Download The Case Against Human Evolution

The Case Against
Human Evolution
David White
Contents
Chapter 1
Human Evolution: An Ever-Changing Story
Chapter 2
A Matter Of Interpretation
Chapter 3
Inconvenient Fossils
Chapter 4
Decaying Genomes
Chapter 5
Fossil Classification: An Inexact Science
Chapter 6
What About Dna?
Appendix
Did Religion Evolve?
Did Humans Evolve From Ape-Like Ancestors?
Many people would say that this question was settled long ago. After all, aren’t museums ‘full’
of fossils that prove this beyond reasonable doubt? Well, even though many people think the
evidence is convincing, perhaps that’s partly because they have never been exposed to a critical
appraisal of the evidence?
The purpose of this booklet is to demonstrate that objections to human evolution aren’t just
religious or philosophical in nature. The ‘evidence’ itself has serious shortcomings.
Human Evolution A Skeptical View briefly summarizes multiple lines of evidence that undermine our alleged descent from ape-like ancestors. Since knowing where you come from is one
of the most important questions anyone can contemplate, I encourage you to take the time to
ponder these lines of evidence for yourself.
3
Chapter 1
Human Evolution: An Ever-Changing Story
According to recent books on evolution, humans are closely related
to chimpanzees and we shared a common ancestor 6 million years ago.
Since this time, the human lineage has allegedly undergone
a profound transformation.
4
Oxford Geneticist, Bryan Sykes, puts this ‘transformation’ in perspective when he writes:
“We certainly do have a lot in common with chimpanzees and other apes, but there are
also a hell of a lot of differences: our upright posture, a very large brain, language, reasoning, art, superb manual dexterity — all features that are almost invisible in our primate
cousins. All these features developed extremely rapidly in our ancestors, but failed to
materialize in our close genetic relatives.”1
The fossil evidence for human evolution is meant to document—where possible—how
modern humans, with our “hell of a lot of differences” progressively arose from ape-like
ancestors. Many fossils have been touted as evidence, but this ‘evidence’ is constantly revised
and debated.
Previous Candidates
For many years school students were told that celebrated ape-like fossils, such as Zinjanthropus boisei from Tanzania, Ramapithecus from India and Australopithecus africanus from South Africa were
definite human ancestors. With the passage of time, however, all these creatures have either been
kicked out of the human lineage altogether or relegated to extinct side branches that didn’t lead to
humans (i.e. no longer considered human ancestors).
Fig 1. Zinjanthropus boisei (aka Australopithecus boisei) was described in National Geographic (1960) as “the
world’s earliest known human.” Today it is no longer considered a human ancestor.
Sykes, B., Adam’s Curse: The Science That Reveals Our Genetic Destiny, W.W. Norton and Company, New York, 2003, p.
125.
1
5
The story of Australopithecus africanus is a particularly intriguing example. First identified in the
1920s with a juvenile specimen from South Africa, this discovery was initially met with intense
skepticism from the scientific community. At that time, many paleoanthropologists thought our
ancestors came from England, pointing to Piltdown man (later shown to be a hoax) as primary
evidence. According to Anthropology Professor, Dean Falk, “reputations of celebrated British
paleoanthropologists were built on Piltdown, and they did not take kindly to one of their former
junior colleagues upstaging their missing link with something very different from South Africa.”2
However, with the dethroning of Piltdown man in the 1950s, Australopithecus africanus gained
prominence as a human ancestor. School children were enthusiastically taught—for many
years—this creature was their distant, ape-like ancestor. But this dogma would eventually be
overturned.
In the 1970s a different type of ape-like creature found in Ethiopia took centre stage. This fossil
was nicknamed “Lucy”. And Lucy caused a major rethink in the way scientists viewed human
evolution. According to the fossil’s discoverer, “it was now time to relegate A. africanus to an
extinct side branch of human evolution, and to position A. afarensis [Lucy’s species] as the trunk
of the tree.”3
Fig 2. Australopithecus africanus, represented above by the Taung Child specimen, was long considered a human ancestor until it was ‘displaced’ by Lucy’s species.
Falk, D., The Fossil Chronicles: How Two Controversial Discoveries Changed Our View of Human Evolution, University of
California Press, Berkeley, 2011, p.3.
3
Johanson, D., Wong, K., Lucy’s Legacy: The Quest for Human Origins, Three Rivers Press, New York, 2009, p. 21.
2
6
Australopithecus – What’s In A Name?
Before progressing any further, let’s pause for a moment to clarify how scientists classify fossils. To the uninitiated, the elaborate scientific names given to fossils can be
bewildering—but the naming conventions are systematic. In the 18th century, the
Swedish scientist Carl Linnaeus established a classification system whereby every species has a two-word Latin name. Creatures are classified according to their genus (the
larger grouping) and then to a species within that genus. Humans, for instance, are
classified as Homo sapiens—because we belong to the genus ‘Homo’ and the species
‘sapien’.
When we consider the alleged evidence for human evolution, the genus Australopithecus
comes into sharp focus. Australopithecus literally means ‘southern ape’. This genus name was
coined in 1925 when Raymond Dart discovered an ape-like creature from South Africa that
he thought was ancestral to man. Dart also assigned the specimen to the species africanus.
Hence its full title Australopithecus africanus. Since 1925 many other australopithecines have
been discovered in Africa. Some have been assigned to africanus, but others have been assigned different species names. Lucy, for instance, is also an australopithecine but she is considered sufficiently different to africanus to warrant her own species name, afarensis. Recent
books on human evolution, therefore, present readers with a growing collection of australopithecines: A. africanus, A. afarensis, A. anamensis, A. sediba, A. garhi etc. Since Lucy’s species
is the most famous, afarensis will be given the most attention in this booklet. But it’s helpful to
look at them as a whole: what were australopithecines? (I say ‘were’ because they are extinct.)
A good place to start is the name. As mentioned, Australopithecus literally means ‘southern
ape’. No anatomist would confuse them with a human. They possessed ape-like skulls, an
ape-like stature and had many anatomical features consistent with life in the trees. However,
most paleoanthropologists regard them as far more than just ‘apes’. Their apparent ability
to walk upright has enamoured many scientists, hailing them as progenitors of man. But
their level of bipedalism varies, depending on who is telling the story. Some have claimed that
certain australopithecines were “super-bipeds”4, whereas other researchers offer a less flattering
perspective, saying they walked with bent hips and knees. Still others claim they ‘walked’ on their
knuckles!5 Studies of the boney labyrinth (which houses the organ of balance) has revealed that
“australopithecines show great-ape-like proportions” instead of modern-human-like proportions.6
This suggests they didn’t walk habitually upright in the human manner.
Tattersall, I., Masters of the Planet: The Search for Our Human Origins, Palgrave Macmillan, New York, 2012, p. 29.
Zimmer, C., Smithsonian Intimate Guide to Human Origins, Smithsonian Books, New York, 2005, p. 57.
6
Spoor, F., Wood, B., Zonneveld, F., Implications of early hominid labyrinthine morphology for evolution of human bipedal
locomotion, Nature 369:645–648, 23 June 1994.
