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!
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."
ReplyDeleteNote 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,
ReplyDeleteYou 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).
ReplyDeleteSteven J,
ReplyDeleteI 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).
ReplyDeleteFor 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.
I must say that I concur with Steven's assessment of the scientific use of "primitive". I have been studying this field for quite some time and I am curious where your statements about scientists trying to prove that one facet of human kind is "more primative" than the other comes from? I have not seen any published papers in any research journals by any scientists currently studying human evolution purporting such a claim. If you know happen to know of one, I ask that you share it. If not, I think it's an unfair comment to attribute to the scientists without credible evidence to back it.
ReplyDeleteFurthermore, there have been a lot of advances in the scientifitic fields relating to the study of human evolution over the last few decades. Through the human genome project and the study of Y-Chromosome DNA in particular scients have proven that all humans alive today are genetically related and that we all derive from a single common male ancestor, whom scientists call "Adam". This would seem to substantiate the passage that you quoted about humanity being "of one blood". Scientists today also understand that the genetic differences between, for example, Haplogroup A and Haplogroup R are so slight that they aren't even really worth noting when talking about a species.
I will not deny the fact that racism, especially towards Africans, did play a role in our early understanding of evolution. However I have not seen any recent academic papers that suggest this to to be true anymore. The world has changed. The people within has changed. Scientists can learn and grow and realize that they were wrong about some things. Just as God says to forgive your neighbors for their sins, so too should you forgive modern genetic researchers and evolutionary biologists for the sins and transgressions of their fathers.
Greetings to you both. This happens to be an area that I've been studying for some time recently and I think that both of you make some good points, and some bad ones.
ReplyDeleteFirst, I would like to say that your interpretation of the use of the word "primitive" is spot-on. In an evolutionary sense it means "closest to the original". A primitive trait or gene isn't necessarily a bad thing as not all mutations are good ones. Primitive traits can be discovered by cross-referencing and analyzing the physiological characteristics of related species to see which traits they have in common. Due to the laws of evolutionary biology as we understand them today dominant traits will continue to be passed on to genetic offspring in abundance.
That being said, Steven's comment about the Neanderthals in the creationist view would be wrong only for the fact that scientists no longer consider Homo Neanderthalensis to be a direct ancestor of mankind, but rather a geneticially related cousin. Thus, since Neanderthals aren't "human" in the sense that they're not Homo Sapiens Sapiens, then they can't possibly have evolved from the modern human ancestor.
Also, on the subject of Homo Neanderthalensis, there are far more physiological differences that define that species besides a brow ridge (called the Supraorbital Torus), and a sloped forehead, as Steven rightly pointed out. The brow ridge of Aboriginee Australians is far more pronounced that the images that you posted and would have been a much better example, by the way. However, even those brow ridges are within the normal parameters of defining characteristics of the skelatal structure of Homo Sapiens Sapiens.
To answer RKBentley's question about why a brow-ridge is considered a "primitive trait" is because it is a physilogical feature shared by all members of the genus Homo, and the genus Austalopithecus, and the genus Pan, and many other genuses of the Homininae Sub-Family, including those species found within the Gorillini Tribe. Thus, if supraorbital toruses and broad noses are features that are shared in common with all of those different species, then clearly those features were also present on our common ancestor species as well, which is what makes them primitive in an evolutionary sense.
The Bible may be silent on what Adam and Eve looked like, but modern science offers clues. I would like to point out, Mr. Bentley, that in some ways modern science has proved, in a round-about way, some of the things presented in the Bible. For example, you shared the passage about all of humanity being "of one blood". It may surprise you to learn this, but modern scientists not only agree, but they've proven it. All of the people alive on the planet today share one common male ancestor, whom they call "Adam". They've also proven that everyone also has a common female ancestor (through mitochondrial DNA or mtDNA) and they call her "Eve". They only difference is that according to scientific findings, these two individuals did not live at the same time. However, through comparison of the human genome we've learned that the earliest humans were fair skinned. The climate of Africa was also vastly different at the time.
Personally, I think the fact that you take offense to a scientific term used in a scientific context speaks to how little you understand of the study of evoluitionary biology. You stated yourself that you understood that the word "primitive" meant that it was a common trait. If that's true, then why are you insisting that it's a racist term? Dark skin is not a primitive feature, as I mentioned above. Dark skin is indeed a derived/advanced trait as Steven suggested. The "primitive trait" is fair skin tones, more like the Irish and the Swedes.
Furthermore, modern scientists do not consider "cave men" (an archiac term that is not used in the scientific community anymore, by the way) of any species to be dim-witted or unintelligent. Scientists have learned in recent years that H. Neanderthalensis was on par with humans in terms of intelligence and that they had developed art and culture as well. In fact, scientists are recognizing the fact that many of the species of the Homininae Sub-Family are more intelligent than they were originally attributed. Gorillas can be taught sign language, and certains chimps and monkeys understand human commands and words, thus suggesting at least a base level of intelligence.
