As I was doing some research on the Neandertal hybrid, I ran into an
interesting article which addresses a couple of issues I have hit upon this
year. It is a rebuttal to Schwartz and Tattersall's article on the nasal
structures of the Neandertal. In 1996, they published a paper which was
widely cited in apologetical literature in which they claimed to have found
unique nasal structures in the Neanderthal nose. They claimed that these
non-human structures were consistent with placing Neandertal in a different
species from us.The two issues that this article addresses concern the lack
of objectivity in Schwartz and Tattersall, the two commentators on the
Neandertal hybrid, and the uncritical acceptance of the Neandertal nasal
data by Hugh Ross. As I mentioned the other day, a bitter feud has broken
out over the PNAS commentary about the Neandertal hybrid. Trinkaus and
Zilhao have accused Tattersall and Schwartz of bias, misrepresentation,
anatomical mistakes and
misquotation.(http://www.ipa.min-cultura.pt/docs/eventos/lapedo/lvfaq_corr.h
tml) An anthropologist I have spoken with, who does not beleive there is
any Neandertal genetic contribution to the human race, told me that the
best explanation for the child is that it is a hybrid and he felt that the
commentary was justly castigated. He did not appear to be happy about
something that should have supported his position. So imagine my surprise
when I found a PNAS article in which similar charges of bias, anatomical
mistakes and misrepresentations of Schwartz and Tattersall's Neandertal
nose paper. The article I refer to is Robert G. Franciscus,"Neandertal
Nasal Structures and Upper Respiratory Tract 'Specialization", Proc. Natl.
Academy of Sci., USA, 96(4):1805-1809. More from it later. First the
background.
Schwartz and Tattersall wrote in 1996:
"Nonetheless, possibly because of their large brain volumes,
paleoanthropologists have in recent years been reluctant to recognize the
Neanderthals as a distinct species of the genus Homo. Our recent studies
of Neanderthal crania have, however, indicated that these hominids are
autapomorphic (uniquely derived) in several respects that have previously
gone unremarked, and our purpose here is to draw attention to some
characteristics of the Neanderthal nasal region that not only distinguish
these extinct human relatives from Homo sapiens, but also make them unique
among hominids--and primates--in general." ~ Jeffrey H. Schwartz and Ian
Tattersall, "Significance of of Some Previously Unrecognized Apomorphies in
the Nasal Region of Homo Neanderthalensis," Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci, USA,
93(1996):10852-10854, p. 10852
They list the three traits that they feel are unique.
The apomorphies are the development of an internal nasal margin bearing a
well-developed and vertically oriented medial projection, the swelling of
the lateral nasal cavity wall into the capacious posterior nasal cavity,
and the lack of an ossified roof over the lacrimal groove." ~ Jeffrey H.
Schwartz and Ian Tattersall, "Significance of of Some Previously
Unrecognized Apomorphies in the Nasal Region of Homo Neanderthalensis,"
Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci, USA, 93(1996):10852-10854, p. 10853
This article was cited uncritically by Hugh Ross as proving his thesis that
there is no relationship between us and Neandertal. Ross writes:
"The nasal bones and sinus cavities of Neandertals are so large and so
distinct that Schwartz and Tattersall go on to conclude that Neandertals
cannot be biologically related to any known primate species or any known
mammalian species. Just as modern humans appear to have been specially
created, so too do Neandertals. The naturalistic explanation for
Neandertals currently rests on a set of 'unknown' intermediate species." ~
Hugh Ross, The Genesis Question, (Colorado Springs: NavPress, 1998), p.113
"The nasal bones and sinus cavities of Neandertals are so large and so
distinct that Schwartz and Tattersall go on to conclude that Neandertals
cannot be biologically related to any known primate species or any known
mammalian species." ~ Hugh Ross, The Genesis Question, (Colorado Springs:
NavPress, 1998), p. 114
This is not at all what Schwartz and Tattersall say. Ross misrepresents
what they say. In one of the above quotations they call Neandertal a close
human relative. They certainly do not claim that Neanderthal is not a
mammal or a primate. However, here is what Franciscus says about the
Schwartz and Tattersall article. (I got this off the net so individual page
numbers are not available)
"Critically reviewing the anatomical basis for Schwartz and Tattersall's
contentions reveals several serious problems with their analysis, including
(i) reliance on specimens with damaged, incomplete, or, in some cases,
entirely absent relevant anatomy; (ii) failure to consider primary vs.
secondary spatial consequences in nasal trait conceptualizations; and (iii)
failure to consider actual ranges of variation in these traits in both
fossil and recent humans. Accordingly, the unique phylogenetic and adaptive
'specialiazations' attributed to Neandertal internal nasal structures are
unwarranted." Robert G. Franciscus,"Neandertal Nasal Structures and Upper
Respiratory Tract 'Specialization", Proc. Natl. Academy of Sci., USA,
96(4):1805-1809.
