This was predictable

What's it been? Two days since I posted about sediba? I really intended to give it a rest, but...

Two of the heavy hitters in creationism have weighed in on the identity of Au. sediba. Over at CMI, neuroscientist Peter Line says sediba is just an ape that had nothing to do with human evolution. Over at ICR, science writer Brian Thomas says ... honestly, I'm not entirely sure what he says. He criticizes evolution, but he never really comes out and says what he thinks sediba is. Here's the closest he gets:
So, not only does the discovery of A. sediba--which was dated as contemporaneous with true man--fail to provide a human ancestor in keeping with the story of human evolution, but according to the authors it is not even possible to figure out if or how A. sediba relates with other creatures in an evolutionary context!
So he doesn't think that sediba is an ancestor within the context of human evolution, but what does he think it is in the context of creationism? Maybe I'm just thick.

In any event, one of the most astonishingly human australopiths to date has been declared not a human ancestor by writers at the CMI and ICR websites. So there you go. No surprises there.

My opinion on the subject is going through peer review and editing now, so I'm keeping my yap buttoned until I can lay out the whole case. Should be fun, though.