Did Neanderthals Make Glue?

didneanderthalsmakeglue

BY FAZALE RANA – JANUARY 10, 2018

Fun fact: each year, people around the world purchase 50 billion dollars’ (US) worth of adhesives. But perhaps this statistic isn’t all that surprising—because almost everything we make includes some type of bonding agent.

In the context of human prehistory, anthropologists consider adhesives to have been a transformative technology. They would have provided the first humans the means to construct new types of complex devices and combine different types of materials (composites) into new technologies.

Anthropologists also consider the production and use of adhesives to be a diagnostic of advanced cognitive capabilities, such as forward planning, abstraction, and understanding of materials. Production of adhesives from natural sources, even by the earliest modern humans, appears to have been a complex operation, requiring precise temperature control and the use of earthen mounds, or ceramic or metal kilns. The first large-scale production of adhesives usually centered around the dry distillation of birch and pine barks to produce tar and pitch.

Even though modern humans perfected dry distillation methods for tar production, the archaeological record seemingly indicates that it wasn’t modern humans who first manufactured adhesives from tar, but, instead, Neanderthals. The oldest evidence for tar production and use dates to around 200,000 years ago, based on organic residues recovered from a site in Italy. It appears that Neanderthals were using the tar as glue for hafting flint spearheads to wooden spear shafts.1 Archaeologists have also unearthed spearheads with tar residue from two sites in Germany dating to 120,000 years in age and between 40,000 to 80,000 years in age, respectively.2 Because these dates precede the arrival of modern humans into Europe, anthropologists assume the tar at these sites was deliberately produced and used by Neanderthals.

For some anthropologists, this evidence indicates that Neanderthals possessed advanced cognitive ability, just like modern humans. If this is the case, then modern humans are not unique and exceptional. And, if human beings aren’t exceptional, then it becomes a challenge to defend one of the central concepts in Scripture—the idea that human beings are made in God’s image. Yet, claims that Neanderthals are cognitive equals to modern humans fail to withstand scientific scrutiny, time and time again. (See Resources section below.) This, too, is the case when it comes to Neanderthal tar production.

How Did Neanderthals Extract Tar from Birch Bark?

Though it appears that Neanderthals were able to produce and use tar as an adhesive, anthropologists have no idea how they went about this task. Archaeologists have yet to unearth any evidence for ceramics at Neanderthal sites. To address this question, a team of researchers from the University of Leiden conducted a series of experiments, trying to learn how Neanderthals could dry distill tar from birch bark using the resources most reasonably available to them.

The research team devised and evaluated three dry distillation methods:

  • The Ash Mound Method: This technique entails burying rolled up birch bark in hot ash and embers. The heat from the ash and embers distills the tar away from the birch bark, but because the bark is curled and buried, oxygen can’t easily get to the tar, preventing combustion.
  • The Pit Roll Method: This approach involves digging a cylindrical pit and then placing a burning piece of rolled-up birch bark in the pit, followed by covering it with earthen materials.
  • The Raised Structure Method: This method involves placing a vessel made out of birch bark in a pit, igniting it, and covering it with sticks, pebbles, and mud.

Of the three methods, the researchers learned that the Pit Roll technique produced the most tar and was the most efficient method. Still, the amount of tar that was produced was not enough for large-scale use, but just enough to haft one or two spears at best. The tar produced by all three methods was too fluid to be used for hafting.

Still, the research team concluded that Neanderthals could have dry distilled tar from birch bark, using methods that were simple and without the need to precisely control the distillation temperature. They also conclude that Neanderthals must have had advanced cognitive abilities—on par with modern humans—to pull off this feat.

Did Neanderthals Have Similar Cognitive Capacity to Modern Humans?

Does the ability of Neanderthals to dry distill tar (using crude methods) and use it to haft spears reflect sophisticated cognitive abilities? From my vantage point, no.

The recognition that the methods Neanderthals most likely used to dry distill tar from birch bark didn’t require temperature control and were simple and crude argues againstNeanderthal sophistication, not for it. To this point, it is worth noting that birch bark naturally curls, a factor critical to the success of the three dry distillation methods explored by the University of Leiden archaeologists. In other words, curling the birch bark was not something Neanderthals would have had to discover.

It is also worth pointing out that recent work indicates that Neanderthals did not master fire, but instead made opportunistic use of fire. These creatures could not create fire, but, instead, harvested wildfires. There were vast periods of time during Neanderthals’ tenure in Europe when wildfires were rare because of cold climatic conditions, meaning Neanderthals didn’t have access to fire. Because fire is central to the dry distillation methods, Neanderthals would have been unable to extract tar and use it for hafting for a significant portion of their time on Earth. Perhaps this explains why recovery of tar from Neanderthal sites is a rare occurrence.

Still, no matter how crude the method, dry distilling tar from birch bark seems to be pretty remarkable behavior—until we compare Neanderthal behavior to that of chimpanzees.

Comparing Neanderthal Behavior to Chimpanzee Behavior

In recent years, primatologists have observed chimpanzees in the wild engaging in some remarkable behaviors. For example, chimpanzees:

  • manufacture spears from tree branches, using a six-step process. In turn, these creatures use these spears to hunt bush babies
  • make stone tools that they use to break open nuts
  • collect branches from specific trees with appropriate mechanical characteristics and insect-repellent properties to build beds in trees
  • collect and consume plants with medicinal properties
  • understand and exploit the behavior of wildfires

In light of these remarkable chimpanzee behaviors, the manufacture and use of tar by Neanderthals doesn’t seem that impressive. No one would equate a chimpanzee’s cognitive capacity with that of a modern human. And, likewise, no one should equate the cognitive capacity of Neanderthals with modern humans. In terms of sophistication, complexity, and efficiency, the tar production methods of modern humans are categorically different from those of Neanderthals, reflecting cognitive superiority of modern humans.

Do Anthropologists Display a Bias against Modern Humans?

Recently, in a New York Times article, science writer Jon Mooallem called attention to paleoanthropologists’ prejudices when it comes to Neanderthals. He pointed out that the limited data available to these scientists from the archaeological record forces them to rely on speculation. And this speculation is inevitably influenced by their preconceptions. Mooallem states,

“All sciences operate by trying to fit new data into existing theories. And this particular science [archaeology], for which the “data” has always consisted of scant and somewhat inscrutable bits of rock and fossil, often has to lean on those metanarratives even more heavily. . . . Ultimately, a bottomless relativism can creep in: tenuous interpretations held up by webs of other interpretations, each strung from still more interpretations. Almost every archaeologist I interviewed complained that the field has become “overinterpreted”—that the ratio of physical evidence to speculation about that evidence is out of whack. Good stories can generate their own momentum.”3

Mooallem’s critique applies to paleoanthropologists who are “modern human supremacists”and those with an “anti-modern human bias” that seeks to undermine the uniqueness and exceptionalism of modern humans. And, lately, reading the scientific literature in anthropology, I get the strong sense that there is a growing anti-modern human bias among anthropologists.

In light of this anti-modern human bias, one could propose an alternate scenario for the association of tar with flint spearheads at a few Neanderthal sites that comport with the view that these creatures were cognitively inferior to modern humans. Perhaps Neanderthals threw birch or pine into a fire they harvested from a wildfire. And maybe a few pieces of bark or some pieces of branches near the edge of the fire naturally curled, leading to “dry distillation” of small amounts of tar. Seeing the tar exude from the bark, perhaps a Neanderthal poked at it with his spear, coating the piece of flint with sticky tar.

When we do our best to set aside our preconceptions, the collective body of evidence indicates that Neanderthals did not have the same cognitive capacity as modern humans.

Resources

Endnotes

  1. Paul Peter Anthony Mazza et al., “A New Palaeolithic Discovery: Tar-Hafted Stone Tool in a European Mid-Pleistocene Bone-Bearing Bed,” Journal of Archaeological Science 33 (September 2006): 1310–18, doi:10.1016/j.jas.2006.01.006.
  2. Johann Koller, Ursula Baumer, and Dietrich Mania, “High-Tech in the Middle Palaeolithic: Neandertal-Manufactured Pitch Identified,” European Journal of Archaeology 4 (December 1, 2001): 385–97, doi:10.1179/eja.2001.4.3.385; Alfred F. Pawlik and Jürgen P. Thissen, “Hafted Armatures and Multi-Component Tool Design at the Micoquian Site of Inden-Altdorf, Germany,” Journal of Archaeological Science38 (July 2011): 1699–1708, doi:10.1016/j.jas.2011.03.001.
  3. P. R. B. Kozowyk et al., “Experimental Methods for the Palaeolithic Dry Distillation of Birch Bark: Implications for the Origin and Development of Neandertal Adhesive Technology,” Scientific Reports 7 (August 31, 2017): 8033, doi:10.1038/s41598-017-08106-7.
  4. Jon Mooallem, “Neanderthals Were People, Too,” New York Times Magazine, January 11, 2017, https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/11/magazine/neanderthals-were-people-too.html.
Reprinted with permission by the author
Original article at:
https://www.reasons.org/explore/blogs/the-cells-design/read/the-cells-design/2018/01/10/did-neanderthals-make-glue

New Research Douses Claim that Neanderthals Mastered Fire

newresearchdousesclaim

BY FAZALE RANA – JANUARY 3, 2018

A few months ago, I posted a link on Twitter to a blog article I wrote challenging the claim that Neanderthals made jewelry and, therefore, possessed the capacity for symbolism.

