Today’s New Reason To Believe

Previously Posted on March 13th, 2008 by Fazale ‘Fuz’ Rana, Ph.D.

Three New Studies Support Biblical Account of Humanity’s Creation

What’s the first thing that comes to mind when you think of the state of Kentucky? Horse racing? Wildcat basketball? The Louisville Slugger? Bluegrass music? What about burgoo?

Though most people probably haven’t heard about this spicy stew, it’s as much a part of the traditions of the Bluegrass State as the Kentucky Derby. Burgoo consists of a mixture of meats (beef, chicken, pork, mutton, and game animals, if available) and vegetables cooked (and re-cooked) in a large kettle over an open flame until all the flavors meld together. No two Burgoo recipes are the same. The preparation and consumption of Burgoo serves as a center piece for social gatherings. At times the entire community contributes the ingredients to make a large pot of stew.

Molecular anthropologists have recently concocted a burgoo of their own consisting of discoveries that turn the heat up on the support for the Out-of-Africa hypothesis of human origins, and with it, the biblical account of humanity’s beginnings.*

Out of Africa Hypothesis

In a nutshell, this model (also called the replacement model) maintains that modern humans evolved recently (about 100,000 years ago) in East Africa from a small hominid population and then migrated around the world to replace pre-existing hominids. Proponents believe that Homo neanderthalensis and Homo erectus are evolutionary side branches and dead ends.

Relative Proportion of Harmful Mutations in European and African Populations

One recent study, carried out by an international team, examined genetic variation in fifteen African American and twenty European Americans. These workers characterized genetic variability by examining single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) and categorizing the DNA sequence differences as benign, possibly damaging, and probably damaging.

They noted that African Americans harbor a greater degree of SNP diversity than European Americans. Interestingly, European descendents have a greater proportion of harmful variations than people with an African ancestry.

These results find explanation if humanity arose in East Africa from a small population, and recently migrated into Europe through a genetic bottleneck. Bottlenecks result when a population drops to low levels and then recovers its numbers, or if a small subpopulation becomes separated from the main group and then later grows in size.

Genetic and Copy-Number Variation

Another study characterized the genetic variability of twenty-nine populations from around the world by monitoring 525,910 SNPs and 396 copy-number differences.

Again, the patterns of genetic variability noted in these two studies for people groups from around the world fit with the predictions of the Out-of-Africa hypothesis.

A third recently reported study focused on about 650,000 SNPs found in the genomes of 938 people representing 51 populations from around the world. The SNP data clustered into a number of groups displaying a geographical relationship that indicates an African origin of humanity and subsequent spread around the world.

Overwhelming Evidence for the Out-of-Africa Hypothesis

These three new research reports can be thrown into a large simmering kettle of studies that support the Out-of-Africa model. (For a detailed discussion of the myriad evidences in favor of the Out-of-Africa Hypothesis see the book Who Was Adam? Collectively, the consensus that emerges from this work indicates that humanity originated recently (about 100,000 years ago) from East Africa (near the location theologians ascribed to the Garden of Eden) from a small population. Amazingly, studies using mitochondrial and Y chromosomal DNA markers trace humanity’s origin back to a single man and woman. These studies also indicate that humanity’s migration around the world began at or near the Middle East.

Though often presented and discussed within the context of the evolutionary paradigm, this model has profound biblical implications. In some respects, the Out-of-Africa hypothesis appears to be the biblical model awkwardly forced into the evolutionary framework, like an incorrect puzzle piece. If humanity’s genesis happened in the way described in Scripture, the genetic diversity patterns observed among people groups around the world would be very similar to those discovered by anthropologists. It looks as if Adam and Eve really existed, giving rise to all humanity.

Next week I will describe another study using DNA extracted from ancient head lice that also lends credence to the biblical account of humanity’s origin. I decided it would be best not to describe this work for now. I didn’t want to ruin anybody’s appetite.

