interpreted using an incorrect model (evolution), ‘the muddle in the middle’ will remain in a confusing state.” ↩ ↩

Lubenow, Marvin L.  Bones of Contention:  A Creationist Assessment of Human Fossils.  Baker Books, Grand Rapids.  revised and updated edition.  2004.  The standard young-earth treatment of the human fossil record.  Chapter 16, "Rhodesian Man:  The Fastest-Aging Man in the World", pp. 159–164, covers Kabwe;  the Sima de los Huesos discussion is at pp. 199–203, in the chapter "A Cave in Spain Makes It All Very Plain".  Its endnotes for that discussion cite Shreeve's 1994 magazine report and Stringer's 1993 commentary in Nature.

1. 2a.

   Page 160:  “Yet Rhodesian Man’s cranial capacity of 1280 cc is so large that he demands to be classified as Homo sapiens.” ↩

2. 2b.

   Page 199:  “Recently, a more respectful category was devised for these European fossils:  Homo heidelbergensis, named after Heidelberg Man.  However, this did nothing to solve the problem of their relationship to Homo erectus or to the Neandertals.”  “Michael Day, looking for that transition from Homo erectus to modern humans, referred to these fossils as “the muddle in the middle.”” ↩

3. 2c.

   Page 201:  “The Sima de los Huesos fossil assemblage reveals the absurdity of attempting to determine species distinctions in fossil humans.  The only legitimate species criteria is the fertility test.” ↩

4. 2d.

   Page 200:  “Since then, the remains of a minimum of 33 individuals have been recovered and dated at about 400,000 years ago.  …  These remains have so much variation within one contemporaneous population that it demonstrates that all that “muddle in the middle,” all those European fossil individuals that appeared to be so different, belong to one population—the Neandertals.  For instance, one of the Sima de los Huesos adult skulls is one of the smallest ever recovered from that time period, while another one is one of the largest.  The physical variation found in this one assemblage of fossils encompasses all the other European archaic Homo sapiens fossils.”  The count of 33 was a published figure at the time;  the 2014 figure is at least 28. ↩

5. 2e.

   Page 163:  “(1) The lack of fossilization or mineralization of the skull, even though it was in a heavily mineralizing environment, suggests that the skull is of very recent age.  …  (3) … all authorities seem to agree that there is a mixture of early (archaic) and modern human fossils in the assemblage.  Chemical analysis of these bones indicates that they are all of about the same age.”  Lubenow's endnotes 8 and 9 for these two sentences are to Stringer's 1986 paper on the Broken Hill hip bone, p. 115. ↩

6. 2f.

   Page 184:  “To sink, that is, combine, Homo erectus with Homo sapiens means that all of those “species” that allegedly lie between Homo erectus and Homo sapiens on the evolutionary scale should be considered Homo sapiens as well.  These would include early Homo sapiens, Homo heidelbergensis, Homo antecessor, Homo ergaster, and the Neandertals.  Wolpoff is right in stating that all of these should be combined, since they are all fully human.  He is wrong in his belief that Homo erectus and the others evolved into anatomically modern humans and that there is a large time distinction separating them.” ↩

7. 2g.

   Page 202:  “But now, as a result of a discovery at just one fossil site, all these fossils are classified as Neandertals.  I can’t think of any scenario that more clearly demonstrates the meaninglessness of these categories.  …  It involves a minimum of sixty-eight fossil individuals at sixteen sites.”  The sixteen sites are listed on p. 199:  Le Lazaret, Montmaurin, Casal de' Pazzi, Reilingen, Steinheim, Swanscombe, Bilzingsleben, Castel di Guido, Sima de los Huesos, Altamura, Arago, Vértesszöllős, Karain, Boxgrove, Petralona and Mauer. ↩

8. 2h.

   Page 202:  “These distinctions could well have accumulated gradually because of their isolation during glacial conditions.  The continental ice sheets in the north and east and the Mediterranean Sea in the south would have severely limited gene exchange with populations outside of Europe.  …  The end of the Ice Age would see:  … (4) Most important of all, the genetic exchange with other populations moving into Europe.  The Neandertal morphology would thus be reduced and eventually be swamped.” ↩

Woodward, Arthur Smith.  “A New Cave Man from Rhodesia, South Africa.”  Nature 108(2716):371–372.  Nov 17, 1921.  The original description of the Kabwe skull and the naming of Homo rhodesiensis, by the Keeper of Geology at the British Museum (Natural History).

1. 3a.

   Page 371:  “they belong to species still living in Rhodesia or to others only slightly different from these.  The occupation of the cave, therefore, seems to have been at no distant date—it may not even have been so remote as the Pleistocene period.”  “Its large and heavy face is even more simian in appearance than that of Neanderthal man”.  Lubenow quotes these three sentences on his p. 162, with a fourth on the skull's "remarkably fresh state of preservation". ↩

Shreeve, James.  “Infants, Cannibals, and the Pit of Bones.”  Discover 15(1):39–41.  Jan 1994.  A science journalist's report on the Neanderthal finds of 1993, part of the magazine's review of the year.  It quotes Stringer and Wolpoff from interviews.  Lubenow cites it at p. 40 and Rupe and Sanford at p. 39.

1. 4a.

   Pages 39–41:  “"There is no question that the new Atapuerca skulls show Neanderthal affinities," says Chris Stringer of the Natural History Museum in London.  Stringer and Wolpoff have had some well-publicized disagreements, but in this case Stringer can't ignore the evidence.  "In spite of all the variation they display, they get sucked in with the Neanderthals.  Once that happens, it becomes very difficult to prevent the rest of the European material from getting sucked in as well."”  "They" are the three new skulls from Sima de los Huesos. ↩ ↩

2. 4b.

