What is called the "Neanderthal problem" involves the issue of our relation
to them. What set the stage for this problem was the fact that Neanderthal
was the first hominid found and the difference between him and us was
exagerated. Frayer writes:
"Nearly three decades ago Brace documented much of this thinking, arguing
that from the moment of their discovery Neanderthals have been consistently
and unjustly ridiculed and rejected. Others on both sides of the
replacement vs. continuity issue show this attitude continues to the
present. It is my contention that Neanderthals from Europe have been
unfairly driven from the human tree, and that, while different from the
humans who followed them, Neanderthals represent the most likely ancestors
of 'modern 'Europeans."(Frayer, 1997, p. 220
The first argument for our separation from Neandertals concerning
morphology can be answered in two ways. First there are modern human
skulls from Europe, especially from Eastern Europe, which are mixtures of
traits. Mladec 5 is ostensibly a modern human, descended from the African
invaders, yet he has significant neanderthaloid traits. Neanderthals were
known for having an occipital bun, a different shape to the back of the
cranium. Mladec 5 had such a bun (Trinkaus and LeMay 1982). Mladec 4,5 and
6 all were very robustmassive supraorbital bones, and low vaults. None of
these are modern traits. Smith states:
"The supraorbital superstructures are basically modern (i.e., somewhat
divided into superciliary arches and superorbital trigones) but, especially
in Mladec 5 closely approach the condition of a Neandertal supraorbital
torus, particularly that of late Neandertal tori in South-Central Europe.
Wolpoff notes that the cranial contour of Mladec 5 is similar to that of La
Chapelle-aux-Saints except for a slightly higher forehead and less
projecting occiput." (Smith 1982, p. 678
Frayer notes:
"While there is more evidence than just Mladec 5 and the comparisons shown
in Figure 16.1, it is apparent to me in 1995 just as it was in 1974 that
Neanderthals must have had some relationship to the early Upper Paleolithic
Europeans. Otherwise, specimens like Mladec 5, if uniquely descended from
Qafzeh 9-like populations and unrelated to populations represented by
specimens such as Spy 2, would have had to develop many of the same
features that are commonly found in European Neanderthals. W. W. Howells
(1974) once observed that Upper Paleolithic humans are 'instantly
recognizable as anatomically modern.' I have always disagreed with this
observation and to the contrary concluded in 1974 that Mladec 5 was
'instantly recognizable' as having Neanderthal ancestors." (Frayer, 1997 p.
221-222)
Frayer continues,
"According to Trinkaus, the Neanderthal condition is highly variable and
'more than half of the European "classic" neanderthals have their metal
foramen mesial to M1,' which is typically the 'modern' position. Beyond
this, Wolpoff has itemized a series of facial, cranial, and postcranial
characters which link--not separate--European Neanderthals from the People
who follow them. Thus, considerable evidence points to the persistence of
these 'neanderthal autapomorphies and common traits' into the Upper
Paleolithic populations which succeeded the Neanderthals in Europe.
"At the same time, these identical features are generally absent in the
human fossils from Africa (Omo, Border Cave, and Klasies River Mouth) and
the Near East (Skhul and Qafzeh) who reputedly represent the source
populations for the early Upper Paleolithic people of Europe. For example,
the H-O trait is absent in the African and Levantine mandibular samples.
While these samples are small, the absence of these features has been used
to define them as modern, which is generally true except for the early
Upper Paleolithic people who possess the 'unique' Neanderthal features.