---

___________________________________

*These studies made science news headlines when first published. I discussed the scientific and biblical implications of this research on the February 22, 2008 edition of our new podcast, RTB’s Science News Flash. This podcast offers a unique Christian perspective on headline-grabbing discoveries. A free subscription to this podcast is available through iTunes.

Posted by Fazale ‘Fuz’ Rana, Ph.D.

New Discovery Indicates Homo erectus Grew and Developed like an Ape, Not a Modern Human

Elvis Presley earned the nickname “Elvis the Pelvis” after his first appearance on the Ed Sullivan Show. Following that performance, TV executives and the show’s producers, concerned about Elvis’s gyrations, instructed cameramen to film Elvis only from the waist up. Millions of disappointed fans weren’t able to see Elvis’ patented moves and the controversy drew even more attention to his midsection.

Similarly, paleoanthropologists have been frustrated their attempts to study the pelvises of female Homo erectus specimens. Even though H. erectus has been known from the fossil record for over 100 years and a significant number of fossil finds exist, there are scant remains of this creature’s postcranial skeleton, including the pelvis.

Paleoanthropologists want to examine the pelvis of female H. erectus because it will give them important clues about the growth and development of humans versus that of apes. Fortunately, a recent discovery of a nearly complete female H. erectus pelvis has brought an end to the frustration and with it a few surprising answers.*

Brains and Brawn in Humans

One of the defining features of modern humans is large brain size relative to body mass. (This ratio is called the encephalization quotient.) Large brains make it impossible for brain growth to take place entirely within the womb, because the birth canal can’t accommodate a large head. This difficulty means that a substantial amount of brain growth happens after birth. At the time of birth, the brain size of human infants is about 25% of the adult brain. By the time a human child reaches its first birthday, its brain is about half the size of an adult brain. It’s not until the child reaches six years of age that its brain is fully grown.

Due to the amount of resources required to allow the human brain to grow, the growth of its body is delayed. Through the teenage years, the body continues to grow while the brain carries on developing, though it doesn’t increase in size. By comparison, when a chimpanzee is born, its brain is already 40% the size of the adult brain; it reaches 80% by the time the chimp turns one year old.

Brains and Brawn in the Hominids

To understand the origin of human development, anthropologists turn to the hominid fossil record for clues. Many scientists regard these creatures as transitional intermediates linking an alleged ape-like ancestor to modern humans.

Study of australopithecine pelvises indicates that their bodies were modeled to accommodate bipedalism, but not the birth of large-brained infants. This makes sense, since the brain size of these creatures is just a little larger than the brain size of chimpanzees.

Also of interest to anthropologists is H. erectus. Evolutionary biologists believe this hominid represents the midpoint in the transition from an ape-like creature and modern humans. This hominid also displayed a form of bipedalism very similar to modern humans and it had a larger brain than those of the australopithecines.

The “Turkana Boy” remains, dating to about 1.8 million years in age, is one of the few H. erectus finds that possesses a complete pelvis. This hominid died when it was between 8 to 10 years of age. Its pelvis was rather narrow. Without the pelvis of a female available at the time, the researchers applied observations taken from Turkana Boy about pelvis size to female, as well as male, H. erectus. On this basis anthropologists concluded that its growth and development was much more human-like than ape-like. With a narrow pelvis, it would be difficult to give birth to hominids with the relatively large brains that H. erectus possessed.

This interpretation stands in sharp contrast to other studies, including analysis of the microanatomy of teeth and the brain size estimates of the “Mojokerto Child”, indicating that the growth and development of H. erectus was more ape-like. (For a detailed discussion of these studies see Who Was Adam?.)

The Discovery and Analysis of a Female Pelvis

Anthropologists have just reported on an analysis of the first female H. erectus pelvis. The remains, recovered in Ethiopia, date between 0.9 and 1.4 million years in age. To their surprise, this pelvis was much wider than that of the male H. erectus and could readily accommodate the birth of a relatively large-brained infant.

The discovery of this obstetrically spacious pelvis means that H. erectus offspring didn’t require a prolonged period of brain growth outside the womb. In other words, their development was much more ape-like than human-like.