   Pages 39–41:  “Though they preserve a few erectus characteristics, the three fossils collectively boast a bevy of traits that securely link them with the Neanderthals to come.  But what really decides the issue is how different the Atapuercan pre-Neanderthals are one from another, in spite of being contemporaneous.  The cranial capacity of one of the adult skulls, for instance, is among the largest ever found in its time period, while the other adult cranium is close to the smallest.  …  the variation among the individuals of this single population … equals that found among all the other known early archaics scattered across Europe.  …  In other words, all the skulls of unknown origin are pre-Neanderthal, and they should all be lumped into one lineage.” ↩ ↩ ↩ ↩

3. 4c.

   Pages 39–41:  “"Atapuerca shows that all that variation in Europe is normal for the population," says Milford Wolpoff of the University of Michigan, long a leader of the lumpers.”  “All Caucasians, says Wolpoff, are carrying around quite a bit of the Neanderthal genetic legacy.” ↩

Arsuaga, J. L. et al.  “Three new human skulls from the Sima de los Huesos Middle Pleistocene site in Sierra de Atapuerca, Spain.”  Nature 362(6420):534–537.  Apr 8, 1993.  The first report of the three skulls found in July 1992, by the excavating team.  It is the find behind the 1994 magazine report that Lubenow and Rupe and Sanford cite, and Rupe and Sanford cite it directly.

1. 5a.

   Section Abstract:  “There is a large difference in size between the two adult specimens (for example endocranial volume 1,125 cm3 versus 1,390 cm3).  The Atapuerca human remains are dated to > 300,000 years.  The Atapuerca cranial sample fits within the 'archaic Homo sapiens' group, but is well differentiated from the Asian Homo erectus group.  The extensive Atapuerca human collection is the most complete sample of Middle Pleistocene humans yet discovered from one site, and appears to document an early stage in Neanderthal evolution.” ↩ ↩ ↩

Grün, Rainer et al.  “Dating the skull from Broken Hill, Zambia, and its position in human evolution.”  Nature 580(7803):372–375.  Apr 16, 2020.  The first direct dating of the Kabwe skull:  uranium-series by laser ablation on a piece of the skull base, with ESR on enamel for an upper limit, by the geochronologist Rainer Grün with Chris Stringer.  Quotations located by line number are from the authors' accepted manuscript, which the Southampton repository hosts.  The printed text rewords some of them, for example "kyr" for "ka", "uranium uptake" for "U-uptake", "used" for "utilised" and "gives an age of 299" for "gives 299", and prints the same figures:  299 ± 25, 298 ± 34, 301 ± 37, 83 ± 25, 322, about 600, and 300 to 480.  The abstract is quoted from the published paper.

1. 6a.

   Lines 119–124:  “The means of the isotope values and their errors yield 298±34 ka for the analyses of the inside surface volume and 301±37 ka for the outside surface volume.  The weighted mean of these two results gives 299±25 ka as the best estimate for the U-uptake event of the basioccipital fragment.  This is 83±25 ka older than the result from the dentine, which can be either explained by a delayed start of the U-uptake into the dentine, or that the dentine stayed an open system for longer.” ↩

2. 6b.

   Lines 84–87:  “Early assessments placed the whole assemblage of human fossils, fauna and artifacts in the late Pleistocene, but more recently, faunal comparisons made with sites such as Olduvai and Elandsfontein have suggested a middle Pleistocene age, perhaps as old as 500 ka.” ↩

3. 6c.

   Lines 106–107:  “All other human skeletal elements were exposed to different U-sources, i.e. they acquired their U in distinct geochemical environments, and at different times to the skull.”  Lines 126–129:  “The other human skeletal elements, as well as the calcitic crust, yielded U-series results that are very different from the skull (Figures 2A, B) and acquired their uranium mainly during Marine Isotope Stage (MIS) 6 (i.e. ~191 to 130 ka).  Their results are further discussed in the Methods Section but have no bearing on the age assessment of the skull E686.”  The elements measured were a tibia, two pieces of femur and a hip bone.  The same manuscript says that uranium-series ages "must be regarded as minimum age estimates".  The printed paper has the words "have no bearing on the age assessment of the skull" unchanged. ↩

Arsuaga, J. L. et al.  “Neandertal roots:  Cranial and chronological evidence from Sima de los Huesos.”  Science 344(6190):1358–1363.  Jun 20, 2014.  The "2014 skulls paper" by the excavating team, thirty authors.  Seventeen crania, seven of them new, from one layer;  mean capacity 1,232 cm³ for fifteen;  a re-dating to about 430 ka;  and the formal proposal to remove the sample from Homo heidelbergensis.  The dating section also reports a bear tooth at 261 +26/-25 ka, read as a minimum, and two ESR ages on quartz of 0.9 to 1.5 Ma, read as maxima.  Mirror:  Cnrs.hal.science

1. 7a.

   Page 1362:  “the SH population differs from some other European MPHs, such as Ceprano and Arago, that do not exhibit the suite of derived Neandertal features seen in SH.  Thus, more than one evolutionary lineage appears to have coexisted during the European Middle Pleistocene”.  MPHs are Middle Pleistocene hominins. ↩

2. 7b.