ReplyDeleteAlso, since H. Neanderthalensis isn't a direct human ancestor, I wonder how they can be "fully human"? What is the classification by which you consider something to be "human"? Are chimpanzees "human"?
Also, the fact that you believe that a Neanderthal dressed in modern clothing would be "inconspicuous" is ill-founded. As proof, consider this comparison: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Sapiens_neanderthal_comparison.jpg
Admittedly racism has definitely colored our views of things in the past. However, as you point out, racism was not an issue confined simply to scientists. As God says to forgive the sins your neighbor against you, I think it only fair that you forgive the modern scientists and researchers for the sins and transgessions of their forebears. No modern scientist or researcher who has ever been published in any article in any scientific journal that I have ever read has made any of the claims that you attribute to them. If you have evidence to the contrary I would certainly like see it.
Johnathan Clayborn,
ReplyDeleteThanks for visiting and for your comments. In case you haven't read my blog before now, I'll just say that I always welcome comments – especially from people who disagree with me. Yours are quite civil which is always a plus. I also try to reply to all comments but am limited in both space and time. You've said quite a few things and I just can't get to them all so I'll hit a few highlights.
As I've already said to Steven J, I'll also say to you: I understand your use of the word “primitive.” You're saying it's more like the original. I get it, I promise. Let me phrase my position another way. If we are descended from apes, then you're saying, quite literally, that certain, “primitive” features present in MODERN humans are most like an ape. It just sounds racist no matter how benign it is intended.
And let me again point out that I do not believe we have an ancestor in common with apes. Therefore, humans have not inherited any of their characteristics. Neanderthals had a heavy brow-ridge. Some more recent humans have heavy brow-ridges even if they're not quite as pronounced as Neanderthal's. My wife thinks I have a heavy brow but it's nothing at all like Chief Wolf Robe's. Between all these examples, we merely see the amount of variation PRESENT WITHIN HUMANS. For someone to say a heavy brow-ridge is evidence of relatedness to apes is insulting. It's an observation to say to some one, “You look like your father.” It's an insult to say, “You look like an ape.”
Moving on from there, you may have misspoken when you said that science has “proven” the existence of a common, male ancestor (“Adam”) and a common female ancestor (“mitochondrial-Eve”). Most people who are a little more studied in evolution (as you seem to be) usually avoid using the “p-word.”
In spite of anything that is said about me and creationists in general, I do consider all the evidence. However, I consider the Bible to be true and I use that to help shape how I interpret other evidence. In the case of Adam and Eve, the Bible has already proven to my satisfaction that they were historical people.
Finally, I don't believe evolutionists are overt racists. It's simply an unavoidable implication of the theory. It's like the old saying, “garbage in – garbage out.” If you start with the premise that humans have a common ancestor with apes, then MODERN human characteristics like wide noses, heavy brow-ridges, or dark skin are seen as being “primitive” or, in more blunt terms, “ape-like.”
Thanks again for visiting. Please visit again. I've blogged a lot about some of the philosophical assumptions made in science and would be interested in hearing your opinion on the subject.
God bless!!
RKBentley
Hey, I don't know if this will give you guys a little *bing* in your email box so this may be futile.
ReplyDeleteSo I'll be quick.
Firstly, this comment is directed at the two evolutionists, not RKBentley (sorry dude, you can stop reading here)
Guys, you be wastin' your time.
If you would like to preach to the converted in a forum where you may be able to receive an intellectual response, you should head on over to places like secular cafe and perhaps even the /sci/ board on some of the big imageboards.
Just sayin'
Anonymous,
ReplyDeleteI ignored your advice and read the entire post.
It's funny to hear you appealing to your cohorts to look elsewhere for “intellectual” conversation and at the same to hear you say, “Guys, you be wastin' your time.” Is that the sort of intellectual conversation they can expect at the other sites?
I'm not sure what your criterion is for determining if something is “intellectual.” I suspect you equate “intellectual” with “agrees with me.” You might read my post on the No True Scotsman argument. You employ it here well.
God bless!!
RKBentley
Just for fun, I checked out Secular Cafe at the above comment's suggestion. Here are a couple of headlines that highlight the high degree of “intellectual” conversation that goes on there:
ReplyDelete101 abject stupidities from creotard central
Creationists Are Retarded
Favorite creationist goofiness
These are nothing new. I've heard much the same thing on CARM's evolution forum and many other spots online. I think it represents the “sophistication” I've heard from most evolutionists' arguments.
I just thought I'd share these to let my readers know they're not missing any intellectual conversation by visiting my site.
God bless!!
RKBentley