Why Eurasians Don't Have 1.5% of Their Genes, and Likely None, from Neanderthals

The effort to re-define "human" as any member of a veritable "zoo" of hominin species has been very successful. This is due to endless repetition of claims like "Neanderthals made cave paintings in Spain 66,000 years ago." That particular claim was so outrageous that even a rank amateur like me shredded it here, and I was pleased to see more recently some academic pushback on that particular claim. Too bad none of that matters much. In the public mind, and even that of the scientific community, the damage is done from an unrelenting barrage of such articles touting how similar Neanderthals were to us. This includes the claim that they interbred with us. People who look to science have incorporated these beliefs into their internal category "things that everyone knows", and believe it so much that many bridle or get dismissive at the suggestion that it isn't so because at that point it becomes a threat the validity of their seminal category "things that every knows (are true)."

Into that environment bravely stepped Cambridge zoologist Dr. William Amos. He has a large number of studies that in my mind utterly destroy the idea that modern Eurasians have inherited 1.5% of their genome from Neanderthals. He calls his research page "Neanderthal Introgression: A Case of Smoke and Mirrors?" He shows in his research how almost all of the supposed signal for introgression, all but a rounding error, is explained by the fact that small homozygous populations (like the one that supposedly left Africa), have a lower mutation rate than populations with greater genetic diversity- like the one which was supposed to have stayed behind in Africa. This is true even while any mutations the smaller and more homogeneous group do have will be fixed at a much higher rate than those same mutations in the larger original population. The signal is better explained by the African population evolving further away from Neanderthals than Eurasians, along with Sub-Saharan Africans losing mutations which were once in all three populations.

That is the extreme cliff-notes version, and he has meticulous and convincing answers on back-mutations and many other questions which might cause one to doubt his hypothesis. And if that weren't enough, he has offered a reward of twenty-thousand English Pounds to anyone who can show him where his research is in error.  Of course, that's not enough either. Whether it is part of the sin-nature or just a component of our general ridiculousness, we humans are very slow to see all kinds of truth we don't like, not simply spiritual truth. So we will see how this goes.

Even though he has found an explanation for essentially the whole signal, there are yet other explanations for the appearance of introgression which he does not discuss. With regard to the few such genes which are considered helpful rather than regarded as deleterious, an obvious additional explanation is convergent evolution. Eurasians and Neanderthals were shaped by the same environment and exposed to the same pathogens. Why wouldn't their immune systems respond in the same way? Heck, Mammoth genes and Neanderthal genes responded in the same way, with the same mutations, because of CE. Was that "introgression" too?

Dr. Amos does concede "The finding of hybrid skeletons shows that fertile matings did occur." Notice that this is not a concession that people alive today inherited any of their DNA from Neanderthals. These hybrids could have been genetic dead ends with fertility problems even if they managed a few generations of offspring. Many experts have speculated about such pairings having significant fertility issues. And let's not forget that many of our ancestors are supposed to be "genetic ghosts" anyway. That is, even though they were your ancestor you have zero genes from them because you also had more than 20,000 other ancestors whose DNA is competing for those 20,000 (protein producing) gene slots. Not all of their genes can be represented! I would note that even in the non-protein producing genes, they tend to replicate in segments, so even if you had a million total genes you still wouldn't have room for a million ancestors to be represented. You inherit the DNA in chunks, not necessarily gene by gene and there are way fewer chunks than total genes.

The claim that Neanderthals hybridized with Eurasian ancestors 50,000 years ago runs smack dab against the results of this study which concluded that Neanderthals did not mix with modern humans during their range expansion into Europe. So for some reason Neanderthals were supposed to have mixed with our ancestors 50,000 years ago so thoroughly that we can still see they left us 20% of their genome scattered amongst us, but after that, if we ever mated again the results are so obscure that they are "genetic ghosts."  This even though it is clear that something like us mated with Neanderthals long ago. 

And all of this is juxtaposed against the incredible claim, based on how low the diversity is in most of our DNA, that within this world of a "hominin zoo", our mainline ancestors spent the vast majority of their 200-300 thousand years of existence on the edge of extinction. This until breaking out in a decent way forty-something thousand years ago and in a huge way about twelve thousand years ago. Our creativity and our ability to make things which are unquestionably art also shows sign of a great leap forward forty-something thousand years ago. From what we can see now, it does so globally and contemporaneously. If any place is first, it's east Asia.

All of this suggests another scenario where hybrids could have been born and yet living people have zero contribution from their DNA. I want to put this out there (it is not the model I advocate in my book) as something which needs to be considered by folks like RTB who believe in a "Middle Adam" time-wise. As the TV Detective "Monk" liked to say.....here's what happened..

Around 50,000 years ago, a unique population of hominins came into existence. Whether this was by a Divine Act, a fortuitous combination of natural evolutionary circumstances, or something in-between is beside the point of this story and something we can argue about another day. What made them so unique wasn't very apparent from their structure. Aside from a somewhat more globular brain shape, they were extremely physically similar to all the other hominins that scientists today classify as (Archaic) Homo Sapiens. That's right, not only are we not descended in part from Neanderthals, but even if evolution is the total explanation for our existence, we also didn't descend from most of those fossils from over 50,000 years ago classified as Archaic Homo Sapiens. Something happened, and somehow there was a population of sapiens which did not fit in with the rest. Not even the rest of the things we would call "Homo Sapiens". They looked similar, but here is how they were different...

They could think and speak with recursive language, they had an ability to possesses true empathy, were imaginative and made and/or enjoyed complex art. They were creative for its own sake, as a part of their nature and not just to solve a problem related to survival. They had a desire to connect socially which went beyond instinct and self-interest even into religion. They were us, including spiritually. We don't just operate within the natural realm, but wonder about, and in most cases yearn to connect with, something beyond it. 

I submit to you that if one group of hominids had all that, and others did not, then there will be significant barriers to reproduction between those groups, even if there are no genetic or physical barriers. The barriers will be social, intellectual, and spiritual, but they will still be real and would strongly discourage hybridization between groups. Even if the Others had the power of speech, we wouldn't have much to say to each other, especially not talk of the sort that makes one human decide they want to take the other as a life-long partner. They would be looked at in the way Medieval Europeans looked at the fantastical "Woodwoses". 