   Page 1362:  “The considerably enlarged SH cranial sample is morphologically quite homogeneous.”  SH is Sima de los Huesos.  The sample is seventeen skulls, against three in 1993. ↩ ↩ ↩

3. 7c.

   Page 1359:  “To date, more than 6500 human fossils from at least 28 individuals are represented in a single stratigraphic level that we have redated using a suite of numerical and relative dating methods”.  The abstract, p. 1358, counts seventeen crania, seven of them new.  The chamber lies at the foot of a shaft. ↩

Falguères, Christophe et al.  “New U-series dates on the Petralona cranium, a key fossil in European human evolution.”  Journal of Human Evolution 206:103732.  Sep 2025.  Uranium-series on the calcite that grew directly on the Petralona skull, giving a minimum age of 286 ± 9 ka.  Quotations are located by the line numbers of the authors' manuscript.

1. 8a.

   Section Conclusions, lines 320–323:  “According to this hypothesis and from a morphological point of view, the Petralona hominin forms part of a distinct and more primitive group than H. sapiens and Neanderthals, and the new age estimate further supports the co-existence of this population alongside the evolving Neanderthal lineage in the later Middle Pleistocene of Europe.” ↩

Stringer, Christopher B.  “An archaic character in the Broken Hill innominate E. 719.”  American Journal of Physical Anthropology 71(1):115–120.  Sep 1986.  A short paper on one of the two hip bones from Kabwe.

1. 9a.

   Section Abstract:  “The additional hominid material from Broken Hill, Kabwe, Zambia, is only dubiously associated with the hominid cranium from the site and is often considered to be anatomically modern in morphology.  …  This observation increases the likelihood that some of the additional specimens from Broken Hill are indeed of comparable antiquity to the hominid cranium”. ↩

Wood, Todd Charles.  “Baraminological analysis places Homo habilis, Homo rudolfensis, and Australopithecus sediba in the human holobaramin.”  Answers Research Journal 3:71–90.  2010.  Statistical baraminology, baraminic distance correlation and multidimensional scaling, on published hominin character matrices, by the creationist biologist who developed the method.  Quotations are located by section.

1. 10a.

   Page 83, section Discussion:  “Homo antecessor is little-noted by creationists.  It was initially described as a potential ancestor of H. sapiens and H. neanderthalensis (Bermúdez de Castro et al. 1997), and Hartwig-Scherer (2002b) suggested that H. antecessor was a member of the human basic type (that is, monobaramin).” ↩

2. 10b.

   Page 80, section Results:  “H. ergaster and H. rhodesiensis were positively correlated …  Bootstrap support for all three of these correlations was poor (63%, 41%, and 30%, respectively).”  From the Argue et al. dataset.  On p. 86 Wood calls its results and those of one other dataset "uninformative". ↩

3. 10c.

   Page 83, section Discussion:  “The human holobaramin here described includes only the species or specimens included in the datasets, namely H. sapiens, H. erectus, H. ergaster, H. rudolfensis, H. habilis, H. neanderthalensis, “Au.” sediba, and H. heidelbergensis (included as Broken Hill 1 in the Zeitoun [2000] dataset).” ↩

4. 10d.

   Page 79, section Results:  “BDC results for Zeitoun’s dataset show two obvious clusters (fig. 10).  One consists of 38 specimens referred to Homo and the other consists of chimp, gorilla, P. boisei (KNM-ER 406) and Au. africanus (Sterkfontein 5).  …  Otherwise most Homo taxa share significant, positive BDC with other members of Homo.”  Page 80, figure 10:  BDC is baraminic distance correlation.  The 38 specimens labelled in the figure include Broken Hill 1, Petralona, Dali, Sinanthropus 3, 11 and 12, Narmada, Jebel Irhoud 1, Eliye Springs and Laetoli H18, with Neanderthal, Homo erectus and modern skulls. ↩

5. 10e.

   Page 73, section Methods:  “For the Zeitoun (2000) dataset, taxa with more than 60% of their character states unknown were omitted.  The 24 omitted taxa were thirteen H. erectus specimens (Arago XLVII, Arago XXI, Ngangdong II, Ngangdong III, Ngangdong V, Sangiran 3, Sangiran 4, Sangiran 10, Sangiran 12, Sangiran 26, Sangiran 38, Sinanthropus 10, and Trinil 2), nine H. sapiens (Bodo 1, Maba, Ndutu, Omo Kibish 2, Salé, Swanscombe, Velika Pecina, WHL 50, and Zuttiyeh), one H. neanderthalensis (Shanidar 5), and one H. rhodesiensis (Saldanha).”  The species labels are Zeitoun's.  Sinanthropus is the old name for the Zhoukoudian skulls. ↩

O'Micks, Jean.  “Preliminary Baraminological Analysis of Homo naledi and Its Place Within the Human Baramin.”  Journal of Creation Theology and Science Series B: Life Sciences 6:31–40.  2016.  Statistical baraminology on the skull and tooth characters published with Homo naledi, for fourteen species that include Homo heidelbergensis.

1. 11a.

   Page 33:  “For H. neanderthalensis and H. heidelbergensis, the baraminic distance is 0.118, correlation value is 0.949, and bootstrap value is 100%.” ↩

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.  Statistical baraminology on two published matrices, written to place Homo naledi.

1. 12a.

