The true origin of Homo Naledi

Introduction: Proudly South African

I want to be clear from the outset that I am proudly South African. I was born and bred in this beloved country and I have no intention of leaving because things don’t go my way. Therefore as a proud South African citizen this article is not intended to be inflammatory, discriminatory or contentious. However, due to the nature of the topic I am prepared to accept criticism because this is something I have strong convictions about. I hope that I can at least stimulate thinking and honest discussion among my fellow South African brothers and sisters.

I celebrate the new discovery of the creature dubbed Homo Naledi. Actually I celebrate all archaeological discoveries that, in the words of Deputy President Cyril Ramaposa, ‘help to unearth knowledge about our present.’ Yet my celebration ends with the conclusions made by Paleoanthropologists, scientists and archaeologists regarding its true origin. This is the reason for my article.

Evolution and natural selection

Firstly this research focuses on a teaching referred to as evolution. This theory, popularized by Charles Darwin and idolized at Maropeng, proposes that one species changes into another species. This evolutionary process is based on a process called ‘Natural Selection’. In other words, the strongest species were able to survive and reproduce, and the weaker species died off or were killed by the stronger ones. This process eventually produced ape-like creatures who evolved into man himself. Thus humans are the ultimate product of evolution and of millions of years of death and suffering. I don’t disregard the process of natural selection as being irrelevant or unimportant in the world in which we live in today. I simply do not agree with its meaning as described above. The type of natural selection I do agree with is the process whereby species are able to change, or better adapt, to its changing environment to be able to survive. Adapting to an environment is very different to changing into another species.

The ‘big bang’

Secondly the theory of evolution is underpinned by a story called the ‘big bang’. The big bang is at the heart and foundation of the evolution theory. Evolutionists believe that 13-14 billion years ago, a big bang caused the universe to begin from nothing. Galaxies, stars and planets formed as matter, scattered across the universe, cooled and combined. About five billion years ago, the earth itself formed. The earth, it is claimed, cooled for a billion years or so, water formed on the surface, and in this primordial ocean, molecules somehow arranged themselves together to form the simplest one-celled life forms. This is taught at the Maropeng Historical Site.

Evolution is a worldview

As you can see I have thought a great deal about evolution as I have read and studied its claims. I respect those who hold to its teachings but I humbly disagree with it as a worldview. Evolution is one of many worldviews around today. A worldview is simply how a person views the world or reality. A worldview influences how a person answers the big questions of life. One of those big questions that we are all seeking to answer is regarding the origin of mankind. In other words we are all seeking to answer the question, “Where did we come from?” Is this not one of the real reasons why there is so much celebration in the world today over the find of Homo Naledi? We have found a new specifies that will better help us to understand where we came from. Yet this worldview leaves no room for a supernatural creator. Therefore it is an atheistic worldview that needs to answer this question without an intelligent designer. Through the ‘big bang’ story and three primary mechanisms: natural selection, mutations, and lots of time this apparently explains how the first simple-celled life form came into existence.

In light of this information this worldview has to hold to the belief that everything came from nothing! Evolutionists can promote their “goo-to-you-via-the-zoo” theory at Maropeng, but underlying this worldview is the belief that the very first life form came from nothing. Furthermore evolution masquerades itself under the pretense of science. The past cannot be scientifically proven through operational science but rather like all history must be searched with the help of forensic science. This involves deduction, speculation, circumstantial evidence, and eyewitness testimony. And ultimately because there were no human eyewitnesses when the universe was created, including evolutionists and creationists, this is a matter of faith and not science. Yes that might surprise you to see that ‘religious’ term used here but atheists require faith just as much as creationists do to belief what they do- Perhaps even a bit more.

The question of God

In opposition to the atheistic worldview is the theistic worldview. Atheism believes that there is no God; theism believes that there is a God. God is the fundamental difference between these two faith-based worldviews. Therefore creationists believe that instead of everything coming from nothing, it all came from someone. This, in my opinion, requires less faith than what is believed by atheists. These days all the onus is placed on the creationist to prove that there is a God. I would humbly respond that perhaps the onus lies with the atheist to disprove that there is a God.

