Quote:
An ongoing debate about the baraminic status of H. naledi has taken place in a series of recent articles in the creationist literature, which was first determined to be a part of the human holobaramin. Subsequent analyses have tried both to refute and support this idea. As a response to my previous rebuttal to the critique of my previous work suggesting that H. naledi is not a part of the human holobaramin, two papers have been presented arguing that the H. naledi remains could not have been deposited in the Dinaledi Chamber due to the Genesis Flood, but were intentionally buried, that the fossils were not mixed, that the cranial capacity of H. naledi falls within that of human variation, and that an analysis of cranial characters from 24 species including H. naledi show that it is part of the human holobaramin. On closer examination, the argument for intentional burial and homogeneity of fossils does not hold up. The cave system is much too convoluted and narrow to support regular burials of H. naledi individuals when burial in more easily accessible parts of the cave was possible. The three H. naledi skulls are also different in shape, and thus heterogenous. Compared to other known burial sites of modern humans, both remains of macrofauna and human artifacts are missing from the Dinaledi Chamber. Remains in these other sites are much more complete and articulated. H. floresiensis might well be another example of a fossil ape, based on both cranial and post-cranial characteristics (similar to H. naledi), mistaken to be a diminutive archaic human. Therefore, the cranial capacity of H. naledi still remains outside the range of modern humans. Baraminic analyses of one cranial data set and two post-cranial data sets suggest that both H. naledi and H. floresiensis are not part of the human holobaramin, but are rather australopiths.
Full Article