Today’s New Reason To Believe

In last week’s entry I responded to 5 (of 10) questions about dimensionality that came up in lunch discussions here at Reasons To Believe. Here are brief responses to the remaining 5 questions.

1. How would you respond to criticism that attempting to resolve technical theological, philosophical, exegetical, and psychological issues by means of a mathematical model is a category mistake? Even if dimensional theory proves helpful, wouldn’t these complex issues demand multidisciplinary responses?
   In response to the first question, the geometric model is not a full description of a higher-dimensional world, but rather a tool that—by way of analogy—might help the uninitiated to grasp some of the properties of such a world. We are not saying that all the issues named can be solved by “getting the math right.” A response to the second is yes, if such a world exists, its full properties would impact all of these areas and would require a multidisciplinary response.

2. Is it appropriate to speak of such Christian doctrines as the Trinity (among others) as paradoxes or contradictions in need of rescue through dimensional theory? Is it possible that the problem is rather in the way these issues are formulated? Must the Trinity be viewed as a contradiction?
   Perhaps there are times when theologians describe some particular phenomenon, like the Trinity, in a perfectly consistent and biblical way, but the description still lacks helpful insight (especially for a scientist) into what is being observed. Such a description can lead to misunderstanding. It may very well be that science cannot go any further, and to say that the description is incomplete is to do injustice to theologians who have wrestled with the problem through the centuries. However, scientists are rarely satisfied with incomplete understanding, so we are constantly trying to go beyond what’s known, whether we can or not. But care should be taken not to discredit the work of others who are not moving ahead as fast because they choose to be more careful in their conclusions. Clearly, we need the work and insight of all who are willing to advance understanding of this mysterious, but not contradictory, doctrine.

3. Is there any merit to the position advocated by Hugh’s critics that extradimensionality defines God in a way that is inconsistent with doctrinal orthodoxy?
   Whether the basic idea itself is unorthodox has yet to be demonstrated. However, any research should be subject to the criticisms of other experts. Any idea should be modified where necessary to ensure that it is orthodox.

4. Are you confident that extradimensionality theory solves all the problems that you seem to think it does?
   Not at all. Hugh Ross’s analysis is only a beginning that needs much more research. But many people think it has merit and is worthy of further study.

5. It is often true that certain arguments are “person relative” in terms of persuasion. It seems that science and engineering people find the extradimensional approach helpful. Is this significant? Should this be noted?
   Yes, absolutely! The doctrines and phenomena we are trying to understand are so complex that no single explanation will be adequate for all. Various approaches will be more helpful for some but not for others. However, we should work on all fronts.

Dr. Ross has applied this kind of reasoning to some of the difficulties and paradoxes that we find in Scripture. It should be repeated that those who find these analogies and explanations appealing are not claiming that God Himself is confined to any higher-dimensional universe, but simply that He, being transcendent, may describe things in His word that cannot be visualized by creatures living in a limited universe.

See Beyond the Cosmos for more exploration of extradimensional thinking.

Latest Genetic Evidence Indicates No Interbreeding between Neanderthals and Humans

I don’t want my teenage daughters to date Neanderthals. Apparently, the first human fathers didn’t like the idea much either.

New findings reported at a recent Biology of Genomes meeting (Science, May 18, 2007, p. 967) douse the flames of romance between humans and Neanderthals, seemingly once and for all.

In the last decade, paleoanthropologists have isolated and analyzed DNA fragments from the fossil remains of at least thirteen distinct Neanderthals. These specimens typically date between 30,000 to 40,000 years in age (though one specimen is about 100,000 years old) and encompass most of the Neanderthal’s range (Europe, western Asia, and the Middle East).

The DNA sequences from all the Neanderthal specimens indicate that humans and Neanderthals must be distinct species. These species are so different that, if viewed from an evolutionary standpoint, it appears as if the last shared ancestor for Neanderthals and humans lived nearly 800,000 years ago. More importantly, the data also indicates that Neanderthals did not evolve into humans.