When I post articles about the cognitive abilities of Neanderthals, I expect them to generate a fair bit of discussion and opinions that differ from mine (and I expect this article about neanderthal’s use of fire to be no exception). But one response I received was unexpectedly jarring. It came from a Christian who accused me of being “out of touch,” “wasting time discussing frivolous issues,” and “targeting the elite with a failed apologetic.” He admonished me to spend my time on real issues related to social justice concerns and chastised me for not focusing my efforts reaching out to the “marginalized.”

As part of my reply to my new “friend,” I pointed out that the identity and capability of Neanderthals has a direct bearing on the gospel and, consequently, social injustices in our world, because it relates to the question of humanity’s origin and identity. And what we believe about where we come from really matters.

Scripture teaches that human beings are uniquely made in God’s image. And, it is the image of God that renders human beings of infinite worth and value. Because we bear God’s image, Christ died to reconcile us to the Father. And, as Christians, the immeasurable value we place on all human life motivates us to battle against the injustices of the world—because the people who suffer these injustices are image bearers. According to Scripture, when we love and serve other human beings, it equates to loving and serving God.

Yet, the biblical view of humanity has been supplanted in the scientific community by human evolution. According to this idea, human beings are not the product of a Creator’s handiwork—the crown of creation—but, like all life on Earth, we emerged through unguided, historically contingent processes. In the evolutionary paradigm, human beings hold no special status. Human beings possess no inherent worth. We possess no more value than any other creature that has ever existed throughout Earth’s history. Human beings lack any inherent worth or dignity in the evolutionary paradigm. And, within this framework, there can be no ultimate meaning or purpose to human life.

Sadly, the evolutionary view of humanity is not confined to the halls of the academy. It permeates and influences cultures throughout the world. Once human life is rendered meaningless and stripped of its inherent value, there is no fundamental justification to stand against injustice. In fact, it becomes easier to excuse acts of injustice and becomes tolerable to look the other way when these acts occur. In the evolutionary framework, no genuine motivation exists to rescue the marginalized of our world. I would go one step further and argue that many of the social ills we face throughout the world have their etiology in the evolutionary view of humanity.

I regard my work as a Christian apologist as an antidote to this toxic worldview. Towards this end, I strive to demonstrate the credibility of the biblical view of humanity—apart from biblical and theological appeals. In an increasingly secular world, we can’t simply adopt a theological stance, declaring that human beings bear God’s image, and leave it at that. Few nonbelievers will accept that approach. We must respond to the scientific challenge to the image of God with scientific evidence for human uniqueness and exceptionalism. This endeavor isn’t about challenging the elite with an obscure apologetic argument for the validity of Christianity. Ultimately, it is about establishing the foundation for the gospel and generating the impetus and justification to treat human beings as creatures with inherent worth and dignity. As Christian apologists when we “target the elite” with apologetic arguments for the Christian worldview, we are serving the marginalized in our world.

As described in Who Was Adam? a scientific case can be marshaled for human exceptionalism in a way that aligns with the biblical view of the image of God. Remarkably, a growing minority of anthropologists and primatologists now believe that human beings really are exceptional. They contend that human beings do, indeed, differ in kind, not just degree, from other creatures. The scientists who argue for this updated perspective have developed evidence for human exceptionalism within the context of the evolutionary paradigm in their attempts to understand how the human mind evolved. Yet, ironically, these new insights marshal support for the biblical conception of humanity.

However, one potential challenge to human exceptionalism relates to the cognitive capabilities of Neanderthals. Based on archeological and fossil finds some paleoanthropologists now argue that these hominids: (1) buried their dead; (2) made specialized tools; (3) used ochre; (4) produced jewelry; (5) created art; and (6) even had language capacities. These are behaviors one would naturally associate with the image bearers.

Yet, as discussed in Who Was Adam? (and articles listed in the Resource section), careful examination of the archeological and fossil evidence reveals just how speculative the claims about Neanderthal “exceptionalism” are. Recent insights on Neanderthal fire use illustrate this point.

Did Neanderthals Use Fire?

While controversy abounds among paleoanthropologists about fire use by hominins such as Homo erectus, most scientists working in this field believe Neanderthals mastered fire. This view finds its basis in the discovery of primitive hearths, burned bones, heated lithics, and charcoal at Neanderthal archeological sites. Frankly, fire use by Neanderthals bothers me. If these creatures could create and use fire—in short, if they mastered fire (called pyrotechnology)—it makes them much more like us—but uncomfortably so.

Yet, recent work raises questions about Neanderthal fire usage.1 Careful assessment of archeological sites in southern France occupied by Neanderthals from about 100,000 to 40,000 years ago indicates that Neanderthals could not create fire. Instead, they made opportunistic use of natural fire when available to them.

The French sites show clear evidence of fire use by Neanderthals. However, when researchers correlated the archeological layers harboring evidence for fire use with paleoclimate data, they found an unexpected pattern. Neanderthals used fire during warm climate conditions and failed to use fire during cold periods—the opposite of what would be predicted—if Neanderthals had mastery over fire.

Instead, this unusual correlation indicates that Neanderthals made opportunistic use of fire. Lightning strikes that would generate natural fires are much more likely to occur during warm periods. Instead of creating fire, Neanderthals most likely collected natural fire and cultivated it as long as they could before it extinguished.

Such evidence shows that human beings are unique and exceptional in our capacity to create and curate fire, distinguishing us from Neanderthals.

Chimpanzees Exploit Natural Fire

Still, the capacity to make opportunistic use of fire seems pretty impressive. At least until Neanderthal behavior is compared to that of chimpanzees. Recent work by Jill Pruetz indicates that these great apes understand the behavior of natural fires and even exploit them.2 Pruetz and her collaborator observed the response of the Fongoli community of chimpanzees to two wildfires in the spring of 2006. The members of the community calmly monitored the fires at close range and then changed their behavior in anticipation of the fires’ movement. To put it another way, the chimpanzees’ behavior was predictive, not responsive. This capacity is impressive, because the behavior of natural fires is complex, depending on wind speed and direction and the amount and type of fuel sources.

So, as impressive as Neanderthal behavior may seem, their opportunistic use of fire seems more closely in line with chimpanzee behavior than that of human beings, who create and control fire at will. In fact, Pruetz believes one reason chimpanzees don’t harvest natural fire relates to their lack of manual dexterity.

How Did Neanderthals Survive Cold Climates without Fire?

If Neanderthals were opportunistic exploiters of fire and it was only available to them when the climate was warm, how did they survive the cold? One possibility is that they simply migrated from cold climes to warmer ones.

Another possibility is that the hominins made clothing. At least, this is the common narrative about Neanderthals. Yet, recent work indicates that this popular depiction is incorrect. These creatures did not make clothing from animal skins, but instead made use of animal hides as capes.3

A team of paleoanthropologists reached this conclusion by studying the faunal remains at Neanderthal and modern human archeological sites and comparing them to a database of animals used to make cold weather clothing. While both modern humans and Neanderthals used deer, bison, and bear hides for body coverings, the remains of these creatures were found more frequently at modern human archeological sites. Additionally, the remains of smaller creatures, such as weasels, wolverines, and dogs were found at modern human sites but were absent from sites occupied by Neanderthals. These smaller animals have no food value. Instead, modern humans used the animal hides to trim clothing.

This data indicates that modern humans made much more frequent use of animal hides for clothing than did Neanderthals. And when modern humans made clothing, it was more elaborate and well-fitted than the coverings made by Neanderthals. This conclusion finds added support from the discovery of bone needles at modern human archeological sites (and the absence of these artifacts at Neanderthal sites), and reflects cognitive differences between human beings and Neanderthals.

Even though Neanderthals made poorly crafted body coverings and most likely made little use of fire during cold periods, they were aided in their survival of frigid conditions by the design of their bodies. Anthropologists describe Neanderthals as having a hyper-polar body design that made them well-adapted to live under frozen conditions. Neanderthal bodies were stout and compact, comprised of barrel-shaped torsos and shorter limbs, which helped them retain body heat. Their noses were long and sinus cavities extensive, which helped them warm the cold air they breathed before it reached their lungs. Neanderthals most likely survived the cold because of their body design, not because of their cognitive abilities.