4
5
7
Your perception, therefore, of australopithecine bipedalism will depend on which research papers
you read. For the sake of the argument, even if we accept the australopithecines were accomplished
walkers, it doesn’t necessarily follow that they are ancestral to humans. Bonobos and chimpanzees
can walk. 7 Orangutans have been described as “pretty good bipeds on the ground.” 8 Other extinct
apes, which lived outside Africa (and therefore aren’t part of the human evolution discussion) seemed
to be bipedal. 9 Perhaps australopithecines are just another type of extinct ape that had a limited
ability to walk upright?
Fig 3. Two species of australopithecines: Australopithecus africanus (child specimen-left) and Australopithecus
boisei (right).
Johanson, D., Wong, K., Lucy’s Legacy: The Quest for Human Origins, Three Rivers Press, New York, 2009, p. 120.
Tattersall, I., Masters of the Planet: The Search for Our Human Origins, Palgrave Macmillan, New York, 2012, p. 19.
9
Köhler, M., Moyá-Solá, S., Ape-like or hominid-like? The positional behavior of Oreopithecus bambolii reconsidered,
Proceedings of the National Academy of Science USA 94:11747–11750, October 1997.
7
8
8
Lucy’s Legacy
Lucy has been described by her discoverer as “the most beautiful, the most nearly complete, the
most extraordinary hominid fossil in the world.”10 For many years ‘she’ has featured prominently
in museum displays worldwide as key evidence for human evolution. But as was the case with
Australopithecus africanus, Lucy’s reign might be coming to an end. In recent years, there have
been a growing number of calls to evict Lucy from the human lineage.
Meave Leakey is a leading fossil hunter questioning Lucy’s significance. She believes her discovery of a fossil creature in Kenya, dubbed Kenyanthropus platyops, lived at the same time
as Lucy and could replace Lucy as a genuine human ancestor.11 According to Lucy’s discoverer: “if Kenyanthropus gave rise to Homo, then that would relegate Lucy’s species to a deadend branch on the family tree, effectively ousting A. afarensis from our ancestry.”12
Fig 4. Lucy has been described as “the Rosetta stone through which anthropologists look for the truth about
our origins.”
Johanson, D., Lucy: The Beginning of Humankind, Simon and Schuster, New York, 1981, p. 374.
Leakey, M., Spoor, F., Brown, F., Gathogo, P., Kiarie, C., Leakey, L., McDougall, I., New hominin genus from eastern
africa shows diverse middle pliocene lineages, Nature 410:433-440, 22 March 2001.
12
Johanson, D. and Wong, K., Lucy’s Legacy: The Quest for Human Origins, Three Rivers Press, New York, 2009, p. 175.
10
11
9
Other researchers who have performed fieldwork in the Tugen Hills of Kenya have also
questioned Lucy’s status.13 They argue that their discovery of a creature allegedly much
older than Lucy—named Orrorin tugenesis—is more ‘humanlike’ than Lucy and therefore that Lucy’s species “is a dead-end branch on the human family tree.”14
Still other researchers herald their discovery of Australopithecus sediba in South Africa as
the ape-like species that gave rise to humankind. According to Scientific American writer
Kate Wong, “such an arrangement would root Homo in South Africa instead of East Africa
and could banish Lucy’s species—traditionally thought to be in our direct line of ancestry—
to the evolutionary sidelines.”15
Moreover, further discoveries of Lucy’s species (Australopithecus afarensis) have undermined her
status as our ancestor. As more cranial remains have been found, scientists have discovered that
the shape of Lucy’s jaw is unlike humans and chimpanzees (the creatures we are supposedly most
closely related to) but much more like that of a gorilla. Scientists have acknowledged that this
discovery was “unexpected” and point out that it is significant enough to “cast doubt on the role
of Au. afarensis as a modern human ancestor.”16
So if history is any guide, Lucy may face the same fate many other defunct fossils have experienced:
being held up as concrete evidence for human evolution—for many years—only to be pushed to
the side later on.
Balter, M., Scientists spar over claims of earliest human ancestor, Science 291:1460-1461, 23 February 2001.
Johanson, D., Wong, K., Lucy’s Legacy: The Quest for Human Origins, Three Rivers Press, New York, 2009, p. 156.
15
http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/2013/04/24/is-australopithecus-sediba-the-most-important-human-ancestor-discovery-ever, accessed 15 February 2014.
16
Rak, Y., Ginzburg, A., Geffen, E., Gorrila-like anatomy on Australopithecus afarensis mandibles suggests Au. afarensis
link to robust australopiths, Proceedings of the National Academy of Science USA 104(16):6568-6572, 17 April 2007.
13
14
10
However, the idea that Lucy will be ‘evicted’ from our ancestry is unlikely, despite the evidence
growing against ‘her’. According to Time magazine, Lucy and her close kin are “about as firmly
entrenched in the human lineage as you can get.”17 Lucy belongs to the genus Australopithecus,
which means ‘southern ape’. And according to Richard Dawkins “it is virtually certain that our
ancestors were members of that genus.”18 Dawkins goes on to say, “almost every anthropologist
today accepts, that all members of the genus Homo are descended from ancestors belonging to
the genus we call Australopithecus.”19 This is despite the fact that many years ago evolutionary
anatomist, Charles Oxnard, conducted detailed multivariate analysis of australopithecine fossils
and came to the startling conclusion:
“Although initial studies suggest that the fossils are similar to humans, or at the worst intermediate
between humans and African apes, study of the complete evidence readily shows that the reality is
otherwise. These fossils clearly differ more from both humans and African apes, than do these two
living groups from each other. The australopithecines are unique.”20
So even though “almost every anthropologist today accepts” that we descended from the ape-like
australopithecines, there are good reasons to be skeptical of this.
Lemonick, M., Dorfman, A., Robinson, S., One giant step for mankind, Time 158(3): 54-61, 23 July 2001.
Dawkins, R., The Greatest Show on Earth: The Evidence for Evolution, Transworld Publishers, London, 2009, p. 189.
19
Ibid., p. 192.
20
Oxnard, C., Fossils, Teeth and Sex: New Perspectives on Human Evolution, University of Washington Press, Seattle,
1987, p. 227.
17
18
11
Bipedalism
History has shown us therefore, that some fossils are like ‘rock stars’. They are given status and
attention in one generation, only to be largely forgotten by the next generation. But it isn’t
just the status of specific groups of fossils that is subject to change. Sometimes cherished ideas
about how we evolved are abandoned.
For instance, the origin of bipedalism (upright walking) is a major focus amongst
paleoanthropologists. Lucy’s discoverer calls bipedalism “the ultimate hallmark of
humanity, the game-changing innovation that separated our ancestors from the apes.”21
He also tells us, “a growing consensus postulates that the acquisition of bipedalism may
have occurred somewhere between 5 and 8 million years ago.” 22 This is around the time
the human and chimp lineages allegedly split. However, despite this “growing consensus”,
leading American Spinal Surgeon (and Harvard trained evolutionary biologist) Dr Aaron
Filler argues that most scientists have a fundamentally flawed understanding of when
and how bipedalism evolved. Filler accepts human evolution, but he contends that bipedalism arose suddenly about 15 million years before apes and humans supposedly
shared a common ancestor. Filler argues that current theories overlook key fossil discoveries and a radical shift in thinking is required but “the power of adherence to old theories
prevents scientists from seeing conflicting evidence.”23 Filler confesses this paradigm shift
won’t happen easily when he writes:
“Taking an entire generation of specialists in human evolution and proving them all to be
wrong about what they learned from their own professors, as well as what they have taught
and believed for their entire careers, will not take place without a great deal of controversy,
protest, and denial. Nonetheless, the facts speak for themselves, and the truth on this point
will prevail.” 24
Paleoanthropology has been defined as “the study of the evidence for human evolution.”25
But as we have seen, the ‘evidence’ is constantly debated and revised. The fact that our family
tree is constantly redrawn—and characterised by dotted lines marked ‘tentative’—suggests that
the story of human evolution may indeed be a fairy tale.
