Having
said that, though, I'm going to go out on a limb and say that much of
our understanding of hominid evolution is wrong because racial
attitudes have shaped our interpretation of the evidence. I'll
explain how in a moment but let me start with a disclaimer: I do not
believe the distinction of races among humans is biblically sound.
The Bible says that God has made all nations of one blood (Acts
17:26). Those features that we use to identify a person's race is an
invented concept. It's true that certain groups of people tend to
possess certain combinations of traits but to identify someone as a
different “race” based on their skin color makes about as much
sense as segregating people based on their eye color.
Now,
on to my point. I'm not a scientist; I'm often reminded of this by
my evolutionary friends – many of whom are not scientists either by
the way. Yet even though I'm not a scientist, I can still see the
differences between a Neanderthal
skull and a Homo
sapien
skull. Neanderthals
possessed, among other things, heavy brow ridges, elongated jaws, and
a sloping forehead. Homo
sapiens
have a distinctly dome-shaped skull and flat faces.
When
evolutionists recreate the appearance of Neanderthals, they tend to
view their facial characteristics as being “primitive.” The
result is a brutish-looking caveman. Besides the thick brow ridge,
Neanderthals
have also been portrayed with thick lips, wide noses, and even dark
skin. Let me ask you, what is necessarily “primitive” about
these features? Some groups of people alive today possess these
sames traits.
Consider
these photos of American-Indian, Wolf Robe. Note the heavy brow and
sloping forehead. Was this noble Chief a brute? Was he a savage?
Was he even one iota less evolved than white Europeans? Excuse me
for saying this but I think it's offensive that certain “racial”
characteristics have been labeled as primitive. A thick brow and sloping forehead are more ape like? Are you kidding me?
What's
especially sad is that some Christians have actually believed certain
groups like American-Indians or Australian Aborigines are not
descended from Adam and so do not need the gospel. Still others have
believed that dark skin is the “mark of Cain” (Genesis 4:15).
How many people have died without hearing the gospel simply because
some Christians were racists?
It's
fair to say that racial features are merely different combinations of
traits that God encoded into the DNA of Adam and Eve. Certain
combinations might be more common among certain groups, but there is
nothing significant about them. It is a gross misunderstanding when
scientists use normal variations among people groups as clues to
identify which groups are closer to the apes. I would even say it's
racist!
5 comments:
It's hard to judge the slope of his forehead with his skin still on (and yes, I realize it would have been rude to remove it when he was still using it), but even with his skin on, it's clear that Wolf Robe had what any Neanderthal would have considered a pathetic, girly brow ridge. Neanderthal skeletons showed a number of consistent variations from modern humans: thicker bones (including thicker skulls), more massive muscles (at least as judged by muscle attachment scars on those bones), shorter arms relative to body height (note that, since nonhuman apes have long arms relative to body size, this is actually a respect in which Neanderthals are more advanced or derived than we are), larger noses and longer faces, etc. The heavier bones and musculature, like the more prominent brow ridge, are indeed "more primitive."
Note that "primitive" is not a synonym for "inferior," or "stupider," or "weaker." It means "more like (i.e. less changed from) the last common ancestor of the two groups being compared." Not all change is improvement in any absolute sense. And it is not uncommon for one group to be more derived or evolved in one sense, and more primitive in another.
An interesting point: depending on what you think Adam and Eve looked like (conjectural depictions of them have them looking very like modern humans), Neanderthals might, on the creationist view, be "more evolved" than typical modern humans, since they look less like most depictions of Adam and Eve than modern humans do.
Steven J,
You said, “It's hard to judge the slope of his forehead with his skin still on (and yes, I realize it would have been rude to remove it when he was still using it), but even with his skin on, it's clear that Wolf Robe had what any Neanderthal would have considered a pathetic, girly brow ridge. Neanderthal skeletons showed a number of consistent variations from modern humans: thicker bones (including thicker skulls), more massive muscles (at least as judged by muscle attachment scars on those bones), shorter arms relative to body height (note that, since nonhuman apes have long arms relative to body size, this is actually a respect in which Neanderthals are more advanced or derived than we are), larger noses and longer faces, etc. The heavier bones and musculature, like the more prominent brow ridge, are indeed "more primitive."”
