New fossil human, study concludes
May 05, 2010
A recently announced discovery of a new humanoid fossil should be considered “human” rather than “ape” or “transitional,” an analysis of data conducted by the director of Bryan College’s Center for Origins Research concludes.
Dr. Todd Wood
Dr. Todd Wood, in an article published May 5 in Answers Research Journal, argues that Australopithecus sediba is human, based on his review of published characteristics of the new species.
“During the Scopes Trial in 1925, William Jennings Bryan’s biggest objection was to the theory of human evolution. At that time, there wasn’t a whole lot of fossil evidence for human evolution; just Neanderthals and early specimens of a few other species,” Dr. Wood explained. “Over the course of the 20th century we found a whole bunch of species that have characteristics of humans and apes, so evolutionary scientists claim evidence of human evolution. The latest discovery in this chain is sediba.”
Over the past decade, Dr. Wood has been developing a mathematical model to group specimens into created kinds, based on generally accepted characteristics such as bone thickness or tooth placement which are shared or not shared between specimens.
“An evolutionist would say that there is only one group that includes humans, apes, chimpanzees and others. That’s not what I found. I found a small group of fossils grouped with humans, and another group of animals like chimpanzees and apes which does not fit with humans, which is what I expected. As a creationist, I would not expect humans to group with chimps.”
A surprising result of his research was what specimens do group with humans.
“Creationists always have been very conservative about what they group with humans. They say that things like Neanderthals are human, and my research confirms that.
“But creationists will not like my conclusion that sediba is human. He’s an oddball. He’s relatively short; his skull is quite small so his brain is quite small. His arms hang way down, like an orangutan’s, but he could walk upright. When you count up the characteristics in common with humans and apes, there are way more characteristics in common with humans than with apes. So, statistically, it is a human.”
Dr. Wood suggests that his mathematical model needs further study and refinement to better understand the similarities and differences between created kinds. But he is confident that his analysis provides another argument for true differences between humans and apes. “We are not animals but are made in the image of God, just like Bryan argued at the Scopes Trial,” he said.