Under this definition, even some of the fossils now classified as "Archaic Homo Sapiens" show no evidence of being "us", never mind Neanderthals, Denisovans and the rest. Those older fossils have none of the artifacts indicative of those above-mentioned traits. Perhaps those things weren't like us, and even some groups that seem closer to us than they do were still different enough to be Others. Since the big media is determined to expand the meaning of "human" to include hominins which are clearly "not us" (like Neanderthals) maybe we need a new term to describe this group. We need a name for the subset of Homo Sapiens who were our actual mainline ancestors. I nominate the term "Adamics" (AH-DAHM-ICKS). The definition of "Adamics" is the same as the traditional definition of human, since that word has been expropriated. It's us. 

This is not quite the same as the man Adam referenced in Genesis. I'm not saying that humanity started as a single couple. They started as a population. That's why the MRCA numbers for various genetic parameters don't matter. They are estimates of how long ago something that never actually occurred happened! This is the "Adamic Race" though, in a two-population scenario for Genesis such as the one in my book on theology. At some point in time, there were people (Adamics) outside the garden and Adam and Eve inside it in fellowship with the LORD God. Adam himself, the representative and arch-type of that race as a figure of Christ who was to come (Rom 5:14), wasn't around until much later, around 11-12 thousand years ago. I don't want to rabbit-trail too much into this aspect of it, but just so readers can track the different groups I am talking about....

1) Archaic Homo Sapiens.... not like us in what makes us truly "human" in the traditional sense of the word. We definitely do not evolve from most of them, and from none of them in the most creationist views. They were just what was around before God announced His intention to "make Man in our own Image."

2) Adamics - the population which has all of those traits I listed above as unique to our kind. They either evolved from some small subset of the Archaics or were created by God anew, or some combination of the two. They quickly supplant whatever hominins were there before them, including Archaic Homo Sapiens. 

3) At the right time, God progressively reveals Himself to the Adamics in a greater way, and initiates His plan to reconcile us to Himself by forming the man Adam and placing him in the garden. 

****************

Now I feel sure that Dr. Amos would cringe at all of this, even though I think he is right on the Neanderthal introgression. But maybe he is only "kind of right". If there was introgression into the Adamics, maybe it was from the Archaic Homo Sapiens which were closer in their genome to these other distant hominins, not from these more distant hominins themselves. We may find some of that. Or the Adamics may have been a spread-out population from the beginning (but with the largest group in Africa) with their own regional differences due to introgression. Any introgression happened before they became us, not after.

If it did come after, one prediction I could make is that forty-five thousand years ago there was a pan-Adamic population that was the same- Africans looked like Europeans and what have you. The Hofmeyr skull from South Africa for example, looks like that of a European from the same period, and nothing like the exant Khoi-san of the region. Strange how, if Europeans were freshly admixed with Neanderthals and Africans were not, the skulls looked the same forty-something thousand years ago. It seems like some of our our differences were picked up after that, not before it. I and Amos think that is due to micro-evolutionary changes, but let's play along with the introgression thing some more....

Many of the differences since would be from rare and ancient introgression events via non-Adamic Homo Sapiens. They were so close to us genetically, that for most of their genome we couldn't even tell the difference. But they would have more archaic chunks. And those chunks would stick out and this may be what we are seeing. The chunks would not have to be the same everywhere either. Those in Africa might have one set of genetic distinctives, a population in the Near East would have another, and in the far east there might be a third and a fourth. These last, for example, might be labeled "Denisovan" introgression when in truth they are very derived from the true Denisovan genome we have. What if they really came from something much closer to us, another Archaic Homo Sapien group, some of whose genes only looked more like the Denisovan genome than any other we currently have available to compare it to? The so-called 'Denisovan genes' we have found in living humans are not a very good fit with the ones extracted from the actual Denisovan fossil. Maybe that's why.

 Of course some populations of them may have shared more genes with Neanderthals and others had profiles more like Denisovans. And maybe some of that was because Archaics exchanged genes with them. But we don't carry any genes introgressed into our ancestors from dalliances with these species. At most, another Sapiens line served as an intermediary. In such a case much of what might be considered our normal diversity was from these 'others', it is just so close to us that we can't tell yet that it was really from an out-group. We would have started as a more unitary group, made different not just by mutations over time, but by "other" H. Sapiens mixing occasionally with the special ones.

One can get lost on speculations about where and how any introgression occurred. But again, these alternative explanations are only needed if and to the degree that that of Dr. Amos is found wanting. And so far his looks bulletproof to me. Some of you who think otherwise should contact him and try and claim his large monetary prize for showing him the error of his ways. From my limited correspondence with him I think he'd almost be relieved to be free of the burden of seeing something so contrary to the prevailing view as to draw such sharp criticism. 

**************************

You Tube Channel

Please "like" and "share".

Exodus 20:11

The gospel is easy to understand. It is simple to get the point God makes in the Atonement, even though the details are rich in complexity. But not all the truth in the Word of God is simple. There is the milk of the word and there is the meat of the word. God has absolutely no interest in making all of His truth easy for you to understand. He is interested in you loving truth. Loving it enough to seek it diligently and earnestly, even if it is hard. The doctrine that the "plain-reading" of scripture is always the correct reading, and further that the most literal reading is all God means to say about a matter, has become apathy posing as virtue for too many Christians. I made the case for loving truth in that manner at length in my book, and shan't do so again here.

Instead I want to give a very pertinent example of how this flawed view of scripture leads to an inability to comprehend even the most basic things which God is trying to say. Exodus 20:11 is often used as "proof" that God created the universe in six literal 24-hour days. I talk about Exodus 20:11 some in my book, but I want to go into a little more depth here. Exodus 31:17 is also sometimes used, and what I say here applies to it as well. First let's look at the "plain-reading" of the text from the King James Version:

8 Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy.

9 Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work:

10 But the seventh day is the sabbath of the Lord thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates:

11 For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the Lord blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.

Do you see where it says "Six days shalt" in verse nine and "For in six days" in verse eleven? The Hebrew for "six" in those two places is the same, yet one verse says just "Six days" and the other "...in six days". Is the word "in" really a part of the text or is it assumed? It is assumed. In my KJV it is in italics for that very reason. Verse nine has the exact same Hebrew word and it is just translated "six" without the "in" before it, because the word "in" isn't in the text. Exodus 31:15 (and many other places) use the same Hebrew term and don't have "in" inserted before six either. This insertion gives the English reader an idea that this passage is referring to things from Genesis 1:1, the "creation of the heavens and the earth." But that's not the Hebrew text, it is a meaning derived from an assumption of the translator. 

