It is utterly amazing that DNA can be extracted from 37,000 to 70,000 year-old fossil bones. But, that is what Dr. Svante Pääbo of the Max Planck Institute has done. The fossil bones are from Neanderthal (also spelled: Neandertal), the ancient human relative often given the formal label Homo neanderthalensis. (Side note: for an interesting explanation on the spelling, see "Neanderthal or Neandertal?").
Is Pääbo's work flaky or solid? The proper answer is that the work is literally flaky (involving small bone flakes for DNA sequencing analysis), but the quality of the science is figuratively SOLID. In fact, Pääbo was recently named by Time Magazine as being among the top 100 individuals who is transforming the world. (An interesting biography of Pääbo can be found in the Smithsonian Magazine).
The ability to get DNA from ancient bone indicates that this molecule is HIGHLY stable and NOT easily degraded. One must wonder how far back in time is it possible to get DNA.
As a dead body goes into a state of decay there is a massive bacterial invasion. Neanderthal bones do not just contain Neanderthal DNA but also bacterial DNA. One of the great scientific contributions of Pääbo was his methodology for filtering out the bacterial DNA from the Neanderthal DNA.
Pääbo came to world-wide attention when he published a paper in the journal Cell in 1997 entitled: "Neanderthal DNA sequences and the origin of modern humans." In this paper Pääbo and his team analyzed mitochondrial DNA (which is inherited only from mothers) to show that there were enough nucleotide sequence differences compared to Homo sapiens to regard Neanderthal as a distinct species that was reproductively isolated.
Since that time Pääbo has been working on the sequence of the nuclear DNA of Neanderthal. That is, he is analyzing the main genetic material that is inherited from both mothers and fathers. This work has taken years and is not yet finished. However, Pääbo recently presented at the 2009 American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) meetings in Chicago. These meetings are highly prestigious, and reports at those meetings are expected to be substantive, substantial, accurate, and important. The 48 minute long presentation is linked below.
Watch Pääbo's plenary lecture as RealVideo.
An abstract of Pääbo's AAAS presention is linked here.
I would summarize Pääbo's AAAS report as follows:
1. Neanderthal bones were sampled from four main age groups, ranging from 37,000 to 70,000 years ago.
2. Neanderthal became genetically distinct from Homo sapiens about 300,000 years ago in Europe and the Middle East (and possibly spreading farther toward China).
3. Neanderthal DNA differs about 50% more than the biggest differences found within Homo sapiens DNA.
4. Neanderthal and Homo sapiens do share the same language-related gene, FOXp2, which is not in the same form in other primates.
5. Neanderthal DNA shows very little variability across individuals, suggesting that the population derived from a very small parent population.
6. There is no Neanderthal DNA evidence of interbreeding with Homo sapiens.
Perhaps, it is worth noting that Neanderthal became extinct about 30,000 years ago. Theories explaining their extinction include climate changes diminishing food resources, the harshness of their hunting culture, and their inability to compete with Homo sapiens.
We need to remember that it would be highly unusual in nature for only a single representative of a genus to be living. For much of the evolutionary history of Homo there have been multiple species living sympatrically. Thus, the death of Neanderthal ought to be of particular scientific interest to us -- as we are now the lone representative of our genus.
Does the existence of a distinct species of Neanderthal carry theological implications for Mormons? I do not think so, except in the broadest sense.
Paleoanthropologists suggest that Neanderthals were among the first species to bury their dead and to show some evidence of caring for disabled individuals. There is no strong evidence to link cave art to this species, but their tools (Mode 3) were quite sophisticated. Neanderthals were intelligent, showing evidence of planning abilities. It is conceivable that these individuals had simple religious practices, and perhaps they had a concept of life after death. It is possible they had a simple language (having the FOXp2 gene and a human-like hyoid throat bone) to assist their hunting culture.
Latter-day Saints need not fear the dinosaur, Neanderthal, or even their modern messenger – science. The bones of these ancient critters speak to us as anatomical fossils, and now because of Pääbo, some of them speak to us in the language of DNA.
Nature may sometimes mumble, but it does not lie. If scriptures are the manifesto of theology, then the ancient fossils and rocks are the manifesto of nature. Mormons should be open-minded to all good works.
Below is a 10 minute interview that summarizes Pääbo's main findings. What do you think of Pääbo? Has he revolutionized science? Does his work have implications for you personally?
Copyright 2009 S.Faux (Email: foxgoku54 [at] gmail [d0t] c0m; URL: http://mormoninsights.blogspot.com). Readers may distribute this post for noncommercial purposes provided such distributing is of the entire post, including author's copyright and contact information. All other rights reserved.