Johanson, D., Wong, K., Lucy’s Legacy: The Quest for Human Origins, Three Rivers Press, New York, 2009, p. 290.
Johanson, D., Edgar, B., From Lucy to Language, Simon and Schuster, New York, 2006, p.88.
23
Filler, A., The Upright Ape: A New Origin of the Species, New Page Books, 2007, p. 195.
24
Ibid., p. 18.
25
Stringer, C., Andrews, P., The Complete World of Human Evolution, Thames and Hudson, London, 2005, p.14.
21
22
12
Chapter 2
A Matter of Interpretation
In 2001 Time magazine ran an article titled “One Giant Step for Mankind”
which announced the discovery of a creature from Ethiopia named Ardipithecus kadabba.
Readers were told, “meet your newfound ancestor, a chimplike forest creature that stood
up and walked 5.8 million years ago.”26 However, the claim that this creature walked upright—and hence was our ancestor—was largely based on the shape of a single toe bone
found 16 kilometres from the rest of the fossil remains.
26
Lemonick, M., Dorfman, A., Robinson, S., One giant step for mankind, Time 158(3): 54-61, 23 July 2001.
13
To make matters worse, some paleoanthropologists aren’t convinced the toe bone testifies to
an upright gait, after all!27 This is a rather dramatic example, but it reinforces how researchers
are often limited by working with fragmentary remains. By their very nature, fragmentary remains
are open to various interpretations, and this is another reason we need to be cautious when we hear
about the latest discovery that allegedly ‘proves’ we evolved from ape-like creatures.
LUCY SKIRMISHES
And even when the fossil remains discovered are more complete, scientists still often disagree about
how to interpret them. For instance, Lucy is considered ‘remarkably complete’, and according to
‘her’ discoverer, ‘she’ is “an undoubted female.”28 However, other scientists writing in the Journal of
Human Evolution argue Lucy’s pelvis indicates the creature was male!29 If scientists can’t agree on
the gender of this famous fossil—even though it’s regarded as a ‘remarkably complete’ specimen—
how confident can we be when they tell us that Lucy’s kind is our distant ancestor?
Fig 5. Even though ‘Lucy’ is the name given to a specific skeleton, many fossils belonging to Lucy’s species
(Australopithecus afarensis) have been found.
Begun, D., The earliest hominins – is less more? Science 303:1478-1480, 5 March 2004.
Johanson, D., Lucy: The Beginning of Humankind, Simon and Schuster, New York, 1981, p. 269.
29
Häusler, M., Schmid, P., Comparison of the pelves of Sts 14 and AL 288-1: implications for birth and sexual dimorphism in australopithecines, Journal of Human Evolution 29(4):363-383, 1995.
27
28
14
Moreover, Lucy’s species isn’t just known from one skeleton. Many Australopithecus afarensis
fossils have been found. At one site in Hadar, Ethiopia, the remains of 13 partially complete
individuals were found together. These and other discoveries have enabled scientists to
establish a more comprehensive picture of this creature’s anatomy. That’s why this species has
been described as “the single best understood early fossil hominid species.”30 But even though
they have all this data available, there’s still much disagreement about how to interpret it.
Some researchers have suggested that Lucy’s species may have bent down on all fours because
‘her’ wrists have a distinctive knuckle-walking anatomy.31 Other researchers argue Lucy was
primarily a terrestrial bipedal creature; still others say its arms, fingers and toes suggest it spent
a lot of time in the trees.32
So after all these years since Lucy’s discovery—along with many other discoveries of ‘her’
species—what is the consensus about Lucy? Leading anthropologist Craig Stanford gives a
rather sobering assessment of the situation:
“Everybody loves Lucy; of all the females who have ever lived, none has had so many men –
and women – fighting over her so long after her death. She is the Rosetta stone through which
anthropologists look for the truth about our origins and the chronological benchmark that
we use to gauge all fossil humans’ degree of modernity. Nevertheless, after decades and all the
scientific studies of her frame, no solid consensus exists about her exact place in human origins.
The scientific teams that have warred over Lucy since her discovery are starkly different in their
perspectives of her.”33
Stanford goes on to explain this odd situation: “In the case of afarensis [Lucy’s species], the
same evolutionary facts are regarded differently by witnesses viewing the bones from irreconcilably different intellectual angles.”34
It would seem, therefore, that in the case of fossils, the evidence doesn’t necessarily speak for
itself. All evidence needs to be interpreted. And the bias of individual researchers can greatly
colour their interpretation. As Lucy’s discoverer candidly admitted, “there is no such thing as
a total lack of bias. I have it; everybody has it. The fossil hunter in the field has it.”35
Johanson, D., Wong, K., Lucy’s Legacy: The Quest for Human Origins, Three Rivers Press, New York, 2009, p. 110.
Richmond, B., Strait, D., Evidence that humans evolved from a knuckle-walking ancestor, Nature 404:382-385, 23
March 2000.
32
Zimmer, C., Smithsonian Intimate Guide to Human Origins, Smithsonian Books, New York, 2005, p. 55.
33
Stanford, C., Upright: The Evolutionary Key to Becoming Human, Houghton Mifflin Company, Boston, 2003, p.80.
34
Ibid., p. 93.
35
Johanson, D., Lucy: The Beginning of Humankind, Simon and Schuster, New York, 1981, p. 257.
30
31
15
Homo habilis
Interpretative issues also plague the problematic taxon Homo habilis. Many regard this as a
link between the ape-like australopithecines and ‘human-like’ Homo erectus specimens
(see later). However, various authorities have acknowledged that Homo habilis is a taxonomic
‘wastebasket’, where fossils that are difficult to classify are conveniently lumped together.36
For instance, according to the Wiley-Blackwell Encyclopedia of Human Evolution, the only
Homo habilis specimen for which we have a confirmed postcranial skeleton (i.e. skeleton below the neck) is Olduvai Hominid 62 (OH 62).37 Yet this specimen has been described as more
ape-like than Lucy!38 And considering that OH62 supposedly lived about 1.5 million years
after Lucy, that sounds like our alleged ancestors were devolving, not evolving!
Fig 6. Reconstructed from more than 150 fragments, KNM-ER 1470 is an intriguing specimen
that has been assigned various names, including Homo habilis.
Tattersall, I., Schwartz, J., Extinct Humans, Westview Press, New York, 2001, p. 111.
Bernard Wood (Ed), Wiley-Blackwell Encyclopedia of Human Evolution, Vol II, Wiley-Blackwell, West Sussex, UK,
2011, p. 568.
38
Stanley, S., Children of the Ice Age, W.H. Freeman and Company, New York, 1998, p. 196.
36
37
16
Preconceived Ideas
Another important point to keep in mind is the ‘worldview’ or ‘framework’ through which
the researchers interpret the fossils. Most scientists are committed to a naturalistic worldview.
