You are on page 1of 7

Apologetics

Answers for Atheists


Design vs. Evolution
Biblical Creation
Bible Authenticity
Slideshows
Christian Theology
Aberrant Theology
Christian Tribulation
Christian Life Issues
Discovery Course
God's Love
Abortion
Discussion Forum
Links
Book Reviews
Movie Reviews
Search
Search Site
Advanced Search
Enhanced Google
Site Map
Ministry Info
About us
Contact us
Privacy Policy
RSS Feed
G & S Toolbar
Newsletter
name
email address
Subscribe
General
Send an e-Card
Webmaster
Resources
Personal Pages
Humor
Site Helps
Site Help
En Espaol
Help I can't see!
G&S Toolbar
Report page errors

Page Links
Introduction
Genetic diversity
Morphological
changes
Deleterious
mutations
Molecular biology
mtDNA
y-chromosome
linkage
disequilibrium
Rare mutations
Neanderthals
Ancient humans
Conclusion
Related Pages
References
Print
Email Page
Translate
Font: A A A
Evolution vs.
Design
Design in the
Universe
Design in Biology
Origin of Life
Descent of
Humans
Problems in
Evolution
Evolution & Bible
New Pages
Christians &
Suicide
Judging the
Sabbath
Land Plants
Before Animals?
Four Views on
Divine Providence
Did God have a
wife?
Alien Life in
Meteorites?
Singularity
Movement
Creating Life in
the Lab
NASA's Arsenic-
Eating Bacteria
The Moral
Landscape
'Goldilocks' Planet
Has Life?
Stephen Hawking
is Wrong About
God
Is Satan Real?
Paul Invented
Christianity?
Ancient Hebrew
Inscription
Babies Go To
INTRODUCTION
The beginning of
trouble - lack of
genetic diversity
among modern
humans
Still more trouble -
Discontinuous
morphological
changes in the
lineage
Another problem -
too many

Descent of Mankind Theory: Disproved by Molecular Biology
by Rich Deem
The current theory of human evolution states that modern humans evolved
from more primitive . The first that is
supposedly the ancestor of modern humans is , which appeared in the fossil
record from about 4.4 to 1 million years ago throughout eastern Africa.
comprised a diverse group of small-brained species that were confined to the savannas
of Africa. This was supposed to have evolved into the , which has been
defined as with a brain capacity over 700 cc, having appeared in the fossil
record by about 2.5 million years ago as in eastern Africa. According to theory,
evolved into , which had a brain capacity just over 1000 cc,
appearing in the fossil record from about 1.8 million to 300 thousand years ago.
lived between 400 and 28 thousand years ago. Archaic
appeared 400 - 150 thousand years ago, and modern from less than 100
thousand years ago. Contrary to the claims of many creationists, there is ample evidence for
the existence of human-like species of . The dates and ages of these fossils
are not widely disputed in scientific circles. The reality of the fossil record and the reliability of
the dates of these fossils is actually instrumental in disproving the descent of man theory. If
the fossil record were not as complete as it now is, the standard evolutionist argument would
apply, "we just haven't found the missing link ancestor of modern humans yet."
As evolutionists studied humans and species of apes in the 1970's
and 1980's, some rather surprising information was being discovered
that distinguished us from apes and other . The maximum
(a measure of variation between population groups) between
human races is 0.08 (1, 2). However, among populations of
, orangutans, and other species, are
commonly more than 0.20. An examination of 62 common coding genetic , indicates
a rate of 0.011/ ( versus ), to a maximum of 0.029
( versus ). However, in nearly all other animal species studied, including
apes, usually exceed 0.05 (2). In humans, (the proportion of that are
, in this case within the species) is 1.8% , whereas in apes it ranges from 2.5 in
the to 3.9 in the (3). An analysis of the genetics of populations of
apes reveals that different population groups possess fixed novel that characterize
each population. In contrast, there are no novel or genetic that specifically
characterize any one human race from another. More recent studies have confirmed the early
work, likewise showing that human genetic diversity is far less than what one would predict
from Darwinian theory. Dr. Maryellen Ruvolo (Harvard University) has noted, "It's a mystery
none of us can explain." (4). Examinations of the genetic of diverse modern human
populations reveals minor, if any differences (5). All of this evidence suggested a recent origin
for modern humans.
discoveries and
show that the pattern of
morphological change in the fossil
record was not progressive, but abrupt
(6). Some adaptations essential to
appeared early, but others
appeared much later. Although the 3.2 million year old fossil "Lucy"
( ), was said to be , her 2.6 million
year old descendent, , was indisputably
(7). Primitive (similar to the
reconstructed last common ancestor with the African great apes)
were found in nearly all species of (8). Relative brain size
increased slightly among successively younger species of
, although many skulls have
brain capacities no larger than those of . (9, 10). However, brain capacities
expanded abruptly with the appearance of , but within early remained at about
half the size of for almost a million years. The fossil record indicates an
accumulation of relatively rapid shifts in successive species, and certainly not any kind of
gradualistic changes.
