Free Hit Counter Visitors to these pages since 12-29-97
My Blog on Global Warming issues http://themigrantmind.blogspot.com/
http://home.entouch.net/dmd/rtbanthro.htm
Free Hit Counter
Visitors to these pages since 12-29-97
Fuz Rana, Richard Deems and Hugh Ross responded to a Time article on the origin and evolution of modern humans. Their article can be found at:
http://www.reasons.org/resources/apologetics/humanevolution.html
Unfortunately, very unfortunately, like many apologetical works, this piece has several factual flaws which end up misrepresenting the anthropological data. It also has a tendency to cite only those articles and authors who support their position without informing their readers of alternative positions which are validly held and then without discussing any data which contradicts their position, they feel they have proven their position. We will examine several of these flaws in this paper.
I want to start with the inconsistent way these three authors set themselves up to be above all others. First, they try to claim that all other historical sciences other than astronomy are not real science. They write:
“Outside of astronomy, the question of origins is not science, but rather history. Origins research seeks to recount the events of a unique, one-time occurrence in the past. With the exception of astronomy, the opportunity to design and repeat carefully controlled experiments is not available to those engaged in deciphering origins.”
The authors here are setting themselves up as the only true scientists. This displays a huge ignorance of geology (the background science for anthropology) which can actually experiment on its topics in a way that astronomy can't. Rocks can be experimentally dated via uranium dating, thermoluminescence, electron spin resonance dating of bone encased in a layer, the depositional setting of the layer can be experimentally reconstructed. In anthropology, when dealing with just the bones, the chemical composition of the bones can be analyzed for carbon isotopes to determine what the poor fellow ate, vocal tracts can be reconstructed and examined experimentally for the sound that they make, the remains of his meals can be experimentally and statistically examined to determine the age of his prey, the oxygen isotope ratios can be determined for certain deposits to aid in determining the age, the magnetic polarity of the sediments can be experimentally determined, which aids in dating, etc ad nauseum. The debris of the process of making stone tools can be refitted together like a 3-d puzzle to determine the method of stone tool manufacture, chemical analyses of the blood and flesh left on stone tools can be experimentally DNA-typed to determine the animal which the tool killed, experiments are carried out in which modern manufactured stone tools are used for various purposes and then the wear is compared with that found on ancient stone tools. Physical traits can be measured and numerical experiments can be performed on the data, just as is done with astronomical data.
Their statement above is the one which most clearly shows the incredible ignorance these three authors have for the earth and archaeological sciences! Yet they set themselves up as experts and claim they can challenge all the conclusions. The astrocentric egotism displayed in this article appears to be solely for the purpose of giving these non-anthropologists the right to tell the entire science of anthropology that the experts are are wrong and these fellows, who don't even know about the experiments which can be carried out in the field, are the ones who have found the truth. This is exactly the technique that the young-earth creationists use to criticize the views of astronomy. This is why Steidl is able to reject the entire science of astronomy. Speaking of those, like Rana, Deems, and Ross, who accept the old earth, Steidl writes:
"The entire scientific community has accepted the great age of the universe; indeed, it has built all its science upon that
supposition. They will not give it up without a fight. In fact, they will never give it up, even if it means compromising
their reason or even their professional integrity, for to admit
creation is to admit the existence of the God of the Bible. This is exactly what the world system will not do."
(Steidl, 1979, p. 94)
In discussing the basis for their re-interpretation of anthropological data they write:
“Instead, these workers go through intellectual contortions to make the data fit the theory. This is an important point to keep in mind during this discussion. At the end of the day, we all have biases that we bring to the table. No scientist is completely objective. Honest scholarship demands that these biases be clearly communicated and taken into consideration at all times.“
They, themselves, then fail to inform their readers of any bias they might have, and indeed, they, themselves engage in 'intellectual contortions,' to make the data fit their theory, as we shall see. And like Steidl, Rana et al, believe they are the only unbiased individuals. Yet they are not beyond ignoring data. When it comes to religion among ancient peoples their undeclared bias shines out bright and bold.
Religion
They erroneously write:
“Likewise, we regard the hominids assigned to early Homo, such as Homo erectus, Homo ergaster, Homo antecessor, Homo hedeilbergensis, and Homo neandertalensis, as being upright walking primates that possessed intelligence, will and emotion. There is no evidence that these animals possessed a spirit, since no religious activity can be seen in the archeological record for these animals.”