Please feel free to give my blog site a "Blogged.com" rating and review by clicking here.
Support Mormon Insights by making a COMMENT.
17 comments:
Interesting stuff.
"Neanderthal and Homo sapiens do share the same language-related gene, FOXp2, which is not in the same form in other primates."
I've always wondered about this.
S. Faux,
How does this fit in with Adam? That is the one thing I haven't been able to understand. Were the Neanderthal predecessors to Homo-sapiens and thus Adam?
Taylor Darcy:
Good question. I don't know either. Neanderthal died out about 30,000 years ago. I presume that would precede Adam, but I am NOT entirely confident with that speculation.
Do our scriptures allow for a spiritual creation before a physical one?
In any case, the metaphorical and symbolic nature of the creation story (which is powerful and necessary), does not precisely fit science. However, there is more correspondence between Genesis and science than is usually admitted by either side of the issue. See my essay: "Biblical Genesis Corresponds with Evolution."
The linked essay is my best answer to your good question.
I guess I'm thinking too much "Jurassic Park" here. I'm wishing we could somehow use the DNA to clone him and see what he really looked like. ;)
Delirous:
The obtained Neanderthal DNA consists of short segments. The DNA sequence has a lot of gaps. Paabo has only about 65% of the genome recovered so far. Thus, we won't be seeing a live version of Neanderthal for a long time -- probably never. At the end of the attached video, Paabo gives an answer to your question.
This is shear speculation on my part but I would believe that if the Neanderthal was a different species that it could have been around after the the creative period but before Adam. Perhaps as Neanderthal = Man 1.0 and Adam = Man 2.0, or something like that. I know that there is alot of things we don't know both physically and spiritually as well. Again this is just my speculation but it fits at least a little
Interesting ideas, Taylor Darcy.
The fascinating aspect of evolution is that life in general encapsulates one hugh "creative period." Evolution never stops.
My wife is convinced I am decended from a hidden Neanderthal line.
Stan:
My wife wonders about me too. Perhaps we have an obligation to send a blood sample to Dr. Paabo for analysis.
I sometimes wonder why these life forms were placed on the earth before the arrival of Adam and Eve. I wonder what their purpose might have been. Were they preparatory creatures, fulfilling the purposes of God by doing some work in the earth? I wonder about their moral capacity - did they possess moral agency or were they on the same level as some of today's higher order beasts such as the gorilla, beasts that possess relatively high level cognitive abilities for the animal kingdom?
One thing I do not wonder about, however, is their relationship to Adam. Did Adam evolve from such lifeforms? As my British ancestors used to say: "Not bl**dy likely!"
Dave C.:
Here are some thoughts your comment provoked. They may not be what you were seeking.
DNA sequencing provides a quantitative and objective picture of evolution that is extremely difficult to navigate around. In fact, our scientific knowledge of evolution + evolutionary genetics will double (conservatively) every 20 years or so.
As you know, I am in the business of teaching science students who need to be prepared for rapid advances in the 21 century. They need to know about evolution. Evolution is a done deal. Scientists do not debate whether evolution occurred. Instead, they debate how it occurred.
One of my students is a relatively new PhD making great strides in the behavioral endocrinology of prairie rodents. She understands that hormonal systems in rodents have some applications in humans. Such connections across animals groups have their foundation in evolution and similarities in DNA. Proto-primates evolved from rodent-like animals about 65 million years ago. Thus, there is a great similarity between the rat and human DNA (see Gibbs et al. (2004) Nature. We can study many human genetic diseases in rats because of this connection.
Does such knowledge diminish the standing of humans? No! We are creatures of God, and we are tied to all His creations.
God's creations were not digital in format; they were continuous. We living beings are all tied together in a great continuity.
Concerning randomness -- randomness in evolution processes is just an unrefined fuel. Randomness provides variability for natural selection to operate upon. The outcome of natural selection is STRICTLY nonrandom.
Does God know about bell curves? Yes. Can God make use of bell curves? Yes. Out of randomness comes design. To me, God is the great statistician. (Besides, that which appears random to us may not be random in the eyes of God).
I do NOT support Richard Dawkin's godless view of the universe. I do, however, support his views of evolution as fact. Facts are facts.
I reject the notion that evolution implies purposelessness. Evolution not only lends a functional explanation to our biology, it expands our moral awareness.
Sorry, I got carried away. Best wishes... .
For a great essay that may have some application to evolutionary history as well as Church history, I recommend Bruce Crow's post entitled, "We need to own the truth."
