Fossil DNA Reveals New Twists in Modern Human Origins

Fossil DNA Reveals New Twists in Modern Human Origins

Olena Shmahalo

As scientists peer further back in time and uncover evolutionary relationships in unprecedented detail, their findings are complicating the narrative of human history and rescuing some formerly missing chapters from obscurity. Clues are emerging about the unexpected influence of gene flow from ancient hominins on modern human populations before the latter left Africa. Some researchers are even identifying the genetic contributions modern humans might have made to those other lineages, in a complete reversal of the usual scientific focus. Confusing and intertwined as these many effects can be, all of them shaped humanity as we now know it.

What actually happened in late hominin evolution, directly leading to our existence, seems to be clearing up somewhat. These advances in the science seem to be limited to detailing what could be termed microevolution, as opposed to macroevolution (which has turned out to be not explainable by purposeless, meaningless Darwinism) . The overall picture covering at least the last 6 million years seems to be very roughly, early primates, Australopithecus, then Homo erectus, then Homo heidelbergensis, then Neanderthals, finally Homo sapiens. The earlier stages of this process seems to be macroevolution.

It's interesting that the enterprise of ID does not seem to have really come to grips with this, the reality of the human evolutionary process (as opposed to special creation). It seems to tiptoe around the issue, beyond repeatedly pointing out the continuing explanatory failures of the various sciences involved – paleontology, anthropology, genetics and so on. Especially highlighting the continuing situation of the existence of many earlier apparent “missing links” leading up to Homo sapiens despite many new fossil discoveries.

This situation emphasizes a major disconnect that seems to exist. This is between the quite certain bankruptcy of new synthesis Neodarwinism when it comes to explaining macroevolution in really "deep time", that is episodes like the origin of animal body plans in the Cambrian Explosion more than 500 million years ago and the origin of life itself in the approximate 4 billion year region, with its apparent successes in clarifying the microevolutionary process in the hominins leading directly to Homo Sapiens.

This inevitably leads to the mysteries of how in relatively recent times the many uniquely human characteristics actually came about, like the true origins of language, art, culture, primitive to advanced spiritual understandings, etc. Were these advances somehow through a version of Darwinistic processes (extremely unlikely), or "cultural evolution" of some sort, or (most likely to me) a combination of cultural evolution and introduction of ideas and traits from outside the system. If modern humans are basically spiritual creatures inhabiting human bodies (as believed by many proponents of spiritual/religious belief systems, and paranormal advocates), then there must have been some sort of transition from animal to human. The transition problem is the mystery of exactly when and how this occurred in the increasingly detailed history of the hominids and hominins that is now being revealed. It seems to me this quandary may lead to some sort of cognitive dissonance between spiritual belief systems and acceptance of some form of evolution as evidenced by (among other things) the fossil record.

This inevitably leads to the mysteries of how in relatively recent times the many uniquely human characteristics actually came about, like the true origins of language, art, culture, primitive to advanced spiritual understandings, etc.

It seems animals are capable of all of these though the spiritual understanding one may be the exception.

My guess would be that Rationality and Intentionality are in some way largely dormant until one goes "up" the "evolutionary ladder" to humans, though one thinks back to the ancient Vedics who had a rather advanced spirituality but also wandered what is now South Asia making sacrificial fires.

"If the Vedic people had been asked why they did not build cities they could have replied: we did not seek power, but rapture."
  -R.Calasso, Ardor

And to quote an old museum curator who IIRC lived in Illinois:

"From the Stone Age to now - My God what a decline!"

Perhaps the animals know something we've forgotten?

Beyond that, there are paranormal accounts of people speaking with animals using human language though this also possibly gets into *other* accounts of animal forms being used as masks for non-human entities that may be aliens or something else...

It seems animals are capable of all of these though the spiritual understanding one may be the exception.

Only man has the capacity for abstract immaterial thought and language, and this is what most essentially distinguishes us from non-human animals. It is impossible for abstract immaterial thought to be reduced to materialistic explanation, and to date there is no viable theory explaining the origin of language. The experts still don't have a clue.

In my opinion, the fact that we share so much biologically with animals implies that the enormous differences between the human mind and the animal mind probably do not have a material origin, but have an origin in the nature of the soul.

Only man has the capacity for abstract immaterial thought and language, and this is what most essentially distinguishes us from non-human animals. It is impossible for abstract immaterial thought to be reduced to materialistic explanation, and to date there is no viable theory explaining the origin of language. The experts still don't have a clue.

In my opinion, the fact that we share so much biologically with animals implies that the enormous differences between the human mind and the animal mind probably do not have a material origin, but have an origin in the nature of the soul.

"Only man has the capacity for abstract immaterial thought and language, and this is what most essentially distinguishes us from non-human animals."
Well, we don't know what animals are thinking, and we don't understand their language. That means your assertion is simply an assumption. I think we can say that animals mostly don't use written symbolic language - probably - I expect there are counter-examples somewhere.

But I'd say we have here an artificial distinction between humans and our fellow creatures. The distinction between humans and other animals  has been embodied in Biblical scripture, and our modern apparently secular society has been reluctant to abandon this ancient belief.

"Only man has the capacity for abstract immaterial thought and language, and this is what most essentially distinguishes us from non-human animals."
Well, we don't know what animals are thinking, and we don't understand their language. That means your assertion is simply an assumption. I think we can say that animals mostly don't use written symbolic language - probably - I expect there are counter-examples somewhere.

But I'd say we have here an artificial distinction between humans and our fellow creatures. The distinction between humans and other animals  has been embodied in Biblical scripture, and our modern apparently secular society has been reluctant to abandon this ancient belief.