Within this framework, researchers are allowed to debate how we evolved, but to question
whether we evolved is unthinkable. So when it comes to investigating the fossil evidence for
human evolution, everyone brings a whole suite of biases to the table.
Anthropology Professor, Dean Falk, makes the important point, “scientists (especially paleoanthropologists) can be as emotionally invested in their explanations of human origins as
religious fundamentalists are in theirs. After all, the topic literally entails matters of life and
death.”39
One of the clearest examples of this ‘emotional investment’ was demonstrated when French
paleoanthropologist Michael Brunet described his feelings about a media-hyped fossil discovery from Chad:
“It’s a lot of emotion to have in my hand the beginning of the human lineage. I have been
looking for this for so long, I knew I would one day find it, so it is a large part of my life too.
I’ve been looking for twenty-five years.”40
Fig 7. Sahelanthropus tchadensis. According to some, this fossil represents “the beginning of the human
lineage”. Other researchers, however, dismiss it as an extinct ape.
Falk, D., The Fossil Chronicles: How Two Controversial Discoveries Changed Our View of Human Evolution, University
of California Press, Berkeley, 2011, p.197.
40
Gibbons, A., The First Human: The Race to Discover our Earliest Ancestors, Anchor Books, New York, 2006, p. 213.
39
17
But even though Michael Brunet thinks the fossil represents “the beginning of the human lineage”, other researchers have dismissed the skull as an extinct ape that has nothing to do with
human ancestry.41 Perhaps his desire to find a human ancestor has coloured his interpretation
of the facts?
Wolpoff, M., Pickford, M., Senut, B., Hawks, J., Sahelanthropus or ‘Sahelpithecus’? Nature 419:581-582, 10 October
2002.
41
18
Chapter 3
Inconvenient Fossils
Sometimes fossils turn up in such a way that defies evolutionary expectations.
A classic example of this involves the discovery of a partial arm bone
(distal humerus) found in Kenya in the 1960s.
19
From the outset, the fossil (KNM KP 271) looked distinctly human. Diagnostic measurements
confirmed it was “strikingly close to the means of the human sample”.42 Other researchers echoed
this sentiment describing it as “indistinguishable from modern Homo sapiens”.43 However, this
created an evolutionary dilemma, because it was found in sediments allegedly over 3.5 million
years old.44 And according to evolutionary reckoning, “modern Homo sapiens” didn’t exist back
then, so it can’t be human!
What would happen if scientists conceded the fossil belonged to a human? What would this
mean for the big picture of human evolution? Well, to put it bluntly, that would bring down
the entire edifice of human evolution! After all, you can’t say that humans existed before many
of their alleged ape-like ancestors! Today, this ‘problem’ has been ‘solved’ by re-classifying the
humerus as belonging to the ape-like creature Australopithecus anamensis.45 A creature that is
regarded as ‘more primitive’ than Lucy’s species! But it appears this re-assignment has more to
do with making the fossil ‘fit’ ideas about human evolution.
Leading paleoanthropologists now describe this odd situation as follows: “If KNM-KP 271
does belong to Au. anamensis then this taxon has a remarkably modern human-like distal
humeral morphology.”46
So it appears this ‘inconvenient fossil’ has been ‘swept under the carpet’. However, other fossil
mysteries have been harder to put to rest.
Patterson, B., Howells, W., Hominid humeral fragment from early pleistocene of Northwestern Kenya, Science 156:6466, 7April 1967.
43
McHenry, H., Fossils and the mosaic nature of human evolution, Science 190:425-431, 31 October 1975.
44
Johanson, D., Edgar, B., From Lucy to Language, Simon and Schuster, New York, 2006, p.129.
45
Ibid.
46
Bernard Wood (Ed), Wiley-Blackwell Encyclopedia of Human Evolution , Vol II, Wiley-Blackwell, West Sussex, UK,
2011, p. 408.
42
20
Laetoli Footprints
Probably the most dramatic example here is not a fossil per se, but a series of footprints. These
footprints, known as the Laetoli Footprints, were found by Mary Leakey’s team in Tanzania
in the 1970s. And according to a noted anthropologist, they are more ‘famous’ than the
footprints Neil Armstrong made on the moon!47 So who made the footprints? Tim White
(University of California, Berkeley) admits they look distinctly human:
“Make no mistake about it, they are like modern human footprints. If one were left in the sand
of a California beach today, and a four-year-old were asked what it was, he would instantly say
that somebody had walked there. He wouldn’t be able to tell it from a hundred other prints on
the beach, nor would you. The external morphology is the same.”48
A recent study also concluded that the makers of the footprints walked with a modern
human-like extended limb gait, as opposed to the bent-hip, bent-knee gait some apes
possess.49
Fig 8. The Laetoli footprints have been described as more famous than the footprints Neil Armstrong made on
the moon.
Stanford, C., Upright: The Evolutionary Key to Becoming Human, Houghton Mifflin Company, Boston, 2003, p.86.
Johanson, D., Lucy: The Beginning of Humankind, Simon and Schuster, New York, 1981, p. 250.
49
Raichlen, D., Gordon, A., Harcourt-Smith, W., Foster, A., Randall Haas, W., Laetoli footprints preserve earliest direct
evidence of human-like bipedal biomechanics, PLoS ONE 5(3):e9769, March 2010.
47
48
21
But even though the evidence seems so clear that a four-year-old can understand it, paleoanthropologists almost universally agree a ‘modern human’ did not make these footprints!
That’s because these footprints lie in strata which are allegedly 3.6 million years old (they
are listed in The Guinness Book of Records as the ‘oldest hominid footprints’). According to
the evolutionary dating scheme, this would make them older than many of our alleged ape-like
ancestors (including Lucy). So if scientists acknowledged a modern human made the footprints,
then that too would bring down the entire edifice of human evolution! As stated previously, you
can’t say that humans existed before many of their alleged ape-like ancestors!
Many scientists have tried to gloss over the problem by assuming that Lucy’s species made
the footprints. However, fossil experts like Ian Tattersall confess this connection is “actively
debated” because skeptical scientists think Lucy’s foot was “far too long and primitive to have
produced the strikingly modern Tanzanian footprints.”50
Twenty-seven years after the footprints were discovered, Scientific American writer Kate Wong
admitted, “consider the world’s oldest whodunit an unsolved mystery.”51 The only
reason it remains an ‘unsolved mystery’ is because acknowledging a ‘modern human’ made the
footprints doesn’t support human evolution.
Perhaps that’s why Richard Dawkins can confidently reassure us that “not a single fossil
contradicts evolution.”52 When ‘inconvenient fossils’ do arise, they are consistently
re-interpreted to fit the evolutionary paradigm.
Tattersall, I., Masters of the Planet: The Search for our Human Origins, Palgrave Macmillan, New York, 2012, p. 35.
Wong, K., Footprints to fill, Scientific American, 293(2):18-19, 1 August 2005.
52
Dawkins, R., The Greatest Show on Earth: The Evidence for Evolution, Transworld Publishers, London, 2009, p. 283.