If one was to insert an English word there, "for" might be a better choice. It isn't used, possibly because the Hebrew standard word translated "for" or "because" starts off verse eleven of chapter twenty. It would be awkward to begin a sentence with "for" twice in a row. Yet our English word "for" has a couple of senses. It can mean "because" or "this amount". That's where the awkwardness comes from, but there is no reason why you couldn't use each of the senses consecutively. If we said it, "Because for six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth" it would be a valid translation. He "made" them, but not in the sense that He created them from nothing. He accomplished the work He wanted to do, He "did something with" them. Like the farmer does to his land. He created them "in the beginning". 

The passage is saying that man should rest from his own labors on the land for one day out of seven because for six days the Lord Himself worked and on the seventh He rested.  Farmers do not “create” the earth they farm, but they do make it into something productive. That is mostly what the LORD did during the so-called “Creation Days.” The reason you rest is in honor and remembrance of His resting. To fit the comparison, this passage is about God's work on the heavens and the earth, not His bringing it into existence in a formless and void condition. The context of this passage is of a human farmer working the land, not bringing land into existence from nothing or an unseen realm. It starts assuming the land is already here. It's not a passage about the length of time the universe has been here.

The verbs, that is the activity that God is doing in these two verses, are not identical. Genesis 1:1 uses the verb "bara" and it is translated "created" while Exodus 20:11 uses the word "asah", translated made.  There is overlap in their meaning, but "bara" is used of things that are fiat miracles by God. "Asah" is more general but it is also used in the creation account, for example on days four and six. Genesis 1:1 is a statement saying that God created the heavens and the earth. The six days are a record of His subsequent work on the earth that He had previously created. 

So even if the six days of creation were literal 24-hour days, neither Exodus 20:11 or Genesis chapter one are making a statement about how long the cosmos was in existence prior to "Day One". Other verses may or may not be, but these verses aren't. There is even a strain of theology called "Young Biosphere Creation" which says that God made all living things in six literal 24-hour days but that the universe is old. I don't hold to that theology myself, but there is nothing in the text of Exodus 20 or Genesis chapter one that rules it out either, even if the "days" are interpreted as six twenty-four hour periods.

Now one might say, "but He is still saying that He did all His work on the land in six days." That the days of our week are compared to the days of creation might imply that these are the same kind of days, but it doesn’t require it. We must see if there are other passages which speak to the issue of whether God experiences time the way we do. And of course, other verses of scripture tell us that God sees time differently, and in a way that suggests that his “days” take vast amounts of time. 

Psalm 90:4 (NIV) says “A thousand years in your sight are like a day that has just gone by, or like a watch in the night.”  Second Peter 3:8 says: “But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.” And of course the land also has a "Sabbath" rest, (Lev. 25:4) but it is one year out of seven years, not a day out of seven days. So the principle that the "rest" or Sabbath can be more than a day depending on "who you are" is well-attested to.

In the case of God, I would argue that His rest is an eternal one, and scripture supports this view. In fact, the Christ-centered view of early Genesis interprets the seventh day of Creation as both history and prophecy. Scripture teaches that the morning of the seventh day did not even begin until after Christ was on the cross, and it endures till the end of the age. 

So unless you want to take Christ and most of new testament teaching on the Sabbath out of the conversation, and shockingly many people who call themselves "Christians" seem to want to do that in order to defend Young Earth Creationism, the "seventh day" mentioned in Exodus 20 isn't a 24-hour day. Therefore there is no compelling reason to assume the other days of the creation week are either. Indeed, in the Christ-centered model for early Genesis, it isn't the sun producing the "light" from these days, but the Word of God Himself entering the Cosmos produces the light. See "The Light He Called Day."  So then the attempt to make the days about 24-hour periods of physical sunlight and dark once again works to take Christ out of the account. Do you see a pattern here? YEC isn't just wrong because the universe isn't really built that way, it is wrong because it consistently prevents people from seeing how even the creation account points to the work of Christ. Christ Himself said that He was what Moses wrote about (John 5:46). But of course, one can't see Him there in a "literal" "face-value" reading.

**************************

You Tube Channel

Please "like" and "share".

Mayan Creation Myth and Elements of the Genesis Account

I listened to this short video about the Mayan Creation account and was struck by how many elements it shared with Genesis, albeit some in scrambled form. It is clear there is some kind of connection or common origin for the accounts, but these folks were supposed to have separated from Eurasia without, so far as we know, significant contact with the Ancient Near East for more than 10,000 years! It still sounds like they got a scrambled version of the same account.

The account says that at the start there was no light, no sound, no motion, no land. Just water. Obviously it doesn't point to Creation of everything from nothing (or the unseen) as Genesis does, but that is a hard concept for ancient folks to get. Initial conditions they describe sound a lot like those described in Genesis 1:1-2.

Then it describes six "deities" in the waters who help "Heart of Sky" shape the cosmos. This reminds me of the six creation "days" which according to the Christ-centered model for early Genesis, are not light from the sun at all, but rather the Word of God entering creation when God speaks. The light is the "day" and He is the Light. They have six deities while Genesis has God the Logos entering creation six times.

The Maya speak of plants being made before the sun, just like Genesis says the sun wasn't "appointed" or "set in position" until after plants are made. In the Maya account animals are also made but the story says they could not worship. So the deities formed humans from mud, but they couldn't worship either, so were destroyed in a flood! Do you see how the same elements are getting scrambled? They then say another attempt was made with humans derived from wood, but they too could not worship and had to be destroyed, except for those who became monkeys. This leads me to a rabbit trail, the idea of "Others" from the past who were near-human but still not like us. Both science and many ancient traditions tell us that such beings existed.

Finally the gods make a human out of Maize (corn) and get it right. This has shades of Adam, the man made to "tend the garden and to keep it". The idea of man coming along and doing things right is connected to agriculture and thus civilization. Shades of man inside and outside of the garden? Near-humans? Something else?