   Page 19:  “Baraminic distance correlation (BDC) results are shown in Figure 1, and three clusters are apparent.  The first consists of the two Paranthropus taxa.  The second contains all species of Homo, and the third cluster contains the extant apes.”  The thirteen taxa in this run, from the matrix of Dembo and colleagues, include Homo heidelbergensis. ↩

Sinclair, P., and Todd Charles Wood.  “Revising hominin baraminology.”  Answers Research Journal 14:451–462.  Nov 3, 2021.  Statistical baraminology on a 391-character matrix updated from Dembo et al. 2016.  Taxa with fewer than 20 percent of characters scored, Homo antecessor among them, were removed before analysis.  Quotations are located by section.

1. 13a.

   Section Discussion:  “the human holobaramin consists of the well-characterized human forms of H. sapiens, Neandertals, and H. erectus and probably includes the more fragmentary H. heidelbergensis, H. habilis, H. rudolfensis, H. naledi, and Au. sediba.” ↩

2. 13b.

   Section Results:  “All taxa with taxic relevance less than 20% (H. antecessor, S. tchadensis, Au. garhi, and K. platyops) were also removed.  The final character set used here contains seventeen taxa, consisting of ten Homo taxa, four Australopithecus taxa, Ardipithecus, and chimpanzee and gorilla.” ↩

Wood, Todd Charles, and P. S. Brummel.  “Hominin Baraminology Reconsidered with Postcranial Characters.”  Proceedings of the International Conference on Creationism 9:251–266.  2023.  A new matrix of 239 characters of the skeleton below the skull, scored for fourteen taxa and analysed alone and together with skull and tooth characters.  Its character list draws on published descriptions that include the 2015 account of the Sima de los Huesos skeletons.

1. 14a.

   Page 263:  “Homo sapiens, H. erectus s.l., Neandertals, and H. heidelbergensis cluster together in at least 96% of all partitions.  These four Homo taxa are analogous to the “Lubenow Core” of Ross et al. (2023), if we consider H. heidelbergensis a form of Neandertal.” ↩

Cserhati, Matthew.  “Baraminic Placement of Homo heidelbergensis based on Molecular Data.”  Creation Research Society Quarterly 59(3):151–159.  2023.  A molecular counterpart to the skull-based studies.  The published DNA reads from the Sima de los Huesos fossils are mapped to the human, Neanderthal and chimpanzee reference genomes, and the share that maps to each is compared.

1. 15a.

   Page 151, section Abstract:  “Nuclear data has also been isolated from Homo heidelbergensis fossils from Sima de los Huesos.  These sequencing reads and sequencing data from an archaic (“Paleolithic”) human were mapped to the genomes of modern human, Neanderthal, and chimpanzee.  Based on the proportion of mapping reads and the sequence similarity of these reads when mapped to the human genome, Homo heidelbergensis can confidently be placed in the human holobaramin.” ↩

2. 15b.

   Page 157:  “The results presented here must be taken with caution, since sequencing aDNA does have its caveats.  These include contamination with DNA from microbes or modern humans, and degradation of the aDNA (Thomas and Tomkins, 2014).” ↩

3. 15c.

   Page 157:  “the mean proportion of H. heidelbergensis reads mapping to hg38 (96.6±3.4%) is much higher than that mapping to pt6 (74.2±16.1%)”.  hg38 is the human reference genome and pt6 the chimpanzee one. ↩

Ross, Marcus R. et al.  “Human History from Adam to Abraham:  Integrating Paleoanthropology with a Young-Age Creation Perspective.”  Proceedings of the International Conference on Creationism 9:66–87.  2023.  A young-earth framework by a palaeontologist and two baraminologists.  It judges human status by six kinds of cultural evidence, among them fire, advanced tools, burial and care for the injured, and places the fossils after the Flood and after Babel.

1. 16a.

   Page 69:  “genome sequencing of a putative H. heidelbergensis fossil from Sima de los Huesos (SH) revealed a typical Neandertal genome (Meyer et al. 2016)”.  “the Schöningen spears (front-heavy throwing spears made from dense wood near the heart of mostly spruce trees) are associated with H. heidelbergensis only by conventional dating, which is judged to be too old for Neandertals”. ↩

2. 16b.

   Page 74:  “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.”  The "Lubenow core" is the authors' name for Homo sapiens, Neandertals and Homo erectus. ↩

3. 16c.

   Page 66, section Abstract:  “The historical setting of these remains is post-Flood on the basis of geological indicators, evidence of in situ habitation, and the provenance of source rocks employed as tools.  Furthermore, given the universal perspective presented in Genesis 11, the dispersal of humans most likely occurs post-Babel.” ↩

4. 16d.

   Page 74:  “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).” ↩

Ni, Xijun et al.  “Massive cranium from Harbin in northeastern China establishes a new Middle Pleistocene human lineage.”  The Innovation 2(3):100130.  2021.  The companion paper to the naming of Homo longi:  a parsimony and Bayesian analysis of 55 fossils and site samples, with the matrix in its supplement.  Quotations are located by section.  Mirror:  PMC

1. 17a.

   Section Material and methods:  “specimens that were from the same locality and generally accepted as the same species/population were grouped into one OTU.  After combination, 55 OTUs were used as terminal taxa for the phylogenetic and biogeographic analyses.”  An OTU is one unit of the analysis.  The paper's text names the Sima de los Huesos crania, Dali, Jinniushan, Hualongdong and Harbin among them. ↩

Line, Peter.  “Explaining robust humans.”  Journal of Creation 27(3):64–71.  2013.  Line's statement of the young-earth model for the robust fossil humans:  variants that arose after Babel through genetic variation, drift and environment.  The figure caption on p. 65 gives Kabwe 1 as 1,325 cc.

1. 18a.