The fact that the so-called Neanderthal autapomorphies occur in the early
Upper Paleolithic of Europe and not in the known 'Eve' populations presents
some formidable problems for the advocates of total replacement. These
authors discount any interbreeding between the resident European
Neanderthals and the invading 'moderns,' so the Neanderthal unique features
could not be due to gene flow. Thus, while Stringer and Gamble argue that
the last Neanderthals were able to get close enough to the invading moderns
to copy their tools, the two groups were apparently not capable of breeding
with each other. Some even attempt to sustain the argument that
Neanderthals and 'moderns' existed 'side-by-side for 50,000 years and never
[had] sex'. Leaving aside the whole question of violation of competitive
exclusion, the existence of the Neanderthal features in Upper Paleolithic
skeletons undermines the logic of this position and creates the highly
unlikely requirement that the identical features evolved independently a
second time in European people who followed a supposedly nonancestral
population which nonetheless had exactly the same traits. And, following
the reappearance of these identical traits, they rapidly decreased again in
their incidence in the descendant populations. No amount of genetic
analysis or replacement thinking can get around the fact that Neanderthal
'unique' features appear in the early Upper Paleolithic. An alternative,
more direct conclusion is that Neanderthals contributed to the Europeans
who followed them and no abrupt replacement occurred between the Mousterian
and the Upper Paleolithic. There is no easy way to dismiss the importance
of these persisting features and, unless one simply ignores the presence of
these 'unique' Neanderthal anatomical traits in the early Upper Paleolithic
fossils, there is no reason to question the links between Neanderthals and
early Upper Paleolithic Europeans." (Frayer,1997, p.224-225)
Frayer also notes that the H-0 mandibular foramen is almost unique among
European Neanderthals, being unknown outside of Europe at that time. The
supposed invaders, the earliest modern humans also had this characteristic
Neanderthal trait. In an earlier article Frayer has the following info.
European H-O Normal
Foramen Foramen
% %
Neanderthal 53 47
African Eves 0 100 (the invaders)
Skhul/Qafzeh 0 100 (the invaders)
Early U. Paleolithic 18 82 (supposedly genetically
separate)
Late U. Paleolithic 7 93
Mesolithic 2 98
Medieval Europeans 1 99
David W. Frayer, "Evolution at the European Edge: Neanderthal and Upper
Paleolithic Relationships," Prehistoire Europeenne, 2:9-69, Table 7, p. 31
I would suggest that the data implies interbreeding did occur.
The second argument I raised was that of the mtDNA. The fact that all
modern mtDNA appears to have descended from a single sequence which dates
between 130 and 200 thousand years ago is often used by Christians to
suggest that God created mankind during this period and that we are
genetically unrelated to the previous hominids. What is overlooked is that
if the coalescence time for mtDNA is 200,000 years, the coalescence time
for nuclear DNA is several times that period!
"Moreover, as will be discussed shortly, molecules that do not recombine
(such as mtDNA but not nuclear DNA) show a strong bias towards even
shorter coalescence times. If the coalescence time of mtDNA is truly about
200,000 years ago, then the expected coalescence time of almost all nuclear
genes are going to be commonly greater than one or two million years. This
places the expected coalescence times of much nuclear DNA into a period in
which all humans probably lived in Africa. Hence, studies on nuclear DNA
are expected to have an African root under all hypotheses of modern human
evolution." (Templeton, 1997, p. 353)
Given the observed variability of our nuclear genes, and the way they are
transmitted, our genetic history MUST be over a million years old, meaning
not only are we related to Neanderthal but also to Homo erectus and most
likely Homo habilis. The mtDNA cannot be used to exclude H. erectus from
our ancestry because it does in fact support that ancestry. And since
Neanderthal by everyone's estimation is ultimately a descendant of H.
erectus, at the very least, Neanderthal is related by common descent. And
thus the differences between us and the Neanderthal reported by Krings, et
al (1997) (which are not greater than the observed mtDNA variations among
all chimpanzees and yet they are of one single reproductive species(Wong,
1998, p. 30)) are not sufficient reason to separate them into another species.
Given this, the argument made by Christians that somehow the mtDNA data
marks when humans were created, becomes hollow. If one desires a common
descent from the first humans, it can not have happened within the past
million years! Christian apologetics must accommodate this concept, that
human genes have been on earth for at least as long as 2 million years.
The third argument against the inclusion of Neanderthals into humanity
concerns the lack of time required for Neanderthals to have evolved into
humanity. Frayer tackles this issue head on. He states (his second
argument):
"A second argument against the inclusion of European Neanderthals as
ancestors involves evolutionary rates. It is odd that the same scholars so
willing to accept an abrupt punctuational event for the origin of modern
humans (as is required in the Eve theory), or for the rapid appearance of
racial (geographic) characteristics after the establishment of moderns in
replacement models, argue that Neanderthals could not be ancestral to
modern humans because there is not enough time for one to evolve into the
other. Yet, it is a common, decades-old argument that European
Neanderthals differed so profoundly from modern hominids that there was
insufficient time to allow them to evolve into Upper Paleolithic
humans."(Frayer, 1997, p. 225)
Frayer uses measurements from the various skulls to show that this is not
the case. He uses the definition of the darwin, a measure of morphological
change to show that to change from a Neanderthal to a modern human requires
slower evolution than to change from a pre-farming modern human into a farmer!
