Timothy L. Clarey earned a Ph.D. and B.S. (summa
cum laude) from Western Michigan University (USA),
and an M.S. from University of Wyoming (USA), all in
geology. He worked for nearly a decade as a geologist
for a major oil company and then spent 17 years as a
college professor. His publications include numerous
articles on the geology of the Rocky Mountain region.
He has written and/or co-authored four books,
including Dinosaurs: Marvels of God's Design (Master
Books). Tim currently works as a Research Associate
for the Institute for Creation Research.
Table 2 shows a summary of the flowstone U-Th dates for
various flowstone samples as illustrated in figure 2. Dirks et
al. reported that Flowstone 1a, the top flowstone in figure 2,
was between 478–502 ka, and Flowstone 1b at 290 ka, and
Flowstone 1c at 50–106 ka, with one other sample from
Flowstone 1c dated at 242 ka. They used the means of these
flowstone dates, ESR results for only two of the three teeth
samples (1788 and 1810, the oldest dates) and the one baboon
tooth buried in sediment below the H. naledi bone bed, in
Unit 3a, to come up with the minimum and maximum age
designation for H. naledi. 9
The ages of the bones themselves, however, show a much
younger range of ages (table 1). It seems a bit odd that
Dirks et al. selectively chose to disregard so much of the
actual bone information and most of the dating results that
revealed younger ages. 9 They seemed to arbitrarily have
picked older values out of these data sets to arrive at an age
that was as old as possible. Recall, it was the reliance on
the new flowstone dates that made them alter their original
stratigraphy. 9 Stratigraphic details and geologic relationships
should be viewed as more factual compared to age-dates,
and yet, age-dates seem to always trump any other data sets,
regardless of conflicts. The now defunct older stratigraphic
definitions of the sediments in the Dinaledi Chamber are
merely collateral damage.
1. Berger, L.R., et al., Homo naledi, a new species of the genus Homo from the
Dinaledi Chamber, South Africa, eLife 2015;4:e09560: 1-35 | doi: 10.7554/
2. Wood, T.C., An evaluation of Homo naledi and ‘early’ Homo from a young-age
creationist perspective, J. Creation Theology and Science Series B: Life Sciences 6:
3. Line, P., The mysterious Rising Star fossils, J. Creation 30( 3): 88–96, 2016.
4. O’Micks, J., Homo naledi probably not part of the human holobaramin based
on baraminic re-analysis including postcranial evidence, Answers Research J. 9:
5. Clarey, T., Homo naledi: geology of a claimed missing link, icr.org/article/
homo-naledi-geology-claimed-missing, posted 15 October 2015.
6. O’Micks, J. in press, Further evidence that Homo naledi is not a member of
the human holobaramin based on measurements of vertebrae and ribs, Answers
7. Dirks, P.H. G.M., et al., Comment on “Deliberate body disposal by hominins in
the Dinaledi Chamber, Cradle of Humankind, South Africa?” [J. Hum. Evol. 96:
145–148, 2016], J. Human Evolution 96:149–153, 2016.
8. Dirks, P.H.G.M. et al., Geological and taphonomic context for the hominin
species Homo naledi from the Dinaledi Chamber, South Africa, eLife
2015;4:e09561: 1-37 | doi: 10.7554/eLife.09561.
9. Dirks, P.H.G.M. et al., The age of Homo naledi and associated sediments in the
Rising Star cave, South Africa. eLife 2017;6:e24231 | doi: 10.7554/eLife.24231.
10. Hawks, J., et al., New fossil remains of Homo naledi from the Lesedi Chamber,
South Africa, eLife 2017;6:e24232 | doi: 10.7554/eLife.24232.
11. Shreeve, J., Mystery man: A trove of fossils found deep in a South African cave
adds a baffling ne w branch to the human family tree, National Geographic 228( 4):
12. Val, A., Deliberate body disposal by hominins in the Dinaledi Chamber, Cradle
of Humankind, South Africa? J. Human Evolution 96:145–148, 2016.
13. Thackeray, J.F., The possibility of lichen growth on bones of Homo naledi:
were they exposed to light? South African J. Science 112(7/8): 1–5, 2016.
14. Randolph-Quinney, P.S. et al., Response to Thackeray (2016)—The possibility
of lichen growth on bones of Homo naledi: were they exposed to light? South
African J. Science 112(9/10): 1–5, 2016.
15. McLain, M., Reply to O’Micks concerning the geology and taphonomy of the
Homo naledi site, Answers Research J. 10: 55–56, 2017.
16. O’Micks, J., Rebuttal to “Reply to O’Micks concerning the geology and
taphonomy of the Homo naledi site” and “Identifying humans in the fossil
record: A further response to O’Micks,” Answers Research J. 10: 63–70, 2017.
17. Callaway, E., Ancient genome delivers ‘Spirit Cave Mummy’ to US tribe,
Nature 540(7632):178–179, 2016.
18. Hoefs, J., Stable Isotope Geochemistry, 3rd edn, Springer-Verlag, Berlin,