50
51
22
Chapter 4
Decaying Genomes
Let’s revisit the clear statement by an Oxford University Professor regarding the vast gulf
between apes and humans:
“We certainly do have a lot in common with chimpanzees and other apes, but there are also
a hell of a lot of differences: our upright posture, a very large brain, language, reasoning, art,
superb manual dexterity — all features that are almost invisible in our primate cousins. All
these features developed extremely rapidly in our ancestors, but failed to materialize in
our close genetic relatives.”53
These profound differences essentially boil down to differences in DNA. In other words, if
humans evolved from ape-like ancestors, then new DNA programming must have arisen to
account for all these features. The human genome must have undergone a tremendous DNA
software upgrade!
53
Sykes, B., Adam’s Curse: The Science That Reveals Our Genetic Destiny, W.W. Norton and Company, New York, 2003, p.
125.
23
We are commonly told that humans and chimps have 98% similar DNA (see chapter 6). Even
if we take this figure at face value, this would mean that our genomes differ by 60 million DNA
‘letters’ (2% of our 3 billion ‘letter’ genome). Therefore, humans and apes clearly have significant differences in their ‘genetic software’.
So how did the human genome undergo a software upgrade? The standard reason given for
how this allegedly occurred is via a slow process of mutation (DNA copying errors) and selection (either natural selection or sexual selection).
Mutations usually corrupt genetic information. Richard Dawkins reminds us of this when he
writes: “If you start with something pretty good and change it at random, the chances are that
you’ll make it worse. And, as a matter of fact, the great majority of mutations do make things
worse.”54
Fossil expert Ian Tattersall echoes this sentiment when he writes: “fiddling around with anything as intricate as a genome is asking for trouble: most random changes to a functioning
system this complicated simply won’t succeed.”55
Fig 9. Even though “the great majority of mutations do make things worse”,
many believe our genomes have been ‘upgraded’ by the mutation/selection mechanism.
54
55
Dawkins, R., Climbing Mount Improbable, W.W. Norton & Company, New York, 1996, p. 83.
Tattersall, I., Masters of the Planet: The Search for our Human Origins, Palgrave Macmillan, New York, 2012, p. XVIII.
24
Natural Selection To The Rescue?
If this process were continued indefinitely, it’s easy to see that genomes would degenerate.
However, this is where natural selection supposedly comes to the rescue.
Richard Dawkins informs us: “Natural selection promptly penalizes the bad mutations. Individuals possessing them are more likely to die and less likely to reproduce, and this automatically removes the mutations from the gene pool. Every animal and plant genome is subject to
a constant bombardment of deleterious mutations: a hailstorm of attrition.”56
Unfortunately, however, natural selection can’t ‘withstand’ the “constant bombardment of
deleterious mutations.” Since bad mutations severely outnumber ‘good’ mutations, natural
selection can’t get rid of them all.57 Conservative estimates suggest we have 50-100 new
mutations compared with our parents’ DNA.58, 59
To keep these new mutations out of the population, natural selection would have to ‘remove’
all children born!
Furthermore, in the context of a vast 3 billion ‘letter’ genome, many individual mutations will
have such a minor effect that they’ll effectively be ‘undetectable’ to natural selection. These
mutations have been likened to rust spots on a car. Each spot has a tiny effect, but accumulate
enough spots and the car falls to pieces! So even though many individual mutations have a
minor effect, the net effect is the inexorable decay of our genomes.
Moreover, even rare ‘beneficial’ mutations in the human genome often involve losses of information, despite providing a limited benefit (e.g. a mutation causing sickle-celled blood cells
helps protect against malarial infection, but that’s because the red blood cell is warped and
corrupted by the mutation). This is not the type of change that can explain the ‘new information’ that allegedly arose in the human genome.
Dawkins, R., The Greatest Show on Earth: The Evidence for Evolution, Transworld Publishers, London, 2009, p. 352.
In fairness to Dawkins, he’s not saying that natural selection ‘cleanses’ the genome of all non-advantageous mutations.
Dawkins also tells us, “the genome is subjected to a rain of attrition in the form of mutations. In that small portion of
the genome where the mutations really matter for survival, natural selection soon gets rid of the bad ones and favours
the good ones. The neutral mutations, on the other hand, simply pile up, unpunished and unnoticed.” Ibid., p.334
However, classifying most mutations as ‘neutral’ and most of the genome as ‘junk’ is an increasingly untenable
position. Readers who want to study this issue further are advised to read ref. 59
58
Stringer, C., Lone Survivors: How we came to be the only Humans on Earth, Times Books, New York, 2012, p.268.
59
Sanford, J., Genetic Entropy and the Mystery of the Genome, Elim publishing, New York, 2005, p. 34.
56
57
25
In his landmark book, Genetic Entropy and The Mystery of the Genome, former Cornell University Genetics Professor, John Sanford, explains the serious problem of mutational decay for
the human genome.
Sanford surmises:
“If the genome is actually degenerating, it is bad news for the long-term future of the human
race. It is also bad news for evolutionary theory. If mutation/selection cannot preserve the
information already within the genome, it is difficult to imagine how it could have created all
that information in the first place! We cannot rationally speak of genome-building when there
is a net loss of information every generation! Halting degeneration is just a small, prerequisite step, before the much more difficult question of information-building can reasonably be
opened for discussion.”60
Since the human genome is degenerating, it doesn’t make sense to say that this same process
(of mutation/selection) was responsible for ‘upgrading’ the genome of an ape-like creature to
that of a human being.
60
Sanford, J., Genetic Entropy and the Mystery of the Genome, Elim publishing, New York, 2005, pp. 105-106.
26
Chapter 5
Fossil Classification: An Inexact Science
So far we’ve encountered some of our alleged ancestors like australopithecines, which are most
likely extinct ape-like creatures that are not related to humans. We’ve also encountered the
‘more primitive’ Ardipithecus, which some researchers dismiss as a chimpanzee ancestor, not
a human ancestor.61 And when we came to Homo habilis, we discovered it is a disputed taxon
that contains fossil material that undermines human evolution.
But what about the other end of the spectrum of human evolution?
What about creatures like Neanderthals that look much more like a modern human?
Are they sub-human? What about fossils classified as Homo erectus?
Do they provide evidence we have descended from less-evolved forms?
27
Turkana Boy
Take for example a fossil specimen known as Turkana Boy. This fossil was found in Kenya in
1984 and has been classified as Homo ergaster (or erectus). According to The Complete World
of Human Evolution, “estimates of his probable adult height are close to 1.83m (6 ft), and his
physique was comparable with that of present-day African populations in the region today.”62
Turkana boy, therefore, possesses the basic human body plan. According to Ian Tattersall, “in
all the essentials we see a creature not too dissimilar from ourselves, at least below the neck.”63
He goes on to say, “the newly evolved body form represents a giant step along the road to becoming
fully human; and, however exactly it was achieved, it is entirely unanticipated in the fossil record
we have to hand. For, as I’ve already intimated, there is nothing in that record that we can regard as a convincing intermediate between any australopith or “early Homo,” and the Turkana
Boy.”64
This is a remarkable statement from a leading paleoanthropologist. He clearly concedes that
the basic human body plan appeared “entirely unanticipated in the fossil record” and wasn’t
preceded by any “convincing intermediate”. This certainly isn’t what we’d expect if the human
body plan arose via a slow process of evolution.
Fig 10. Turkana Boy (aka Homo ergaster/erectus) was found in Kenya in 1984 and
possesses the basic human body plan.