They totally fail to inform their readers of several sites associated with Neanderthal, and erectus/heidelbergensis which have all appearance of being religious in nature. Prior to the writing of this article, I had discussed publicly several of these sites documenting their existence from the anthropological literature, yet, selectively, these authors ignore this data, and proclaim that the data doesn't exist! These religious sites can be found at another of my web pages http://www.glenn.morton.btinternet.co.uk/rossrev.htm. One of the most fascinating of these is the 400,000 year old Bilzingsleben site. Rick Gore said:
"But Mania's most intriguing find lies under a protective shed. As he opens the door sunlight illuminates a cluster of smooth stones and pieces of bone that he believes were arranged by humans to pave a 27-foot-wide circle. "'They intentionally paved this area for cultural activities,' says Mania. 'We found here a large anvil of quartzite set between the horns of a huge bison, near it were fractured human skulls.'" (Gore 1997, p. 110)
If such a site were found with modern man, we would have NO doubt what it was and the danger it posed to an outsider. Given that this was published a full 2 years prior to the writing of their article, why do they not inform their readers of its existence rather than acting as if it doesn't exist?
Speech
Most appallingly, these authors totally misrepresent the positions of anthropologists. Rana et al write:
"Moreover, Neandertals showed different behavior and in all likelihood did not possess language capacity.22”
It is really interesting that the footnote, reference 22, refers to Stringer and McKie, African Exodus. 85-114. Do Stringer and McKie really believe that Neanderthal had no speech? Let's see what they actually wrote.
"The reasons for the Neanderthals' apparent vocal backsliding may be quite straightforward, however. Perhaps a return to an elevated larynx would have constricted the area behind the mouth, making it harder to gulp air. And that would have meant taking in smaller mouthfuls of that freezing European atmosphere that would have otherwise wreaked damage on their throats' and lungs' delicate membranes. Instead, most air would have been inhaled through those mighty nasal heat and moisture exchangers, so protecting internal tissue. Nor was the Neanderthal larynx necessarily a dead loss. It may not have been able to articulate some vowel sounds, like a, i, and u, as well as we can, but that would not have prevented Neanderthals from talking to each other. Many modern languages neglect the full range of vowel and consonant sounds that can be made by the human throat, without limiting effective communication." (Stringer and McKie, 1997, p. 95)
And,
"At the end of the day, if we want to know whether the Neanderthals had language of a modern human type, we really need to learn a lot more about their brains." (Stringer and McKie, 1997, p. 95)Obviously these guys are not ruling out Neanderthal language. What is the issue? The issue among anthropologists is not whether or not Neanderthals had no language vs having one; it is between them having a language structured like ours verses having a language structured differently. Modern human languages use a, i, and u sounds across the board. The controversy is about whether or not Neanderthals could pronounce those vowels. But, as we shall see below, almost all believe Neanderthal possessed some form of language. Rana et al again write:
"For example, the structure of the Neandertals skull base is inconsistent with the capability for speech.106 A recent high profile study has suggested that Neandertals and modern humans had comparable vocal abilities based on the size of the Neandertal’s hypoglossal canal.107 The hypoglossal canal transmits the nerve that supplies the tongue muscles. The argument is the more richly the tongue muscle is supplied with nerves (requiring a larger canal) the better the motor control of the tongue. This is a key requirement for speech. However, this hypothesis has been demonstrated to be false. That is, there is no correlation between canal size and the ability to vocalize among both extinct and extant hominids.108, 109"
The above leaves the reader thinking that the hypothesis of speech among the Neanderthals has been ruled out. Rana et al select their data such that they don't inform their readers that there is any controversy over the claim that the skull base rules out language. Shreeve writes:
". . .the Neanderthals-can't-talk argument is losing ground on another front. Many of
Lieberman and Laitman's arguments were based on the flat skull base of the Neandertal Old Man of La Chapelle, a badly distorted
skull that had never been pieced together properly. In 1989, Jean-Louis Heim of the National Museum of Natural History in
Paris set out to reconstruct the skull by more meticulous procedures, and low and behold, his version of the skull base
showed a lot more of the flexing seen in modern skulls. Recently David Frayer of the University of Kansas compared Heim's new Old
Man to a sampling of modern human specimens from the Upper Paleolithic to the Middle Ages and found that, in the degree of
flexing, it held its own with many of them, including a medieval Hungarian skull. 'Nobody argues that the medieval Hungarians
weren't able to talk,' says Frayer." (Shreeve, 1995, p. 273)
What has been ruled out by reference 108 is that the Hypoglossal canal can DATE the time of the origin of speech. Notice the last sentence in the abstract!