I find this issue of considerable interest. What do the various animal studies supposedly showing abstract thinking abilities really show? Unfortunately it gets a little lengthy and complicated.

Jeffrey Shallit is among many Darwinists who claim there is ample research showing abstract thought in animals. At https://recursed.blogspot.com/2016/07/ye...rance.html he says, for instance: 

"[Researcher] Vonk presented the apes with a touch-screen computer and got them to tap an image of an animal — for instance, a snake — on the screen. Then she showed each ape two side-by-side animal pictures: one from the same category as the animal in the original image and one from another — for example, images of a different reptile and a bird. When they correctly matched animal pairs, they received a treat such as nuts or dried fruit. When they got it wrong, they saw a black screen before beginning the next trial. After hundreds of such trials, Vonk found that all five apes could categorize other animals better than expected by chance (although some individuals were better at it than others). The researchers were impressed that the apes could learn to classify mammals of vastly different visual characteristics together — such as turtles and snakes — suggesting the apes had developed concepts for reptiles and other categories of animals based on something other than shared physical traits."

I have absolutely no attachment to Scripture, but I still find Michael Egnor's arguments fairly compelling: 

From https://evolutionnews.org/2016/07/david_hume_notw/ :

"Note what the apes did: they were trained to evaluate, compare, and distinguish particular things. The apes were trained to exercise their capacity to think about particulars without abstract thought. Nothing in this study demonstrated that the apes were able to abstract from particulars and contemplate the abstract concept without particular instantiation. Comparison of particular things is not abstract thought."

"Animals of all sorts are capable of evaluating, comparing, and distinguishing particular things sometimes to a high degree. All sentient life evaluates particular things. Dogs choose bigger treats over tiny treats, cats cuddle on warm chairs rather than cold chairs. Even non-sentient life, like plants and bacteria, are capable of behavioral discrimination akin to this. Bacteria swim in the direction of salubrious chemical gradients, and plants bend toward brightest sunlight. None of this means that bacteria or plants or dogs or cats think abstractly. The evaluation of, comparison of, and distinction between particular things is tied to particular things, and has nothing to do with abstract thought.

If you look at animal studies that are claimed to show abstract animal thought, this is invariably what you find. The animal is trained to compare and distinguish particular things. Animals are trained to hone their non-abstract capacity to think about particulars.

None of these studies demonstrate abstract thought in animals. Abstract thought means thought abstracted — removed — from particular things. Animals think about objects and can group them in what we call categories. But animals don’t think about categories abstracted from the particulars in them. Animals think about predators. They don’t think about predation. Animals can select animals that we would classify in a species. They don’t think about species as an abstract concept."

Also, a little thought experiment involving the abstract concept of the square root, at https://evolutionnews.org/2016/07/how_could_we_kn/ .

"Can an ape understand what a square root is? If so, the animal would be (truly) capable of abstract thought.

The ape could be shown a picture of 25 objects, and then shown screens containing different sets of objects — a set of 1, a set of 2, and set of 3, and so on. The animal would be rewarded if he selected the set of 5, which is the square root of 25. The training could be repeated with different kinds of objects, still using 25 and 5, until the animal reliably chose 5 objects when shown 25 objects.

Once the animal reliably selected the set of 5 after being shown the set of 25, the animal could then be trained to select the set of 4 when shown the set of 16. Once that task was learned, the task could be repeated with 2 and 4.

Once these tasks of selecting the set of objects equal to the square root of the reference set was learned for a series of square-root pairs, the animal would be tested with novel square roots. Would the animal select 3 objects when shown the set of 9? Would the animal select 1 object when shown the set of 1? Would the animal select 6 objects when shown the set of 36?

This is a real test of abstract thought, because it would require that the animal comprehend the concept of square root abstracted from particulars, and then apply it to new particulars.

I think readers would agree that the likelihood of any animal selecting the square root of the novel square is not above chance, and that no duration of training would change the outcome."

I find this issue of considerable interest. What do the various animal studies supposedly showing abstract thinking abilities really show? Unfortunately it gets a little lengthy and complicated.

Jeffrey Shallit is among many Darwinists who claim there is ample research showing abstract thought in animals. At https://recursed.blogspot.com/2016/07/ye...rance.html he says, for instance: 

I have absolutely no attachment to Scripture, but I still find Michael Egnor's arguments fairly compelling: 

From https://evolutionnews.org/2016/07/david_hume_notw/ :

Also, a little thought experiment involving the abstract concept of the square root, at https://evolutionnews.org/2016/07/how_could_we_kn/ .

Egnor's argument doesn't seem convincing at all? A warm chair versus a cold one can simply be a matter of comfort, and the size of treats is a matter of hunger or simply evolutionary advantage.

Those don't seem comparable to the study he's criticizing?

I'd be curious to see how many humans could come to understand the concept Square Root simply by being shown pictures like the one the study suggests for animals. Along those lines is the implementation of a function really an example of abstract thought? Wouldn't it rather be the proof that the square root of prime numbers cannot be in the set of Rationals - maybe humans who fail to grasp the proof don't have souls?

Only man has the capacity for abstract immaterial thought and language, and this is what most essentially distinguishes us from non-human animals.

Yeah as noted above I find this statement unconvincing. I'm not sure we could ever truly disprove abstract thought in, say, octopus minds, but the current research seems to be moving toward an acceptance of abstract thought in animals.

I suspect within the next 5-10 years this idea that only humans are capable of abstract thought will be, among scientists at the least, in the dustbin.