Johanson, D., Wong, K., Lucy’s Legacy: The Quest for Human Origins, Three Rivers Press, New York, 2009, p. 156.
Stringer, C., Andrews, P., The Complete World of Human Evolution, Thames and Hudson, London, 2005, p.139.
63
Tattersall, I., Masters of the Planet: The Search for Our Human Origins, Palgrave Macmillan, New York, 2012, p. 93.
64
Ibid., p.94.
61
62
28
Nevertheless, Turkana Boy does show some marked differences in the skull. In particular, his
cranial capacity is smaller than today’s average and his skull bones are thicker and more robust. Are these differences significant enough to warrant classifying this creature as a
different species to us?
Fig 11. Fossil replica and artist’s rendition of Turkana Boy’s skull.
To answer this question, it’s worth digressing for a moment to ponder how scientists classify
things. Take, for example, the two skulls shown below. Do you think these two creatures are
related? If they were only known from fossils, how do you think scientists would classify them?
Surprising as it may seem, both of these creatures are the same species—they are both different
types of dogs (bulldog on left, borzoi on right). The reason their skulls are so different is because
these dogs develop differently. They also show us how much individuals within one species can
vary.
BulldogBorzoi
Fig 12. Dog skulls are a dramatic example of how much individuals within one species can vary.
29
So how does this relate to human origins? Well, books on human evolution often list lots
of human-like species other than modern humans (Homo sapiens). Some of the most well
known examples are Homo neanderthalensis, Homo heidelbergensis and Homo erectus/ergaster
(e.g. Turkana Boy). The reason they are classified as different species is because they are
considered sufficiently different to us. But is this legitimate?
Identifying Different ‘Species’
According to the famous evolutionary biologist Ernst Mayr, “a species is a group of organisms
that can successfully breed with one another and cannot exchange genes with other organisms.”65
This definition is helpful when we’re trying to identify species amongst living organisms, but
it’s obviously much more difficult to classify creatures that are only known from fossils.
Science writer Ann Gibbons reminds us: “For paleontologists comparing fossils, it is virtually
impossible to determine whether specimens would have been capable of interbreeding.”66
Similarly, Ian Tattersall reminds us: “Recognizing species from their bones is often a tough
proposition among close relatives: in some cases, much physical diversity may accumulate
within a population without speciation occurring, while in others, the bones of members of
two species descended from the same ancestor may be virtually indistinguishable.”67
This means we can never be certain, for instance, that classifying Turkana Boy (Homo ergaster)
and Java Man (Homo erectus) as different species to us is a legitimate designation. Like
the example with dogs, their skeletal differences may be due to changes in development
and skeletal maturation, not because they are different species. Indeed, a neuroscientist has
recently proposed that ‘robust humans’ (Neanderthals, Homo heidelbergensis, Homo erectus,
etc.), which he regards as “fully human”, have attained their distinct morphology through
changes in development and hormone secretion patterns, not through evolution.68 If this
proposal proves correct, it could provide a powerful non-evolutionary explanation for the
unique anatomy of these contentious fossils.
Johanson, D., Wong, K., Lucy’s Legacy: The Quest for Human Origins, Three Rivers Press, New York, 2009, p. 101.
Gibbons, A., The First Human: The Race to Discover our Earliest Ancestors, Anchor Books, New York, 2006, p. 68.
67
Tattersall, I., Masters of the Planet: The Search For Our Human Origins, Palgrave Macmillan, New York, 2012, p. 189.
68
Line, P., Explaining robust humans, Journal of Creation, 27(3): 64-71, 2013.
65
66
30
Homo erectus
Perhaps we have underestimated the ‘humanity’ of fossils classified as Homo erectus? Lucy’s
discoverer, for instance, concedes that he thinks a modern man and a Homo erectus woman
could produce fertile offspring.69 Moreover, genetic researchers studying human migration
patterns have suggested modern humans mated with the members of Homo erectus they
encountered.70 This suggests that Homo erectus may well be people just like you and I.
Moreover, scientists have concluded that Homo erectus individuals built boats and travelled
across large stretches of water between different Indonesian islands.71 That certainly doesn’t
sound like the behaviour of dim-witted, half-evolved humans, does it?
Fig 13. Homo erectus specimen from Indonesia known as Sangiran 17
Johanson, D., Lucy: The Beginning of Humankind, Simon and Schuster, New York, 1981, p. 144.
Zimmer, C., Smithsonian Intimate Guide to Human Origins, Smithsonian Books, 2005, p. 109.
71
Morwood, P.B. et al., Fission-track ages of stone tools and fossils on the east Indonesian island of Flores, Nature
392:173-176, 12 March 1998.
69
70
31
No discussion of Homo erectus would be complete, however, without mentioning the
intriguing discoveries made at Kow Swamp in Victoria, Australia. Over 40 years ago, the
world’s leading science journal (Nature) informed us, “human remains from Kow Swamp
display archaic cranial features which suggest the survival of Homo erectus in Australia
until as recently as 10,000 years ago.”72
From an evolutionary perspective, this doesn’t make sense. Firstly, according to their timescale, Homo erectus supposedly died out long before this. Moreover, according to the dominate theory on how we evolved, Homo erectus individuals never made it to Australia! Today
the site of Kow Swamp has been re-dated, doubling its alleged age. But the problem hasn’t
abated. Researchers now refer to them as “robust modern humans” who probably attained
their erectus-like morphology through genetic isolation and environmental stress.73 This may
well be the case. But if it can be argued that the Kow Swamp individuals are “true humans”
who developed differently, why can’t the same reasoning be used for other Homo erectus
specimens, such as those from Indonesia?
Fig 14. Many researchers believe Homo erectus evolved into Homo heidelbergensis (shown above). However,
these species names are debatable, and they may represent ‘true humans’ with slight developmental differences
from people living today.
Thorne, A., Macumber, P., Discoveries of late pleistocene man at Kow Swamp, Australia, Nature 238:316-319, 11 August 1972.
72
Stone, T., Cupper, M., Last glacial maximum ages for robust humans at Kow Swamp, southern Australia, Journal of
Human Evolution 45:99-111, 2003.
73
32
The Hobbit
Speaking of Indonesia, a group of fossils found on the island of Flores in 2003, have, according
to one expert, “shaken the very foundations of paleoanthropology.”74 Nicknamed ‘the hobbit’,
these creatures had a braincase about the size of a chimp and adults were just over a metre tall.
Moreover, they fabricated sophisticated stone tools, hunted animals and possessed the
controlled use of fire.
Fig 15. The hobbit has stunned researchers with its evident intelligence, despite its diminuitive brain size.
But the hobbit clearly shows that there were smart people with little brains in Indonesia
not that long ago. Since their discovery, debate has raged about how to classify the fossils
and how to account for their unique anatomy. As is the case with Homo erectus, some
scientists think they are sufficiently different to us to warrant being classified as another
species, Homo floresiensis. However, others passionately dispute this, arguing that they
are modern humans that suffered from a condition such as microcephaly, cretinism or a
genetic disorder.75,76
Intriguingly, scientists who have studied the hobbit’s braincase have concluded that it looks
quite similar to that of Homo erectus brains.77 Now if small Homo erectus-shaped brains can be
‘smart’, why can’t much bigger Homo erectus brains?