"The mammalian hypoglossal canal
transmits the nerve that supplies the motor innervation
to the tongue. Hypoglossal
canal size has previously been used to date the origin of human-like
speech capabilities to at least 400,000 years ago and to assign
modern human vocal abilities to Neandertals. These conclusions are
based on the hypothesis that the size of the hypoglossal
canal is indicative of speech capabilities. This hypothesis is
falsified here by the finding of numerous nonhuman primate taxa that
have hypoglossal canals
in the modern human size range, both absolutely and relative to oral
cavity volume. Specimens of Australopithecus afarensis, Australopithecus
africanus, and Australopithecus boisei also have hypoglossal
canals that, both absolutely and relative to oral cavity volume, are
equal in size to those of modern humans. The basis for the hypothesis
that hypoglossal canal size is
indicative of speech was the assumption that hypoglossal
canal size is correlated with hypoglossal
nerve size, which in turn is related to tongue function. This
assumption is probably incorrect, as we found no apparent correlation
between the size of the hypoglossal
nerve, or the number of axons it contains, and the size of the hypoglossal canal in a sample of cadavers. Our data demonstrate that the size
of
the hypoglossal canal does not
reflect vocal capabilities or language usage. Thus the date of origin
for human language and the speech capabilities of Neandertals remain
open questions." (DeGusta et al, 1999, P. 1800)
And reference 109 in the above quotation is to Philip Lieberman. Lieberman is the leading advocate that the Neanderthals had a different type of language, BUT HE DOES BELIEVE THEY HAD A LANGUAGE, SOMETHING RANA ET AL ARE NOT TELLING PEOPLE. Indeed, Lieberman has said such in every one of his publications! Here is what Lieberman and other anthropologists say about when the hominids could speak:
Lieberman:
"This is not to say that classic Neanderthals lacked speech
capabilities and language. As I have pointed out in every publication on this topic, the classic Neanderthal supralaryngeal
vocal tract would have allowed speech; the archaeological evidence of Neanderthal culture, moreover, is consistent with
their having some form of language, and the new data reported by Bar-Yosef and his colleagues reinforce these conclusions."
(Lieberman, 1993, p. 174)
Lieberman believed in 1984 that language evolved between 250,000 and 500,000 years ago and this was after he had begun his claims that Neanderthal's speech was different from ours. (Lieberman, 1984, p. 211)
"Some physical anthropologists, among them anatomist Philip Tobias of the University of Witwatersrand in South Africa, believe that Homo habilis was capable of articulate speech, on the grounds that Broca's area is developed in early Homo's brain, but not in Australopithecus." (Fagan, 1990, p. 87)
And Morwood et al believe that the technological prowess of H. erectus requires that they be able to speak as long ago as 840,000 years. They built boats and crossed the ocean at that time. Flores, the island where they were found, was never connected to mainland Asia even at low sea level. Morwood et al write:
"The
presence of hominids on Flores in the Early Pleistocene therefore provides the
oldest inferred date for human maritime technology anywhere in the world.
Elsewhere, dates for such capabilities are much more recent. These
findings indicate that the intelligence and technological capabilities of H.
erectus
may have been seriously underestimated.
An accumulating body of evidence from elsewhere supports this conclusion (e.g.
Thieme 1997).
"The complex logistic organization needed
for people to build water-craft capable of transporting a biologically and
socially viable group across significant water barriers, also implies that
people had language. Previously the organizational and linguistic capacity
required for sea voyaging was thought to be the prerogative of modern humans and
to have only appeared in the late Pleistocene. It now seems that humans had this
capacity 840,000 years ago." (Morwood et al. 1999, p. 285-286)
Why do Rana et al misrepresent this issue?
Things no paleoanthropologist does
Moving on to other indications that they have not done sufficient research, we
find Rana et al stating rather positively:
“Even more confusing is the practice of some paleoanthropologists to refer to all Homo species including Homo erectus, Homo heidelbergensis / ’Archaic" Homo sapiens, Homo neandertalensis as Homo sapiens.”