He defines:
"Evolutionary rates were calculated using Haldane's (1949) formula for a
darwin (d)
[loge x2 - loge x1]/t
where x1 and x2 are the sample means and t is the time interval between the
two samples expressed in millions of years." (Frayer, 1997), p. 227
**
"Despite the contention of those who argue for elevated evolutionary
rates, the rates of change in these fourteen measurements for the
Neanderthal-Upper Paleolithic comparison are consistently low compared with
those of other samples. For example, the maximum rate observed for the
European Neanderthal-early Upper Paleolithic comparison is 1.8 darwins,
which is lower than seven of the fourteen rates for the early to late Upper
Paleolithic transition and five of the fourteen rates for the early Upper
Paleolithic-Mesolithic comparison. Moreover, the average rate of change
between the European Neanderthals and the early Upper Paleolithic is .8 d,
which is substantially below the average rates for the two post-Mousterian
comparisons. The rate between the Neanderthal and early Upper Paleolithic
sample is less than half the average darwin betweent he early-late Upper
Paleolithic (1.8d) or between the early Upper Paleolithic and Mesolithic
(1.6 d).
Two unambiguous conclusions can be drawn from the rates for these measures
of craniofacial change: (1) neither a 'tremendous acceleration' nor even a
rapid evolutionary rate is required for the transition of European
Neanderthals into the early Upper Paleolithic, and (2) these rates of
change show that anything but stasis characterizes the post-Neanderthal
period in Europe, which exhibits substantial reduction in facial projection
from the auricular point. Some of these rates are affected byt he time
interval, but following Gingerich's logarithmic scale, the average rate and
highest rate for the neanderthal-early Upper Paleolithic proposed
transition is well within his observed limites and comparable to change
within other lineal taxa. In short, the Neanderthal-early Upper Paleolithic
rates fit comfortably in his 'Domain IV' post-Pleistocene rates of change,
indicating that they are not excessively high." (Frayer, 1997, p. 228)
Here is the data from his article.
"Rates of Change (in Darwins) for Facial Measurements from the Auricular Point
Neanderthals to Early to Late Early Upper
Early Upper Upper Paleolithic Paleolithic to
Paleolithic Mesolithic
Aricular point to
prosthion 1.1 1.9 1.6
nasospinale 1.0 1.9 1.8
nasion .9 1.4 1.3
glabella .8 1.4 1.3
zygomaxillarae 0.0 1.3 2.0
M1/M2 1.8 1.0 .8
P3/P4 1.2 2.0 1.3
I2/C 1.1 1.8 1.3
inferior
nasomaxillary suture .6 1.6 1.9
jugale .7 2.8 2.4
frontomalareorbitale .4 1.9 1.8
alare .7 1.6 1.6
palatine suture cross .6 1.8 1.7
post-orale .5 2.4 1.9
average change .8 1.8 1.6
~David W. Frayer, "Perspectives on Neanderthals as Ancestors," in G. A.
Clark and C. M. Willermet, ed., Conceptual Issues in Modern Human Origins
Research, (New York:Aldine De Gruyter, 1997), pp 220-234, p. 228
"Table 16.2 Rates of Change in Mandibular Incisor and Canine Mesio-Distal
Lengths and Labio-Ligual Breadths between selected Groups, as Measured by
Darwins
Il lt Il Br I2 Lt I2 Br C Lt C Br Mean
Mandible
Neanderthals
to early .2 1.6 .3 1.1 .9 .3 .8
Upper Paleolithic
Late Neanderthals
to early Upper 2.1 6.1 3.1 5.1 4.8 1.5 3.8
Paleolithic
Early to Late
Upper Paleolithic 1.9 .6 2.2 1.5 2.0 2.5 1.8
Mesolithic to
Neolithic 27.1 14.6 19.6 13.7 17.3 7.5 16.6
Early Upper
Paleolithic to
Neolithic 2.3 1.9 2.4 2.2 2.4 2.8 2.3
Maxilla
Neanderthals
to early .3 1.0 1.0 1.6 .7 .8 .9
Upper Paleolithic
Late Neanderthals
to early Upper .9 1.1 2.7 4.9 1.5 1.8 2.1
Paleolithic
Early to Late
Upper Paleolithic 2.3 .5 2.0 4.1 1.7 1.9 2.1
Mesolithic to
Neolithic 29.8 11.9 25.6 0.0 15.0 10.3 15.4
Early Upper
Paleolithic to
Neolithic 2.6 1.7 2.4 2.4 1.8 2.1 2.2
~David W. Frayer, "Perspectives on Neanderthals as Ancestors," in G. A.