A recent study examined the rate for humans. Using
"conservative assumptions" the authors found that the overall
rates was 4.2 per person per generation, with a
rate of 1.6 (11). When using more realistic assumptions
the overall rate for humans become 6.7 with a
rate of 3.1. Such a high rate should have resulted in extinction of our species long ago. They
stated in their conclusion:
"The rate appears to be so high in humans and our close
relatives that it is doubtful that such species, which have low reproductive rates,
could survive if effects on fitness were to combine in a multiplicative
way."
The authors had to rely upon a rare association of , termed synergistic to
explain why the numerous hypothesized have not overwhelmed our
. Instead of postulating the obvious (that the human is not as old as evolution
bipedal hominids bipedal hominid genus
Australopithecus
Australopithecus
bipedal
genus genus Homo
bipedal primates
Homo habilis
Homo habilis Homo erectus
Homo
neanderthalensis Homo sapiens
Homo sapiens
bipedal primates
primates Fst
value
chimpanzees primate Fst values
protein loci
substitution locus Caucasoids Mongoloids
Mongoloids Negroids
heterozygosity alleles
polymorphic
Orangutan Chimpanzee
mutations
mutations alleles
sequences
hominid
Paleontological
geochronology
hominid
bipedalism
Australopithecus aferensis bipedal
Australopithecus africanus
arboreal craniodental complexes
Hominidae
Australopithecines Australopithecine
chimpanzees
Homo Homo
Homo sapiens
deleterious
mutations
mutation
mutation mutations
deleterious
mutation deleterious
deleterious mutation
mutational
mutations epistasis
deleterious mutations
genome genome
converted by Web2PDFConvert.com

Babies Go To
Heaven?
Medical Marijuana
'Benefits'
Genetics &
Homosexuality
Origin of
Homochirality
Natural Evil
Is Religion Child
Abuse?
Why are
Scientists
Atheists?
God of the Gaps
Who Created
God?
Living Together a
Good Idea?
Recent origin of
modern humans
confirmed through
The nail in the
coffin
would teach), evolutionists must rely upon the improbable to retain the evolutionary paradigm.
( )
In the late 1980's and early 1990's a number of studies were done examining the
( ) of women all over the world. These studies, nicknamed the "Eve theory,"
suggested that the last common ancestor of modern man (actually women) appeared within
the last 200,000 years (12-15), much more recently than previously thought. Refinements in
the measurements lowered the original estimates to 135,000 years (15) and finally 100,000
years (16). Scientists chose to examine because, being enclosed within the subcellular
organelle called the , there is no genetic recombination (males make no
contribution of to the fetus). All comes from our mothers and is passed down
from mother to daughter, since only from the egg are used to make up the fetus.
By tracing the differences in from peoples around the world, scientists have calculated
the probable date of the last common ancestor of modern humans at 100,000 to 200,000
years ago.
analysis
In 1995, scientists have examined human origins from the perspective of male genetics (17,
18). Scientists have examined a gene (ZFY), which being on the , is passed
down only from father to son. Thirty-eight men were chosen from all over the world (Africa,
Asia, Australia, Europe, and Northern, Central, and South America). Scientists determined the
actual genetic in each man for this gene, which is 729 long. To their
surprise, all men had identical genetic (over 27,000 analyzed). Scientists
have calculated the most probable date for the last common ancestor of modern man, given
the diversity from modern apes. Using two different models this date is either
270,000 or 27,000 years ago. However, both these models assume that the male population
during this entire period of time consisted of only 7,500 individuals. The date estimates from
these models would be significantly reduced if the male population were higher than 7,500,
which is very likely. Two separate studies using similar techniques looked at larger pieces of
the , which would reduce the uncertainty in the calculation of dates. One study
examined a gene which was 2,600 and determined a last common ancestor date of
188,000 year ago (minimum of 51,000 and maximum of 411,000 years ago) (19). The other
study used a very large piece of the (18,300 ) and calculated a last
common ancestor date of modern man of 43,000 years ago (minimum of 37,000 and maximum
of 49,000 years ago) (16). This latter study also examined from women and
determined an origination date of 90,000-120,000 years ago.