In the years I have studied anthropology, I have never, ever heard a paleoanthropologist make this silly, sophomoric mistake.
Fossil Count
Rana et al remark:
“Moreover, very few of the extinct hominid species are known from a large number of samples. In most cases, there are a limited number of specimens that are attributed to a given hominid species.”
This is an old young-earth creationist canard. There are more than 4,000 specimens of fossil man in the museums of Africa. (Berger, 2000, p. 64) And even the young-earth creationist Lubenow does a better job than Rana et al, by noting the large number of fossil remains (Lubenow 1992, p. 29). He notes that 1516 fossil individuals had been discovered in Europe and the USSR by 1970 and in the Americas, Asia and Australasia 1092 individuals through 1974!
Brain Size
Rana et al claim:
“It appears as if the approaches used by
paleontologists to measure brain size of extinct hominids has been yielding
results that are about 15% to 20% higher than the actual value. This throws
serious doubt on the reliability of brain size estimates that have appeared in
the paleoanthropological literature. Caution should be used when considering any
analysis or survey that uses heretofore reported brain size values to establish
evolutionary scenarios. When this high bias is accounted for in hominid brain
size surveys, any possibility of overlap between the brain size of extinct
hominids and modern Homo sapiens is removed. A gap in brain size between H.
erectus and modern H. sapiens is counter to what would be expected if a
continuous descent with modification mechanism was responsible for human
origins.”
Of course this assumes that all skulls are filled with matrix, which isn’t true. Thus one can reasonably doubt this supposed correction. Secondly, their reasoning is a fallacious extrapolation from a few skulls to all skulls. Their claim that the overlap in brainsize is removed by this 15-20% 'correction' is patently false on the most cursory glance. The Guinness Book of World Records cites Daniel Lyon as being the normal man with the smallest sized brain, at 650 cc. (Guinness, 1996, p. 14) H. erectus had an average brain size in the literature of around 1000 cc and Neanderthal's average brain size is 1470 cc. Applying the 20% correction means that erectus would be 800 cc and Neanderthal being 1100 cc. Since most modern humans have brains between 1000 cc and 2000 cc, the overlap would still remain. Rana et al are doing what they criticize others--doing intellectual contortions to match their belief that mankind didn't evolve.
Appearance of modern man
They then claim:
“The fossil evidence clearly shows
that at about 40,000 years ago, there was an explosive appearance of Cro-Magnon
man. Cro-Magnon man is indistinguishable from modern humans (Homo sapiens
sapiens).60 Prior to the sudden appearance of Cro-Magnon man, the
fossil record is extremely sparse and unclear.”
Absolute pure bunk. There are plenty of Moderns dating to 40-80,000 years ago. There is Liujiang man in China dates 68,000 years, Laishui, from China and Salawusu, of Mongolia, date from this interval. Mungo Man in Australia dates 62,000 years, the Blombos Cave anatomically modern men date to 70,000 years. And the term Cro-Magnon, only really applies to Europe, so this is a rather Eurocentric view. The correct term in anthropological circles is 'anatomically Modern man'. The Neanderthals did not disappear during this time, as there are many to be found, Regourdou Neanderthal dates at 45,000 years, the Shanidar Neanderthals date between 45,000 and 50,000 years, the La Ferrassie Neandethal dates to 68,000 years, and Shanidar 9 dates to ca. 70,000 years ago. While there are controversies as to the exact events, it is not because of a sparse record. There is no evidence that the archaics went extinct prior to the appearance of Cro-magnon. The earliest well dated fossil man in Europe dates from 26,000 years. (Campbell and Loy, 1996, p. 463) This is long after the supposed 40,000 year appearance claimed by Rana et al. What these anthropological novitiates are missing is that anthropologists equate the appearance of Aurignacian tools with the appearance of modern man. The problem is that there are no modern human remains which appear with those early tools. Indeed, at Vindija, one of the early Aurignacian sites, the only human remains are those of a Neanderthal (Bednarik, 1996, p. 104). There are no firmly dated anatomically modern humans prior to then. Their claim that modern humans 'suddenly appear at 40,000 years is nothing but wishful thinking.
Then just at a crucial junction, not wanting any modern humans to be found before 40,000 years, the trio behaves like young-earth creationists by doubting the dating methods. They write:
“It is important to note that the
dating of these samples has been problematic. Specimens that fall between 30,000
years ago and 500,000 years ago are not covered by the well-established 14C and
potassium-argon dating techniques.63 The dates estimated for have been estimated
using the newly developed luminescence and electron spin resonance techniques.