Even though many paleoanthropologists assert that Neanderthals possessed cognitive abilities on par with modern humans, careful evaluation finds these claims wanting, time and time again, as the latest insights about fire use by these hominins attest.

Compared to the hominins, including Neanderthals, human beings do, indeed, appear to be exceptional in a way that aligns with the image of God. These are far from “frivolous issues.” The implications are profound.

What we think about Neanderthals really matters.

Resources

Endnotes

  1. Dennis M. Sandgathe et al., “Timing of the Appearance of Habitual Fire Use,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, USA 108 (July 19, 2011), E298, doi:10.1073/pnas.1106759108Paul Goldberg et al., “New Evidence on Neandertal Use of Fire: Examples from Roc de Marsal and Pech de l’Azé IV,” Quaternary International 247 (2012), 325–40, doi:10.1016/j.quaint.2010.11.015; Dennis M. Sandgathe et al., “On the Role of Fire in Neanderthal Adaptations in Western Europe: Evidence from Pech de l’Azé IV and Roc de Marsal, France,” PaleoAnthropology (2011), 216–42, doi:10.4207/PA.2011.ART54.
  2. Jill D. Pruetz and Thomas C. LaDuke, “Brief Communication: Reaction to Fire by Savanna Chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes verus) at Fongoli, Senegal: Conceptualization of “Fire Behavior” and the Case for a Chimpanzee Model,” American Journal of Physical Anthropology 141 (April 2010) 646–50, doi:10.1002/ajpa.21245.
  3. Mark Collard et al., “Faunal Evidence for a Difference in Clothing Use between Neanderthals and Early Modern Humans in Europe,” Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 44 B (December 2016), 235–46, doi:org/10.1016/j.jaa.2016.07.010.
Reprinted with permission by the author
Original article at:
https://www.reasons.org/explore/blogs/the-cells-design/read/the-cells-design/2018/01/03/new-research-douses-claim-that-neanderthals-mastered-fire

Can Intelligent Design Be Part of the Construct of Science?

canintelligentdesignbepart

BY FAZALE RANA – JUNE 27, 2017

“If this result stands up to scrutiny, it does indeed change everything we thought we knew about the earliest human occupation of the Americas.”1

This was the response of Christopher Stringer—a highly-regarded paleoanthropologist at the Natural History Museum in London—to the recent scientific claim that Neanderthals made their way to the Americas 100,000 years before the first modern humans.2

At this point, many anthropologists have expressed skepticism about this claim, because it requires them to abandon long-held ideas about the way the Americas were populated by modern humans. As Stringer cautions, “Many of us will want to see supporting evidence of this ancient occupation from other sites before we abandon the conventional model.”3

Yet, the archaeologists making the claim have amassed an impressive cache of evidence that points to Neanderthal occupation of North America.

As Stringer points out, this work has radical implications for anthropology. But, in my view, the importance of the work extends beyond questions relating to human migrations around the world. It demonstrates that intelligent design/creation models have a legitimate place in science.

The Case for Neanderthal Occupation of North America

In the early 1990s, road construction crews working near San Diego, CA, uncovered the remains of a single mastodon. Though the site was excavated from 1992 to 1993, scientists were unable to date the remains. Both radiocarbon and luminescence dating techniques failed.

Recently, researchers turned failure into success, age-dating the site to be about 130,000 years old, using uranium-series disequilibrium methods. This result shocked them because analysis at the site indicated that the mastodon remainswere deliberately processed by hominids, most likely Neanderthals.

The researchers discovered that the mastodon bones displayed spiral fracture patterns that looked as if a creature, such as a Neanderthal, struck the bone with a rock—most likely to extract nutrient-rich marrow from the bones. The team also found rocks (called cobble) with the mastodon bones that bear markings consistent with having been used to strike bones and other rocks.

To confirm this scenario, the archaeologists took elephant and cow bones and broke them open with a hammerstone. In doing so, they produced the same type of spiral fracture patterns in the bones and the same type of markings on the hammerstone as those found at the archaeological site. The researchers also ruled out other possible explanations, such as wild animals creating the fracture patterns on the bones while scavenging the mastodon carcass.

Despite this compelling evidence, some anthropologists remain skeptical that Neanderthals—or any other hominid—modified the mastodon remains. Why? Not only does this claim fly in the face of the conventional explanation for the populating of the Americas by humans, but the sophistication of the tool kit does not match that produced by Neanderthals 130,000 years ago based on archaeological sites in Europe and Asia.

So, did Neanderthals make their way to the Americas 100,000 years before modern humans? An interesting debate will most certainly ensue in the years to come.

But, this work does make one thing clear: intelligent design/creation is a legitimate part of the construct of science.

A Common Skeptical Response to the Case for a Creator

Based on my experience, when confronted with scientific evidence for a Creator, skeptics will often summarily dismiss the argument by asserting that intelligent design/creation isn’t science and, therefore, it is not legitimate to draw the conclusion that a Creator exists from scientific advances.

Undergirding this objection is the conviction that science is the best, and perhaps the only, way to discover truth. By dismissing the evidence for God’s existence—insisting that it is nonscientific—they hope to undermine the argument, thereby sidestepping the case for a Creator.

There are several ways to respond to this objection. One way is to highlight the fact that intelligent design is part of the construct of science. This response is not motivated by a desire to “reform” science, but by a desire to move the scientific evidence into a category that forces skeptics to interact with it properly.

The Case for a Creator’s Role in the Origin of Life

It is interesting to me that the line of reasoning the archaeologists use to establish the presence of Neanderthals in North America equates to the line of reasoning I use to make the case that the origin of life reflects the product of a Creator’s handiwork, as presented in my three books: The Cell’s DesignOrigins of Life, and Creating Life in the Lab. There are three facets to this line of reasoning.

The Appearance of Design

The archaeologists argued that: (1) the arrangement of the bones and the cobble and (2) the markings on the cobble and the fracture patterns on the bones appear to result from the intentional activity of a hominid. To put it another way, the archaeological site shows the appearance of design.

In The Cell’s Design I argue that the analogies between biochemical systems and human designs evince the work of a Mind, serving to revitalize Paley’s Watchmaker argument for God’s existence. In other words, biochemical systems display the appearance of design.

Failure to Explain the Evidence through Natural Processes

The archaeologists explored and rejected alternative explanations—such as scavenging by wild animals—for the arrangement, fracture patterns, and markings of the bones and stones.

In Origins of Life, Hugh Ross (my coauthor) and I explore and demonstrate the deficiency of natural process, mechanistic explanations (such as replicator-first, metabolism-first, and membrane-first scenarios) for the origin of life and, hence, biological systems.

Reproduction of the Design Patterns

The archaeologists confirmed—by striking elephant and cow bones with a rock—that the markings on the cobble and the fracture patterns on the bone were made by a hominid. That is, through experimental work in the laboratory, they demonstrated that the design features were, indeed, produced by intelligent agency.

In Creating Life in the Lab, I describe how work in synthetic biology and prebiotic chemistry empirically demonstrate the necessary role intelligent agency plays in transforming chemicals into living cells. In other words, when scientists go into the lab and create protocells, they are demonstrating that the design of biochemical systems is intelligent design.

So, is it legitimate for skeptics to reject the scientific case for a Creator, by dismissing it as non-scientific?

Work in archaeology illustrates that intelligent design is an integral part of science, and it highlights the fact that the same scientific reasoning used to interpret the mastodon remains discovered near San Diego, likewise, undergirds the case for a Creator.

Resources

Endnotes

  1. Colin Barras, “First Americans May Have Been Neanderthals 130,000 Years Ago,” New Scientist, April 26, 2017, https://www.newscientist.com/article/2129042-first-americans-may-have-been-neanderthals-130000-years-ago/.
  2. Steven R. Holen et al., “A 130,000-Year-Old Archaeological Site in Southern California, USA,” Nature 544 (April 27, 2017): 479–83, doi:10.1038/nature22065.
  3. Barras, “First Americans.”

Latest Insights into Obesity Fatten the Case for Human Design

latestinsightsintoobesity

BY FAZALE RANA – MARCH 22, 2017

As a biochemist, I have come up with a radical new diet plan: Eat less and exercise more. Yet, recent work by a research team led by Herman Pontzer at Hunter College exposed the flaws in my newfangled diet before I could even try it out. As it so happens, an emerging body of data indicates that exercise contributes very little to weight loss.

This surprising, counterintuitive finding has important implications for medical practitioners trying to combat a worldwide obesity epidemic. It also highlights the elegant design of the human body and supports the growing case for human exceptionalism.

The Obesity Epidemic

Some of the latest statistics indicate that worldwide, 1 in 3 people are overweight and 1 in 10 suffer from obesity. This problem has serious consequences because obesity plays a part in the etiology of type 2 diabetes, cardiovascular disease, and certain forms of cancer.