Just to be clear, I wasn't saying that Wolf Robe was a Neanderthal. I was merely pointing out that features like a heavy brow ridge, elongated jaws, wide noses, thick lips, dark skin, etc are features that are present in MODERN humans. The fact that Neanderthals may have possessed these traits does not distinguish them from MODERN humans in the least.
You said, “Note that "primitive" is not a synonym for "inferior," or "stupider," or "weaker." It means "more like (i.e. less changed from) the last common ancestor of the two groups being compared."”
Again, if these features are present in MODERN humans, what is your criterion for identifying them as “primitive”? To say these features are more similar to our most recent, common ancestor with the apes assumes your theory is true. This is why I say that racism has helped shape evolutionary theory. I say that Neanderthals possessed traits common to humans but merely in a unique combination. Just like today, some African natives are tall, have dark skin, and brown eyes. Some Asian natives are shorter and have almond shaped eyes.
You said, “An interesting point: depending on what you think Adam and Eve looked like (conjectural depictions of them have them looking very like modern humans), Neanderthals might, on the creationist view, be "more evolved" than typical modern humans, since they look less like most depictions of Adam and Eve than modern humans do.”
The Bible is silent on what Adam and Eve looked like. Genetically speaking, I would guess that Adam and Eve were brown skinned. As to their other features, I can't say. I certainly don't rely on Renaissance paintings to form an opinion. Depictions of them are largely influenced by the prejudices of artists over time.
As always, thanks for visiting and for your comments. Have a great day and be sure to come back. God bless!!
RKBentley
There is a Christian denomination called (by themselves) the "Primitive Baptists." They use the term in the exact same sense that evolutionists use the term, although they're talking about cultural and theological rather than genetic change: they are, in doctrine and practice, more like the original Baptists than other Baptist denominations are (in particular, they reject Sunday School). They are (as they themselves realize and proclaim) "primitive" even though they are contemporary with more "derived" Baptists (note that, especially among Protestants, there is often a strong tendency to desire to become or remain "primitive," to strip Christianity of changes that have accumulated since the time of the apostles; from an evolutionary standpoint, "primitive" is a neutral descriptive term).
Steven J,
I apologize if you believe I didn't understand your use of the word “primitive.” I assure you I did. You are saying that “primitive” means more like the original. I only asked, and am asking again, what is your criteria for calling certain racial characteristics “primitive”? Is dark skin a primitive feature because some gorillas have dark skin? Is a wide nose or thick lips more ape-like and so are primitive? I'm sure you don't mean to be racist but any use of the word “primitive” to describe anatomical features present in MODERN humans - no matter how innocently it may be intended – sounds racist.
It's precisely the attitude that certain features are closer to the apes that prevents many scientists from recognizing that Neanderthals were fully human. This is why I said racism shapes evolutionary theory. The impression that Neanderthals were dim-witted cavemen is false. If a Neanderthal were dressed in modern clothes and rode on a subway, he would be as inconspicuous as any person of another “race.”
Thanks for your comments. God bless!!
RKBentley
Obviously, we don't have any certain knowledge of the skin color of, e.g. Homo ergaster, or H. sapiens idaltu. We have only conjecture to fill in the details of their lips shapes (some details of Neanderthal noses can be inferred from the sheer size of their nasal cavities).
For what it's worth, while gorillas are black, chimpanzees, especially young ones, are light-skinned. Humans currently living in hot, sunny climates tend to have dark skin, and it would not seem a difficult trait to evolve (though some specific genes involved in dark skin seem, based on statistical analyses, to have gone through "genetic sweeps" among African populations after emerging as mutations in the last few thousand years). So it's hard to say whether "dark skin" is primitive, though really dark skin seems to be an advanced or derived trait.
Chimps and gorillas both have rather small lips, and while all humans have larger ones, really prominent lips are, again, probably a derived or advanced trait.
Chimps, gorillas, and most human populations tend towards straight hair, so I would guess that strongly curled hair is a derived or advanced trait. And so forth and on.
In Neanderthals, prominent brow ridges, though, are shared by not only chimps and gorillas, but by earlier hominines such as H. erectus and H. ergaster; they seem like a really good candidate for a "primitive" trait, as do the robust bones and musculature implied by attachment scars.
Post a Comment