Clark and C. M. Willermet, ed., Conceptual Issues in Modern Human Origins
Research, (New York:Aldine De Gruyter, 1997), pp 220-234, p. 230
"Table 16.3 Rates of Change in Mandibular and Maxillary Tooth Areas between
Selected Groups, as Measured by Darwins (Tooth Areas = Mesio-Distal Length
x Bucco-Lingual Breadth)
Canine P3 P4 M1 M2 M3 Mean
Mandible
Neanderthals
to early 1.3 1.8 1.1 .1 1.1 1.3 1.1
Upper Paleolithic
Late Neanderthals
to early Upper 1.9 4.8 3.1 .6 3.2 5.3 3.2
Paleolithic
Early to Late
Upper Paleolithic 4.1 2.7 3.0 1.1 1.5 1.3 2.3
Mesolithic to
Neolithic 23.5 27.1 17.8 30.1 27.8 12.5 23.2
Early Upper
Paleolithic to
Neolithic 5.2 4.1 2.9 2.7 3.4 3.5 3.6
Maxilla
Neanderthals
to early 1.6 1.4 1.5 .8 .8 1.3 1.2
Upper Paleolithic
Late Neanderthals
to early Upper 3.1 1.5 3.4 1.0 2.4 2.9 2.4
Paleolithic
Early to Late
Upper Paleolithic 3.4 4.2 3.2 1.0 2.5 3.0 2.9
Mesolithic to
Neolithic 27.7 32.9 26.1 27.0 32.1 26.3 28.7
Early Upper
Paleolithic to
Neolithic 4.2 4.6 3.7 3.1 4.5 3.9 3.9
~David W. Frayer, "Perspectives on Neanderthals as Ancestors," in G. A.
Clark and C. M. Willermet, ed., Conceptual Issues in Modern Human Origins
Research, (New York:Aldine De Gruyter, 1997), pp 220-234, p. 231
Frayer's discussion notes that the fastest rates are DURING the period in
which anatomically modern man was alone on earth!
"For anterior tooth lengths and breadths (Table 16.2), rates expressing
change between the total Neanderthal sample and the early Upper Paleolithic
never represent the highest evolutionary rate. Rather, mean differences
between the Mesolithic and Neolithic show the highest darwin values, in
each case for individual anterior tooth lengths and breadths. For example,
in the mandibular anterior teeth the highest rate between the Neanderthal
and early Upper Paleolithic sample is 1.6 d for I1 breadth and the mean
rate of change of the six dimensions is .8 d. In the same six dimensions,
the highest rate of change between the Mesolithic and Neolithic is 27.1 d
and the average rate of change is 16.6 d. "(Frayer, 1997, p. 229)
"Nevertheless it is useful to compare rates which are calculated over
approximately the same time interval to determine if an excessive amount of
change is required to allow for the transformation of Neanderthals into
Upper Paleolithic people. In this regard, the late Neanderthal-early Upper
Paleolithic rates can be compared with the early to late Upper Paleolithic
rates( both sampled over about the same time period of 10,000 years) or to
the early Upper Paleolithic-neolithic rates, which are sampled over about
twice that length of time(20,000 years). Both of the latter comparisons
involved change within a species (no one questions that Upper Paleolithic
and neolithic humans belong to Homo sapiens), and it is apparent from the
rates that the Neolithic, like the late Upper Paleolithic, has undergone
marked dental reduction."~David W. Frayer, "Perspectives on Neanderthals as
Ancestors," in G. A. Clark and C. M. Willermet, ed., Conceptual Issues in
Modern Human Origins Research, (New York:Aldine De Gruyter, 1997), pp
220-234, p. 231-232
**
"In the maxillary anterior tooth dimensions, the late Neanderthal-early
Upper Paleolithic average rate (1.8 d) is less than both the early to late
Upper Paleolithic (2.1 d) and the early Upper Paleolithic-Neolithic (2.2 d)
comparisons. One maxillary dimension for Neanderthals (I2 breadth)
slightly exceeds the highest rate in the early-late Upper Paleolithic
comparison. It is apparent from the data on rates of change in the incisor
and canine dimensions of both jaws that the transition between the
Neanderthals and the early Upper Paleolithic involved relatively high rates
of change for some specific dental dimensions, but that the overall or mean