Of course, the cause of obesity is straightforward: People consume more calories than they need. One common-sense solution is to have people exercise more. Presumably the obesity epidemic is linked to a sedentary lifestyle. Throughout most of human history, our forebearers lived physically demanding lives. In contrast, people today engage in limited physical activity. Presumably, this inactivity lowers daily energy expenditure, leading to excessive weight gain, as caloric intake exceeds caloric outtake. Ready access to energy-dense foods only serves to exacerbate this caloric imbalance.

But as it turns out, exercise appears to have little to no bearing on weight loss, defying conventional wisdom. While exercise has many health benefits, weight loss doesn’t appear to be one of them. Why? Because, based on the latest research, increasing our physical activity doesn’t lead to a greater caloric expenditure. As a corollary, the only way to lose weight is to restrict caloric intake.

Constrained Energy Expenditure

Over the course of the last few years, researchers at Hunter College have sought to understand what, if any, aspect of the Western lifestyle contributes to obesity. In the process, they have learned that the sedentary lifestyle in the West is not the problem. They discovered that when people transition from an inactive lifestyle to one characterized by moderate activity, a small increase in energy expenditure occurs. But, beyond that point, energy expenditure plateaus. Additional activity doesn’t translate into increased energy expenditure; instead total energy outlay appears to be constrained.

For example, in 2012 the research team from Hunter College published the results of a study in which they examined the energy expenditure of the Hadza people, indigenous hunter-gatherers who live in the woodland and savanna of northern Tanzania. Anthropologists think that their way of living closely resembles the lifestyle of the first modern humans. As expected, the investigators determined that the Hadza are much more active than people who live Western lifestyles. Despite that difference, the average daily energy expenditure of the Hadza was no different than people from the Western world (once corrected for age, body size, and body composition).1

In a broader study, the Hunter College scientists found the same trend when examining average daily energy expenditure for a sample of 332 people from Africa and North America. The sample included 25- to 45-year-old men and women representing people with a variety of lifestyles. After correcting for age, body size, and composition, average daily energy expenditure appeared to be constant, regardless of the amount of daily activity.2

The Hunter College researchers speculate that as physical activity increases, our bodies conserve calories by reducing (1) our basal metabolic rate, (2) our repair processes, and (3) our growth rate. Additionally, women also conserve energy by reducing estrogen production and (for women who are nursing) decreasing lactation. The researchers also speculate that men and women may reduce energy expenditure by altering our posturing behaviors.

Constrained Energy Expenditure and the Case for Human Design

In many ways, constrained energy expenditure functions as an ingenious design to ensure human survival. For most of human history, our ancestors lived as hunter-gatherers—a highly active, physically demanding way of life. Yet when hunting and foraging for food, day-to-day success is not guaranteed. Humans could never have endured as a species if our daily energy expenditures didn’t plateau. When caloric intake is low (because of food scarcity), reducing activity level is not an option for hunter-gatherers because reduced activity makes it even less likely that they will find enough food to provide the minimal daily caloric intake. When food is scarce, the only way to endure is to double down foraging efforts. But increased foraging wouldn’t be possible if caloric expenditures increased linearly with activity. Constraining caloric output by slowing down basal metabolic rates and other processes allows hunter-gatherers to maintain high activity levels even when food isn’t plentiful.

As a creationist, I see constrained energy expenditure as an ingenious biological design befitting a Creator who made human beings to be fearfully and wonderfully made.

Constrained Energy Expenditure and the Case for Human Exceptionalism

When it comes to constraining daily energy expenditure, humans aren’t unique. It appears as if all primates limit their daily energy outlay. For example, the daily energy expenditures of primates in the wild is no different than the caloric output of primates living out their lives in a zoo or in a laboratory setting.

But what does make us unique is the magnitude of our daily energy expenditure. Humans require about 600 more calories per day than chimpanzees and nearly 1,000 more calories than orangutans.3 The primary reason for this difference is our large brain size. Maintenance of our large brains requires an energy outlay not demanded of other primates. Compared to other primates, we have accelerated metabolic processes.

But our large brain size (and our advanced cognitive abilities, capacities for symbolism, and theory of mind that go along with it) allow us to thrive in the face of this additional energy demand. The first anatomically modern humans were adept at shaping their diets to consist of calorie-rich foods. Cooking their food also allowed them to extract more calories and other nutrients from the food they collected. They also shared food with one another. These practices reflect our unique nature as human beings and arise from our symbolism and capacity for theory of mind—properties that reflect the image of God.

The unexpected insight into the relationship between physical activity and energy expenditure points to insights about human beings that are initially unexpected for those of us who view humans as the product of God’s handiwork. Constrained energy expenditure doesn’t make much sense if we think about it in the context of a Western lifestyle. But when we consider it in light of the way human beings have lived for much of human history, it makes perfect sense. And the difference in our average energy expenditure compared to other primates highlights our unique and exceptional nature, adding to the weight (pun intended) of evidence for human exceptionalism.

Returning to my diet plan: I guess it doesn’t take a biochemist to know what do to lose weight—just eat less.

Resources

Endnotes

  1. Herman Pontzer et al., “Hunter-Gatherer Energetics and Human Obesity,” PLoS ONE 7 (July 2012): id. e40503, doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0040503.
  2. Herman Pontzer et al., “Constrained Total Energy Expenditure and Metabolic Adaptation to Physical Activity in Adult Humans,” Current Biology 26 (February 2016): 410–17, doi:10.1016/j.cub.2015.12.046.
  3. Herman Pontzer et al., “Metabolic Acceleration and the Evolution of Human Brain Size and Life History,” Nature 533 (May 2016): 390–92, doi:10.1038/nature17654.
Reprinted with permission by the author
Original article at:
https://www.reasons.org/explore/blogs/the-cells-design/read/the-cells-design/2017/03/22/latest-insights-into-obesity-fatten-the-case-for-human-design

Earwax Discovery Gives New Hearing to the Case for Intelligent Design

earwaxdiscoverygivesnew

BY FAZALE RANA – FEBRUARY 22, 2017

If you are like most people, you probably haven’t devoted much thought to earwax, unless it relates to the safest way to clean it out of your ears.

But earwax is worth thinking about, because it is a remarkable substance with extraordinary properties, as recent work by engineers from Georgia Institute of Technology (GIT) attests.1 In fact, the GIT researchers think that they can use their new insight about earwax to develop specialized filters for electronic devices that must perform in dusty environments.

By using earwax as an inspiration for new technology, these researchers have unwittingly provided more evidence for intelligent design, while at the same time raising a powerful challenge to the evolutionary explanation for the history and the design of life.

What Is Earwax?

This substance is an eclectic mixture of fatty acids, fatty alcohols, cholesterol, and squalene formed from secretions of the sebaceous and the ceruminous glands that line the outer portion of the ear canal. Earwax also consists of shed epithelial cells and hair.

Earwax is produced by all mammals, including humans. Two different types of earwax are found in humans, referred to as wet and dry. Honey brown in color, wet earwax contains a higher concentration of lipids and pigments than dry earwax. A single genetic change converts wet earwax (which is the genetically dominant form) into dry earwax (the genetically recessive form), which is gray and flaky.

The type of earwax a person has reflects their ancestry, with people of African and European descent having the wet variety and Asian and Native American people groups having dry earwax. Anthropologists have noted a correlation between earwax type and body odor. People with wet earwax tend to be more odiferous than people with dry earwax. Anthropologists think this correlation reflects sweat production levels, with people with wet earwax sweating more profusely than people with dry earwax. Presumably, the mutation which alters the color and consistency of the earwax also impacts sweat production. Anthropologists think that reduced sweating may have offered an advantage to Asian peoples and Native Americans, and consequently, dry earwax became fixed within these populations.

What Is the Function of Earwax?

Earwax serves several functions. One is protecting the inner ear from water, dust particles, and microorganisms. Even though earwax is a solid substance, it allows air to flow through it to the inner ear. Yet, the high fat content of earwax makes it an ideal water repellent, keeping water away from the inner ear. The hair fibers in earwax serve a useful function, forming a meshwork that traps dust particles. And the acidic pH of earwax and the lysosomes from the cellular debris associated with it impart this waxy secretion with antibacterial and antifungal properties.

The fatty materials associated with earwax also help lubricate the skin of the inner ear canal as the earwax moves toward the outer ear. Earwax motion occurs via a conveyor action set up, in part, by the migration of epithelial cells toward the outer ear. These migrating cells, which move at about the same rate as fingernails grow, carry the earwax along with them. Jaw motion also helps with the earwax movement.