   Page 65:  “as the people groups migrated away from Babel, variants of robust humans, such as H. erectus, H. heidelbergensis and Neandertals, arose through a combination of genetic variation in bony characters and local environmental factors, in a similar way that other ‘racial’ characteristics of people groups became established.” ↩

2. 18b.

   Page 64:  “Consider the ‘artificial’ species H. heidelbergensis (figure 1).  When viewing casts of these fossil skulls it is not obvious what exactly differentiates them from H. erectus, apart from the larger size of some of them.” ↩

Line, Peter.  “Fossil evidence for alleged apemen—Part 1:  the genus Homo.”  Journal of Creation 19(1):22–32.  Apr 2005.  A survey of the genus Homo for Creation Ministries International by its principal writer on human fossils.

1. 19a.

   Page 28, section Homo heidelbergensis (archaic Homo sapiens):  “Homo heidelbergensis is a category invented to fill the alleged taxonomic vacuum between the Neandertals and erectus.  Previously, these fossils were labelled as archaic Homo sapiens.  Evolutionist Shreeve has referred to the taxon as ‘more like a bushel basket into which you throw everything that is neither clearly erectus, nor obviously modern Homo sapiens’.”  “The cranial capacity range of heidelbergensis is between 1,100 and 1,390 cm3 (mean of about 1,206 cm3), with age dates varying between 200,000 and 700,000 years ago.”  Line's reference for the second sentence is Rightmire's 2004 paper, pp. 112–115. ↩

Line, Peter.  “Ancient Chinese skull.”  Creation 46(1):46–47.  Jan 2024.  A magazine piece on the Hualongdong skull HLD 6.

1. 20a.

   Paragraph 4:  “However, this does not suggest that more branches (or species) need to be added to the false evolutionary human family tree.  Rather, it indicates that the ‘archaic’ humans (e.g., Neanderthals, Denisovans, Homo erectus) and ‘modern’ humans were interbreeding with each other.  Thus, by definition they were the same biological species.”  The piece has no subheadings.  The paragraph count leaves out the two indented quotations. ↩

Line, Peter.  “Dragon Man.”  Creation 44(1):41.  Jan 2022.  A one-page magazine piece on the Harbin skull, written before its molecules were recovered.

1. 21a.

   Section New species? Probably not!:  “In other words, Dragon Man is just another robust human.  Some researchers believe the skull may be from a Denisovan, a people type so far known only from DNA and small bone fragments.”  “Finds such as Harbin (and others, like Dali and Jinniushan mentioned above) may well be explained by interbreeding between different human subgroups of the same species.” ↩

Rightmire, G. Philip.  “Brain size and encephalization in early to Mid-Pleistocene Homo.”  American Journal of Physical Anthropology 124(2):109–123.  Jun 2004.  The measured case for Homo heidelbergensis as a real species, by its main defender:  thirty Homo erectus skulls averaging 973 cm³ against ten Middle Pleistocene skulls averaging 1,206 cm³, with the increase holding after correction for body size.

1. 22a.

   Page 109, section Abstract:  “Ten of these mid-Quaternary hominins have brains averaging 1,206 cm(3) in volume, and many fall beyond the limits of size predicted for Homo erectus of equivalent age.”  Read in abstract only.  The abstract names the sites as "such as Arago Cave in France, the Sima de los Huesos in Spain, Bodo in Ethiopia, Broken Hill in Zambia, and perhaps Dali in China" and does not list the ten. ↩

Delson, Eric, and Chris Stringer.  “The naming of Homo bodoensis by Roksandic and colleagues does not resolve issues surrounding Middle Pleistocene human evolution.”  Evolutionary Anthropology 31(5):233–236.  2022.  The first published rejection of Homo bodoensis, by two senior workers who agree with much of the biology and reject the name on the rules of zoological nomenclature.  Stringer is the author of the standard 2012 paper on Homo heidelbergensis.

1. 23a.

   Page 234:  “the facial shape of Bodo is derived by comparison to that of the inferred ancestor of H. sapiens, which was probably more like that of H. antecessor.”  Given as the argument of Stringer, Lacruz and colleagues, among others. ↩

2. 23b.

   Page 233, section Abstract:  “We reject H. bodoensis as a junior synonym, with no value from its inception.” ↩

Fu, Qiaomei et al.  “Denisovan mitochondrial DNA from dental calculus of the >146,000-year-old Harbin cranium.”  Cell 188(15):3919–3926.e9.  Jul 24, 2025.  Mitochondrial DNA recovered from tartar on the Harbin skull's teeth, after a tooth and the petrous bone yielded none.  From Qiaomei Fu's group at the Institute of Vertebrate Paleontology and Paleoanthropology in Beijing, with Svante Pääbo a co-author.  The paper states its own limit:  a small amount of mitochondrial DNA and no nuclear DNA.  Mirror:  Hdl.handle.net

1. 24a.

   Page 3919, section Summary:  “Although no DNA could be retrieved from a tooth or the petrous bone, mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) could be isolated from dental calculus.  The mtDNA falls within Denisovan mtDNA variation and is related to an mtDNA branch carried by early Denisovan individuals in southern Siberia, previously observed in Denisova Cave.” ↩ ↩

Rupe, Christopher, and John Sanford.  Contested Bones.  FMS Publications, Waterloo, NY.  2017.  A young-earth survey of the hominin fossil record by a geneticist and a research associate, arguing that the named species from Homo ergaster to the Denisovans are variants of Homo sapiens.  Sima de los Huesos is its proof text.

1. 25a.

