The Gift of Gab

Mr. Tillman,

You make a good point regarding the distinction between necessary and sufficient conditions. This may be the case.

I would add two quick points. First, we do not have a comprehensive understanding of the Foxp2 gene's role in language. It's premature to make any conclusive remarks on its role in the language chain. Second, we need more experimentation on whether or not the Foxp2 exists in Neanderthals. Two teams, each with conflicting results, are quite insufficient. We need several more teams to independently assess these early results.

Also, check out this article that was recently published on the enigma of language and the Foxp2 gene:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/02/080217102131.htm

Perhaps language is an immaterial construct, unrelated to any particular gene or network of genes. There's still a whole lot to learn, so let's do some more research before making clear cut judgment calls on Neanderthal speech capability.

I wonder about the precision and accuracy of these genetic tests. First, a team of evolutionary geneticists claims it has discovered patterns of potential interbreeding between Neanderthals and modern humans. Then, a second team rules out this analysis due to contamination. Second, a team of evolutionary geneticists claims it has discovered the same Foxp2 language gene in the Neanderthal genome, then a second team rules this inference out due to contamination. There appears to be a reproducibility problem here in drawing conclusions from the Neanderthal specimens.

Also, when the initial report came out about the Foxp2 gene in Neanderthals, Dr. Rana expressed, and rightfully so I thought, that language is likely much more than just a single gene. It is likely due to a whole complex network of genes and soft tissue arrangements. But, with this second announcement of a false Foxp2 reading, Dr. Rana seems to confidently rule out Neanderthal speech because the Foxp2 may not in fact exist in Neanderthals. But, isn't speech much more than just a single gene? What if there are other markers that have not been investigated yet? In fact, language is one of the great mysteries of human beings and there is much more to learn.

Then, there's the issue of dating the origin of the Foxp2 variant. Molecular clock analysis, which even Dr. Rana has stated can be quite imprecise at times, has revealed a range of 42,000 to nearly 200,000 years old in different studies. That's almost a 1:5 range, which seems a bit questionable in and of itself.

An issue related to interbreeding that is worth mentioning is the fact that common chimpanzees and bonobos (pygmy chimps) are considered different species, and there are more mtDNA differences between themselves than there are between humans and Neanderthals; yet there are at least four documented hybrids between common chimps and bonobos in a zoo-like setting. They freely interbred and produced viable offspring despite more extensive mtDNA differences. Perhaps mtDNA differences are not the end all-be all in assessing species classification.

In addition, a recent study revealed that there are greater nuclear DNA differences in the autosomal microsatellites between small and large poodles, than between poodles and completely different breeds of dogs. Yet, they are all the same exact species. Now, of course these are dogs and not humans, but the comparative analysis is worth reflection as it relates to humans and Neanderthals.

Finally, there are two issues in the big picture worth considering. First, since 1856, Neanderthals have undergone a dramatic transformation in their image and reputation. They have been assessed as much more human since first being conceived as brutish ape-like creatures. Most evolutionary anthropologists do consider them a distinct species that lacked some key 'modern human' characteristics, but compared to 1856 the scientific community would likely state that Neanderthals are much more similar to humans than first believed. Of course, there is still contention over many finds, i.e. a Neanderthal flute, Foxp2 gene, ritual burial of the dead, caring for the sick and injured, pigments and body ornamentation, brain size and structure, skeletal anatomy, balanced diets, etc. But, since 1856, the trend for Neanderthals has been toward a much more human standing. Second, there are several modern 'stone age' tribes which do not control the use of fire, don't bury their dead, don't engage in agriculture, only hunt and gather, don't wear clothes, haven't even invented the wheel, and can only count up to 2. In some means of classifications, they could even be construed as more primitive than Homo erectus and Neanderthals. Yet, we know they are fully human through observation, and we know they are capable of much more if their culture was slanted toward a more technologically and educationally advanced system. Perhaps Neanderthals fall in the same category.

More data, archaeological and genetic, will help resolve the issue with more clarity. RTB continues to step up to the plate in making specific predictions about future discoveries related to Neanderthals. Young earth predictions are on the way.

P.S. We often take for granted how 'primitive' Neanderthal tools were compared to modern human tools. I really wonder how many contemporary humans, in the 21st century, could actually make some of the finely-tuned tools they produced. Without any real instruction or internet manuals, I bet a good number of modern humans could not replicate the precision of Neanderthal tools. This would be something to put to the test. Perhaps their tools actually required a fully intelligent, fully human brain.