analysis
A study published in 1996 (20) examined at the human CD4 (a T-
cell associated antigen) as a means to establish the date of modern human origins. This study
determined a maximum origin date of 102,000 years ago based upon the assumption that the
(-) arose 5 million years ago, or almost immediately after mankind's split from other
. As they stated, "It is likely that the deletion event occurred more recently, in
which case our estimates for the date of founding of the non-African populations would also
be more recent." Preliminary studies from 19, 11 and 8 show similar results to
that seen on 12 (the of the CD4 gene) (21).
Using rare mutations to estimate population divergence times
A study published in 1998 examined population divergence time using rare between
populations to estimate divergence

among three Mediterranean populations. The results
indicated that Danish people (who are my ancestors) would have diverged from the other
groups, at most, 4,500 to 15,000 years ago (22). This number does not necessarily help us
establish a date for the appearance of modern humans, but it is likely that future studies in
this area (this is one of the first published) may provide accurate numbers for the appearance
of human populations in different areas of the world and a lower limit to the date of
appearance of modern humans.
Therefore, the most accurate date (see note below) for the origin of
modern humans indicate that the last common ancestor to modern
humans must have existed less than 50,000 years ago (16). Such a
recent date left only one potential ancestor for modern humans, that is,
( ), which lived between 400,000 and 28,000 years ago. Previous
anatomical studies had cast doubt on the possibility of being the ancestors of
modern humans (23-27). These studies showed differences in brain case (23)
and the presence of an internal nasal margin, a medial swelling of the lateral nasal wall, and a
lack of an roof over the groove (24-25). None of these features are found in
, and the last feature is not found in any other terrestrial mammal! A recent
analysis of hands has revealed that modern humans and differed
markedly in the kind of grip they could use (26). were limited to grips as one has
when holding a stone or baseball. Such a grip would have been powerful (you wouldn't want to
shake hands with a ), but not very dexterous. The anatomy of the
hands would have prevented them from engaging in fine motor skills, such as carving and
painting. Another study showed that developed much more rapidly than modern
humans (or even their own supposed ancestors) (27), further eroding their possible status as
mankind's ancestors. In addition, had a huge nasal cavity coupled with a brain
molecular biology
Mitochondrial DNA mtDNA
mitochondrial
DNA mtDNA
mtDNA
mitochondrion
mtDNA mtDNA
mitochondria
mtDNA
Y-chromosome
Y chromosome
sequence base pairs
sequences base pairs
sequence
Y chromosome
base pairs
Y chromosome base pairs
mitochondrial DNA
Linkage disequilibrium
linkage disequilibrium locus
Alu alleles
primates Alu
chromosomes
chromosome locus
mutations
Homo
neanderthalensis Neanderthals
Neanderthals
Neanderthal's
ossified lacrimal
Homo sapiens
Neanderthal Neanderthals
Neanderthals
Neanderthal Neanderthal's
Neandertals
Neanderthals
converted by Web2PDFConvert.com
Ancient
Anatomically
Modern Humans -
the missing
evidence
size larger than our own. However, with their carnivorous lifestyle, it seems likely that much of
their brain might have been devoted to the sense of smell, being the "dog" among the
(28).
In brilliantly designed and executed independent studies, scientists have extracted
from four skeletons; two from Neander Valley in Germany, another from the
northern Caucasus near the Black Sea, and the fourth in Vindija Cave, Croatia, and laid to rest
any question of whether could have been our ancestors (29-32). The first study
examined a 379 fragment and compared it with a
of 986 pairs from living humans of diverse ethnic backgrounds. The
results (Table 1) showed an enormous 26 difference between the
and Human (a 6.5% difference) (29). In this region of the , modern
humans differ from one another in an average of eight , and those differences were
completely independent of the 26 observed for the fossil. However, many of the
variations found in the were shared in the . A 357
of was examined from the second fossil and was found to vary
from modern human at 23 (6.4%), nineteen of which were identical to those
of the first . The third differed from modern humans by 26 , 23 of
which matched the first and 20 of which matched the second specimen. The
fourth differed from modern humans by 23 , 22 of which matched the first
, 20 of which matched the second specimen and 23 of which matched the third
specimen. A summary of the findings of the two studies can be found in Table 1, below.