   Page 45:  “The nuclear DNA suggested they were Neanderthal, yet the mitochondrial DNA indicated a Denisovan ancestor.  This supports the interpretation that they had different genetic histories yet could all interbreed, and are all one species—Homo sapiens.” ↩

2. 25b.

   Page 44:  “In the journal Nature, paleo-expert Chris Stringer listed numerous features that are characteristic of the three major Homo species—including Erectus (chapter 4), Neanderthals, and Homo sapiens.  …  Stringer decided to classify all of the diverse skeletons as Neanderthals, though he admits that by doing so, there is no longer any good reason why those species should be split.  He writes, …”  The words that follow are the remark Shreeve reports Stringer making.  The book's footnote 49, on that remark, reads "Shreeve J., Infants, Cannibals, and the Pit of Bones, Discover 15(1):39, Jan 1994." ↩ ↩

3. 25c.

   Page 44:  “It was located at the bottom of a 43-foot deep vertical shaft, where at least 28 hominin individuals were found, including three well-preserved skulls.  The site was dated as 430,000 years old.  The individuals appear to have been deliberately disposed of, as opposed to accidentally falling to their death.” ↩

4. 25d.

   Page 45:  “The “Pit of Bones” demonstrates that all three major hominin “species” (Erectus, Neanderthals, and Homo sapiens) coexisted in the same place at the same time, and can be arranged into a morphological continuum, reflecting diversity within a single, interbreeding population.” ↩ ↩

5. 25e.

   Page 44:  “What is most intriguing about this discovery is the extreme variation seen in the skulls.  …  The extent of variation seen in the Sima de los Huesos sample encompasses all of the so-called “archaic” humans.” ↩

6. 25f.

   Page 45:  “Milford Wolpoff (a well-known “lumper”) wrote in 1994 that the Sima de los Huesos sample “shows that all that variation is normal for the population” and further states, “[a]ll Caucasians, are carrying around quite a bit of the Neanderthal genetic legacy.””  The book's footnote 50 gives the same magazine article. ↩ ↩

Meyer, Matthias et al.  “Nuclear DNA sequences from the Middle Pleistocene Sima de los Huesos hominins.”  Nature 531(7595):504–507.  2016.  Nuclear DNA from two Sima specimens, which places the population on the Neanderthal side, confirming the 2014 skull-based reassignment.

1. 26a.

   Page 504, section Abstract:  “Here we recover nuclear DNA sequences from two specimens, which show that the Sima de los Huesos hominins were related to Neanderthals rather than to Denisovans, indicating that the population divergence between Neanderthals and Denisovans predates 430,000 years ago.  A mitochondrial DNA recovered from one of the specimens shares the previously described relationship to Denisovan mitochondrial DNAs, suggesting, among other possibilities, that the mitochondrial DNA gene pool of Neanderthals turned over later in their history.” ↩ ↩

Lacey, Troy.  “Dragon Man, the Newest Human "Cousin"?”  Answers in Genesis.  Aug 14, 2021.  The Answers in Genesis response to the 2021 Harbin papers, and the only young-earth source found that puts a date on a fossil in this interval.

1. 27a.

   Section Where Does Dragon Man Fit?:  “Dragon Man is a post-Babel human, perhaps of the Denisovan people group, or perhaps a result of intermarriage between post-Babel Denisovans and Neanderthals.  Or perhaps he is only distantly related to those groups.  In any case, he was just as human as you and me.”  An editor's note added below this passage reports that DNA from the skull's dental tartar, published in June 2025, shows it belongs to a Denisovan. ↩

Ham, Ken.  “Is "Dragon Man" What Our Denisovan Relatives Looked Like?”  Answers in Genesis.  Jun 30, 2025.  A short blog response to the 2025 Harbin molecular papers by the founder of Answers in Genesis.

1. 28a.

   Paragraph 10:  “They were human beings (ordinary people like us), made in God’s image, who lived after the dispersion at Babel in areas that were hit hard by the ice age”.  The last paragraph of the piece, which has no subheadings. ↩

Thomas, Brian, and Jeffrey Tomkins.  “How reliable are genomes from ancient DNA?”  Journal of Creation 28(3):92–98.  2014.  A young-earth argument that DNA should not survive 400,000 years, with a list of the published Sima de los Huesos ages.  One figure caption places Homo antecessor at Sima de los Huesos and one sentence credits the Sima DNA paper to "Reich et al.";  the body text and the reference list have both right.

1. 29a.

   Page 95:  “In 1997, Bischoff et al. obtained “U-series dates for 25 bear bones (154 +/– 66 ka) and for 16 human bones (148 +/– 34 ka)”, despite the fact that the human bones occur below (and should thus have been deposited prior to) the bear bones.”  Pages 95–96:  “Overall, age assignments for Sima de los Huesos human bones have ranged from 148 ka to 500 ka”.  That the human bones lie below the bear bones is Bischoff's own observation, made in the sentence after the one quoted, and his reason for not reading the numbers as ages. ↩

2. 29b.

   Page 97, figure 3:  “Skull remains of Homo antecessor from Sima de los Huesos in Atapuerca, Spain, a World Heritage cave.  Its description in Science identified it as the oldest human remains in Europe at the time of publication in 1995.”  Page 95:  “They include the Gran Dolina, where fossils designated Homo antecessor were dated to at least 780 ka.” ↩

3. 29c.