Is it not possible that Homo Naledi was a creature created by God? It seems to have had an intelligence to be able to bury its own dead and to control fires. Maybe that’s because it was intelligent. Why are we so quick to dismiss an intelligent designer as the reason for its origin? Or better yet for our existence as human beings? Where did we get the ability to think, reason, and create? Why do we have laws to govern the outworking of morals if we are nothing more than evolved animals? Why do we love? Why don’t we see ape-like creatures becoming human beings today? Why do we see miracles today? Why do human beings consider their eternity on their death beds? Why is human DNA so complex and coded?

It’s good to ask why and not to accept everything you have been taught or hear in the news.


6 thoughts on “The true origin of Homo Naledi

  1. I can’t agree with you more. But I do have a few things to point out:
    In my opinion, saying that the onus lies with the athiest to disprove the existence of a deity is as one sided as saying that it lies with the theist to prove that there is one; I feel that it is shared, athiests should disprove and theists should prove.

    That aside, your question: “Why don’t we see ape-like creatures becoming human beings today?” can be answered very simply. It took millions of years to go from ape to human; as those millions upon millions went by, the better adapted species survived and the others didn’t, when it came to neanderthals and humans, we killed them off. Just about every other human-like species that was on the brink of world-domination was killed off by either the environment (because they weren’t well adapted enough) or were killed by the first “true humans”. It is theorised that if we had not killed off the neanderthal they would very well have bred with our species and the two species would have merged (as rare as that is, it is possible).

    Then there seems to be another thing. I feel you aren’t quite understanding exactly what evolution entails, I can see you understand it but you seem to be confusing two versions of the theory of evolution.
    “The type of natural selection I do agree with is the process whereby species are able to change, or better adapt, to its changing environment to be able to survive.”
    You have mixed Lamarckism up with Darwinism.
    Darwinism is natural selection through survival of the fittest; this is when an individual of a species carries a mutation (one that isn’t active in said individual) and manages to breed, the offspring bear mixed results, the gene isn’t active in some of them while it is active in others. Let’s say this was a water bird of some description, a heron for example, and the gene in question determines the length of the legs, the parental bird looked normal but carried a gene that produced shorter legs, now (for example) 50% of the offspring have short legs, making them only three quarters the height they should be. This means that they can’t wade as effectively as other herons and catch it’s usual prey (frogs and fish), this also means that they have to run for longer periods when attempting to take off in the event that the need to escape from a predator (more time on the ground gives a carnivore more time to catch up). In the end all this means that the herons with the shorter legs will be less likely to reach breeding maturity, if the do manage to pass on those genes then the offspring will also have just as hard a time surviving; so this short-legged variation will die off very quickly.
    What you seem to be describing is Lamarck’s version of evolution. Whereby the heron got its long legs simply by trying to feed in the water. While it may look like that’s how evolution works, it most definitely does not work like that. Lamarck believed that if an animal wasn’t using a certain part of it’s body, that part would slowly diminish and disappear as the generations went by; by adverse, he believed that if a flock of birds wanted to feed in the water and tried to feed in deeper waters by wading, their legs would get longer because they needed longer legs to be able to wade in deeper water. The main reason it doesn’t work like that can be answered through the use of an abbreviation: DNA. It takes forever to simply go through a single strand of DNA, even a super computer takes a couple of months to go through it all. What we do know is that DNA works in triplet codes, with code-ons and anti-code-ons and all that other stuff that I don’t want to type out, but to make it short: a piece of DNA doesn’t simply disappear. Each triplet code codes for an amino acid, put several triplet codes together in the right order and the right amino acid chain will be constructed, this makes a polypeptide (protein). Put the proteins together in the right order (the DNA codes for that too) and eventually you have an organism. You can’t simply will an extra gene to activate so that your offspring will have a certain advantage in life either. If it worked like that then I’m pretty sure we’d all have gills for breathing underwater and wings for flying.

    Just my comment on your post, no need to pay attention to me, just ignore me. I’m a South African too so if you ignore me I can totally understand (lol, joking; but seriously, that’s my comment on all this).

    PS: so nice to finally meet another South African on here!!!


    1. Howzit. Glad you could meet a fellow South African.

      I appreciate your input and comments.

      The focus of my article was to generate thinking and discussion around this new discovery. You definitely have thought about this topic. If you look at my article I made the point that evolution is a worldview and requires the practice of faith. The reason being, and we people can argue about the details of natural selection and mutations, is that operational science cannot confirm that an ape-like creature ever became a man. If it were the case why don’t we see more of this type of evolution happening today? My concern is that this particular worldview seems be given prominence in schools today and even on television programs to the exclusion of other worldviews. It seems to be taught as a fact when I would have to insist that it is a story for explaining the past. Why doesn’t theism get taught in schools today? It is also a story for explaining the past.