Table 1. Differences* Between Modern Humans
and
Sample
( )
Sequence Number (Read Down)
111111111111111111111111111111111
666666666666666666666666666666666
000011111111111112222222222233334
378900112345568880233455667912571
786378129984692399304468238910420
Modern Human AATTCCCCGACTGCAATTCACGCAC-CATCCTC
......T.ATT.....ACTGAAA....G....
#1 GG.CTTTTATTC.T.CCCTGTAAGTATGCT.CT
#2 .C.....ATT.ATCCCCTGTAA.TATGCTTC
#3 GG......ATTC.TCCCCTGTAAGTATGCT.C
#4 GG......ATTC.TCCCCTGTAA.TATGCT.C
* mtDNA
The analysis of the second sample was extremely important, since it was dated at 29,000
years ago - only 1000 years before the last disappeared (33). If and
humans had interbred, one should have expected to see this in the last remnants of the
genetics. In addition, since the fossils were separated
geographically by over 2,500 km, it shows that were a homogeneous species.
The researchers conclusion: " were not our ancestors" - a quote from the authors
of the first study. In fact, the differences between modern humans and were so
great that calculations indicated that the last common ancestor (according to evolutionary
theory) must have existed 550,000 to 690,000 years ago (first study) and 365,000 to 853,000
years ago (second study).
Although the differences between modern humans and are large, the differences
among individual humans or among individual is small compared to other apes
(Table 2). Such low genetic diversity among are consistent with a creation model
in which were specially created as a small population in the relatively recent
past. The much larger variation seen among and gorillas does not eliminate them
as specially created, but does place their probable creation date considerably before that of
modern humans.
Table 2. Variation (%) Within Species (31)
Population Individuals Mean Minimum Maximum s.d.
3 3.73 - - -
Humans 5,530 3.43 0.00 10.16 1.21
Chimpanzees 359 14.81 0.00 29.06 5.70
Gorillas 28 18.57 0.40 28.79 5.26
The final blow to the idea that humans and interbred was found in a genetic
analysis of their , published in 2006-2007 (34). These results showed that
none of the typical SNPs found in modern humans was present in
.
Knowing the variation of between modern humans and
is important in determining if contributed
to the human gene pool. However, without a measure of the variation
among ancient anatomically modern humans and between them and
modern humans, the data is incomplete. The first of these studies
was published in 2001, examining the of 10 ancient
Australians (35). A summary of the of these individuals (compared with the
modern human reference , modern Aboriginal , , and
) can be found in Table 3, below. The first thing that one notices is that the
variation of ancient humans compared to modern humans is at most 10
(in LM3, the most ancient specimen). As stated previously, the average variation among
hominids
mtDNA
Neanderthal
Neanderthals
base pair Neanderthal mtDNA mtDNA
sequence nucleotide
nucleotide base pair
Neanderthal mtDNA mtDNA
base pairs
Neanderthal
sequence Neanderthals Chimpanzee base pair
sequence mtDNA Neanderthal
sequences bases
Neanderthal Neanderthal bases
Neanderthal
Neandertal bases
Neanderthal
Sequence
Neanderthals
mtDNA
HVR1
Chimpanzee
Neandertal
Neandertal
Neandertal
Neandertal
HVR1
Neanderthal Neanderthals
Neanderthal's Neanderthal
Neanderthals
Neanderthals
Neanderthals
Neanderthals
Neanderthals
Neanderthals
Neanderthals
chimpanzees
mtDNASequence
Neanderthals
Neanderthals
chromosomal DNA
Neanderthal Y-chromosome
DNA
sequences
Neanderthals Neanderthals
mtDNA sequences
HVR1 sequence
sequence polymorphism Neanderthals
chimpanzees
sequence base pairs
converted by Web2PDFConvert.com
CONCLUSION
population groups of modern humans is 8 . LM3, dated at 40,000 years old (redated
from the original estimate of 62,000 years old, 36), varied the most from the modern human
reference , but this variation included only three shared with
specimens. Since LM3 was a contemporary (or lived even earlier than the
to date), it is apparent that the human was already nearly "modern" before
died out. The authors of the study made a big deal about the LM3
sharing similarity to a portion of 11 in modern humans (thought to have been
inserted into the human from the ). The authors concluded that the "loss" of
the ancient variation seen in LM3 could explain how do not share
with modern humans. Although it is certainly possible that part of might find its way
into the nuclear , it doesn't address the issue of how the variation seen in the
of LM3 was "lost." In fact, of the ten differences between LM3 and the modern
human reference , five of those correspond to found in modern
Aboriginal people, showing that those five were not lost at all. This leaves only a five
difference, certainly within the range of that found among modern humans. Overall, the
lack of "evolution" for humans over the last 40,000 years stands in sharp contrast to the large
differences seen between modern humans and . European evolutionists have also
disputed the claims of Adcock et al. in the journal Science in June, 2001. More information on
this can be found in the paper, New DNA Evidence Supports Multiregional Evolutionary Model?