   Page 97:  “Reich et al.’s claim in Nature of sequencing ~400 ka DNA violates the highest quality DNA decay rate measurements, and reducing the ages of Sima de los Huesos fossiliferous strata resolves the issue.”  The Sima mitochondrial genome paper is Meyer et al. 2014, and the authors' own reference 23 gives it so.  David Reich is not an author.  Their reference 12 is Reich's 2010 paper on the Denisova genome. ↩ ↩

Welker, Frido et al.  “The dental proteome of Homo antecessor.”  Nature 580(7802):235–238.  Apr 9, 2020.  Mass spectrometry of enamel from one Homo antecessor molar fragment, ATD6-92, by a Copenhagen-led team with the Atapuerca excavators.  Seven proteins, 22 percent of sites, one substitution unique to the specimen;  the last authors are Bermúdez de Castro, Willerslev and Cappellini.  Quotations are located by section.  Mirror:  PMC

1. 30a.

   Section Main text:  “This specimen, identified as an enamel fragment of a permanent lower left first or second molar, has been directly dated to 772–949 thousand years ago (ka) using a combination of electron spin resonance (ESR) and U-series dating.”  The specimen is a Homo antecessor tooth from Gran Dolina.  Reference number removed. ↩

Mitchell, Elizabeth.  “Sima de los Huesos Reveals Surprising Genetic Connections.”  Answers in Genesis.  Dec 16, 2013.  The Answers in Genesis response to the 2014 Sima mitochondrial genome, written a year before the site was re-dated.  Mirror:  Archive.org

1. 31a.

   Section Footnotes, note 4:  “Chris Stringer of London’s Natural History Museum weighed in on the debate in his 2012 study “Status of Homo heidelbergensis.”  He insisted the solution involved keeping the original dates and reclassifying the people of Atapuerca cavern as a Neanderthal-like common ancestor of Neanderthals, modern humans (not slated to appear until about 60,000 years ago), and possibly even Denisovans.”  Her note 3 gives the two dates:  the site was re-dated to "600,000 instead of 350,000 years".  Note 4 ends by sending the reader to her article of June 2012. ↩

Stringer, Chris.  “The status of Homo heidelbergensis (Schoetensack 1908).”  Evolutionary Anthropology 21(3):101–107.  2012.  The standard statement of the case for keeping Homo heidelbergensis, by the Natural History Museum's palaeoanthropologist, and the paper that asked for the Sima de los Huesos fossils to be taken out of it.  Table 2 lists his hypodigm:  Mauer, Petralona, Arago, Vértesszöllös, Broken Hill, Bodo, Elandsfontein, Ndutu and Kapthurin, with queried entries including Ceprano, Dali, Jinniushan and Yunxian.

1. 32a.

   Page 105:  “reclassifying the SH material as an early form of H. neanderthalensis on the basis of its derived Neanderthal features and dating it to no earlier than 400 ka would remove most of the data supporting a European chronospecies of H. heidelbergensis-H. neanderthalensis.  This would open the possibility of a less inclusive diagnosis for the species that is ancestral to modern humans and Neanderthals, which, in my view, is still most reasonably named Homo heidelbergensis.” ↩ ↩

Mitchell, Elizabeth.  “Dispute Over Largest Group of Human Fossils.”  Answers in Genesis.  Jun 16, 2012.  A news commentary by an Answers in Genesis staff writer on Stringer's 2012 challenge to the Sima de los Huesos date, written two years before the date was revised.  The original address now leads to a topic page;  the archived copy has the article.  Mirror:  Archive.org

1. 33a.

   Section Article text:  “Those at La Sima de los Huesos, discovered in 1990, were initially dated at 350,000 years.  The Atapuerca excavation led by Madrid University’s Juan Luis Arsuaga identified the fossils as Homo heidelbergensis and re-dated them to 600,000 years.”  “By reclassifying the Sima collection as Neanderthals and reassigning the dates to those conventionally accepted for Neanderthals, Stringer frees up the rather sparse collection of Homo heidelbergensis fossils elsewhere to be the ancestors of both Neanderthals and modern humans.” ↩

Thomas, Brian.  “Eight Spears Found in German Coal Mine.”  Institute for Creation Research.  Oct 8, 2012.  A news item on the Schöningen spears by the Institute for Creation Research's science writer.

1. 34a.

   Section References, note 8:  “Since they were found in coal deposits associated with the Ice Age, and since people required some time to migrate from Babylon to modern Germany, this places these artifacts relatively soon after the Flood, which is roughly dated to 2,500 B.C. by standard Bible chronology.” ↩

2. 34b.

   Paragraph 3:  “Such an assemblage of various animals and human remains clearly indicate that a severe Ice Age storm washed them into a low-lying area and quickly covered them with mud.”  His second reference adds:  "The coal deposits occur in sequence of six, indicating perhaps six storms with catastrophic water movement."  His third reference is the University of Tübingen press release, from which he quotes the words "highly skilled craftsmen and hunters". ↩

Hutson, Jarod M. et al.  “Revised age for Schöningen hunting spears indicates intensification of Neanderthal cooperative behavior around 200,000 years ago.”  Science Advances 11(19):eadv0752.  May 9, 2025.  Re-dates the Schöningen Spear Horizon by amino-acid racemization in snail opercula from the find layer, supported by ostracods and horse teeth that the authors call still experimental, together with a re-reading of the regional interglacial sequence.  The result moves the spears from about 300 to about 200 ka and from Homo heidelbergensis to Neanderthals.

1. 35a.

