On Wed, 17 Dec 1997 17:27:55 -0600, Glenn Morton wrote:
GM>There is the report that a neanderthal skull cap has been found at
>Ochtendung, Germany. The edges of the skull cap show cutmarks which indicate
>that the skull cap was shaped, possibly into a drinking vessel. (yum, yum).
>The date of this fossil is between 100 and 200,000 years ago, prior to the
>advent of anatomically modern men on earth and much prior to their advent in
>Europe.
Thanks for this info. I would appreciate a reference to this report.
GM>Thus, if this object represents some time of ritual cannibalism
>then it would be indicative of religion among the Neanderthals. At
>the very least this skull cap is consistent with that hypothesis...
Agreed that this shaped Neandertal skull cap would be consistent
with cannibalism, and cannibalism can be religious (in the sense of
withcraft and sorcery):
"In other cases, however, the consumption of particular portions or
organs was a ritual means by which certain qualities of the person
eaten might be obtained or by which powers of witchcraft or sorcery
might be employed. Ritual murder' and cannibalism in Africa were
often related to sorcery. Headhunters and others often consumed bits
of the bodies or heads of deceased enemies as a means of absorbing
their vitality or other qualities and reducing their powers of revenge"
("cannibalism", Encyclopaedia Britannica, 15th edition, 1984, ii:512)
On the other hand a shaped Neandertal skull cap would be consistent
with the use of a skull cap of a Neandertal who had already died for
a utilitarian purpose, eg. as a food bowl. If does not necessarily
follow that because Neandertal(s) shaped a fellow Neandertal's skull
cap and then ate or drank from it, that they ate the brain that was
originally in that skull cap.
But even if it was cannibalism, it was not necessarily ritual
cannibalism. Life was tough for Neandertals in ice-age Europe and
they may have eaten their own kind as a source of protein. Even
among some modern day peoples (eg. Melanesia), cannibalism was just
for food:
"In some regions human flesh was looked upon as a form of food,
sometimes equated with animal food, as is indicated in the Melanesian
pidgin term "long pig." Victorious Maoris often cut up the bodies of
the dead after a battle and feasted on the flesh, and the Batak were
reported to have sold human flesh in the markets before they came
under full control by the Dutch." (Encyclopaedia Britannica, 1984,
ii:512)
But even if it was ritual cannibalism, not all ritual cannibalism is
religious. Some ritual cannibalism among Australian aborigines was
not necessarily religious:
"In some cases, the body of a dead person is ritually eaten by his
relatives, a form called endocannibalism. Some Aboriginal Australians
perform such practices as acts of respect the bones being retained for
a time." (Encyclopaedia Britannica, 1984, ii:512)
Other ritual cannibalism can be dramatic, ie. staged for effect:
"In other cases, ritual cannibalism occurs as a part of the drama
of secret societies. In the cannibal society of the Kwakiutl Indians of
the Northwest Coast of the United States and southwestern Canada,
for example, the novice who is possessed by the cannibal spirit eats
the flesh of a corpse or bites a piece out of the arm of a living person
before being subdued and returned to a normal psychological state.
Such dramas, however, were carefully staged for their effect on the
audience- both the Kwakiutl and their neighbours held the eating of
human flesh in abhorrence." (Encyclopaedia Britannica, 1984, ii:512)
Finally, even if it did indicate ritual cannibalism and therefore a
primitive form of religious activity, it would not necessarily
indicate that Neandertal was capable of having a spiritual
relationship with God:
"In the Genesis creation account, soulish creatures (birds and
mammals endowed by God with mind, will, and emotions so that they can
form relationships with human beings), and spirit creatures (human
beings who in addition to the soulish features of birds and mammals
are also endowed by God with spirit that they can form a relationship
with God Himself) are distinguished from other animals (invertebrates
and lower vertebrates). (Ross H., "Creation and Time", 1994, p61)
"In Genesis 1, God speaks of adham (male and female), and only adham,
as being made in His image. The point is emphasized by repetition.
As humanity's story unfolds through subsequent chapters, we discover
that what makes humans different is a quality called "spirit." None
of the rest of Earth's creatures possesses it. By "spirit" the Bible
means awareness of God and capacity to form a relationship with
Him...." (Ross H., "Creation and Time", 1994, pp140-141).