Somehow these accounts seem to have a common origin. Maybe in antiquity there was contact between the Ancient Near East and South America? In the book I urge people to be open-minded about the idea that Creation itself can communicate its story to unfallen man. Of course, the Lord-God could have told Adam the story of creation in the garden, but there is a case to be made for it being received by other means. Maybe the creation story is much older even than the Garden.

**************************

You Tube Channel

Please "like" and "share".

Book Review: The Genealogical Adam and Eve by S. Joshua Swamidass

I am holding a book that has the power to change the conversation. 

I just finished reading "The Genealogical Adam and Eve" by S. Joshua Swamidass. He is a medical doctor and researcher at George Washington University in St. Louis. I used to dialogue with him and others at his forum "Peaceful Science". At the time I purchased his book, I did not know that he cited my book, along with that of many, many others.

The buzz I kept hearing about the book was that it had "the power to change the conversation" about evolution and creationism, along with questions about the veracity of scripture. That is no easy task, but to the degree a book can do that, I'd say he's pulled it off. And he is networking and possibly doing the other things that are necessary to "change the conversation" to go along with it, so this is an opportunity.

His "big idea" is that both sides of the debate on human origins can be right. Swamidass proposes that a population outside the garden evolved into humans over time as suggested by "mainstream science", but that this doesn't rule out the possibility that Adam and Eve were specially created by God in the fairly recent past. He says that science cannot prove or disprove whether such an event happened. Further he goes to some trouble to demonstrate that because the number of our ancestors goes up exponentially, Adam and Eve could easily be "the ancestors of us all" in the sense that Adam could be somewhere on our family tree, even if others outside the garden also contributed to our ancestry. So the idea that humanity evolved from shared ancestors with apes could be true, but that doesn't make the account about the creation of Adam in Genesis untrue. Both can be true.

Swamidass suggests what seems an elegant symmetry between science, scripture, and vision. Scripture, in his view, can't tell us about the population outside the garden that evolved because that's not what the story is about, but science can. Conversely, science can't tell us about the pair that God created in the garden but scripture can. If neither community can peer into the contents of the other's narrative, then what is there to fight over? That's the vision, and of course it is an appealing one for many people.

Biologos has largely failed in its effort to get bible-believing Christians to accept evolution as described by "mainstream science". They too claimed to want a "conversation" but in practice they attempted to execute a monologue where they are supposed to do all the talking and "educating" while ignorant fundamentalist Christians get assigned the role of listeners to be corrected of their silly errors and enlightened by the superior wisdom of naturalistic speculations on origins. I think they are still shocked it didn't work. I don't want to go too far into mocking them, because while I don't share their particular ideas I understand where they are coming from. I am very much like them in fervor for the things I believe are true. I too think there are some bad ideas out there and I too want people to accept what I believe are the right ideas. But the conversation has broken down, and the "total victory" they seek is not intellectually defensible anyway, for reasons Swamidass makes clear in his book. Science has its limits.

The guy can turn a phrase, the book is well-written. But what I am most impressed with, because it is a skill I lack concerning things I deeply believe, is the gracefulness of his rhetorical approach. I too, for scriptural reasons having nothing to do with evolutionary origins questions, believe there was a population of humans inside the garden and outside the garden, But when I talk about it I can't help but put it so it comes off like "everyone has Genesis wrong but me". Joshua's genius here is to take the same basic premise and show how it can mean that everyone was right after all. How the heck did he do that?

Part of how he did that is that he did not commit to a particular set of details about the text of Genesis, outside of that framework. Nor should he, if conversation is the goal. Therefore I can't say I agree with the theology of the book. It didn't even have a set theology, other than the cross which of course I do agree with. It just listed options and the list was not exhaustive. For that matter, I am not sure of all the science in the book, particularly the claims about "genetic ghosts", but none of that matters. In a call to conversation, these questions can be part of the conversation.

So the book is an achievement and a difficult one at that. But to truly unlock its potential and actually "change the conversation" is going to require something even more challenging: having an actual conversation. It is much easier to call for open and honest dialogue than it is to really do it, because it means you let go of the details of where the conversation goes- the people participating with you get some say in that too. It means accepting that some people, most people even, who you are inviting into the conversation don't just want to solve a problem, but discover truth. Therefore using Hegelian premises and tactics is inappropriate. A real conversation can explore ideas that aren't a part of the agenda of the facilitators, so long as those ideas can be defended with reason and fact. Put me down as one who is willing to participate in that conversation.

**************************

You Tube Channel

Please "like" and "share".

What Does it Mean to Be "Human" and When Did We Get Here?

A Wood Wose

There is no one agreed-on scientific definition of the word "Human". As a recent book I have been reading points out, there is no one agreed-on theological definition of "human" either. And those two definitions don't necessarily have to be the same. 

Some have used that vacuum to expand the definition so that almost any large-brained tool-making hominid is called "a type of human". I think this expansive definition misses the mark. As I point out in Early Genesis, the Revealed Cosmology, when we say that someone is "inhuman" we don't mean that they can't make a flint scraper! To be like us is to think and speak with recursive language, possess true empathy, and have complex art, and a desire to connect socially which goes beyond instinct and self-interest even into religion. We don't just operate within the natural realm, but wonder about, and in most cases yearn to connect with, something beyond it. 

So my scientific definition of a human would dovetail with the theological definition of a human (which I will get to later). A human is: a member of that species which thinks and speaks with recursive language, has an ability to possesses true empathy, is imaginative and makes and/or enjoys complex art, and has a desire to connect socially which goes beyond instinct and self-interest even into religion. We don't just operate within the natural realm, but wonder about, and in most cases yearn to connect with, something beyond it. 

I submit to you that if one group of hominids had all that, and others did not, then there will be significant barriers to reproduction between those groups, even if there are no genetic or physical barriers. The barriers will be social, intellectual, and spiritual, but they will still be real and would discourage hybridization between groups. Even if the Others had the power of speech, we wouldn't have much to say to each other, especially not talk of the sort that makes one human decide they want to take the other as a life-long partner. They would be looked at in the way Medieval Europeans looked at the fantastical "Woodwoses". 

Under this definition, even some of the fossils now classified as "Archaic Homo Sapiens" show no evidence of being "human", never mind Neanderthals, Denisovans and the rest. Those older fossils have none of the artifacts indicative of those above-mentioned traits. Perhaps those things weren't like us, and even some groups that seem closer to us than they do were still different enough to be Others. 