A second study examined the of two Cro-Magnon specimens dated to
23,000 and 25,000 years old (37). One specimen (Paglicci-25) had no differences
from the modern reference , and the other (Paglicci-12) only one (see
Table 3). It is remarkable that so little change in the had occurred over the last
23,000 years.
Table 3. Variation of Ancient, Anatomically Modern Humans (33)
Sample
( )
Age
(ka)
Sequence Number (Read Down)
00111111111111111222222222222222222222222222233333333333333
79001122345668889001223344444555566677888899901112345556688
83781269984393499198340413479368923448467803911780715672817
Modern Human 0 ATCCCCTGACTACACTTCTCCTACATGATACACCTCGCACCTCAACTAACCTCTTTTTA
Aboriginal 0 ......CA......TC..CTT...T.....TC..CTA...T.T.G.C..TT.TC.C...
0 ......CAT...T..CCTA.TCGA.CACCAA...C.......AG..CCCT..A.CCC..
0 ....T..ATT.....AA.C.TCGA.CA...A......TG....CG..CT.T.T.C.C..
#1 40 GCTTTT.ATTC.T-.CC.C.T.GT..A...AG.T...T......G.C..T.....C...
LM3 40# ....................T.G...........CT.T....T..T......TC....G
Paglicci-25 23 ...........................................................
Paglicci-12 25 ....................T......................................
*
#redated from the original 62 ka estimate.
The ancient Cro-Magnon and modern European differed by only 2-3
(see Table 4). This difference is even less than that observed among modern Europeans! In
contrast, these ancient modern humans differed from nearly contemporary by an
average of 24 .
Table 4. Variation Among Modern and Ancient (37)
Individual
Modern Europeans
Mean Min. Max. s.d. Mean Min. Max. s.d.
Paglicci-25 2.3 0 11 1.8 24.5 23 28 2.4
Paglicci-12 3.2 0 10 1.7 23.5 22 27 2.4
Modern Europeans 4.4 0 18 2.3 - - - -
According to the authors of the study:
"Although only six of ancient a.m.h [anatomically modern humans]
and four of are available to date, the sharp differentiation
among them represents a problem for any model regarding the transition from
archaic to modern humans as a process taking place within a single evolving human
lineage." (37)
There are two currently popular theories of human evolution 1) a single recent
appearance of modern humans and 2) the model, which states
that modern humans evolved simultaneously on different continents.
destroys the model (12-22, 29-37). In addition, even the fossil evidence does not
support the model (38). Instead, all the data supports the biblical view that
humanity arose in one geographical locale. Modern tells us that modern
humans arose less than 100,000 years ago (confirmed by three independent techniques), and
most likely, less than 50,000 years ago (12-22). This data ties in quite well with the fossil
record. Sophisticated works of art first appear in the fossil record about 40,000-50,000 years
ago (39) and evidence of religious expression appears only 25,000-50,000 years ago (40, 41).
Other indications of rapid changes during the Middle-Upper Paleolithic transition (35,000 to
45,000 years ago) in Europe include (42):
A shift in stone tool technology from predominantly "Rake" technologies to "blade"
technologies, achieved by means of more economic techniques of core preparation.
A simultaneous increase in the variety and complexity of stone tools involving more
standardization of shape and a higher degree of "imposed form" in the various stages of
production.