By comparing earwax from several animals and by video recording earwax in human ear canals, the GIT researchers discovered that earwax has special properties that make it a non-Newtonian fluid. It is solid at rest, but flows when under pressure. Apparently, the pressure exerted on the earwax from jaw movements helps it to flow toward the outer ear. This movement serves as a cleaning mechanism, carrying the debris picked up by the earwax toward the outer ear. Interestingly, the particles picked up by the earwax alter its consistency, from a waxy material, to a flaky solid that readily crumbles, making it easier to clear the outer ear, while making room for newer, cleaner earwax.

New Technology Inspired by Earwax

The GIT engineers recognized that, based on its physical properties, earwax could serve as an inspiration for the design of new types of filters that could protect electronics from water and dusty environments. With a bit of imagination, it is possible to conceive of ways to take advantage of shear-thinning behavior to design filters that could be readily replaced with cleaner ones, once they have trapped their limit of dust particles.

Biomimetics, Bioinspiration, and the Case for Intelligent Design

It has become rather commonplace for engineers to employ insights from biology to solve engineering problems and to inspire the invention of new technologies. This activity falls under the domain of two relatively new and exciting areas of engineering known as biomimetics and bioinspiration. As the names imply, biomimetics involves direct copying (or mimicry) of designs from biology, whereas bioinspiration relies on insights from biology to guide the engineering enterprise.

From my perspective, the use of biological designs to guide engineering efforts seems fundamentally at odds with evolutionary theory. Generally, evolutionary biologists view biological systems as the products of an unguided, historically contingent process that co-opts preexisting systems to cobble together new ones. Evolutionary mechanisms can optimize these systems, but they are still kludges, in essence.

Given the unguided nature of evolutionary mechanisms, does it make sense for engineers to rely on biological systems to solve problems and inspire new technologies? Is it in alignment with evolutionary beliefs to build an entire subdiscipline of engineering upon mimicking biological designs? I would argue that these engineering subdisciplines do not fit with the evolutionary paradigm. On the other hand, biomimetics and bioinspiration naturally flow out of a creation model approach to biology. Using designs in nature to inspire engineering only makes sense if these designs arose from an intelligent Mind.

Resources

Engineers’ Muse: The Design of Biochemical Systems” by Fazale Rana (article)
Beetles Inspire an Engineering Breakthrough” by Fazale Rana (article)

Endnotes

  1. Society for Integrative and Comparative Biology, “The Technological Potential of Earwax,” Science News(blog), ScienceDaily, January 6, 2017, www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/01/17016092506.htm.
Reprinted with permission by the author
Original article at:
https://www.reasons.org/explore/blogs/the-cells-design/read/the-cells-design/2017/02/22/earwax-discovery-gives-new-hearing-to-the-case-for-intelligent-design

Were Neanderthals People, Too? A Response to Jon Mooallem

neanderthalspeopletoo

BY FAZALE RANA – FEBRUARY 8, 2017

Recently, I conducted an informal survey through my Facebook page, asking my friends, “What do you think is the most significant scientific challenge to the Christian faith?”

The most consistent concern related to Neanderthals. Why did God create these creatures (and other hominids)? How do we make sense of human-Neanderthal interbreeding? What about Neanderthal behavior? Didn’t these creatures behave just like us?

These questions are understandable. And they are reinforced by popular science articles such as the piece by Jon Mooallem published recently (January 11, 2017) in the New York Times Magazine. In this piece, Mooallem interviews paleoanthropologist Clive Finlayson about his research at Gorham’s Cave (Gibraltar)—work that Finlayson claims provides evidence that Neanderthals possessed advanced cognitive abilities, just like modern humans—just like us.1

Finlayson’s team discovered hatch marks made in the bedrock of Gorham’s Cave. They age-date the markings to be more than 39,000 years old. The layer immediately above the bedrock dated between 30,000 and 38,000 years old and contained Neanderthal-produced artifacts, leading the team to conclude that these hominids made the markings, and the hatch marks represent some form of proto-art.2

In his piece, Mooallem cites other recent scientific claims that support Finlayson’s interpretation of Neanderthal behavioral capacity. Based on archaeological and fossil finds, some paleoanthropologists argue that these hominids: (1) buried their dead, (2) made specialized tools, (3) used ochre, (4) produced jewelry, and (5) even had language capacities.

This view of Neanderthals stands as a direct challenge to the view espoused by the RTB human origins model, specifically the notion of human exceptionalism and the biblical view that humans alone bear the image of God.

Mooallem argues that paleoanthropologists have been slow to acknowledge the sophisticated behavior of Neanderthals because of a bias that reflects the earliest views about these creatures—a view that regards these hominids as “unintelligent brutes.” Accordingly, this view has colored the way paleoanthropologists interpret archaeological finds associated with Neanderthals, keeping them from seeing the obvious: Neanderthals had sophisticated cognitive abilities. In fact, Mooallem accuses paleoanthropologists who continue to reject this new view of Neanderthals as being “modern human supremacists,” guilty of speciesism, born out of an “anti-Neanderthal prejudice.”

Mooallem offers a reason why this prejudice continues to persist among some paleoanthropologists. In part, it’s because of the limited data available to them from the archaeological record. In the absence of a robust data set, paleoanthropologists must rely on speculation fueled by preconceptions. Mooallem states,“

All sciences operate by trying to fit new data into existing theories. And this particular science, for which the ‘data’ has always consisted of scant and somewhat inscrutable bits of rock and fossil, often has to lean on those meta-narratives even more heavily. . . . Ultimately, a bottomless relativism can creep in: tenuous interpretations held up by webs of other interpretations, each strung from still more interpretations. Almost every archaeologist I interviewed complained that the field has become ‘overinterpreted’—that the ratio of physical evidence to speculation about that evidence is out of whack. Good stories can generate their own momentum.”3

Yet, as discussed in my book Who Was Adam? (and articles listed below in the Resources section), careful examination of the archaeological and fossil evidence reveals just how speculative the claims about Neanderthal “exceptionalism” are. Could it be that the claims of Neanderthal art and religion result from an overinterpreted archaeological record, and not the other way around?

In effect, Mooallem’s critique of the “modern human supremacists” cuts both ways. In light of the limited and incomplete data from the archaeological record, it could be inferred that paleoanthropologists who claim Neanderthals have sophisticated cognitive capacities, just like modern humans, have their own prejudices fueled by an “anti-modern human bias” and a speciesism all their own—a bias that seeks to undermine the uniqueness and exceptionalism of modern humans. And to do this they must make Neanderthals out to be just like us.

As to the question: Why did God create these creatures (and the other hominids)? That will have to wait for another post. So stay tuned…

Resources

Endnotes

  1. Jon Mooallem, “Neanderthals Were People, Too,” New York Times Magazine, January 11, 2017, https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/11/magazine/neanderthals-were-people-too.html.
  2. Joaquín Rodríguez-Vidal et al., “A Rock Engraving Made by Neanderthals in Gibraltar,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, USA 111 (September 2014): 13301–6, doi:10.1073/pnas.1411529111.
  3. Mooallem, “Neanderthals Were People.”
Reprinted with permission by the author
Original article at:
https://reasons.org/explore/blogs/the-cells-design/read/the-cells-design/2017/02/08/were-neanderthals-people-too-a-response-to-jon-mooallem

Did Neanderthals Make Jewelry?

didneanderthalsmakejewelry

BY FAZALE RANA – SEPTEMBER 28, 2016

I was a troublemaker in high school. And that meant I spent more than my fair share of time in Mr. Reynold’s office—our school’s vice principal.

It wasn’t long before we developed a bit of a dance that played out each time I was summoned to his office. Mr. Reynolds would accuse me of some misdeed (for which he usually had ample evidence) and I would respond with an elaborate defense, hoping to convince him of my innocence. I quickly learned that if my excuse was to stick, every detail of my story had to hang together.

A few days ago, I was reminded of my conversations with Mr. Reynolds when I learned about recent work by a large team of collaborators from the US, UK, Germany, and France. Based on their research efforts, these paleoanthropologists claim to have new evidence that Neanderthals produced body ornaments and, hence, possessed the capacity for symbolism and advanced cognitive abilities—just like us.1 Yet, this story doesn’t hang together when considering other details about Neanderthal biology and natural history.

Take it from someone who has experience concocting stories—the claim that Neanderthals displayed symbolism doesn’t pan out.

The Grotte du Renne Cave Site

During a recent visit to the well-studied Grotte du Renne cave site in central France, these research collaborators unearthed previously unknown hominid bone fragments. These pieces of bones were morphologically nondescript. Yet these investigators found the bones to be highly informative, thanks to the application of newly developed, sophisticated techniques that allowed them to characterize ancient protein and mitochondrial DNA fragments associated with the bones. These ancient biomolecules indicated that the bones came from a Neanderthal infant.