In any event, if Neandertal is only distantly related to Homo
sapiens, with a last common ancestor with Homo sapiens 550 kya (see
below), it is Biblically irrelevant whether Neandertal carried out
ritual cannibalism or not. The evidence is mounting that modern
man is very recent, and surprisingly genetically homogenous (which
broadly fits the Biblical picture):
"It's true that the Neandertal mtDNA is different from that of living
humans. But that may simply support what geneticists have long
known: living humans are strangely homogeneous genetically,
presumably because they originated recently from a small group or
their ancestors underwent a population bottleneck that wiped out
many variations." (Kahn P. & Gibbons A., "DNA From an Extinct
Human," Science, 277, 11 July 1997, pp177-178)
[...]
GM>Finally there is the reacion of Hugh Ross to the Neanderthal DNA
>report from earlier this year. Hugh Ross write:
HR>"When the Neandertal DNA fragment was compared with a DNA sequence
>of 986 nucleotide pairs from living humans of diverse ethnic
>backgrounds, the difference was enormous an average of 26 nucleotide
>links in the DNA chain differed completely. Modern humans differed
>from one another in an average of eight links of the chain, and those
>differences were independent of the 26 observed for the Neandertal
>fossil. The researchers conclusion: Neandertals made no contribution
>to humanity's gene pool."
Hugh Ross undersells himself here. I don't have the original Cell
article, but according to SCIENCE's account of it, it was not "986
nucleotide pairs" but "986 distinct sequences from living humans"
(Kahn P. & Gibbons A., "DNA From an Extinct Human," Science,
277, 11 July 1997, p177)
GM>Hugh falls into the same trap that the authors of the original
>Cell report fell into--comparing an average with a range. It is
>true that the AVEREAGE variation among modern human mtDNA
>sequences is 8 positional differences.
In fact, the average variation among modern humans is less than
*one-third* that of the average between Neandertal and modern humans:
"They found, on average, three times more differences between the
Neandertal and modern human sequences than between pairs of
modern humans. Specifically, pairs of modern human sequences
differed at an average of only eight positions, while human-
Neandertal pairs differed at an average of 25.6 positions." (Science,
11 July 1997, p177).
GM>But the range of variation among modern humans is 1-24!
The point is that there was almost no overlap: the most divergent
human pair of mtDNA strands differred in 24 nucleotides, but the
*least* divergent modern-Neandertal pair had 20 differences:
"And the range only barely overlapped: The most divergent modern
humans differed in only 24 nucleotides, while the closest modern-
Neandertal pair had 20 differences." (Science, 11 July 1997, p177).
Moreover, the type and location of the nucleotide substitutions
and their locations were different:
"Also, the type of nucleotide substitutions and their locations were
different" (Science, 11 July 1997, p177).
Presumably this is what Ross means by "...and those differences were
independent of the 26 observed for the Neandertal fossil." (Ross H.,
"Neandertal Takes a One-Eighty", Facts & Faith, Third Quarter
1997. http://www.reasons.org/resources/FAF/97q3faf/neandertal.html)
This latter seems decisive, and according to SCIENCE puts the
Neandertal sequence outside the statistical range of modern human
variation:
"These data put the Neandertal sequence outside the statistical range
of modern human variation and, says Paabo, make it `highly unlikely
that Neandertals contributed to the human mtDNA pool.'" (Science,
11 July 1997, p177).
GM>The ONLY Neanderthal sampled differed by 27 from the putative
>standard sequence. Looked at in this way, it is not a huge difference
at all.
It may not be "huge" but it is statistically significant. A random
sample of modern humans would have expected a maximum of only *8*
different base-pairs:
"After aligning the resulting set of 123 sequences from individual
clones, a consensus sequence of 379 base pairs was obtained. This
sequence exhibited 27 differences from the reference sequence,
compared to the 5-8 differences expected from a random sample of
modern humans." (Ward R. & Stringer S., "A molecular handle on
the Neanderthals," Nature, Vol 388, 17 July 1997, p226)
GM>The original authors wrote:
>
>"Whereas these modern human sequences differ among
>themselves by an average of 8.0+/- 4.1 (range 1-24)
>substitutions, the difference between the humans and the
>Neandertal sequence is 27.2+/-2.2 (range 22-36) substitutions.
>thus the largest difference observed between any two human
>sequences was two substitutions larger than the smallest
>difference between a human and the Neandertal. In total, 0.002%
>of the pairwise comparisions between human mtDNA sequences were
>larger than the smallest difference between the Neandertal and a
>human."
>Krings, Matthias, et al, 1997. "Neandertal DNA
>Sequences and the Origin of Modern Humans," Cell, 90:19-30, p.
>24-25
GM>These authors are comparing the average (range 1-24) with an
>experimental error. In determining the Neanderthal sequence there
>is an experimental error.
Where does it say that this was an "experimental error"?