These results invalidate traditional evolutionary models, like multiregionalism, and at the same time powerfully support RTB’s views on human origins. The RTB model regards the hominids recovered from the fossil record as separate species, distinct from anatomically and behaviorally modern humans. Accordingly, these animals were created by God, and since that time they have gone extinct. Genesis 1 makes no specific allusion to the hominids. Their creation along with other animals on either Day 5 or Day 6 can only be inferred.

In response to this data, some anthropologists have advanced more sophisticated human evolutionary models. One version, for example, maintains that when modern humans migrated around the world they interbred with Neanderthals and Homo erectus whenever they encountered them. Even though Neanderthals didn’t evolve into modern humans, some evolutionary biologists think that they still may have contributed to human origins through interbreeding, infusing their genes into the human gene pool.

This idea has not received much support. Analysis of mitochondrial DNA by researchers from the Max Planck Institute seemingly indicated that Neanderthals and modern humans did not interbreed. This work compared DNA recovered from four Neanderthals with corresponding DNA isolated from the remains of five modern human fossils. The Neanderthal and modern human specimens all date within the same time period (between 30,000 and 40,000 years ago) and were recovered from corresponding geographical locations. Even though the Max Planck Institute investigators readily recovered Neanderthal-type DNA from the Neanderthal specimens, they did not detect any in the modern human remains. This suggests that Neanderthals likely did not make any genetic contribution to the earliest modern humans.

Preliminary results from studies of Neanderthal nuclear DNA were much less certain, however (Science, November 16, 2006, p. 1068-1071). Analysis of nuclear DNA is potentially much more informative than mitochondrial DNA. One analysis of Neanderthal nuclear DNA sequences found no evidence for interbreeding. Another analysis, however, noted some genetic signatures in the Neanderthal genome that could be taken as evidence that humans contributed to the Neanderthal gene pool.

The latest work compared the Neanderthal DNA signatures with the DNA signatures from African and European DNA and found no evidence for gene flow between humans and Neanderthals. Analysis of human and Neanderthal Y-chromosome sequences support this conclusion as well. Humans and Neanderthals did not interbreed.

Now, if only I could get one of my daughters to fall for a rich doctor…

For a more detailed discussion of how Neanderthals fit into RTB’s human origins model, see Who was Adam?

Most of us have received a bit of information at one time or another that seemed too bizarre to be true. If we hear the information from only one source, skepticism is the appropriate response. However, if multiple, unrelated sources provide corroborating information, the reliability of the information increases dramatically. Similarly, any claim for dating the creation of the universe seems incredible at first glance because no humans existed then. However, when multiple techniques give the same date for the beginning, that date becomes eminently credible.

The most popular dating technique models the history of the universe based on measurements of various cosmological parameters and uses the model to calculate the time since the big bang. Using precision measurements of the cosmic microwave background from the WMAP this technique gives an age of 13.73 +/- 0.15 billion years.

Alternatively, one can measure the ages of the oldest globular clusters or the oldest white dwarfs in the Milky Way Galaxy to determine an age for the universe. The oldest globular clusters date between 8.5 and 13.3 billion years old with the most likely date around 12.1 billion years. Adding the formation time for globular clusters gives a date consistent with the WMAP results. In the case of the white dwarfs, astronomers have determined an age for the universe of 12.8 +/- 1.1 billion years—also matching the WMAP results.

Recently, an article in the Astrophysical Journal provided another date for the universe using radioisotope dating on very old stars. The first stars formed with only hydrogen and helium because the big bang produced only those two elements in abundance. After a first generation of massive stars formed, burned, and exploded as supernovae (in a rather short time of a few million years), a second generation of stars formed with detectable amounts of elements as heavy as uranium and thorium. The star described in the article matches just such a second-generation star. The abundances of detected elements match predictions of the elements formed in supernovae. The only variance is that the radioactive elements such as uranium and thorium are depleted because of decay over the billions of years since the star’s formation.

Using the measured abundances of the heavy elements, the international team of astronomers dated the birth of the star at 13.2 +/- 2.7 billion years ago. Since the time required to form these types of stars is about half a billion years, this technique provides a fourth independent measurement of the age of the universe. Since all four techniques are consistent, we can be confident in the 13.7-billion-year age they give for creation.