These dates must be regarded as estimates, at best.“
Note the YEC-like questioning of dating methods when it suits their purpose to maintain that all modern humans are less than 60,000 years. Indeed, both YEC and RTB say that dating is problematic. Larry Vardiman wrote of potassium argon dating:
"The large age is due to excessive concentrations of primordial argon in the samples which renders problematic the use of K-Ar and Ar-Ar as methods for dating rocks." (Vardiman, 1998)
ESR is a widely trusted dating technique in anthropological circles and the number of sites dated by it are numerous and increasing. It is amazing that when faced with dates they don't like, they decide to do what the Young-earthers do.
mtDNA
When it comes to the genetic data, they do remain within a widely held anthropological opinion, but one which I feel that I should comment upon. They say
” The question of Neandertals being a part of the evolutionary lineage of modern humans has been recently laid to rest by a brilliantly designed and executed study. Scientists extracted mtDNA from a 50,000-100,000 year old Neanderthal skeleton.”
The studies they refer to are those which extracted mtDNA from Neanderthals and found that it was not like modern mtDNA. Of course a biologist like Rana should be perfectly well that this doesn't rule out ancestry, even though it is widely reported to be so in the press. They claim more than the author of one of the studies claims. Krings writes:
"These results do not rule out the possibility that Neandertals contributed other genes to modern humans." (Krings, 1997, p. 27)
Why can Krings say this? Because a person only inherits the mtDNA from their mother's mother's mother's...mother's lineage. Thus, you don't have the mtDNA of your father's mother but you have lots of her genes in your chromosomes (1/4 to be exact). Thus if you relied solely upon mtDNA to decide if you were related to someone, you would have to exclude your paternal grandmother from the list of relatives.
There are some scenarios which can explain the mitochondrial data and allow Neanderthal input to modern ancestry. When conquerors take over an area, the repeated historical pattern has been for them to kill the men and take or rape the women. This practice leaves a genetic fingerprint--the y-chromosome of the conquerors and the mtDNA of the conquered. It has been a puzzle to anthropologists why Europe was the last place in the old world inhabited by early modern men. Modern man was in Africa and the Middle East by 120,000 years ago, in China by 68,000 years ago, Australia by 60,000 years ago, but didn't make it into Europe until after 40,000 years ago. Some have suggested that this is because of the ferocity and strength of the Neanderthals who would have been formidable opponents. Geist (1981, p. 30) writes:
"Neanderthal's kill patterns, slanted heavily to large-bodied grazers and carnivores and almost devoid of small game, are beyond comparison with any modern hunting culture. Nor do Neanderthal tools match those of any culture of today, a strong hint that what these early people did will not be found in contemporary societies. This is also implied by evidence that Neanderthal was far more powerful than modern humans. Whereas archeologists can experimentally duplicate the wear pattern on tools such as were used by people from the Upper Paleolithic (the people that followed Neanderthal and are our ancestors), the wear patterns on Neanderthal's tools cannot be duplicated. We do not have the strength to do it. Neanderthal's skeleton reflects a supremely powerful musculature. The joints were massive even in children, implying an ability for rapid starts and stops. The hands were not only very large but could also be spread wider than ours. The terminal phalanges were large, and the musculature closing the fingers was powerful. The shoulder girdle, besides being massive, was anatomically peculiar in that it was almost simian, implying brachiation (swinging through trees), which is totally incongruous with the open landscapes of the glacial age. Whatever Neanderthal did for a living, there were times when enormous physical strength and violent acceleration and deceleration of the body were essential. As Neanderthals were carnivores capable of killing very large, powerful, and agile mammals, we may look here for a clue to their distinctive anatomy."
Now,
given this, if during the interactions between Neanderthals and modern men, the
Neanderthals were able to consistently, for ten thousand years, take their women
during wars, the Neanderthal population would have lost their original
mtDNA pattern. The fossils from which mtDNA has been recovered are from before
40,000 years ago. Such a scenario would also explain the nuclear DNA and
the pattern of European traits in which early modern Europeans look more like
Neanderthals than do their supposed ancestors.