S.Faux,
Yes, evolution is a done deal, for now. Scientists do not debate whether common descent occurred, they debate how it occurred. Evolution is in the Thomas Khunian normal science stage of analyzing all the facts within the confines of evolutionary theory. I don’t criticize this behavior – I accept it as a natural process in the life cycle of scientific theories. Some of the most popular theories went through a normal science phase. Newton’s mechanics, ether, and phlogiston come to mind.
As anomalies and facts that cannot be explained by a leading theory arise, the scientific community starts realizing that their beloved theory is fallible. It is then that deep seated theories are challenged by competing theories. In the case of phlogiston and ether, the deep seated theory is completely rejected. In the case of Newton’s mechanics, parts of the deep seated theory are retained and other parts are replaced by better explanations (i.e., Relativity).
I predict that the same thing that happened to Newton’s mechanics will happen to evolution. People are coming to the realization that evolution, while a good theory, does not provide an adequately explanation for the complexities of nature and the presence of information in the genome. This has given rise to the ID movement. If we do not fear the truth then we will allow evolutionists to continue their work unimpeded, and we will allow the IDers to continue their work unimpeded rather than criticizing them as being creationists.
Concerning randomness, I accept that divine guided natural selection may be in harmony with the theory. In fact I think that God used natural selection to prepare the earth for humankind. Yet randomness is still a central idea in the sense of random mutations. Random mutations are needed to explain common descent. While it is possible that God may compensate for random mutations by using natural selection, I find it difficult to believe that an omnipotent being would have to continually adjust for undesirable mutations rather than just directing creating life in a manner consistent with his will.
If I was told through revelation that I descended from lower life forms, I would accept it without issue. If God made Adam’s body from evolutionary processes, then so be it. Truth is truth. In the meantime I find such explanations contrary to what the scriptures and modern day revelation teach about the creation of humankind. The gospel and general authorities teach that Adam’s body was a special creation, thus evolutionary doctrines which teach that common descent is a forgone conclusion are false IMO, notwithstanding evolution’s current status in the scientific community.
Ciao!
"The ability to get DNA from ancient bone indicates that this molecule is HIGHLY stable and NOT easily degraded."
Successful extraction of DNA could as easily (perhaps more easily) suggest the bones are exceptionally well preserved.
"If I was told through revelation that I descended from lower life forms, I would accept it without issue."
Not to pick a fight, but why do you trust revelation more than the fossil record? Why is science less trusted by you than Prophets?
I'm coming at this from the perspective of a scientist, I admit, so I'm almost certainly just going to have a different perspective. That said, there are questions I don't take to science (religious and interpersonal questions) while there are questions I don't take to religion (scientific ones).
My experience is that the conflicts between science and religion typically crop up when one makes some claim about the other. Claiming that you need revelation to believe in evolution is, from my perspective, unnecessarily setting up a conflict between the two. Religion shouldn't be weighing in on the veracity of evolution; all it needs to say is that God created us. The details of that creation are what concern science.
I realize I'm lecturing you on how I see things. I really am curious about the questions I asked in the beginning, specifically, why do you trust a Prophet in a scientific matter more than a scientist?
Kristine,
Some very good questions.
When religious latter-day doctrine and science intersect, and they sometimes do, I will always go with the religious doctrine of the restoration when the two are in disagreement.
While distrust of science leads to unhealthy skepticism and conspiracy theorizing, absolute trust in science is equally unhealthy. History has shown that trust in science should not be absolute. Theories and ideas change. A willingness to challenge the status quo has spawned new discovery.
Re: "Claiming that you need revelation to believe in evolution is, from my perspective, unnecessarily setting up a conflict between the two."
I have heard this *conflict* argument from others like distinguished prof. Peck at BYU. I think it is nonsense.
Why must we never see conflict between science and religion? What is wrong with finding inconsistencies? Finding inconsistencies just confirms that science is not perfect. Science is a human endeavor this is continually developing as it moves closer to the truth of all things natural.
Demanding a world with no religious and scientific conflict is potentially damaging. If we say that the two are in complete agreement, then what happens when science changes, as it so often does? In order to be theoretically consistent we would have to say that some of our religius ideas were also flawed.
I prefer to celebrate the differences as a opportunity to learn and grown rather than just say they never disagree.
(Note that I accept that true science and true religion will always agree, but we will never attain a level of *true* science.)
Kristine N.
Just a point of clarification, since this is your first comment on this blog. You are arguing with Dave C., the author of the Mormons and Science blog.
Dave C. and I are blogging buddies, but we do not see eye-to-eye on evolution.
Regarding your comment on DNA preservation, I will still contend that DNA is remarkably stable, but you are absolutely correct that environmental conditions make a big difference.
Post a Comment