The claims that Neanderthals made true art are based on ridiculously faulty evidence. Dr. William Amos of Cambridge has put together an astounding amount of evidence which indicates that contrary to what "everyone knows" Eurasians didn't inherit about 1.5% of their genes from Neanderthals. There is another, and better, explanation for the same evidence. And his conclusion is just one possibility. Perhaps the Neanderthal-like DNA in Eurasians wasn't from Neanderthals, but through convergent evolution due to exposure to the same environmental stresses. Or maybe it was a group of "other" Homo Sapiens which had more Neanderthal-like genes who were responsible for the introgression.

Biologically the "Others" Homo Sapiens may have been capable of hybridization with us humans, but all those things I mentioned made us so different that there were social and intellectual barriers to reproduction between us. We went our way and they went theirs- to extinction. So the structural differences between us and them could have been extremely minor, but they would have lacked whatever inner light that makes us what we are. We can descend to their level if we became base and coarse, but they could not ascend to ours. Under this scenario not only was it "Homo Sapiens" who survived out of a whole "zoo" of various hominids over the past 500,000 years, but not even all of H. Sapiens were a part of the group that became us. There was a special group created out of all those.

Some of you might be thinking that this scenario can't be true because our DNA points to a much older origin for humanity. This is a misunderstanding which does not apply to a species which begins as a population rather than a single couple. In the Christ-centered model for early Genesis, there are people outside the garden and Adam and Eve inside it. Humanity starts as a "host" (Gen. 2:1). In that scenario, our species could be much younger than the "Most-Recent-Common-Ancestor" MRCA of our Y-chromosomes or mtDNA. The term becomes misleading for new types which begin as a population. This (MCRA of Y or mtDNA older than species) can be so under either creationist or evolutionary thinking. All that is necessary is for 1) humans to have begun as a population and 2) a long period of expansion after our beginning (no population bottlenecks for a long time). More detail here. 

It turns out that very important changes in our brain structure did not occur until relatively recently. See the original paper here. The ability to use recursive speech and thought is also recent (and takes such a threading of the needle to even occur that I doubt there is any reasonable naturalistic explanation for it, the one suggested in the link being implausible to me). Notice that the link says that it occurred "70,000 years ago" but all the evidence they give that it existed is from 42,000 years ago or less. The one exception being "we spread across the whole globe" which must have occurred after 74,000 years ago. In addition to being the vaguest evidence they gave for recursive thought and speech, other hominids also appear to have spread over large areas of the earth without such an ability. Examples which purport to be "art" from 70,000 years ago are either of doubtful veracity, or crude, and perhaps even functional rather than imaginative, compared to that found from 42,000 years ago and more recently. 

In short, I think there is a case to be made that we haven't been around that long. Perhaps there were some "others" who were already on the way out when we got here, but we haven't been around for 150,000 years or even 100,00 years and I doubt it's even been 70,000 years. Maybe beings physically like us were hanging around for a time, but if one really thinks about what makes us "human" and what we consider "human" in each other, then these poor creatures didn't have it. 

The truth is that even populations that are doubtlessly human turn over on a regular basis. Europe has been well studied. The population which inhabited it 40,000 years ago subsequently was replaced. It happened again 14,500 years ago. There was another major turnover in population seven to nine thousand years ago. Most of the genetic load of western Europeans comes from populations which were not in Western Europe eight thousand years ago! And of course five hundred years ago the population of North America looked utterly different than it does now. If these kinds of things are regular occurrences in our history how reasonable is it to believe that our line bumbled along at the edge of extinction for 150,000 years until expanding in the last 40K, and expanding greatly only in the last 12K? It seems more reasonable to believe that the signs of a narrow bottleneck in our genes are not because we hung on so long at minimal population levels, but that we are a special species which originated in the more recent past. The very traits which made us different from the Others allowed us to pass them by and assume our role over the earth.

My definition of theological human?: A member of that species which has the capacity to bear the image of God. This also is different than what you may have thought, but that is another story. One that is in the book. 

**************************

You Tube Channel

Please "like" and "share".

Why "Y-haplogroup Adam" and "mtDNA Eve" Calculations Don't Matter for Origins Questions

The "Most Recent Common Ancestor" (MRCA) is an estimate of how long ago a group of organisms could have had a single ancestor, whether measuring on the male or female side (or both). It is calculated through a measure of how diverse (through acquired mutations) a gene group is in a species versus how often mutations in a given area of the genome occur. Studies between species, such as chimpanzee and human, assume macro-evolution but other studies use measured mutation rates in the studied group, such as from grandfather to grandson.

In the case of humans, there is a wide range of dates, but the MRCA for Y-haplogroups (passed from father to son only) are at least 100,000 years in the past and may be double that. That is because there is an outlier, Y-haplogroup A00, which is different enough from the others so that it could have taken much more time for the mutations to arise between it and it's closest Y-Haplogroup kin (the other "A"s). Only a very few people from west Africa have this Y-Haplogroup. On the other hand, almost everyone in Eurasia is from a haplogroup of much more recent origin. Maybe 50,000 years or so.

Mothers pass mtDNA on to their daughters only. Thus it is a measure of female diversity sometimes called "mtDNA Eve." This measure is also at least 100,000 years old, with 150,000 years being the more recent estimate. 

These calculations are not just being made with humans. Here is a study which calculated the "Y-chromosome Adam" and "mtDNA Eve" for the great apes. It concluded that the "Y-chromosome Adam" for Chimps was over a million years ago- there is a lot of variety in Chimp Y-chromosomes. Not so gorillas, who had a coalescence time of 100,000 years. Less than humans unless you throw out the divergent A00 samples. 

These studies are deceptive for a number of reasons. In overall genetics I understand that humans are far less diverse than apes. Yet except for chimps, that study produced comparable numbers for MRCA for apes and humans. Yet comparing humans and apes in population genetics is comparing apples and oranges. We don't share the same recent history. Historical and near-historical times have been a period of massive expansion of humans. Except for one period of Y-chromosome loss around seven thousand years ago it is likely that few rare genetic variants have been lost in humans. The last 35,000 years have been prosperous ones for our species overall, and besides that on blip the last 10-12 thousand years have been spectacular.

