| No bones about Eve - Creation Magazine |
|
|
No bones about EveCreationists can find much to agree with on both sides of this fiery evolutionary tussle. There's a war on, we're told, among evolutionists researching man's origins; a fierce debate in which, it is claimed, one side has to be completely right and the other completely wrong—no middle ground. In the one camp are those (mainly, but not exclusively, geneticists) who claim that all modern humans have descended from one small population in Africa and spread across the globe, replacing or wiping out whatever other 'archaic' humans (for example, Neanderthals) may have been living at that time. This idea is variously called the 'Out of Africa' or 'Garden of Eden' hypothesis—it came about primarily because of the evidence for a 'mitochondrial Eve'. ‘A’ for AfricaLet's call the camp holding this view A for Africa. It says that of all the various ancient types of (or leading up to) man, including Homo erectus, only one line survived.1 This was a small African population living around 200,000 years ago (to an evolutionist, that's only yesterday). Their African Eve' who is the 'mother of us all' would have been part of this population. All the racial characteristics of today's Eskimos, Indians, Aborigines, Europeans and so forth were all essentially present in that small group before it broke up and spread across the earth. The mitochondrial DNA evidence, viewed within an evolutionary scenario, would also suggest that they did not interbreed with any of these other so-called 'archaic' peoples which, according to evolutionary theory, had already been in other parts of the world for a long time. Instead, they totally replaced them. That is why this hypothetical group of people have been somewhat disparagingly called the 'killer Africans'. ‘B’ for BoneAccording to the opposing camp (call it B for bone), it seems beyond belief that this would have happened in all areas of the world. They point out that such total conquest, with no intermarriage, has never happened in human history. These opponents to the African replacement theory (mostly students of fossil bones) have a different idea, called the 'candelabra theory'. This is a much more traditional belief, one which claims that the separation of the different races of people happened a much longer time ago, and that the various races evolved their differences because of these long periods of isolation. This, of course, has often been used to justify racist ideas—other races supposedly being at 'different stages of evolution' to one's own. The reason these 'bone men' cling so strongly to this view, and will not let it go whatever the 'test-tube men' might say, seems to be that they can demonstrate similarities between the skeletons of modern people in a particular region and those of the more ancient people in that region which they are supposed to have replaced. In other words, camp B says that 'archaic' skulls found in, for example, China, have features characteristic of modern Chinese. Similarly, 'early' skulls found in, for example, Java, have features which are closer to Australian Aborigines than to Chinese, and so forth. If modern people totally replaced these 'ancient' people, then such resemblances would be an incredible coincidence, they say. Creation-based AnthropologyIs it true, then, that one of these ideas is totally right or wrong? That you have to throw out either the molecular or the bony evidence? Only if the question is viewed in an evolutionary framework. A biblical, creation-based anthropology seems to have great potential for accommodating both sets of evidence. Let's put it simply—beginning with the Bible's account of the origin and history of man, what would we expect to find? 1. That all mankind has descended from one woman (Genesis 3:20). Here we agree with this particular conclusion of camp A. No matter how evolutionists are able to fit the 'mitochondrial DNA' evidence into an evolutionary framework, it was an unexpected result; a direct prediction, however, from creation. 2. That this was not very long ago (Luke 3:23–38). Camp A says (on the basis of the 'molecular clock' hypothesis, which 'calibrates' the rate of mutational change in DNA replacements against assumed evolutionary chronologies) that the time was around 200,000 years ago. Camp B, which as we have seen is able to point to a number of skulls with anatomical similarities to modern humans in the same part of the world, is faced with the fact that they have already dated many of these skulls as much earlier. Since they would insist that any common mitochondrial ancestor of today's humans must have been the ancestor female to all these earlier skulls as well, they cannot accept such a 'recent' date for common ancestry. So of course they say that camp A's molecular clock is running at the wrong rate. We can agree with camp B on that point—only in the other direction. We can agree with camp A that Eve was recent—only much more recent than they would consider. 3. That all races of people are very closely related genetically (Acts 17:26). Paul writes that God has 'made of one blood all nations of men'. Modern research is confirming this more and more; not just mitochondrial DNA, but Y chromosome and other genetic studies. Drs Thorne and Wolpoff, though the strongest proponents of camp B, nevertheless write: 'One of the great advances of 20th century biology has been the demonstration that all living people are extremely closely related. Genetic research has provided what for some is the surprising result that our DNA variability is much less than the worldwide anatomical variations of humanity might suggest.'2 4. That the racial characteristics of modern humans did not evolve in isolation from each other, but were present in one small population before it spread across the earth (Genesis 11:6–9). Notice how again we can agree with camp A (though disagreeing with the time-frame). Incidentally, evolutionists used to mock as impossible the idea that all the races could have come from the break-up/dispersal of one small population from factors already present. The more enlightened ones no longer do, though they would vehemently deny that it happened at Babel.3 Fitting the Biblical ModelHow do those regional similarities between ancient and modern skulls fit into a biblical model? As subgroups of this original population spread across the earth, the differences between them were basically because they carried different fractions of the same original gene pool at Babel. In any particular area (for example, China or Australia and its near neighbours) there would also have been a range of variation among such a daughter population—some genetic, some environmental. The point is that one would expect a closer degree of genetic similarity in a given region. Some of the 'archaic' skulls referred to are of the Neanderthal type. Creationists have long recognized these large-brained people as being a part of the range of variation in true humankind.4 Some of the other of these skulls in question, however, are classified as Homo erectus, which means that at least some of the specimens labelled in this way have to be accepted by creationists as part of the gene-pool of post-Flood humanity.5 Many of the experts in camp B point out that some of these characteristic archaic features can be found in modem human skulls. By showing some shared unique traits between Neanderthal and modern European skulls, for instance, they wish to show local evolutionary descent and thus refute the camp A hypothesis; we would state that it does indeed demonstrate relationship, as expected. SummaryThis debate has exciting implications for biblical creation in that the evidence uncovered by both sides is seen more and more to support the broad outlines of the true history of mankind as revealed by the only reliable source. There is a wealth of potential for more creationists with the time, resources and expertise to refine and strengthen the model considerably.6
References and Footnotes
|
|||||||||||