Nuclear DNA
As we have studied the nuclear DNA we are finding genetic systems that required hundreds of thousands of years to accumulate the diversity they show. I discuss this at http://www.glenn.morton.btinternet.co.uk/hgene.htm. If we have nuclear DNA from people living hundreds of thousands of years ago, it really doesn't matter to the views propounded by these three authors if Neanderthal contributed or not.
Extinction of archaic hominids?
Rana et al claim that there is no connection between the archaic hominids and modern man. They rely on a population bottleneck which genetics shows happened to be the evidence for this extinction and then recreation of modern man. They write:
“Another interesting feature of the hominid fossil record is the apparent disappearance of Homo sapiens between 80,000 and 40,000 years ago. From an evolutionary perspective it has been proposed that Homo sapiens populations plummeted to near extinction and then for some unknown reason bounced back in full force about 40,000 years ago.64 This population bottleneck is viewed by evolutionary biologists as being responsible for the high degree of genetic uniformity among modern humans. (See below.)”
This clarifies what Ross meant when he wrote earlier:
"New
evidence indicates that the various hominid species may have gone extinct
before, or as a result of, the appearance of modern humans.
At the very least, 'abrupt transitions between [hominid]species' is
widely acknowledged." (Ross, 1993, p. 141)
First, there is no wide acknowledgment of any such thing. Never has been. Secondly, there is evidence of a direct mitochondrial connection between these ancient archaic hominids and modern man a connection via mtDNA. In fairness to Rana et al, this was not available to them prior to the writing of their article, and thus they can't be held accountable for it at the time of writing. However it is of such a significance that now it needs to be noted.
The Australian skeleton, called Mungo Man, has recently been dated to 62,000 years ago (Thorne, et al, 1999). Mungo is a perfectly modern human being. One would think that he would have our mitochondrial DNA. To check that, Adcock et al (2001,p. 537-542) extracted mtDNA from the remains and found that it represented a different type of mtDNA not found in modern peoples (just as the mtDNA of Neanderthals is not found in modern humans). This discovery threw a damper on the claim that because Neanderthal mtDNA was different, therefore they were not related to us. If an ancient mtDNA lineage from a modern human could also go extinct, then why not the Neanderthal lineage?
But, interestingly the mtDNA found in the 62,000 year old Mungo man IS found in modern humans, just not found in the mtDNA. Occasionally, mitochondrial DNA sequences get accidentally inserted to the nuclear genome. This is what happened to Mungo man's mtDNA; it was inserted into chromosome 11 of some ancient person who then passed it on to his modern descendents. Adcock et al state:
"His mtDNA belonged to a lineage that only survives as a segment inserted into chromosome 11 of the nuclear genome, which is now widespread among human populations. This lineage probably diverged before the most recent common ancestor of contemporary human mitochondrial genomes. This timing of divergence implies that the deepest known mtDNA lineage from an anatomically modern human occurred in Australia; analysis restricted to living humans places the deepest branches in East Africa. The other ancient Australian individuals we examined have mtDNA sequences descended from the most recent common ancestor of living humans. Our results indicate that anatomically modern humans were present in Australia before the complete fixation of the mtDNA lineage now found in all living people. Sequences from additional ancient humans may further challenge current concepts of modern human origins." (Adcock et al, 2001, p. 537)
This data completely falsifies RTB's view that there is no connection between ancient (pre-40,000 year) humans and us today. This genetic insertion along with the dating, shows clearly a genetic connection has not been cut for the past 60,000 years.
Neanderthal Traits
However, some of the best data indicating a connection concerns the inherited traits of modern Europeans. Let me explain the data I sent I will start with the H-O mandibular foramen. This is a place which the nerve to your jaw comes out of the bone and into the flesh. It is a little hole inside of your jaw and where the dentist tries to put the novacaine. Most people do not have the H-O form of this hole. Neanderthals had the H-O form or at least half of them did. Most modern people have the normal form.
European
H-O Normal
Foramen Foramen
% %
Neanderthal 53 47
Now the anatomically modern people are
supposed to have invaded Europe, wiped out the N.'s and according to Hugh their
descendants were to have no genetic connection with the Neanderthals. And here
is the foramen shapes for the invaders:
% H-O Normal
African Eves
0 100 supposed invader
Skhul/Qafzeh
0 100 supposed invader
But what are the percentages of the
earliest moderns in Europe?
% H-O Normal
Early U. Paleolithic 18 82
Where did these earliest modern humans in
Europe get the H-O foramen? Interbreeding is the most likely explanation. But as
time went on, with further interbreeding with the invaders, the trait became
rarer.