This discovery is significant because these newly discovered bone fragments were recovered in the same layers that contain beads made from animal teeth, shells, and ivory. These “necklaces” serve as markers for symbolic capacity—a property that many people think defines modern humans. Symbolic capacity is a behavioral feature that causes a number of anthropologists to think that modern humans are behaviorally unique and exceptional.

The Grotte du Renne site contains 15 archaeological layers spanning about 12 feet in depth. Neanderthals and modern humans occupied this cave at various times between 28,000–45,000 years ago. The top layers—which are the most recent—contain artifacts produced by modern humans. However, the most interesting layers are VIII, IX, and X. These layers contain Neanderthal remains, with layer X harboring markers for symbolism. This layer dates to about 40,000 years in age. If this data is accepted at face value, it indicates that these hominids evolved the capacity for symbolic behavior and possessed advanced cognitive abilities just before their extinction.

Neanderthals appeared about 250,000 years ago and became extinct around 40,000+ years ago. The archaeological record indicates that for most of their existence Neanderthals behaved in a relatively unsophisticated manner compared to modern humans. (This behavior is described as the Mousterian culture.) However, based on the findings from the Grotte du Renne, some paleoanthropologists have argued that around 40,000 years ago—the time of modern humans’ arrival in Europe and right before Neanderthals’ disappearance—these hominids evolved the capacity for modern behavior and with it, symbolic thought. (Paleoanthropologists refer to this behavior as the Châtelperronian culture.)

Neanderthal Symbolism and the RTB Human Origins Model

The existence of the Châtelperronian culture means that modern humans aren’t behaviorally unique. From an evolutionary vantage point, it implies that advanced cognitive abilities evolved independently in modern humans and Neanderthals (with the antecedents for symbolism residing with the direct evolutionary ancestor of modern humans and Neanderthals).

If this insight stands, it undermines the view of humanity espoused by Scripture—namely, that human beings uniquely bear God’s image—and, specifically the RTB human origins model (detailed in the expanded and updated edition of Who Was Adam?), which regards symbolism as an aspect of the image of God.

So what did this research team discover and what conclusions can they legitimately draw from their discoveries?

It is also worth noting that every previous claim for Neanderthal symbolism from the archaeological record has failed to withstand scientific scrutiny.

Characterization of the Grotte du Renne Bone Fragments

The research team saw the discovery of the morphologically indistinct bone fragments in layer X as an opportunity to try out new methods they recently developed, designed to recover and characterize ancient protein fragments from fossil specimens. They hope that these fragments (which are much more likely to be present in ancient bones than DNA) will provide insight into the taxonomic identity of the bone fragments, but also help scientists gain insight into the biology and natural history of ancient organisms. (The study of ancient proteins is called paleoproteomics).

Early work in paleoproteomics demonstrates that fragments of certain forms of collagen can be used to identify large bodied genera. These researchers extracted proteins from 196 bone fragments found in layer X. Of those, 28 possessed a collagen fingerprint that identified them as coming from a hominid.

The researchers then extracted more than 70 different proteins from 3 of the 28 bone pieces. As is true for all studies involving ancient biomolecules, contamination by biomolecules from the environment and human handlers is a real concern. Because of this complication, the researchers employed an elaborate set of steps to discriminate endogenous proteins from contaminants, including:

  • Analyzing extraction blanks: Proteins found in both the blanks and samples must be contaminants introduced in the handling of the bones.
  • Assessing chemical alteration of proteins: As proteins age, they undergo characteristic chemical changes (such as glutamine and asparagine deamidation). Proteins that don’t show these transformations must be contaminants.
  • Searching protein databases: The researchers compared the amino acid sequences of the extracted proteins with amino acid sequences of proteins produced by nonhuman animals. Matches were taken as contaminants.

Through this process, the researchers discovered a number of collagens and non-collagen proteins that appeared to be authentic. Many of these extracted proteins are produced by cells during bone growth. Isotope analysis of collagen extracted from the hominid bones indicate that they came from an individual whose chief diet was breast milk. On this basis, the researchers concluded that the fragments were from an infant. They then found that the amino acid sequences of the extracted collagens matched collagen amino acid sequences found in both Neanderthals and Denisovans. (The researchers deduced the amino acid sequences of hominid collagens from the Neanderthal and Denisovan genomes.)

Additionally, the researchers recovered mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) from one of the bone pieces. The sequence of this DNA aligns with Neanderthal mtDNA, providing confirmatory evidence that the bone fragments came from a Neanderthal.

Finally, the researchers used carbon-14 dating of extracted collagen to determine the age of the bone pieces at 37,000–39,000 years bp (before the present).

On the basis of all of these results, they concluded that the bone pieces came from a Neanderthal infant that was buried in the cave around 38,000 years ago, and more broadly that Neanderthals produced the “necklace beads” found in layer X.

It is important to point out that this is not the first time anthropologists have arrived at this conclusion. Anthropologists have long had evidence from morphologically informative fossils for the co-occurrence of Neanderthal remains and symbolic artifacts in layer X. The novelty of this work centers around the power of paleoproteomics and ancient DNA analysis to provide key insight into the identity of fossil remains and the natural history of ancient creatures.

Did Neanderthals Display Symbolism?

Does the co-occurrence of Neanderthal remains and symbolic artifacts in layer X provide evidence for Neanderthal behavior on par with modern humans? It can, but this conclusion has to align with everything else we know about Neanderthal biology and behavior—and it doesn’t.

For example, previous work by other archaeologists at the Grotte du Renne has demonstrated that the layers in this cave have been mixed. It appears as if past occupants dug into the cave floor, turning over the cave layers. This activity means that the association between Neanderthal remains and symbolic artifacts could merely be coincidental.

In the face of this challenge, paleoanthropologists could argue that the 37,000–39,000-year-old date of the remains in layer X (determined in the latest study)—which matches the age of the symbolic artifacts—indicates that mixing didn’t impact layer X. Yet within the past few years, paleoanthropologists have shown that carbon-14 dating of Neanderthal remains has been plagued by carbon-14 contaminants, which renders their measured ages younger than they actually are. Improved methodology (designed to remove these contaminants) places Neanderthal extinction around 45,000+ years bp. This well-known contamination issue raises questions about the dating of the Grotte du Renne specimens, leaving open the real possibility that the Neanderthal remains are much older than 38,000 years in age. If so, it makes it likely that mixing of the cave layers did, indeed, occur.

Apart from the mixing of the Grotte du Renne cave layers and questions about the dating of the Neanderthal remains in layer X, the most significant reason for skepticism about claims regarding Neanderthals’ symbolic capabilities centers around what we have learned about the anatomy and physiology of this hominid’s brain.

Collectively, these observations indicate that Neanderthals were cognitively inferior to modern humans. It is hard to square these biological differences with claims that Neanderthals displayed symbolism.

It is true: Neanderthals had a brain size comparable to modern humans (maybe even slightly larger), but as I point out in Who Was Adam?, the body mass of Neanderthals was larger than modern humans. Anthropologists think that the ratio of brain size to body mass is a better indicator of intelligence than brain size alone. This ratio is called the encephalization quotient (EQ). The EQ of modern humans is greater than that of Neanderthals, indicating that these hominids were cognitively inferior to modern humans.

More importantly, the brain structures of modern human and Neanderthals differ. As discussed in Who Was Adam?, Neanderthals possessed an underdeveloped parietal lobe compared to modern humans. This part of the brain plays a role in processing information that supports language and mathematical reasoning. Also, Neanderthals devoted a greater region of their brain to vision and body control than modern humans. This would have left a smaller portion of the brain available for advanced cognition. Paleoanthropologists have determined that blood flow to Neanderthal brains was significantly lower compared to modern humans, implying that these hominids inherently lacked the capacity to support the same high level of interneuronal connectivity and synaptic activity as modern humans.

As discussed in Who Was Adam?, comparisons of modern human and Neanderthal genomes also reveal differences in genes involved in neuronal development. This result helps explain the morphological differences between modern human and Neanderthal brains.

I also point out that studies of Neanderthal dental microanatomy reveal that these creatures had a rapid, practically nonexistent adolescence. This rapid maturation leaves little time for brain development to occur after birth like it does in modern humans.

Collectively, these observations indicate that Neanderthals were cognitively inferior to modern humans. It is hard to square these biological differences with claims that Neanderthals displayed symbolism.

Finally, it is worth noting that every previous claim for Neanderthal symbolism from the archaeological record has failed to withstand scientific scrutiny.2 It is unclear if Neanderthals buried their dead, and if they did, these burials most certainly were not ritualistic. Claims of Neanderthal music and art haven’t panned out, and there is no concrete evidence that Neanderthals had language capacity.

Take it from someone who has experience concocting stories, the claim that Neanderthals displayed symbolism doesn’t hang together. Anthropologists who claim otherwise should be sent to detention during their lunch hour.