Falk, D., The Fossil Chronicles: How Two Controversial Discoveries Changed Our View of Human Evolution, University
of California Press, Berkeley, 2011, p.179.
75
Henneberg, M., Eckhardt, R., Schofield, J., The Hobbit Trap – How New Species are Invented, Left Coast Press, 2010.
76
Oxnard, D., Obendorf, P., Kefford, B. Post-cranial skeletons of hypothyroid cretins show a similar anatomical mosaic
as Homo floresiensis, PLoS ONE 5(9):e13018, September 2010.
77
Falk, D., The Fossil Chronicles: How Two Controversial Discoveries Changed Our View of Human Evolution, University
of California Press, Berkeley, 2011, p. 114.
74
33
Neanderthals
And don’t just think having a big brain gets you off the hook, either. Fossils classified as Homo
neanderthalensis (Neanderthals) usually have brains bigger than most people living today, but
Neanderthals are often maligned as a sub-human species. Part of the reason for this confusion is
that early reconstructions of Neanderthals incorrectly presented them as individuals possessing
divergent big toes like apes, who walked stooped-over and bent-kneed, with their heads sticking
forward.78 Today, however, over 500 (partially complete) individual Neanderthals have been
discovered and this picture has completely changed. Neanderthal experts now describe their
physique as “combining that of a powerful wrestler with the endurance of a marathon runner!”79 Moreover, Neanderthals possessed an impressive cultural inventory. They buried their
dead, cared for the infirm, built dwellings, made clothes and tools and some suggest they also
made musical instruments. 80, 81, 82, 83 Furthermore, studies of the Neanderthal genome have revealed that ‘modern humans’ and Neanderthals interbred in the past.84 This further reinforces
how classifying them as a different species to us is unnecessary.
Fig 16. Who’s smarter? If cranial capacity could be taken as a ‘rigid guide’ to intelligence, surely Neanderthals (right) should be much smarter than the hobbit’s species (left). However, Neanderthals are usually
classified as a sub-human species, while some researchers contend ‘the hobbit’ is fully human.
Johanson, D., Wong, K., Lucy’s Legacy: The Quest for Human Origins, Three Rivers Press, New York, 2009, p. 235.
Stringer, C., Andrews, P., The Complete World of Human Evolution, Thames and Hudson, London, 2005, p157.
80
Ibid., p.154.
81
Johanson, D.,Wong, K., Lucy’s Legacy: The Quest for Human Origins, Three Rivers Press, New York, 2009, pp. 240-243.
82
Zimmer, C., Smithsonian Intimate Guide to Human Origins, Smithsonian Books, 2005, p. 126.
83
Stringer, C., Lone Survivors: How we came to be the only Humans on Earth, Times Books, New York, 2012, p.124.
84
Gibbons, A., Close encounters of the prehistoric kind, Science 328:680-684, 7 May 2010.
78
79
34
After sequencing the genomes of Neanderthals and Denisovans, the world’s leading authority
on ‘ancient’ DNA, Svante Pääbo, concluded:
“This was an amazing finding. We had studied two genomes from extinct human forms. In
both cases we had found some gene flow into modern humans. Thus, low levels of mixing
with earlier humans seemed to have been the rule rather than the exception when modern
humans spread across the world. This meant that neither Neanderthals nor Denisovans were
totally extinct. A little bit of them lived on in people today.”85
So how does this affect the way we view Neanderthals? According to Svante Pääbo: “Many
would say that a species is a group of organisms that can produce fertile offspring with each
other and cannot do so with members of other groups. From that perspective we had shown
that Neanderthals and modern humans were the same species.”86
Thus, the idea that Neanderthals are a sub-human species appears to be slowly unravelling.
Fig 17. Homo heidelbergensis from Zambia (top left), Homo erectus from Indonesia (top right), Homo sapien
(Asian Female) (bottom left), Homo Neanderthalensis from France (bottom right). It is the author’s contention
that all these fossils can be classified as ‘true humans’.
Pääbo, S., Neanderthal Man: In Search of Lost Genomes, Basic Books, New York, 2014, p. 246.
Ibid., p. 237. (Even though Svante Pääbo acknowledges Neanderthals and modern humans were the same species according to the biological species concept, he still thinks this concept has “limitations”)
85
86
35
Unfortunately, many people get the mistaken impression that when scientists assign a
scientific name to a fossil or group of fossils, this classification is a well-established fact.
But these names are the subject of intense debate. As Lucy’s discoverer points out:
“Every meeting of paleoanthropologists that I have attended has at some point erupted into
intense and sometimes unfriendly debate about how many hominid species preceded us.”87
Chris Stringer from the Natural History Museum in London identifies the key problem: “this
is undoubtedly one of the main areas of confusion in studies of modern human origins: how
to recognize species in the fossil record, and what this signifies.”88
By classifying creatures similar to modern humans as different species, scientists give us the
strong impression that we evolved from sub-human forms. But the need for these names is
questionable. As was shown with the Kow Swamp specimens and ‘the hobbit’ from Indonesia,
other explanations can be given to account for the differences—explanations that have nothing to do with human evolution.
87
88
Johanson, D., Wong, K., Lucy’s Legacy: The Quest for Human Origins, Three Rivers Press, New York, 2009, p. 101.
Stringer, C., Lone Survivors: How we came to be the only Humans on Earth, Times Books, New York, 2012, p.33.
36
Chapter 6
What About DNA?
At this point some people might suggest that arguing about fossils is no longer necessary. After all, don’t we share about 98% of our DNA with chimpanzees? Doesn’t this
‘prove’ we are closely related to apes? Well, the simple answer is no. As we’ve already
seen, a 2% difference roughly equates to a whopping 60 million DNA ‘letters’ difference!
So our genetic code certainly has some profound differences. Moreover, quoting the ‘2%
figure’ without comparing our genome to that of other organisms is misleading. We need to
understand this figure in context.
37
Evolutionary Geneticist, Professor Steve Jones, helps us put this figure in perspective:
“As most people know, chimpanzees share about 98% of our DNA, but bananas share about
50%, and we are not 98% chimp or 50% banana, we are entirely human and unique in that
respect.”89
Fig 18. Human DNA and banana DNA is about 50% similar.
Even though some people are mesmerized by the ‘98% figure’, the reality is that most mammals
have similar genomes. Evolutionary Developmental Biologist, Sean Carroll, reminds us “our
genome and that of a rodent contain essentially the same genes in mostly the same organization.”90 Indeed, the similarity is so pronounced that “greater than 99 percent of all genes in
the human have a mouse counterpart, and vice versa.”91
Moreover, the ‘98% figure’, even though it’s widely touted, isn’t a confirmed ‘fact’, either. In a
recent paper on human-chimp DNA similarity, two Ph.D. biologists point out that “nearly all
research reports on human–chimp DNA similarity omit significant amounts of data that do
not align or represent gaps in the sequence.”92 They conclude a more realistic figure for
human-chimp DNA similarity “is not more than 81 to 87% and quite possibly lower.” 93
Taylor, J., Not a Chimp: the hunt to find the genes that make us human, Oxford University Press, New York, 2009, p. 19.
Carroll, S., Endless Forms Most Beautiful: the New Science of Evo Devo, W. W. Norton & Company, New York, 2005, p.
270.
91
Ibid., p. 269.