% H-O Normal
Late U. Paleolithic 7 93
And even rarer in the earliest farming
period
% H-O Normal
Mesolithic
2 98
And today it is quite rare
% H-O Normal
Medieval Europeans 1 99
These traits are extremely rare outside of Europe.
The same pattern is seen in other traits all of this is from Frayer:
Fossil
sample
Meric Index
European
Neanderthals
79.6
Skhul/Qafzeh
83.1
Early Upper Paleolithic
77.6
Late Upper Paleolithic
78.0
Mesolithic 78.0
Medieval
80.4
Fossil
Sample Nasion
Projection (mm)
Neanderthals
29.3
African Eve
17.8
Skhul/Qafzeh
12.4
Early Upper Paleolithic 21.9
Late Upper Paleolithic 19.3
Mesolithic
19.3
Medieval Hungarians
20.2
Conclusion
Rana et al, do not represent the anthropological data very well, they selectively cite only the data which agrees with them, and then proclaim that their case is proven. This is no different in its approach from what the young-earthers do in astronomy where they cite data and articles which appear to support them, and then proclaim that no one could dare refuse to accept their conclusions. Unfortunately, Rana et al are doing to anthropology what young-earth creationists do to astronomy and geology.
References
Gregory Adcock et al, "Mitochondrial DNA sequences in Ancient Australians:Implications for Modern Human Origins," Proc. Nat'l Acad. Sci, USA, 98(2001):537-542
Robert G.
Bednarick, "Neanderthal News," The Artefact 1996, 19:104
Lee R. Berger, and Brett Hilton-Barber, In the Footsteps of Eve, (Washington, D. C.: National Geographic Press, 2000).
Bernard
G. Campbell and James D. Loy, Humankind Emerging, (New York:
HarperCollins, 1996)
David DeGusta, W. Henry Gilbert, and Scott P. Turner, "Hypoglossal Canal Size and Hominid Speech," PNAS, 96(1999):4:1800-1804
Brian M.Fagan, The Journey From Eden, (London: Thames and Hudson, 1990).
David
W. Frayer, "Evolution at the European Edge: Neanderthal and Upper
Paleolithic Relationships," Prehistoire Europeenne, 2:9-69
Valerius Geist, "Neanderthal the Hunter," Natural History, 90:1 January, 1981, pp. 26-36.
Rick Gore, "The First Europeans," National Geographic July 1997, p.
110
basis."
Guiness Book of Records 1996, (New York: Facts on File, 1995),p. 14. His brain was 1 lb 8 oz . Daniel Lyon of Ireland who was of normal intelligence and died in 1907 at the age of 46. He was 5 feet tall and weighed 145 lb. (65 kg). Conversion of his brain to cc is accomplished in the following manner: 1 pound = 453 g, 1 oz - 28 g thus 453 g + 8*28 = 680 gram brain. Since brain density is 1.045 this means he had a 650 cc brain.
Matthias Krings, et al., "Neandertal DNA Sequences and the Origin of Modern Humans," Cell, 90:19-30
Philip Lieberman, The Biology and Evolution of
Language, (Cambridge: Harvard University Press,
1984)
Philip Lieberman, "On the Kebara KMH 2 Hyoid and Neanderthal
Speech," Current Anthropology, 34:2(April 1993): 172-175
Marvin L. Lubenow, Bones of Contention, (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1992)
M. J. Morwood et al, "Archaeological and Palaeontological Research in Central Flores, East Indonesia: results of Fieldwork 1997-1998," Antiquity, 73(1999):273-286.
Hugh Ross, Creation and Time, (Colorado Springs: NavPress, 1993)
James R. Shreeve, The Neandertal Enigma, (New York: William Morrow and Co., 1995)
Paul Steidl, The Earth, The Stars, and the
Bible, (Phillipsburg, New Jersey:
Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Co., 1979).
Chris Stringer and Robin McKie, African Exodus, (New York: Henry Holt and Company, 1997)
Alan Thorne, "Australia's oldest human remains: age of the Lake Mungo 3 skeleton," Journal of Human Evolution, 36(1999):6:591-612
Larry Vardiman, "Radioisotopes and the Age of the Earth," Impact 301. http://www.icr.org/pubs/imp.imp-301.htm
Back to DMD Publishing Home Page
1-19-02