The appearance of relatively complex and extensively shaped bone, antler, and ivory
artifacts.
base pairs
sequence bases Neanderthal
Neanderthals
sequenced genome
Neanderthals sequence
chromosome
genome mtDNA
mtDNA Neanderthals mtDNA
mtDNA
genome mtDNA
sequence
sequence bases polymorphisms
bases
base
Neanderthals
mtDNA sequences
sequence
sequence substitution
sequence
mtDNASequence
mtDNA
HVR1
Bonobo
Chimpanzee
Neanderthal
mtDNA HVR1
mtDNA mtDNA base pairs
Neandertals
base pairs
mtDNASequence Hominids
Neandertals
HVR1 sequences
sequences Neandertals
multiregional
Molecular biology
multiregional
multiregional
molecular biology
converted by Web2PDFConvert.com
artifacts.
An increase in the rate of technological change accompanied by increased regional
diversification of tool, forms.
The appearance of beads, pendants, and other personal ornaments made from teeth,
shell, bone, stone, and ivory blanks.
The appearance of sophisticated and highly complex forms of representational or
"naturalistic" art.
Associated changes in the socioeconomic organization of human groups, marked by
a more specialized pattern of animal exploitation, based on systematic hunting
a sharp increase in the overall density of human population
an increase in the maximum size of local residential groups
the appearance of more highly "structured" sites, including more evidence for
hearths, pits, huts, tents, and other habitations.
Simultaneous, rapid changes in human abilities suggest replacement of previously existing
with modern humans. The fact that all these events happened ~50,000 years ago
precludes any possibility that previously existing could be our ancestors, since
died out 300,000 years ago, and has been proven to be too
genetically different from us to have been our ancestor (29, 30). Where does this leave the
evolutionists and their descent of man theory? Well, they can always fall back on their favorite
line - "the fossil record is just incomplete." Alternatively, check out Genesis 1:26 (43).
RELATED PAGES
A Scientific and Biblical Response to "Up from the Apes. Remarkable New
Evidence Is Filling in the Story of How We Became Human"
Human Y Chromosome: 'horrendously different' from Nearest Living 'Relative'
The Origin of Man and the Races ( PowerPoint Presentation, 1.5 MB)
Man, Created in the Image of God: How Man is Unique Among All Other Creatures on
Earth
Book Review: Who Was Adam?: A Creation Model Approach to the Origin of Man
Book Review: Origin of the Human Species
A Philosophical Critical Analysis of Recent Ape-Language Studies
Thomas Aquinas Meets Nim Chimpsky: On The Debate About Human Nature And The
Nature Of Other Animals
Who Was Adam?: A Creation Model Approach to the Origin of Man. Are humans
just advanced apes or have they been specially created in the image of God? Publications by
scientists almost never ask the question, whereas publications by theists seldom examine the
scientific data that relates to the question. However, two scientists raised in non-Christian
homes, Fuz Rana (Ph.D. in chemistry) and Hugh Ross (Ph.D. in astronomy), have written a new
book (Who Was Adam?: A Creation Model Approach to the Origin of Man) that examines the
question of human origins by comparing biblical and evolutionary models.
REFERENCES
1. R. Lewontin 1972. The apportionment of human diversity. Evolutionary Biology 6: 381-
398
2. M. Nei and A. K. Roychoudhury. 1982. Genetic relationship and evolution of human races.
Evolutionary Biology 14: 1-59
3. Janczewski DN. Goldman D. O'Brien SJ. 1990. Molecular genetic divergence of
(Pongo pygmaeus) subspecies based on isozyme and two-dimensional gel
electrophoresis. Journal of Heredity 81: 375-387
4. Gibbons, A. 1995. The mystery of humanity's missing . Science 267: 35-36.
5. Pult I, Sajantila A, Simanainen J, Georgiev O, Schaffner W, Paabo S. 1994.
from Switzerland reveal striking homogeneity of European populations.
Biol Chem Hoppe Seyler 375: 837-840
6. Wood B. 1992. Origin and evolution of the . Nature 355: 783-790.
7. Shreeve, J. 1996. New skeleton gives path from trees to ground an odd turn. Science
272: 654
8. McHenry H.M. 1994. Body size and proportions in early . Proceedings of the
National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 91: 6780-6786.
9. Dean Falk. 1998. brain evolution: looks can be deceiving. Science 280: 1714
10. Conroy, G.C., G.W. Weber, H. Seidler, P.V. Tobias, A. Kane, and B. Brunsden. 1998.
Endocranial capacity in an early cranium from Sterkfontein, South Africa.
Science 280: 1730-1731.
11. Eyre-Walker, A. & Keightley, P. D. 1999. High genomic rates in
. Nature 397, 344-347.