92
Tomkins, J., Bergman,J., Genomic monkey business—estimates of nearly identical human–chimp DNA similarity
re-evaluated using omitted data, Journal of Creation, 26(1):94-100, 2012.
89
90
93
Ibid.
38
As we’ve already seen with fossils, evidence doesn’t necessarily speak for itself. All evidence
needs to be interpreted. This is also true for DNA evidence. The DNA code is distinct from
a rigid blueprint for a house. It is a dynamic code where slight differences in the timing and
expression of genes can amount to big differences when we consider the entire creature. That’s
why Chihuahuas and Great Danes have nearly identical genomes, yet look so different.94 Perhaps an even more dramatic example is humans. Even though we might look very distinct from our neighbour, on the DNA level we differ by only one ‘letter’ out of every
thousand.95
Y Chromosome Woes
Furthermore, when comparing human/chimp genomes, it depends which parts of
the genome you focus on. Recent studies have revealed that human and chimpanzee
Y chromosomes are “horrendously different from each other.” 96 Leading genomics
researcher, David Page, acknowledges “it looks like there’s been a dramatic renovation
or reinvention of the Y chromosome in the chimpanzee and human lineages.” 97 So even
though much of our genomes are similar, other parts are so different that they defy an
evolutionary explanation.
Junk Dna?
Another point to consider is so-called junk DNA. Many have alleged that humans and
chimps share ‘genetic garbage’ such as broken genes which supposedly ‘proves’ we are
related. However, the whole concept of junk DNA is continually under attack. As more
evidence accumulates, the amount of the genome recognised as ‘junk’ steadily declines.
For instance, most of our genomes are transcribed at some stage from DNA to RNA. Why
would cells expend so much energy transcribing most of the genome when only a tiny
part of it is useful? Moreover, even from an evolutionary perspective, many examples of
junk DNA don’t stack up. For instance, why do we find similar ‘junk DNA sequences’
in creatures that are supposedly distantly related? If the sequences were truly junk, they
should’ve been scrambled beyond recognition by mutations instead of being ‘conserved’
by natural selection. Many sequences labelled junk, therefore, may well be functional
sequences that fit a design perspective better.
Quackenbush, J., The Human Genome: The Book of Essential Knowledge, Charlesbridge Publishing, Watertown, 2011,
p. 67.
95
Ibid., p. 85.
96
Buchen, L., The fickle Y chromosome, Nature 463:149, 14 January 2010.
97
Ibid.
94
39
In his recent book, The Myth of Junk DNA, Cell Biologist Jonathan Wells comes to the
startling conclusion:
“Scientists make progress by testing hypotheses against the evidence. But when scientists
ignore the evidence and cling to a hypothesis for philosophical or theological reasons, the
hypothesis becomes a myth. Junk DNA is such a myth, and it’s time to leave it behind—along
with other discarded myths from the past.”98
Counting Chromosomes
Before we finish our discussion of ape and human genomes, we need to address the
chromosome question. Apes and humans ‘package’ their DNA in different ways. Apes
have 24 pairs of chromosomes and humans have 23 pairs. This is obviously a significant
difference. However, many biologists argue that human chromosome 2 has been formed by
the fusion of two small ape-like chromosomes. Part of the evidence for this alleged event is
that human chromosome 2 has repeat sequences (that usually ‘cap’ the end of chromosomes)
embedded ‘within’ the chromosome. However, this ‘chromosome 2 fusion model’ was first
developed with indirect methods of DNA analysis. More recent DNA sequencing data has
demonstrated that the evidence is less ‘clear cut’, prompting some biologists to conclude the
evidence is “too ambiguous to accurately infer a fusion event.”99 In any case, even if human
chromosome 2 did undergo a ‘fusion event’, this doesn’t necessarily support the idea we’re
related to apes. Such an event could have taken place in the human family—thus reducing our
chromosome number—without any need to invoke an evolutionary connection.
A Different Explanation
A common designer is a better explanation for the similarity between ape and human
genomes. This explanation not only accounts for the similarities but also the profound
differences. Even though an architect may design totally different structures, on closer
inspection, many of the concepts and materials used to build them would be similar. So
why couldn’t an ‘architect of life’ do the same with genomes?
Wells, J.,The Myth of Junk DNA, Discovery Institute Press, Seattle, 2011, p. 107.
Tomkins, J., Bergman, J., The chromosome 2 fusion model of human evolution – part 2: re-analysis of the genomic
data, Journal of Creation, 25(2): 111-117, 2011.
98
99
40
Appendix: Did Religion Evolve?
Books on human evolution routinely contain discussion about how religion might have
evolved. This is understandable, because Homo sapiens aren’t just characterized by their
unique anatomy, but also culture. Humans are the “only primate that prays”. And, according to Chris Stringer, one of the defining characteristics of modern humans is our “obsession
with religion.”100 From an evolutionary perspective, religion is essentially a ‘human invention’
that came about when the minds of our ancestors developed sufficiently to entertain symbolic
thoughts, thus enabling us to ‘invent’ God. However, even ardent evolutionists admit ‘pinning-down’ this cognitive transformation is an incredibly difficult task.
Ian Tattersall candidly informs us:
“The changeover of Homo sapiens from a nonsymbolic, nonlinguistic species to a symbolic,
linguistic one is the most mind-boggling cognitive transformation that has ever happened to
any organism. The details of this transition will probably forever evade us, and almost any
scenario we might dream up risks trivializing it.”101
Seeing that our alleged transition from a nonsymbolic to symbolic species will “probably
forever evade” the brightest scientific minds, perhaps we need to look elsewhere to explain
human uniqueness? Moreover, if we can’t even explain how we became a symbolic species,
surely any attempt to explain how humans ‘invented’ the concept of ‘God’ will be an even
more futile exercise?
The Bible presents a very different account of human origins. It teaches that humanity has
descended from the first people who themselves were specially created by God. From this perspective, people have not descended from ape-like ancestors. Any similarity we have to other
primates (such as chimpanzees) is due to us sharing a common designer.
The God of the Bible is not some obscure ‘force’, but personal. He came to this earth in the
person of Jesus, who voluntarily sacrificed His life to pay for our sin. Many people dismiss
this as fictitious, however the New Testament authors were adamant that they didn’t ‘invent’ or
‘concoct’ what they wrote about Jesus. Many of them died for their testimony.
Perhaps reading this booklet has prompted you to rethink human origins? This, of
course, is an important issue. However, instead of just prompting you to reconsider
the past, the author hopes this booklet will also prompt you to reconsider your future.
And, in particular, prompt you to reconsider your future in relation to history’s most
famous member of Homo sapiens…Jesus of Nazareth.
100
Stringer, C., Lone Survivors: How we came to be the only Humans on Earth, Times Books, New York, 2012, p.243.
101
Tattersall, I., Masters of the Planet: The Search For Our Human Origins, Palgrave Macmillan, New York, 2012, p. 220.
41
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I am grateful to everyone who helped me put this book together, however there are a few people that deserve
special mention. Dr Peter Line and Dr Don Batten reviewed the manuscript at various stages and offered
many helpful changes. Any mistakes that remain, however, are completely my responsibility.
Esther Grace spent hours on the cover design, illustrations and book layout. Ethan helped photograph my
skull collection and Andrew created a great website.
© David J White 2014
42