GM>The actual value for this particular
>Neanderthal sequence lies somewhere between 22 and 36 sequence
>differences. They came up with a weighted mean of 27 sequence
>locations being different. Thus to compare the AVERAGE human
>difference with the estimate of the divergence of the ONLY
>Neanderthal sampled obviously will result in an unfavorable
>comparison.
Why should comparing the average human difference with the only
Neanderthal sampled result in an unfavorable comparison? If
Neandertals really were closely related to modern humans, there
seems no reason why this one sample should not have reflected
that closeness. This is especially so, since this was from a
more recent Neandertal skeleton (30-100,000 old):
"The groundwork for this astonishing success goes back several years.
Archaeologists Hans-Ekhard Joachim of the Rheinisches Landesmuseum
(where the Neandertal type specimen is kept), and paleontologist Ralf
Schmitz of the Rhine State Department of Archaeology organized a
committee to study what new research could be done on their precious
skeleton, thought to be somewhere between 30,000 and 100,000 years
old." (Science, 11 July 1997, p176).
GM>Are those humans who differ by 24 sequence differences
>from me, less HUMAN??? Of course not. This is true even if their
>mother left no mtDNA in me. Similarly just because this
>Neanderthal's mother left no mtDNA in me does not mean she was not
>an intelligent, spiritual being.
It depends on what you mean by "human" and "spiritual". Where do you
draw the human-animal line:
"There is a further consequence of the theory of evolution, which is
independent of the particular mechanism suggested by Darwin. If men
and animals have a common ancestry, and if men developed by such
slow stages that there were creatures which we should not know
whether to classify as human or not, the question arises: at what stage
in evolution did men, or their semi-human ancestors begin to be all
equal? Would Pithecanthropus erectus, if he had been properly
educated, have done work as good as Newton's? Would the Piltdown
Man have written Shakespeare's poetry if there had been anybody to
convict him of poaching? A resolute egalitarian who answers these
questions in the affirmative will find himself forced to regard apes as
the equals of human beings. An why stop with apes? I do not see how
he is to resist an argument in favour of Votes for Oysters. An
adherent of evolution should maintain that not only the doctrine of
the equality of all men, but also that of the rights of man, must be
condemned as unbiological since it makes too emphatic a distinction
between men and other animals." (Russell B., "History of Western
Philosophy", George Allen & Unwin: London, 1961, pp697-698)
Besides, both the SCIENCE and NATURE articles maintain that
shared a last common ancestor over half a million years ago, whereas
modern humans shared a last common ancestor only 120-150,000
years ago:
"With other assumptions and correction factors, they calculated that
the sequence ancestral to both modern and Neandertal mitochondria
began to diverge some 550,000 to 690,000 years ago, compared to
only 120,000 to 150,000 years ago for the ancestral sequence of all
modern humans. To put it in relative terms, the last common ancestor
of Neandertals and modern humans is four times older than the last
ancestor of all modern humans. (Science, 11 July 1997, p177)
"This implies that the Neanderthal divergence is of considerable
antiquity, dating to 555,000 to 690,000 years ago. This is about four
times greater than the time back to the common ancestor of modern
human mtDNA (120,000 to 150,000 years)" (Nature, 17 July 1997, p225)
If this is the case, and you claim that Neandertal and Homo sapiens
are equally human and spiritual, you would have to claim that either
humanity and spirituality stagnated for over half a million years, or it
developed separately in two entirely different lineages and then one
just died out. Which is it to be?
GM>Now to back up my claim, when I posted this analysis on an
>anthropology message board, two things happened. The berating of
>the multiregionalists by those saying Neanderthal was not related in
>any fashion to mankind came to an abrupt halt.
Well, maybe the berating of multiregionalists can begin again! There
was no evidence of European regional continuity in the Neandertal
sequences:
"More extensive analyses confirmed that the Neanderthal sequence
consistently fell outside the mtDNA sequence variation observed in
modern humans. They also suggested that the closest contemporary
lineages to the Neanderthal sequence came from Africa. So the
genetic relationship between Neanderthals and modern Europeans
appears to be no closer than the average relationship between
Neanderthals and any modern human-running counter to the view
that Neanderthals were at least partly ancestral to modern Europeans."
(Nature, 17 July 1997, p226)
"But the new data suggest no mixing at all, at least in mitochondrial
genes. "Neandertals in Europe could not have contributed to the
modern mitochondrial genome," says Stanford University geneticist
Luca Cavalli- Sforza. That "destroys one of the fortresses of the
regional continuity model," he says, which postulates that
Neandertals in Europe are among the ancestors of living Europeans.