With apes the record is the exact opposite. They have been driven to endangerment of extinction while humanity has been growing. Many minor Y-haplogroup types and mtDNA types which existed in these apes just a few thousand years ago are now probably extinct. Humans have lost some too, but overall humans have prospered so much that almost all Y-haplogroups around three thousand years ago are probably still around today and in greater numbers. Suppose Orangutans are driven to extinction (ignore those in captivity for this thought-experiment). When the last few families are left on a single island, the MRCA will be the great-grandpa of that small group of families. This explains why the graphic in the study (which I linked to above) shows that the Y-haplogroup "Adam" for Orangutans was only 200,000 years ago even if the species itself has been around longer. 

So the MRCA does not tell us anything about when a specific species came to exist. It could have come to exist long long before its measured MRCA. There could have been gorillas around long before 100,000 years ago even though the Y-chromosome MRCA , gorilla "Adam", was only 100,000 years ago.

The reverse is also true. A type of creature could also be much younger than its Y-haplogroup or mtDNA MRCA ("Adam" and "Eve). This is true under naturalistic evolutionary assumptions and it is also true under the most creationist assumptions of the Christ-centered model for early Genesis as described in the book.

The reason for this is that new types do not have to originate (with or without Divine help) from a single founding pair. A new type could begin from a population rather than a pair. And that population could start with more diversity than any one male and female founder. Thus calculations back to the time when there was only a single couple would be calculations back to the time of a fictional event. 

For example, suppose someone took a handful of Shih-tzus and bred them with a handful of Corgis. These are dog breeds developed in the recent past, perhaps the last 500-800 years. But each breed was developed from opposite ends of the dog family which goes back over 10,000 years. If this population crossed and produced a new hybrid breed, the hybrid would have greater diversity than either founding population (Shih-tzus or Corgis). It may have features identical to neither. It would be its own thing. The breed may not exist until this year. But if we ran DNA tests it would show the MRCA to be even further back in the past than the date that either parent breed was developed. That's because it would go back to the time when Corgis and Shih-tzus had a common ancestor, maybe 10,000 years ago. It would just look like the population spent most of its existence in an "extreme bottleneck". 

That's just what the human population looks like. The human mtDNA and Y-DNA seem to have a MRCA which goes at least 100,000 years in the past and 200,000 years might be a closer estimate. At the same time, we are all very similar in our nuclear DNA. It looks like our species had a long, long bottleneck. So the current belief is that Homo Sapiens spent most of its existence with a very small effective breeding population size of only 10,000 or less (note that if all individuals in this group are genetically super-alike the actual population size could be much larger than this). 

It isn't reasonable to think that we descend from a population that barely hung on for such vast stretches of time and then suddenly found a way to become the most common and dominant large animal on the planet. The simpler explanation is that, however we got here whether creation or evolution, we are a relatively recent arrival. Younger even than our Y-haplogroup and mtDNA MCRA date would indicate. 

The evidence indicates that whatever was walking around on two legs that looked something like us 150,000 years ago was still very different from us in how they acted, spoke, and perhaps in other ways. Whether this is because we are the evolutionary product of small segments of two hominid populations subsequently mixing and producing something new, or God creating something new in a small population of existing hominids, or even creating them anew with the barest of genetic information as a template, the bottom line is that there is no reason to think "humans" (in the sense of beings like us) go back to these calculated MRCA dates. Those dates can give a false picture. Beings like us were formed, by whatever means, when the evidence indicates that there were beings around who acted and thought like us. And that is much closer to 40K ago than 150K ago.

In conclusion, unless a species originated from a pair, MRCA for mtDNA and Y-haplogroups don't tell us anything about the origin of a species. They are just a measurement of time back to an event that never existed. This is because they could represent a time long after that species was formed (as with gorillas) or a time long before one was formed, as well may be the case with humans.

**********************************

(note: the Christ-centered model for early Genesis has humanity starting as a population and not just a single pair as it has people inside the Garden- Adam and Eve- and people outside the garden- whoever Cain was afraid of)

You Tube Channel

Please "like" and "share".

Creation-Evolution Wars. To Some Extent a False Dichotomy?

Why the Christ-Centered Model Destroys Skeptic's Arguments on Christ

s

Genesis 1:1 and Creation Ex Nihilo Under Attack

For the last two-thousand years, Christians have held that scripture teaches that God created the universe out of nothing, or at the least "things which are seen are made from that which is not seen" (Heb. 11:3). The great majority of Jewish rabbis have agreed with this view. One of the main verses of scripture to support this position is the first verse in the Bible. It is almost universally translated as "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth."

Christian apologetics has gotten some mileage out of this ever since the Big Bang (with or without hyperinflation) has been revealed to be the most consistent scientific explanation for how the cosmos appeared. The universe had a beginning. Other creation accounts in other faiths consistently have the gods fashioning the cosmos out of some pre-existing material. Some Christians once considered the "Big-Bang" to be an anti-Christian idea, but over time most have realized that since it is confirming "Creation Ex-Nihilo" that it actually harmonizes with scripture. Atheists and naturalists realized this much more quickly, and spent decades trying to find a way to shoe-horn an eternal universe or at least eternal multiverse, into the data.

That being so, forgive me if I am skeptical of recent claims that Genesis 1:1-2 has been mistranslated over the centuries and should actually be translated in a way which suggests that the God of the Bible fashioned the universe out of a pre-existing, though chaotic, material just like in those other creation myths. Here are the new alternative translations from the Wiki article on Genesis 1:1-2a, and the classic translation of verse one.

1. As a statement that the cosmos had an absolute beginning (In the beginning, God created the heavens and earth). ED: THIS IS THE CLASSIC TRANSLATION

2. As a statement describing the condition of the world when God began creating (When in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth, the earth was untamed and shapeless).

3. Taking all of Genesis 1:2 as background information (When in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth, the earth being untamed and shapeless, God said, Let there be light!).[4]

I find it just too convenient that after twenty centuries with hardly any dispute, only in the last few decades has there been any serious challenge to the idea that Gen. 1:1 teaches creation ex nihilo. I'm not saying that no one else ever proposed these alternative translations, once every few centuries someone might suggest so, but the view never got traction. The text just doesn't support it, and it is doubtful that it even allows for it. Only after it gets embarrassing for the skeptics that the Bible stands out from other creation stories in a way which is confirmed by modern scientific observation do the faux-sophisticates dust off these hypotheses.