      I can see that your worldview is built on the 3 mechanisms that I mentioned: natural selection, mutations, and lots of time. So your grid for interpreting the past is filtered through these lenses. My lenses for filtering the past are different. In terms of these three mechanisms here is a brief opinion summary of what I think.

      1. Natural selection- I do not hold to Darwin’s definition of natural selection. The reason for this is that I don’t agree that a species can “change” into another species. In other words, I do not believe that an ape-like species became a human. Your example of the water bird does not in any way display insight as to how a species changes into another species. It seems to support adaptation and not change of species. My understanding of natural selection is that species give birth to their own kind. Natural selection, in my opinion, is better understood to refer to species that adapt to their given environment.
      2. Mutations- I am fully aware of the intricacies and complexities of DNA. I think that DNA is strong proof for an intelligent designer. Where did all that coded info come from in the first place? How did the first living cell, according to evolution, know how to put all those amino acids in the right order in the first place? Have you ever heard of the theory of left-handed amino acids?
      3. Millions of years- You said from the beginning that “it took millions of years”. I don’t believe that the earth is that old. Carbon 14-dating and radiometric dating methods are flawed and much of it is based on starting assumptions.

      I appreciate that you have chosen to follow my blog. I don’t want to mislead you in anyway. I believe in a creator. So I hope you won’t be offended by my blog posts.


      Liked by 1 person

      1. Oh don’t you worry, this doesn’t offend me one bit. As an evolution nut and prehistory enthusiast, I was raised in a Christian family; but my mind simply didn’t like the idea of our every move along with the events in our lives having been planned out as part of something bigger, so I converted to athiesm. I’ve since become an agnost though, so I do feel there may be an intelligent designer out there.

        The main reason evolution leaves no room for creationism (and the other way around) is simply the time scale. Evolution works over millions of years, we may not be able to provide the most stable evidence for it, but from the point of view of a Darwinist, a creationist has no proof at all. Darwinists subscribe to the idea of chaos theory, many different things happen and they lead to different outcomes, each event that takes place can have numerous possible outcomes and can never take place in the same way twice.
        That first single celled organism didn’t know what amino acids went where, it was all completely random and by chance. That’s the beauty of it.

        Regarding my example with the water bird, if I may be more thorough, I neglected to mention that if the two groups of birds (short legged and long legged) grow different enough, eventually they will be unable to breed with one another. This is how science separates one species from another: the inability to produce fertile offspring or even mate at all. (I would explain that in more detail but then this comment would be way too long, do some research on speciation and you’ll see what I mean).

        The same way I can’t exactly prove that the earth is billions of years old, you can’t exactly prove that it isn’t.

        Yes, species give birth to their own kind, but as I’m sure you can see: today we have dogs. Very tame dogs that don’t instinctively hunt us down. Yet today’s dogs came from wolves; they are all of the same species (all dogs fall under Canis lupus) but if you were to breed a Great Dane and a Chihuahua, I doubt the offspring would live very long.
        If you want to see evolution in action, go to a farm every few years, watch how the farmer will selectively breed his jersey cows with his milk cows, his largest and strongest bull with the biggest horns and his best cow. Go back in a few years and you’ll see the difference. He may no longer have a giant bull with massive horns and gargantuan muscles, but he will have a calf that will grow up to be just as large, and if said calf is female she will produce milk that is on par with her mother’s.

        I would go into more detail on why we no longer see apes becoming humans but I feel that the answer I’ve already given that will suffice.

        PS: I mainly decided to follow your post because I’m considering studying theology.


      2. Ok very interesting. You will have to tell me based on what you have said why you would be interested in studying Theology?

        I suppose that when it comes to the question of how old the earth is, my reference is the Bible and my only credible eyewitness to the event of creation is God. That is what I base my starting assumptions on regarding the age of the universe. Now I realize that it is easy to counter that argument with “well I don’t believe the Bible”; but at least the creationist has a written book of history to support his claims. For me, that’s the beauty of the Bible. It is more than a book of values, it is a book of history. That cant’ be said of the atheist who claims that the universe is 4.5 billion years old. What book of history does he use to support his theory?

        Well there is so much to say, as you said, but not enough space. If you want to correspond more you can always drop me an email at


        Liked by 1 person

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s