Indeed, one of the paper's most important findings is that Neandertal
DNA shows no particular similarity to that of Europeans. "If regional
continuity were correct, "we'd assume that Europeans would be
closest [in their sequence] to Neandertals. But the results show
Neandertals are equidistant to all races," says Stringer. As a result,
most researchers who spoke with Science consider the new data as
support for the idea that modern humans replaced, rather than
intermingled with, Neandertals. "The multiregional guys will have a
hard time wriggling out of this one," says Ward." (Science, 11 July
1997, p177)
GM>And I got a favorable mention in the Anthropological E-mail News.
>(below)
>
>"mtDNA RESEARCH MAY EXCLUDE NEANDERTALS FROM HUMAN LINEAGE
>
>Researchers working in the US and Germany have extracted a short
>segment of mtDNA from the Neandertal type specimen and opened the
>door to a new era in the molecular study of human evolution. The
>landmark research primarily proves the feasibility of obtaining
>ancient mtDNA from human fossils.
Indeed, this was an important step. We can expect further efforts
to extract mtDNA from other partially fossilised hominids:
"Other population geneticists say they would like to see more data to
be sure. "The icing on the cake would be Neandertal number two,"
says Penn State's Blair. "Get one of those North African Neandertals
or something really far away, and see if it clusters with this one."
Genetic data from archaic moderns would also be helpful. Says
Relethford, "I'd like to see DNA from the first undisputed early
modern Europeans, the Cro Magnon from about 30,000 years ago.
That's a real good test. Their mtDNA should look more like us."
No one has that, quite, but Bryan Sykes of Oxford University and
Stringer think they have isolated mtDNA from a 10,000-year-old
late Cro Magnon from Cheddar, England-and it shows only one base
pair difference from that of modern humans. This as yet unpublished
work shows that "we can put Cro Magnons at 10,000 nicely in the
present variation," says Stringer." (Science, 11 July 1997, p178)
GM>The resulting statistical
>reconstructions of genetic lineages add more evidence pointing to
>Africa as the origin of human mtDNA patterns. Writing in the
>July 11 issue of Cell, Matthias Krings and Svante Paabo at the
>University of Munich and Anne Stone and Mark Stoneking of
>Pennsylvania State University report that the mtDNA sequence is,
>very different from sequences that correspond to those of
>modern humans. Paabo and his coworkers used the mitochondrial
>control region of the 30 kyr Neandertal 1, (kept at the
>Rheinisches Landesmuseum in Germany), and then copied and
>amplified that genetic material, (consisting of 379 base pairs),
>with the help of two human primers that matched the beginning of
>the Neandertal sequence. When they compared the samples there
>were, on average, 27 differences between the human samples and
>that of the Neandertals at sites in the sequence where
>modifications are known to occur. The average difference is seven
>among modern humans at sites of known genetic modifications.
>According to Stoneking, if European Neandertals had interbred
>with modern humans they should display a close match to modern
>Europeans.
Indeed!
GM>Statistical reconstructions conducted by Paabo's group
>suggest that neanderthaland human lineages spilt around 600 kyr
>and that the female founders of the modern human mtDNA lived
>between 120 and 150 kyr. Other scientists, such as Milford
>Wolpoff of the University of Michigan and Alan Templeton of
>Washington University in Missouri are hesitant to make inferences
>about an entire lineage based on one sample. John Relethford of
>the State University of New York Oneonta, posted to the Origins
>of Humankind Neanderthal message board, "While the evidence is
>certainly suggestive of Neandertal extinction, we need to go back
>and consider whether smaller past population size and drift could
>affect the results, and to what degree. Also a good test would be
>to follow this up with DNA extraction with post-neanderthal
>Europeans, archaic Africans, etc. Geophysicist Glenn Morton has
>also posted a series of possible statistical problems to the
>Neanderthal board, which he feels might have influenced Paabo and
>his colleagues' work. Look for Morton's remarks under the heading
>-Statistical error in mtDNA article- posted on July 26. The
>Neanderthal message board URL is www.origins.pro-am.com/origins.
Since your post to this message board was nearly 5 months ago, I
presume it has been evaluated and either accepted or rejected?
What was the result?
[...]
Happy Christmas!
Steve
-------------------------------------------------------------------
| Stephen E (Steve) Jones ,--_|\ sejones@ibm.net |
| 3 Hawker Avenue / Oz \ Steve.Jones@health.wa.gov.au |
| Warwick 6024 ->*_,--\_/ Phone +61 8 9448 7439 (These are |
| Perth, West Australia v my opinions, not my employer's) |
-------------------------------------------------------------------