Look, I have no loyalty to modern translations when they obviously don't fit the underlying Hebrew or Greek, my book is evidence of that. But this effort seems very forced and an attempt to make the Genesis account just like other Ancient Near East Creation stories where uncreated matter existed but was in a chaotic and primordial state before the gods brought order.

These Hebrew scholars are now claiming that they have learned that in certain circumstances the text can be translated so that it is describing an already existing condition. OK, so the matter existed in a sorry state before God spoke His word. But that doesn't mean that the already existing condition wasn't also created by God, as the traditional translation indicates. God created the universe Before the First Day. The creation week is describing His work ON a universe which He had previously created. That's all the verse is saying and attempts to make it more than that torture the text.

For example, the latter two translations above start with the English word "When". Well, there is a Hebrew word translated "when" (as well as "for" and a couple of other things) (more than one really) and this word is not in the Hebrew text of Genesis 1:1. They stuck in an English word where there was no Hebrew word there. Then, to start verse two, they leave off the "and" which joins the condition of the earth to God creating it. In the Hebrew of this verse there is a "waw" character there which means "conjunction" (and). In other words- the "and" is in the Hebrew text, but the new translations leave it out, while also starting the verse with a word which is not in the text.

Do you see the first word to the right (Hebrew is read right to left) which is translated "in the beginning"? The exact same form of that word is used several times in Jeremiah (and nowhere else in the bible). Each time it is also translated "In the beginning" or rarely "at the beginning". It is never translated "When in the beginning" and if you read it like that in these other places it is awkward grammatically. Unbelievably, some have tried to use the fact that "when" can legitimately be translated from verse 2:4 to argue that it should be in verse 1:1 as well, even though they are not the same word! I've also heard it argued that it fits better with the pagan Enuma Elish to translate it that way! Talk about reaches! What does this text actually say?

See that character to the far left that looks like a colon at the end of the word for earth? That is the sof passuk, equivalent of a period in Hebrew. So if "When" starts that verse, and again the characters indicating "when" do not appear, it must be "When in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth (PERIOD). " These alternate translations don't account for that!

Grammar in other languages can be tricky, but that is an awkward fit in any language. It isn't a proper sentence. At most it could be a sentence fragment in answer to a previous question (obviously not) or a title. In English of course, titles don't need periods. But if it is a title, that doesn't explain why the next sentence begins with a conjunction. "And the earth was formless and void...". What is it conjuncting with if not the previous sentence? These alternate translations have to twist the text and ignore how the same word form is used elsewhere.

Up to this point I would imagine that all creationists are cheering me on. But all of this raises another issue, because if the traditional translation is correct, it means that initial conditions of creation, before God spoke His word into it, were far from perfect. Regardless of which way the verse is translated, it poses a problem for Young Earth Creationism. They think God created the universe as a place of sinless and deathless perfection. In their theology, there was no physical death before the fall of Adam. Either way you look at it though, the text doesn't say that. Creation started off a bad place to be that was increasingly made better by His Word entering that creation. At the sixth day He appointed man as His representative to finish His work of subduing the earth and exercising dominion over it.....confirmation that despite all the ordering He had done it was still a somewhat unruly place, save for the garden.

It will be interesting to see if YEC even give up on the doctrine of creation ex nihilo to preserve a theological framework which is inconsistent with the initial state of the universe in Genesis 1:2. They either have to give up the idea that God created the universe, demoting Him into a fashioner of what already existed apart from Him as the Gnostics and other ANE cultures thought, or they have to jettison their ideas about the universe being perfect before the fall of Adam. What I pray they give up is theology which isn't really in the bible concerning early Genesis and instead adopt the Christ-centered model, which gloriously demonstrates that Genesis isn't just another ANE myth, but the inspired word of God.

******************
Post Script-

Dr. Henry Sun was on a YouTube video from the "What Your Pastor Didn't Tell You" channel and he was defending the re-translation based on the idea that it was a construct. The young host asked him if that mattered. Here is my response which I put in the thread. Dr. Sun did not reply even though he replied to others in the thread.....

You asked the right question at 23:26. I question whether Dr. Sun has the right answer. More likely it DOES NOT MATTER whether it is construct or not because Hebrew has these groups of characters and words meant to be taken as a single thought and put with those in the next section. I don't say this as an expert in Hebrew, but it is something elementary. So using what the bible Hub interlinear shows.... "In the beginning of Created God - the heavens and the earth". You have two thoughts there. The first is taken and applied to the second. Even if the "of" is there, it still means "of the heavens and the earth: IMHO. 'The beginning of the heavens and the earth was God creating them' is still the thought that is being expressed. "And the earth was formless and void" starts with a conjunctive "AND". It is connected to the first part. "“When God began to create the heavens and the earth,” doesn't match with the conjunctive "and" which starts verse 2. Not sure it would even need one if what it is trying to say is that the earth was formless and void when God began to "create" it. Verse three is where the actual work, but not BARA, creating work, begins. That starts with a consecutive and, showing that it is referring to something happening AFTER verses 1 and 2. Verse two has His spirit brooding or hovering. He isn't doing any creating there. Even if it means He "began creating" then He "began creating" sometime before the start of verse 3, because v 3 starts off with the consectuive "and". Therefore this translation is nonsensical. It is describing Him as beginning the creating and then in v 2 describes Him as NOT creating but just brooding or hovering. Then there is a time movement, and the subsequent event (which isn't even "creating", that verb is only used on days five and six) which is shaping an already existing world, begins. The use of bara only on days five and six is another reason why this new translation does not add up. He didn't "create" the heavens OR the earth on any of the six days. Rather, other words are used to describe His action. The only things created during that week were animals of the sea and sky and humans on days five and six respectively. This supports the idea that the "creating" of the heavens and the earth came before the first "day". After that He 'worked on' or fashioned the heavens and the earth which He had previously created. His examples of "when the sentence structure was the same and it is translated "when"" are I am sorry to say, misleading. For example Numbers 3:1 was his first cite and his translation says "When the Lord spoke to Moses". But the actual word used is a combination of the Hebrew "Be" and a form of "Yom". So that a more precise translation would be "in the day the Lord spoke with Moses" or "in the year" or "in the time" the Lord spoke with Moses. So the Hebrew "Be" combined with some time refferent is "In the ___________". Well, if the time referrent is "beginning" then the translation should be "in the beginning".