12. R.L. Cann, M. Stoneking, A.C. Wilson. 1987. and human evolution.
Nature 325: 31.
hominids
hominids Homo
erectus Homo neanderthalensis
orangutan
mutations
Mitochondrial
DNA sequences
genus Homo
hominids
Hominid
hominid
deleterious mutation
hominids
Mitochondrial DNA
converted by Web2PDFConvert.com
13. L. Vigilant, M. Stoneking, A.C. Harpending, K. Hawkes, A.C. Wilson. 1991. African
populations and the evolution of human . Science 253: 1503.
14. M. Hasegawa, S. Horai. 1991. Time of the deepest root for in human
. J. Mol. Evol. 32: 37.
15. Stoneking M, Sherry ST, Redd AJ, Vigilant L. 1992. New approaches to dating suggest a
recent age for the human ancestor. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. B Biol. Sci. 337:
167-175.
16. Whitfield, L.S., J.E. Suston, and P.N. Goodfellow. 1995. variation of the human
. Nature 378: 379-380.
17. S. Paabo. 1995. The and the origin of all of us (men). Science 268: 1141.
18. R.L. Dorit, H. Akashi, W. Gilbert. 1995. Absence of at the ZFY on the
human . Science 268: 1183.
19. Hammer, M.F. 1995. A recent common ancestry for human . Nature 378:
376-378.
20. Tishkoff, S.A., E. Dietzsch, W. Speed, A.J. Pakstis, J.R. Kidd, K. Cheung, B. Bonn-Tamir,
A.S. Santachiara-Benerecetti, P. Moral, M. Krings, S. Paabo, E. Watson, N. Risch, T.
Jenkins, and K.K. Kidd. 1996. Global patterns of at the CD4
and modern human origins. Science 271: 1380-1387.
21. Fischman, J. 1996. Evidence mounts for our African origins - and alternatives. Science
271: 1364.
22. G. and B. Rannala. 1998. Using rare to estimate population divergence times:
A maximum likelihood approach. Proceedings of the National Academy of Science USA 95:
15452-15457.
23. Seidler H, Falk D, Stringer C, Wilfing H, Muller GB, zur Nedden D, Weber GW, Reicheis W,
and Arsuaga JL. 1997. A comparative study of stereolithographically modeled skulls of
Petralona and Broken Hill: implications for future studies of middle
evolution. J. Hum. Evol. 33:691-703.
24. Schwartz, J.A. and I. Tattersall. 1996. Significance of some previously unaccompanied
apomorphies in the nasal region of . Proceedings of the National
Academy of Science USA 93: 10852-10854.
25. Laitman, J.T., J.S. Reidenberg, S. Marquez, and P. J. Gannon. 1996. What the nose
knows: New understandings of upper respiratory tract specializations.
Proceedings of the National Academy of Science USA 93: 10543-10545.
26. Clarke, T. 2001. Relics: Early modern humans won hand over fist. Nature.
Niewoehner, W. A. 2001. Behavioral inferences from the Skhul/Qafzeh early modern
human hand remains. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.
27. Ramirez, F. V., R. and J. Maria Bermudez de Castro. 2004. Surprisingly rapid growth in
. Nature 428: 936-939 doi:10.1038/nature02428.
28. Holden, C. 1999. A New Look Into ' Noses. Science 285: 31-33.
29. Krings, M., A. Stone, R. W. Schmitz, H. Krainitzki, M. Stoneking, and S. Paabo. 1997.
Sequences and the Origin of Modern Humans. Cell 90: 19-30.
30. Ovchinnikov, I.V., A. Gotherstrom, G. P. Romanovak, V. M. Kharitonov, K. Liden, and W.
Goodwin. 2000. Molecular analysis of from the northern Caucasus.
Nature 404: 490-493.
31. Krings, M., C. Capelli, F. Tschentscher, H. Geisert, S. Meyer, A. von Haeseler, K.
Grossschmidt, G. Possnert, M. Paunovic, and S. Pbo. 2000. A view of
genetic diversity Nature Genetics 26: 144-146.
32. Schmitz, R. W., Serre, D., Bonani, G., Feine, S., Hillgruber, F., Krainitzki, H., Pbo, S. &
Smith, F. H. 2002. The type site revisited: Interdisciplinary investigations of
skeletal remains from the Neander Valley, Germany. Proceedings of the National Academy
of Science USA 99: 13342-13347
33. Stringer, C. B. and R. Mackie. 1996. African Exodus: the Origin of Modern Humanity.
Cape, London.