What if the association between Neanderthal remains and symbolic artifacts proves true? There are other ways to explain their co-occurrence. Because Neanderthals and modern humans coexisted for a brief period of time in Europe, it could be that Neanderthals “appropriated” modern human artifacts and carried them to their cave sites. Given everything we know about Neanderthal brain anatomy, this is a much better story than one that has Neanderthals possessing symbolic capabilities.

Resources
Who Was Adam? by Fazale Rana with Hugh Ross (book)
Paleoanthropologists Mixed Up about Neanderthal Behavior” by Fazale Rana (article)
The Latest on Neanderthal Extinctions” by Fazale Rana (article)
Did Neanderthals Make Art?” by Fazale Rana (article)
Did Neanderthals Bury Their Dead with Flowers?” by Fazale Rana (article)
Do Neanderthal Cave Structures Challenge Human Exceptionalism?” by Fazale Rana (article)
Neanderthal Brains Make Them Unlikely Social Networkers” by Fazale Rana (article)
Blood Flow to Brain Contributes to Human Exceptionalism” by Fazale Rana (article)
Human, Neanderthal Brains Only Differ after Birth” by Fazale Rana (podcast)

Endnotes

  1. Frido Welker et al., “Palaeoproteomic Evidence Identifies Archaic Hominins Associated with the Châtelperronian at the Grotte du Renne,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, USA, published electronically September 16, 2016, doi:10.1073/pnas.1605834113.
  2. For more details, see the articles listed in the resource section of this piece and the expanded and updated edition of Who Was Adam?: A Creation Model Approach to the Origin of Humanity.
Reprinted with permission by the author
Original article at:
https://www.reasons.org/explore/blogs/the-cells-design/read/the-cells-design/2016/09/28/did-neanderthals-make-jewelry

Piltdown Man: The Fact and Fantasy of the Hominid Fossil Record

piltdownmanthefactandfantasy.png

BY FAZALE RANA – AUGUST 24, 2016

In high school and college, I played my fair share of practical jokes. While a few of the victims of my hoaxes appreciated my sense of humor, most were “not amused.” (To quote my high school English teacher Mrs. Hodges who, in turn, was quoting Queen Victoria: “Mr. Rana, we are not amused.”)

Hoaxes aren’t just frowned upon in high school. They are really frowned upon in science. They undermine the integrity of the scientific process. And because of the damage they can cause, scientific hoaxes have been known to end careers.

Perhaps one of the most significant scientific hoaxes ever took place around the turn of the last century, when Piltdown man fossils were discovered. These fossils—which turned out to be forgeries—were touted as the missing link in human evolution and misdirected paleoanthropology for nearly 40 years. Though many suspects have been identified, nobody knew who perpetrated this hoax—until now, thanks to the efforts of a multidisciplinary research team from the UK.1

Piltdown Man

In 1912, Charles Dawson and Arthur Smith Woodward reported on fossils recovered from ancient graves near Sussex, England. Pieces of a human-like cranium, a partial ape-like jaw, and a few worn-down molars were interpreted to come from an individual hominid (deemed Eoanthropus dawsoni). The fragments displayed the very features that evolutionary biologists expected to see in the missing link.

Dawson and Woodward reported that their specimen was associated with other ancient mammal fossils, so they dated their find at about 500,000 years old.

Piltdown man’s status as humanity’s ancestor gained further credence with Dawson’s 1915 report of a second specimen recovered near Sheffield Park (dubbed Piltdown man II).

Exposing the Fraud

However, after Raymond Dart discovered Australopithecus in 1924, some scientists began to think Dart’s newly recognized hominid—not Piltdown man—was the one that led to modern humans. Scientists further questioned Piltdown man’s importance as a transitional form in the 1930s when paleoanthropologists discovered and confirmed Pithecanthropus erectus and Sinanthropus pekinensis as ancient hominids. For some paleoanthropologists, Piltdown man was relegated to a mere evolutionary side branch. But still, Piltdown man cast a shadow over paleoanthropology, causing some scientists to question the significance of Dart’s finds and the hominids unearthed in China.

The legendary Piltdown man forgery went unrecognized for nearly 40 years until a team of scientists exposed it as a fraud in 1953. Better dating of the site of Piltdown man’s discovery and careful chemical and morphological analysis of the fossil specimens ultimately exposed what Alexander Kohn (one-time editor of the Journal of Irreproducible Results) called “the most elaborate scientific hoax ever perpetuated.”2 The fossils were actually carefully doctored modern remains stained with a dye to make them appear old. The cranium pieces were human. The jaw bone fragment came from an orangutan. The teeth were carefully filed to fit the mandible and make them appear more human-like.

So who is responsible for the Piltdown man forgery? Science historians have debated the perpetrator’s identity and the motivation behind his or her actions. Thanks to the work of the multidisciplinary team, we are closer to knowing who the perpetrator was. These scientists applied state-of-the-art analytical techniques to the Piltdown man fossils to gain better insight into the nature of the forgery. Using DNA analysis, they determined that the orangutan jaw bone and molars from Piltdown man and Piltdown man II specimens came from the same creature that lived in Borneo.

Three-dimensional x-ray imaging indicated that the skull bones and teeth were all doctored in the same way. The same dental putty was used to fill bones and affix teeth to the mandible for Piltdown man I and II specimens. These results all point to the work of a single forger.

Given the circumstances surrounding Piltdown man’s “discovery,” the evidence strongly points to Charles Dawson as the culprit. As the authors of the study point out:

“Over the years, at least 20 others have been accused of being the perpetrator, but in many cases, the allegation also includes Dawson as co-conspirator. This is largely because the story originated with him, he brought the first specimens to Dr. Arthur Smith Woodward, Keeper of Geology at the British Museum (Natural History) in 1912, nothing was ever found at the site when Dawson was not there, he is the only known person directly associated with the supposed finds at the second Piltdown site, the exact whereabouts of which he never revealed, and no further significant fossils, mammal or human, were discovered in the localities after his death in 1916.”3

As impressive as this work is: Why spend so much effort to study fossil forgery? The rationale is two-fold. First, this study demonstrates the value of emerging techniques to shed light on age-old questions in paleoanthropology. Second, this project focuses renewed attention on the Piltdown man forgery—100 years after Dawson’s death—serving as a reminder of how powerful biases can influence interpretations of the fossil record.

Science historians have long discussed why the scientific community so readily accepted Piltdown man as authentic, and why it took so long to recognize the discovery as a forgery, since (at least in retrospect) many indicators along this line were quite evident.

These complex questions have complex answers. In part, the ready acceptance of Piltdown man stemmed from the eagerness to find the “missing link” to support Darwin’s model for human evolution with evidence from the fossil record. Piltdown man exactly fit the scientific community’s preconceived ideas as to what the transitional intermediate between humans and apes must look like. According to Kohn:

“Scientists, contrary to lay belief, do not work by collecting only ‘hard’ facts and fitting together information based on them. Scientific investigation is also motivated by pursuit of recognition and fame, by hope and by prejudice. Dubious evidence is strengthened by strong hope: anomalies are fitted into a coherent picture with the help of cultural bias.”4

To put it another way: Scientists are human, and from time to time their fallibility or bias can influence the scientific process. The scientists who took part in this study agree. Based on their investigation into the Piltdown man forgery, they acknowledge that:

“It has opened our eyes to the scientific rigour required to avoid being deceived in the same manner as so many scientists were between 1912 and 1917. As scientists, we must not be led by preconceived ideas in the evaluation of new discoveries.”5

I fully agree with the authors, but as a skeptic of the evolutionary paradigm I have to ask: Has a different type of bias colored the interpretation of hominid fossil record? Many biologists claim that human evolution is a fact. In light of this commitment, anthropologists interpret the hominid fossil record from a preconceived evolutionary perspective, in spite of the scientific challenges to human evolution that arise from the hominid finds. In my experience, few, if any, anthropologists are open to the possibility that evolutionary mechanisms alone may be insufficient to account for humanity’s origins, regardless of the evidence at hand.

And, in my view, this bias has misdirected attempts to understand humanity’s origins for the last 150 years.