Concerning the first 'unique' trait, the vertically oriented conchal crest,
Franciscus writes:
""With respect to Schwartz and Tattersall's contention that the conchal
crest is oriented vertically rather than horizontally in Neandertals, the
two specimens used in their araticle as photo illustrations of this feature
are problematic. Spy 1 is missing the area of the lateral wall of the
maxilla where the conchal crest (and thus the purported projection) would
be located. The feature labeled in their photograph of this specimen
(their figure 2a) as the medial projection is, in reality, the confluence
of the cristae lateralis and spinalis on what remains of the inferolateral
corner of the apertura piriformis. The degree of horizontality vs.
verticality of the conchal crest as well as the degree of medial projection
cannot be determined for this specimen. This observation highlights
another troublesome aspect of their analysis, namely, the inclusion of
specimens that simply are missing relevant anatomy. Skhul V was included
in their comparative sample (included in their table 1 as 'Homo
sapiens(?)'). However, there is not a single aspect of external or internal
nasal anatomy present on this specimen; the entire midface is restored in
plaster. It is also unclear which features the Neandertal Gibraltar 2
(Devil's Tower) specimen evinces, because it is also missing the areas
necessary to evaluate the purported inner margin, medial projection, or
lacrimal groove. (see below).
"The Gibraltar 1 (Forbes' Quarry) Neandertal specimen was emphasized
heavily by Schwartz and Tattersall, but is also prblematic. Before
cleaning with a pneumatic drill, the internal nasal fossa of this specimen
was filled in completely with a hard breccia. It is not at all clear
whether the present form of the medial projections in this specimen (the
most pronounced among all of the Neandertals) is the result of 'pneumatic
sculpting' or actual anatomy. My own measurements on this and other
aspects of the specimen (see below) are palced in parentheses to reflect
this uncertainty. In specimens such as La Chapelle-aux-Saints, where the
root of the conchal crest has not been damaged heavily, its orientation is
clearly horizontal/oblique rather than vertical." )." Robert G.
Franciscus,"Neandertal Nasal Structures and Upper Respiratory Tract
'Specialization", Proc. Natl. Academy of Sci., USA, 96(4):1805-1809.
It is hard to see how someone can seriously base their work on something
that does not exist!
Of the second 'unique' trait, the internal nasal swelling cited by
Schwartz and Tattersall (see above), Franciscus says:
"Far from being unique to Neandertals, as Schwartz and Tattersall
maintained, the crista tubinalis is present in the internal aspect of the
apertura piriformis in high frequncies in most recent humans and fossil
Homo, especially those from Africa. Moreover, the precise configuration
of all three cristae, when present, found in 65% of Neandertals (Gower's
Stage 5: fused cristae lateralis and spinalis with partial fusion of
cristae spinalis and turbinalis) can be found in more than 10% of recent
samples from western Europe, the Near East, and sub-Saharan Africa, as well
as a north African Mesolithic (Taforalt and Afalou) and Nubian Mesolithic
(Jebel Sahaba) sample. It is important to point out that 35% of the
Neandertal sample does not have an internal margin or a crista turbinalis,
possessing instead a single, sharp crest that is continuous between the
anterior nasal spine and the lateral walls fo the aperture piriformis.
These include Amud 1, Amud 7 (subadult), Arcy-Sur-Cure 9, St. Cesaire 1,
Spy 1 and possibly Teshik Tash (the last was observed from a cast)." Robert
G. Franciscus,"Neandertal Nasal Structures and Upper Respiratory Tract
'Specialization", Proc. Natl. Academy of Sci., USA, 96(4):1805-1809.
Of the third 'unique' trait, Schwartz and Tattersall's claim that
Neandertals lack of tear ducts, Franciscus relates:
"The final purported Neandertal autapomorphy that Schwartz and Tattersall
have identified is the lack of an ossified roof over the lacrimal groove,
in contrast to modern humans in which the lacrimal groove is roofed-over in
adults and partially so in newborns. As with the other two features,
however, no modern comparative sample is specified other than Skhul V
(which completely lacks any preserved nasal anatomy, as noted above) and
Cro-Magnon 1. Hoever, Murphy systematically examined the frequency of
these two trait configurations in a geographically diverse sample of recent
human skulls (n-206) and found both the open and roofed-over condition
present. The nonroofed (open) conidtion was argued to be unique to
Neandertals by Schwartz and Tattersall. However, Murphy found that the
open condition was present in all of the subsamples. It was found in an
especially high frequency among skulls from the archaeological site of Tepe
Hissar, Iran." )." Robert G. Franciscus,"Neandertal Nasal Structures and
Upper Respiratory Tract 'Specialization", Proc. Natl. Academy of Sci., USA,
96(4):1805-1809.
Given the problems with the research of these two commentators, I would
urge caution in accepting what they say. Franciscus' report was published
last Feb. 16, 1999 an so is demonstrably independent of the Trinkaus/Zilhao
charges. And as far as Christian apologetics is concerned, it would be
better for apologists like Ross to understand the issues and decide
accordingly rather than to accept uncritically anything which supports his
prejudged position on fossil man.
glenn
Foundation, Fall and Flood
Adam, Apes and Anthropology
http://www.flash.net/~mortongr/dmd.htm
Lots of information on creation/evolution