H. erectus and the RTB Human Origins Creation Model

This new insight into H. erectus fits well within the RTB creation model for humanity’s origin. According to this scientific theory, hominids, like H. erectus, were animals created by God’s direct intervention. These creatures existed for a time and then went extinct. RTB’s model considers the hominids to be remarkable creatures that walked erect and possessed some level of limited intelligence and emotional capacity. While the RTB model posits that the hominids were created by God’s divine fiat, they were not spiritual beings, made in His image. RTB reserves this status exclusively for modern humans.

The RTB model predicts that the hominids, including H. erectus, should be biologically and behaviorally distinct from modern humans. Clearly, this is the case from a biological standpoint. The new insight into the rate and pattern of H. erectus growth and development fits well within this framework. Now that’s something to get all shook up about.

*This study made science news headlines when first published. I discussed the scientific and biblical implications of this research on the November 19, 2008 edition of our podcast, RTB’s Science News Flash. This podcast offers a unique Christian perspective on headline-grabbing discoveries. A free subscription is available through iTunes.

Posted by Fazale ‘Fuz’ Rana, Ph.D.

Neanderthals Ate Dolphins and Seals

When I was growing up I enjoyed watching reruns of the television series Flipper. As a little kid, I was quite fond of this unusually intelligent dolphin.

According to new research, Neanderthals were fond of dolphins as well.* But instead of delighting in watching them perform, these hominids liked to eat them.

Neanderthals appear in the fossil record between 250,000 and 150,000 years ago and go extinct about 30,000 years ago. They lived in western Asia, Europe, and the Middle East. Popular views about human origins position Neanderthals as immediate predecessors to modern humans. Other more sophisticated treatments of human evolution, like multiregionalism, argue that these hominids gave rise only to European people groups.

Because of their potentially prominent role in human evolution, anthropologists are interested in Neanderthal biology and behavior. This interest motivated an international team of paleoanthropologists and archeologists to analyze the fossil and archeological remains from two coastal caves located in Gibraltar. These caves held several kinds of artifacts that included Neanderthal-made products located at specific levels and layers within the cave, and also artifacts attributed to modern humans found at different sites within the cave. Associated with these finds were fossilized animal bones interpreted as the food stuff leftover from hunting and gathering expeditions.

Cataloging the species that comprise the animal remains provided researchers some insight into the behavior of Neanderthals and some of the first modern humans. For both the Neanderthal and the modern human locales, researchers documented mollusk shells and the remains of red deer, ibex, wild boar, bear, birds, tortoises, and fish, as well as dolphins and seals. Additionally, the scientists discovered rhinoceros remains associated with the artifacts left behind by modern humans.

The researchers interpreted these results as evidence that Neanderthals and modern humans had similar hunting and gathering practices, and, therefore, had identical cognitive capabilities. They were particularly impressed with the ability of Neanderthals to make use of dolphins and seals as a food source. They argue that to effectively do so means that Neanderthals had some sense of the seasonal activities of these animals. Dolphins are known to beach themselves at certain times of the year. It appears as if Neanderthals and modern humans took advantage of beached animals. Seals come ashore during mating season. Presumably, Neanderthals and modern humans clubbed these animals to death during mating season. Interestingly, only juvenile seal remains were recovered from the Neanderthal sites, indicating that they likely went after easier targets.

Based on this new insight, some anthropologists conclude that Neanderthals had skills that compared to modern humans alive at that time, since they seemed to have exploited the same range of resources as modern humans, and likely used similar tactics to hunt and gather. If so, does this mean that Neanderthals are no different than modern humans? What does this discovery mean for the RTB model of human origins?