Resources
Q&A: Are There Transitional Intermediates in the Fossil Record?” by Fazale Rana (Article)
The Amazing Disappearing Hominid!” by Fazale Rana (Article)
A Key Transitional Form in Human Evolution May Not Have Existed” by Fazale Rana (Article)
The Unreliability of Hominid Phylogenetic Analysis Challenges the Human Evolutionary Paradigm” by Fazale Rana (Article)
Who Was Adam? by Fazale Rana with Hugh Ross (Book)

Endnotes
  1. Isabelle De Groote et al., “New Genetic and Morphological Evidence Suggests a Single Hoaxer Created ‘Piltdown Man,’” Royal Society Open Science 3 (August 2016): 160328, doi:10.1098/rsos.160328.
  2. Alexander Kohn, False Prophets: Fraud and Error in Science and Medicine, rev. ed. (Oxford, UK: Basil Blackwell, 1988), 133.
  3. De Groote, “New Genetic and Morphological Evidence.”
  4. Kohn, False Prophets, 140.
  5. De Groote, “New Genetic and Morphological Evidence.”
Reprinted with permission by the author
Original article at:
https://www.reasons.org/explore/blogs/the-cells-design/read/the-cells-design/2016/08/24/piltdown-man-the-fact-and-fantasy-of-the-hominid-fossil-record

Science News Flash: Are Humans Still Evolving?

sciencenewsflasharehumansstillevolving

BY FAZALE RANA – AUGUST 1, 2016

Are human beings divinely created? Or are we the product of an evolutionary history? Or both?

Nearly everyone has some interest in human origins. And for that reason, it’s not surprising that discoveries in anthropology frequently garner headlines and serve as fodder for popular science pieces.

Recently, paleoanthropologist John Hawks from the University of Wisconsin-Madison wrote an excellent piece for the August 2016 edition of The Scientist entitled, “Humans Never Stopped Evolving.” In this article, Hawks discusses a number of recent studies that identify natural selection at work in human beings and presents scientific updates on several well-known examples of evolutionary changes in humans, such as the ability to digest milk sugar and the origin of regional differences (racial diversity).

In all cases, the underlying implication is: If we observe human evolution happening before our eyes—time and time again—then we have clear-cut evidence that human beings evolved. But is that really the case? Is that the proper conclusion to draw from these scientific observations?

I would say, no.

From a creationist perspective, that the ability of humans (and other creatures) to adapt through microevolutionary change is evidence for God’s provision and providence.

The evolutionary changes described by Hawks are merely examples of microevolutionarychanges—variation within a species. In fact, it could be argued from a creationist perspective that the ability of humans (and other creatures) to adapt through microevolutionary change is evidence for God’s provision and providence.

Hawks’ examples of human evolution fall into the same category as (1) the acquisition of antibiotic resistance by bacteria; (2) the development of pesticide and herbicide resistance by insects and plants; (3) the change in wing color of the peppered moth; and (4) the variation in beak shape by the finches on the Galapagos Islands.

These common examples of evolutionary changes are often cited as evidence for biological evolution. Microevolutionary changes, however, don’t necessarily extend to support macroevolutionary changes (the creation of biological novelty through undirected evolutionary processes). And there are many reasons—see Who Was Adam?—to be skeptical of evolutionary explanations for the origin of humanity.

Evidence for human microevolution does not constitute evidence for human evolution.

Resources
Evidence That Humans Are Evolving Is Not Evidence for Human Evolution” by Fazale Rana (Article)
Human Evolution Speeding Up” (Podcast)
Modern Life’s Pressures May Be Hastening Human Evolution” (Podcast)
Who Was Adam? by Fazale Rana with Hugh Ross (Book)
RTB Live! Vol. 15: Exploring the Origin of the Races with Fazale Rana (DVD)

Reprinted with permission by the author
Original article at:
https://www.reasons.org/explore/blogs/the-cells-design/read/the-cells-design/2016/08/01/science-news-flash-are-humans-still-evolving

Science News Flash: Stone Tool Use by Capuchin Monkeys Challenges Human Evolution

sciencenewsflashstonetoolusebycapuchin

BY FAZALE RANA – JULY 14, 2016

I love cashew nuts! Apparently, so do capuchin monkeys.

A team of scientists from Oxford University (in the UK) and the University of Sao Paulo (in Brazil) report that capuchin monkeys in the northeast forests of Brazil make sophisticated use of stone tools to extract cashew nuts from shells.1

These researchers claim that this find sheds light on the evolution of human behavior. However, I take a different view. I maintain that this discovery actually undermines the standard model for human evolution. At the same time, this work highlights human exceptionalism, which finds ready explanation in the biblical human origins account.2

Tools Engender New Scientific Possibilities

This discovery, reported in the journal Current Biology, has found its way into popular science outlets, spurring headlines such as “Scientists Unearthed a Trove of 700-Year-Old Stone Tools—Used by Monkeys.” And with good reason. It is the first archaeological evidence for the use of stone tools by nonhuman primates outside of Africa, suggesting a whole new arena of scientific investigation. Lydia Luncz, a member of the research team, stated, “We think we’re just at the beginning.”3

To get to cashew nuts, capuchins go through an elaborate process. These monkeys carefully select large flat sandstones and quartzite to use as an anvil and hammer, respectively. They transport these stones to the base of the cashew trees. There, they place the cashew nut on the flat anvil (which is about four times the size of the hammer) and carefully strike the shell with the hammer (which is about four times the size of an average stone) breaking it open so they can get to the nut inside. Once they are done with the tools, the capuchins leave them at the base of cashew trees. A walk through the forest reveals a number of cashew nut processing centers, established by these industrious creatures.

To determine how long capuchins have engaged in this behavior, the research team excavated beneath several cashew trees located in the Brazilian forest. They discovered stone tools at least 2 feet beneath the surface that date back to about 700 years old. The excavated tools had a dark organic residue on them. Analysis of the residue indicates that it is the leftover remnants of cashew nuts, confirming the use of these stones as tools. Based on the excavations, it appears that about 100 generations of capuchins have employed stone tools to extract cashews from shells. It is reasonable to think that this behavior extends even further back in time.

This discovery follows on the heels of earlier work by the same team. In a previous study, these scientists observed Burmese long-tailed macaques in Thailand using stone tools to crack open shellfish, crabs, and nuts. Excavations at macaque sites on the island of Piak Nam Yai have identified stone tools that are about 65 years in age, going back two generations.

The use of stone tools among nonhuman primates is not limited to capuchins and macaques. Researchers have also uncovered evidence for chimpanzee stone tool use in Africa that dates back to over 4,000 years ago.

It seems as if hominids aren’t the only primates to leave behind an archaeological record.

Tools Throw Evolution into Question

The use of stone tools by capuchins, macaques, and chimpanzees has important implications for the creation-evolution debate. The tools used by these nonhuman primates is reminiscent of tools used by hominids. The similar behavior of hominids, Great Apes, and Old and New World monkeys renders the activities of hominids much less remarkable. I wrote elsewhere about the implications of tool use by chimpanzees (see here). The point I raised applies to the use of stone tools by capuchins and macaques:

“Chimpanzee behavior is closer to what we infer about hominid behavior from the fossil record, particularly Homo habilis and Homo erectus. These creatures, too, made tools and engaged in hunting and scavenging activity. The temptation is to see hominid behavior as transitional, representing a path to modern human behavior. Yet the newly recognized behavior of chimpanzees distances the hominids from modern humans. Just because the habilines and erectines made tools and engaged in other remarkable behaviors doesn’t mean that they were ‘becoming human.’ Instead, their behavior appears to be increasingly animal-like, particularly when compared to chimp activities.”4

And, I would add, hominid behavior becomes even more animal-like when compared to the behavior of capuchins and macaques.

Resources
Who Was Adam? (book)
Chimpanzee’s Behavior Supports RTB’s Model for Humanity’s Origin” (article)
Chimpanzees’ Sleeping Habits Closer to Hominid Behavior Than to Humans’” (article)

Endnotes
  1. Michael Haslam et al., “Pre-Columbian Monkey Tools,” Current Biology 26 (July 2016): pR521–R522, doi:10.1016/j.cub.2016.05.046.
  2. RTB’s biblical creation model for human origins views the hominids as creatures, created by God’s divine fiat, possessing intelligence and emotional capacity. These animals were able to employ crude tools and even adopt some level of “culture,” much like baboons, gorillas, and chimpanzees. But they were not spiritual beings made in God’s image. That position—and all of the intellectual, relational, and symbolic capabilities that come with it—remains reserved for modern humans alone.
  3. Darryl Fears, “Scientists Unearthed a Trove of 700-Year-Old Stone Tools—Used by Monkeys,” The Washington Post, July 11, 2016, https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/animalia/wp/2016/07/11/in-brazil-scientists-unearth-a-trove-of-ancient-stone-tools-used-by-monkeys/.
  4. Fazale Rana, “Chimpanzees’ Sleeping Habits Closer to Hominid Behavior Than to Humans,’” Today’s New Reason to Believe (blog), Reasons to Believe, June 9, 2014, https://www.reasons.org/articles/chimpanzees-sleeping-habits-closer-to-hominid-behavior-than-to-humans.
Reprinted with permission by the author
Original article at:
https://www.reasons.org/explore/blogs/the-cells-design/read/the-cells-design/2016/07/14/science-news-flash-stone-tool-use-by-capuchin-monkeys-challenges-human-evolution