************************ Update: this article shows the details of the issue and why the best solution is a tweaking of the translation in a way that retains the intent of the traditional translation rather than one of the convoluted new translations that have their own problems "Originally, God created the heavens and the earth. And the earth was formless and void, and darkness was over the face of the deep.... The same prefix also means "at, so it could also be "At commencement, God created the heavens and the earth....." or "In A beginning, God created the heavens and the earth"....implying there could be mulitple universes each with an indpendent supernatural realm. That's even if there is a problem with the original translation. As I have said, Numbers 3:1 literally means "in the day" and it has the same "be" prefix as is found in be-reshith in Gen. 1:1. It seems like it doesn't have to say "ba" to be translated "in THE (time period)".

Get the book.

You Tube Channel

Please "like" and "share".

What Does this Failure to Develop Resistance Say About Unaided Macro-Evolution?

So it turns out that this tuberculosis bacteria has been trying for seven decades to develop resistance to a particular anti-biotic that will still permit it to be viable- without success. This is equal to many millions of generations of bacteria in a population of many billions which were under stress due to the anti-biotic.

Does this say anything about the limits of purely natural evolution? I think so. Even if other bacteria species have made the jump and developed resistance to an anti-biotic (at the cost of reduced fitness otherwise) this one seems to have hit on a hard biological limit which unguided evolution cannot move it past. Surely this is not the only such hard limit in earth's living things. If this organism can't make this jump, how likely is it that the same mechanisms can cause a deer-like animal to develop into various types of whales in probably much fewer generations and far less tries?

You Tube Channel

Please "like" and "share".

The Gene Changes Needed to Give Humans Big Brains Points to Design

There is a board I once frequented where I asked to quit getting notifications when I no longer wished to be associated with the board. In so doing, all my comments there got deleted, which I have no objection to and said so at the time. Still, I am glad a preserved some choice comments from a couple of threads. One thread concerned a study which reported on some amazing findings about the genetic differences between us and apes. On the thread I tried to point out that these differences aren't likely to be the product of mere chance with these comments about things said in the study. Quotes from the study in a white background and my comments on it shaded tan background below...

" they also didn’t see it in orangutans and found only truncated, inactive versions in our closest relatives, gorillas and chimpanzees." 

This is not a mere duplication. This is a crucial gene which does not exist except in chimps and gorillas, and then only in a truncated and inactive form. They said it somehow got “repaired” somewhere in the hominid line. You would think an inactive gene that was already truncated would collect more and more mutations until it was a real mess. But in this case when it gets turned back on it increases brain size? 

And check this quote out: 

"“What’s amazing is that there are many signaling pathways that control the development of the embryo and are completely conserved between species. The Notch signaling pathway is the oldest one. You can find it in every animal you look at. It has been used by developing embryos for as long as animals have existed. And yet, there is a very recent innovation in this pathway specifically in the human lineage, through NOTCH2NL,”

So the pathway is conserved in every animal species for hundreds of millions of years yet this quantum leap forward happened so far as we know just this once 3 million years ago? Is it not astounding that a path can be stable and essential for so long and then a game-changing improvement comes about via a repair to a long-deactivated and truncated gene? 

And that happening once is astounding enough, but did you catch this one?.. 

“The Vanderhaeghen team developed a tailored RNA sequencing analysis for specific and sensitive detection of human-specific genes in human fetal cerebral cortex. This allowed them to identify a repertoire of 35 genes unique to humans that are active during development of the cerebral cortex in humans, including NOTCH2NL genes.” 

THIRTY-FIVE functional genes unique to human linneage just on the development of our cerebral cortex. That they know of....

And it goes on like that. For those who will allow themselves the capacity to question whether humans are strictly the result of what we call "natural" evolutionary processes I think the results of the research point toward the answer being a resounding "no".

You Tube Channel

Please "like" and "share".

The Great Ordovician Biodiversification Event Another Problem for Naturalists

The Cambrian Explosion refers to a geologically short period of time in which every type of basic body plan (phylum) of all animals alive today - and quite a few others which are now extinct- show up in the fossil record. Many scientists say that this happened within a 30 million year time period- a long time to us but shockingly fast if we are counting on naturalistic evolutionary forces to produce dozens of new body plans. But it gets worse because other research suggests that the real innovation occurred in only 20 million years.

Even that number probably over-estimates the time it took for all these new phyla to show up. This is because it is only a calculation based on the fossils we have found in the fossil record. What if the new phylum which shows twenty million years after the Cambrian begins is really of a creature who was around much earlier, we just haven't found an earlier fossil of it yet? So the short length of time is liable to get shorter as we learn more.

Of course naturalists don't like what this implies, so they have been hard at work producing speculation about how the life forms of the previous era were not so different after all and basically dreaming up everything they can to make the case that the Cambrian Explosion wasn't such a big deal after all.

But it turns out they have another problem almost as big as the Cambrian Explosion and this one might be even harder to explain away. While all these new phyla show up in the Cambrian, they don't diversify for 40 million years. Each body plan has very few species with that plan. Then, all phyla start dramatically diversifying at once into new families. Its called "The Great Ordovician Biodiversification Event" and it happened in an even shorter period of time than the Cambrian Explosion.

Now it turns out that this event too happened in a much narrower window of time than one might expect with known naturalistic evolutionary mechanisms. Here is how the link described it....

The early evolution of animal life on Earth is a complex and fascinating subject. The Cambrian Explosion (between about 540 to 510 million years ago) produced a stunning array of body plans, but very few separate species of each, notes Stigall. But nearly 40 million years later, during the Ordovician Period, this situation changed, with a rapid radiation of species and genera during the Great Ordovician Biodiversification Event.

I think what they are trying not to say is that naturalists have two problems, not one, when it comes to explaining the diversification of life in the seas. The earth can bring forth living things after their kinds- there is a background sort of "evolution" going on, but the record also shows changes too big and too fast to reasonably explained by any known evolutionary method. It looks like at certain points, nature had help. Help to do things greater and faster than she can do on her own without it- we don't see that magnitude of rapid change now.

You Tube Channel

Please "like" and "share".