34. Pennisi, E. 2007. ANCIENT : No Sex Please, We're . Science 316: 967.
35. Adcock, G.J., E.S. Dennis, S. Easteal, G.A. Huttley, L.S. Jermiin, W.J. Peacock, and A.
Thorne. 2001. in ancient Australians: Implications for
modern human origins. Proceedings of the National Academy of Science USA 98: 537-542
36. Bowler, J. M., Johnston, H., Olley, J. M., Prescott, J. R., Roberts, R. G., Shawcross, W.,
and Spooner, N. A. 2003. New ages for human occupation and climatic change at Lake
Mungo, Australia. Nature 421: 837-840.
37. Caramelli, D., C. Lalueza-Fox, C. Vernesi, M. Lari, A. Casoli, F. Mallegnii, B. Chiarelli, I.
Dupanloup, J. Bertranpetit, G. Barbujani, and G. Bertorelle. 2003. Evidence for a genetic
discontinuity between and 24,000-year-old anatomically modern Europeans.
Proceedings of the National Academy of Science USA 100: 6593-6597.
38. Foley R. 1998. The context of human genetic evolution. Genome Res 8:339-347.
39. Klein, R.G. 1992. Evolutionary Anthropology 1: 5-14.
Balter, M. 1999. Restorers reveal 28,000-year-old artworks. Science 283: 1835.
40. Simon, C. 1981. Stone-age sanctuary, oldest known shrine, discovered in Spain. Science
News 120: 357.
41. Bower, B. 1986. When the human spirit soared. Science News 130: 378-379.
42. Clark, G.A. 1999. Highly visible, curiously intangible. Science 283: 2029-2032.
43. Then God said, "Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; and let them
rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over the cattle and over
all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth." (Genesis 1:26)
Note:
The 50,000 year date is the best estimate for modern human origins because the study used a
much larger sample size, resulting in a much less uncertainty in the date
generated (see the table below for further explanation).
95%confidence
interval
#
#
Total Male
population
mitochondrial DNA
polymorphism
mitochondrial DNA
mtDNA
Sequence
Y chromosome
Y chromosome
polymorphism locus
Y chromosome
Y Chromosomes
linkage disequilibrium locus
mutations
Pleistocene hominid
Homo neanderthalensis
Neanderthal
Neanderthals
Neandertals
Neandertal DNA
Neanderthal DNA
Neandertal
Neandertal
DNA Neandertals
Mitochondrial DNA sequences
Neandertals
nucleotide base pair
base base
converted by Web2PDFConvert.com
Top of Page
Back
Home | Answers | Design | Creation | Bible | Slideshows | Theology |
Aberrant Theology | Tribulation | Life Issues | Discovery | God's Love |
Abortion | Discussion | Links | About us | Contact | Newsletter | e-Card
| Webmaster | Personal | Humor | Search
Study Model men Lower Upper Mean size
Dorit, et
al.
729 38 27702 0 800,000 270,000 7,500
Dorit, et
al.
729 38 27702 0 80,000 27,000 7,500
Hammer 2,600 15 39,000 51,000 411,000 188,000 5,000
Whitfield,
et al.
18,300 5 91,500 37,000 49,000 43,000 not given
The estimate of modern origins is highly dependent upon the assumed population size (last
column of table). The first study assumed a male population size of 7,500 individuals for the
entire period of humanity (excluding the last couple thousand years, of course). Such a
population size, according to the authors, is "an exceedingly small population size for this
entire 300,000 year period" (16). However, such as small population size was necessary to
make the as large as it was. Hammer used an even smaller population size
(5,000), since he was concerned that his study would not be accepted if the
was too small (which he admitted to doing in Internet dialogs). The first two studies (Dorit, et
al. and Hammer) have very large , due to the small number of
analyzed. Given the size of the in the first two studies, the
numbers from all three studies are basically the same. Obviously, the Whitfield, et al. gives the
most precise estimate of the date for the appearance of modern humans.
http://www.godandscience.org/evolution/descent.html
Last Modified February 15, 2008
pairs pairs
Coalescent
Star
phylogeny
Coalescent
Coalescent
coalescence time
coalescence time
confidence intervals nucleotide
base pairs confidence intervals
converted by Web2PDFConvert.com

You might also like