rate of change was comparable among all three sampled intervals."(Frayer,
1997), p. 232
Further, he concludes,
"Thus, contrary to the commonly stated argument that not enough time exists
for European Neanderthals to be ancestral to subsequent Europeans, these
data clearly demonstrate that there was no 'tremendous acceleration' in
rates of change between the Neanderthals and the Upper Paleolithic
Europeans. For me, these data falsify the argument that European
Neanderthals as a group cannot be ancestral to subsequent Homo sapiens in
Europe (at least with respect to metric features of the face and teeth)
because too much change is required over too little time. Moreover, based
on the rates of dental evolutionary change, there is nothing to support the
contention that European Neanderthals represent a separate species. Such a
conclusion would only hold if one is also willing to accept a speciation
event between the early and late Upper Paleolithic, between the Mesolithic
and Neolithic, or between the early Upper Paleolithic and Neolithic, since
all of these comparisons have similar, or in some cases considerably
higher, average or individual evolutionary rates."
"While rates of dental evolutionary change by themselves do not prove that
Neanderthals are ancestral to early Upper Paleolithic Europeans, these
results do indicate that European Neanderthals cannot be eliminated as
possible ancestors based on speculations which require grossly elevated
evolutionary rates. Moreover, the period following the Neanderthals in
Europe is not characterized by absolute or relative stasis but by marked
change within the Upper Paleolithic and from the Upper Paleolithic to the
Neolithic. These observations should put to rest both the contention that
differences between the European Neanderthals and the early Upper
Paleolithic require an exorbitant rate of change and the unsupported claim
that tooth size shows little absolute or relative change after the
appearance of the Upper Paleolithic. Those who still maintain that European
Neanderthals are unrelated to subsequent European Homo sapiens must look to
other data; these data do not include the presence of so-called Neanderthal
autapomorphic traits or exorbitant rates of change."(Frayer, 1997) p. 233
While I don't know how much Neanderthal ancestry is in the modern human
race and am uncertain how it got there, interbreeding or evolution, the
above data seems to indicate that the apologetical position which tries to
separate the archaic hominids from anatomically modern men fail for several
reasons. Christian theology ignores this data at its peril.
references
Frayer, David W. "Perspectives on Neanderthals as Ancestors," in G. A.
Clark and C. M. Willermet, ed., Conceptual Issues in Modern Human Origins
Research, (New York:Aldine De Gruyter, 1997), pp 220-234
Krings, et al., Matthias "Neandertal DNA Sequences and the Origin of Modern
Humans," Cell, 90(1997):19-30
Smith, Fred H. "Upper Pleistocene Hominid Evolution in South-Central
Europe: A Review of the Evidence and Analysis of Trends," Current
Anthropology 23(1982):6:667-703, p. 678
Templeton, Alan R. "Testing the Out of Africa Replacement Hypothesis with
Mitochondrial DNA Data," in G. A. Clark and C. M. Willermet, ed.,
Conceptual Issues in Modern Human Origins Research, (New York: Aldine de
Gryuter, 1997), pp. 329-360
Trinkhaus, Erik and Marjorie LeMay, "Occipital Bunning Among Later
Pleistocene Hominids," American Journal of Physical Anthropology,
57:27-35(1982), p.28-29
Wong, Kate "Ancestral Quandry," Scientific American, January 1998, p. 30
glenn
Adam, Apes and Anthropology
Foundation, Fall and Flood
& lots of creation/evolution information
http://www.isource.net/~grmorton/dmd.htm