   Section Introduction:  “lays claim to the world’s oldest complete wooden hunting weapons, including nine spears, one lance, and six double-pointed sticks.  This arsenal is joined by a small assemblage of about 1500 flint artifacts scattered around the butchered remains of more than 50 horses …, altogether representing the spoils of repeated ambush hunting episodes along the shoreline of a former lake.  Nowhere else in the Middle Pleistocene record are such hunting encounters so well preserved in undisturbed contexts.”  The first paragraph of the paper.  It mentions no human bones from the site. ↩

2. 35b.

   Section Introduction:  “Nowhere else in the Middle Pleistocene record are such hunting encounters so well preserved in undisturbed contexts.”  “Quaternary exposures at the Schöningen open-cast lignite mine represent some of the most complete terrestrial archives covering the latter half of the Middle Pleistocene”. ↩ ↩

Bischoff, J. L. et al.  “Geology and preliminary dating of the hominid-bearing sedimentary fill of the Sima de los Huesos Chamber, Cueva Mayor of the Sierra de Atapuerca, Burgos, Spain.”  Journal of Human Evolution 33(2–3):129–154.  1997.  The first dating of the Sima fossils, by the excavating team's geochronologist.  Uranium-series on sixteen human and 25 bear bones, and ESR on six bear bones.

1. 36a.

   Section Abstract:  “The distribution of U-series dates for 25 bear bones (154 +/- 66 ka) and for 16 human bones (148 +/- 34 ka) is similar and rather broad.  Because the human bones seem to be stratigraphically older than chose of the bears, the results would indicate that most of the bones have been accumulating uranium irregularly with time.  …  The dating results, therefore, seem to provide a firm minimum age of about 200 ka for the human entry: and suggestive evidence of entry before 320 ka.”  The word "chose" is the abstract's misprint for "those". ↩

Walker, Tas.  “Dating Kabwe 1, the Broken Hill skull from Zambia:  Why is Homo heidelbergensis so much younger than previously thought?”  Creation Ministries International.  May 9, 2020.  A feedback reply by a Creation Ministries International geologist to a reader's question about the 2020 dating of the Kabwe skull, first posted 20 April 2020 and updated 9 May 2020.

1. 37a.

   Section Reason for the difference?:  “to properly understand the reasons for these differences, it would be necessary to understand how each date was decided, including the methods and assumptions.  This would require digging out the relevant scientific papers and supporting documents for all the different estimates.  I expect that some researchers will do that, and it would be nice if some creationist researchers would check it too.” ↩

2. 37b.

   Section Answers change as thinking changes:  “I have not read the papers associated with this latest report, and so I am not familiar with the details of the dating process they used.  The coating would have been deposited on the skull long after death.  Since the skull was discovered in an ore pocket in the lead and zinc mine, it is not surprising that it had a mineral coating.  And the presence of lead would have affected the isotopic composition of the coating, affecting the calculated ‘date’.”  The reader's question, printed at the head of the piece, took the coating from a news report and asked why it was responsible for the revised date. ↩

Line, Peter.  “Homo bodoensis:  'The muddle in the middle'.”  Creation 46(2):54–55.  Apr 2024.  A magazine version of the 2022 section, reporting the proposal and Stringer's press remarks but not the rejection of the name that Delson and Stringer published in 2022.

1. 38a.

   Section Reshuffling the muddle:  “At the same time, the authors proposed that classifying Middle Pleistocene ‘archaic Neanderthal hominins’ from Asia (particularly the Chinese ones) as H. heidelbergensis should be abandoned, as they “likely represent a different lineage altogether”.”  The piece marks its quotations with double marks and its own terms with single ones. ↩

Roksandic, Mirjana et al.  “Resolving the "muddle in the middle":  The case for Homo bodoensis sp. nov.”  Evolutionary Anthropology 31(1):20–29.  2022.  The naming proposal, published online in October 2021.  It asks that Homo heidelbergensis and Homo rhodesiensis be dropped and a new species founded on the Bodo cranium;  no new fossil or new analysis is reported.  Mirror:  PMC

1. 39a.

   Page 20, section Abstract:  “the Middle Pleistocene Asian fossils, particularly from China, likely represent a different lineage altogether”.  Page 23:  “assignment of the Asian, particularly Chinese, archaic hominins into H. heidelbergensis should be abandoned”. ↩

University of Tübingen.  “Skilled hunters 300,000 years ago.”  ScienceDaily.  Sep 17, 2012.  The university's press release on its excavation at Schöningen, as reposted by two news sites.  Thomas gives it as his third reference.  Mirror:  Heritagedaily.com

1. 40a.

   Section Article text:  “supporting the local authority's excavation in an open-cast brown coal mine in Schöningen since 2008”.  “as well as the remains of amphibians, reptiles, shells and even beetles have been preserved in the brown coal”. ↩

Balzeau, Antoine et al.  “The Internal Cranial Anatomy of the Middle Pleistocene Broken Hill 1 Cranium.”  PaleoAnthropology 2017:107–138.  2017.  A micro-CT study of the inside of the Kabwe skull, with a new measurement of its braincase volume from a virtual endocast.

1. 41a.

   Page 123:  “Endocranial volume for BH1 has been estimated previously between 1259cm3 and 1325cm3 (Elliot Smith 1928; Holloway et al. 2004; Seidler et al. 1997).  Here, the virtual reconstruction of the BH1 endocast produced via mirror imaging of the missing parts from the existing areas on the contralateral side has a volume of 1280cm3, remarkably similar to the first estimation published (Elliot Smith 1928).”  BH1 is Broken Hill 1, the Kabwe skull. ↩