The RTB View of Hominids

RTB’s biblical creation model views the hominids, like Neanderthals, found in the fossil record as animals created by God’s direct intervention. These creatures existed for a time and then went extinct. RTB’s model considers the hominids to be remarkable creatures that walked erect and possessed some level of limited intelligence and emotional capacity. This allowed these animals to employ crude tools and even adopt some level of “culture” much like baboons, gorillas, and chimpanzees. While the RTB model posits that the hominids were created by God’s divine fiat, they were not spiritual beings, made in his image. The RTB model reserves this status exclusively for modern humans.

The RTB model treats the hominids as analogous to, but distinct from, the great apes. Because of this, the RTB model predicts that anatomical, physiological, biochemical, and genetic similarities will exist among the hominids and modern humans to varying degrees. But, since, the hominids were not made in God’s image, they are expected to be clearly distinct from modern humans, particularly in their cognitive capacity, behavior, “technology,” and “culture.”

In summary, the RTB model predicts that the hominids, including Neanderthals, should be biologically and behaviorally distinct from modern humans. Clearly, this is the case from a biological standpoint.

Neanderthal Biology

Most paleoanthropologists now maintain that Neanderthals represent an evolutionary side branch and dead end. This position derives support from anatomical and developmental studies and analyses of ancient DNA isolated from Neanderthal remains. All research indicates that Neanderthals not only are a distinct species from modern humans, but also could not have evolved to produce the first human beings. (For a detailed discussion of this work, see Who Was Adam?)

These results all bode well for the RTB human origins model. But what about Neanderthal behavior? Maybe Neanderthals didn’t evolve into modern humans. But maybe they independently developed intelligent behavior, similar to modern humans.

Neanderthal Behavior

The vast proportion of the archeological record associated with Neanderthals indicates that these creatures behaved in relatively unsophisticated ways compared to modern humans. (This is discussed in more detail in Who Was Adam?)

Neanderthals made comparatively simpler tools with relatively unsophisticated manufacturing practices compared to modern humans. They left behind no real evidence for symbolic thought and advanced cognitive capacity. They did not produce art or music. They showed no evidence for religious expression. Though these creatures did bury their dead, the burials were clearly non-ritualistic in nature.

In spite of all this other evidence, do the newly recognized hunting and gathering practices of Neanderthals indicate that perhaps they had more sophisticated capabilities than previously thought?

Not necessarily. First of all, the sophistication of Neanderthal hunting and gathering practices compared to those of modern humans remains contentious among anthropologists. A previous study that examined the isotopic composition of skeletal remains seemed to suggest that Neanderthal practices were much less advanced than those of modern humans when it came to exploiting animal resources. According to this research, modern humans tended to go after food resources that were much more difficult to hunt and collect than did their Neanderthal contemporaries.

The fossil evidence recovered from the caves of coastal Gibraltar could be interpreted in a way that more closely agrees with the bone isotope study. It could be that the animal remains represented creatures that were relatively easy to gather and hunt. Both Neanderthals and modern humans would take advantage of easy to access food stuff. But modern humans also seemed to be capable of hunting animals that were exceptionally difficult to kill, like rhinoceros. Only modern human locales in the caves had the remains of these mighty creatures.

Rhinos would be extremely dangerous to hunt and hard to kill. To use these creatures as a food source would require extremely sophisticated hunting techniques that undoubtedly relied on cooperative and complex interactions among the members of the hunting party.

Just because Neanderthals were making use of seals and dolphins as a food source doesn’t mean they had understanding of seasonal variation. Could it be that they made use of these marine mammals seasonally because that was the only time that they were available?

This recent study of the archeological and fossil remains provides important insight into the behavior of Neanderthals. Yet, it doesn’t reveal any new information that necessarily challenges the RTB view of the hominids. Clearly, as assented to by the model, Neanderthals had some intellectual capacity. But when all the data about Neanderthal behavior is considered in its entirety, it doesn’t support the notion that they possessed sophisticated cognitive abilities on par with those of modern humans.

*This study made science news headlines when first published. I discussed the scientific and biblical implications of this research on the September 24, 2008 edition of Science News Flash. This podcast offers a unique Christian perspective on headline-grabbing discoveries. A free subscription is available through iTunes.