We know that alcohol consumption can impair brain function. It’s the reason why many governments penalize drunk driving. We might assume, however, that brain function impairment from alcohol consumption is temporary, at least for moderate drinkers of alcohol. A new study published in January 2020 now refutes that assumption.¹

Previous studies have established that loss of brain gray and white matter volume accelerates with aging in chronic alcoholics, particularly in the medial-prefrontal and orbitofrontal cortices.² Another previous study based on only eight adults aged 61 and older found a tentative link between habitual daily consumption of alcohol—not at the level of chronic alcoholics—and brain impairment.³

The latest research study is the first on a large sample of people with accompanying MRI brain scans. A team of five neuroscientists and computational biologists at the University of Southern California (USC) analyzed the brain imaging data collected on 17,308 UK Biobank subjects aged 45 to 81 years. This sample of 17,308 individuals included ethnic diversity and had roughly equal numbers of men and women.

The USC team first developed a metric for relative brain age (RBA). This RBA describes a subject’s brain age relative to his or her peers of the same chronological age, based on whole-brain anatomical measurements from the subject’s MRI brain scans. A positive RBA means that the subject’s MRI brain scan shows that his or her brain has aged more than the average of other people of the same chronological age in the 17,308 UK Biobank sample. The team then “showed that subjects with positive RBA performed worse in various cognitive functions while subjects with negative RBA performed better.”⁴ Finally, the team looked for correlations of RBA with tobacco smoking, alcohol consumption, and genetic variants.

RBA Correlations
The researchers found that “daily or almost daily consumption of tobacco and alcohol were both significantly associated with increased RBA.”⁵ Neither of these associations were impacted by age or lifestyle since at all age ranges for the 17,308 subjects, about half had a positive RBA and half had a negative RBA.

Additionally, the paper reports an especially strong correlation with smoking tobacco. Each pack-year of smoking tobacco produces 0.03 years of increased RBA. (A pack-year = smoking the equivalent of one pack of cigarettes per day for a whole year. Two packs a day for a five-year period produced 0.3 years of increased RBA. Half a pack a day for 20 years also produced 0.3 years of increased RBA.)

Unfortunately, the researchers were unable to develop reliable data for alcohol consumption over the subjects’ lifetimes. Nevertheless, they found that for every gram of alcohol consumed a day, the brain aged 0.02 years. The average can of beer or small glass of wine contains 14 grams of alcohol. Therefore, subjects who drank the equivalent of two small glasses of wine per day suffered additional brain aging of 0.56 years or 205 days. The team’s analysis of the 17,308 British subjects showed that quitting smoking or quitting daily alcohol consumption did not reverse the brain damage. Evidently, the induced brain damage is permanent.

The team also found that:

“Pairwise comparisons among groups with different alcohol consumption frequencies showed that the strongest difference was between the group who drank alcohol on most or all days (with an RBA of 0.4 years) and the rest of the alcohol drinking frequency categories (i.e., those who abstained from drinking, drank at special occasions only, 1~3 times a month, 1~2 times a week, or 3~4 times a week), while the difference among groups who didn’t drink on most or all days was insignificant.”⁶

In other words, drinking the equivalent of three small glasses of wine per week or less showed no significantly measured increased RBA but drinking alcohol daily, or almost daily, did.

Researchers also observed a genetic factor associated with structured brain aging. Increased RBA correlates with mutations in the MAPT gene. MAPT codes for tau protein. Previous studies showed that mutations in the MAPT gene are associated with the onset of dementia and Parkinson’s disease.⁷ The researchers concluded that it is highly likely that the MAPT gene is a functional gene for restraining the aging of the human brain.

The paper closes with recommendations for further study. They encourage studies on other large population samples (10,000+ individuals) using different ethnic groups, different age ranges, and different lifestyle practices. They especially called for studies to determine whether the brain aging induced by alcohol consumption is accumulative like it is for smoking tobacco—that is, whether or not the total amount of alcohol consumed in one’s lifetime is a strong factor for increased RBA.

How Should We Then Live?
The USC team’s analysis affirms that any amount of tobacco smoking harms the brain, not to mention the lungs and other body organs. Hence, we would all be wise to avoid smoking tobacco.

Moreover, the research provides some support for the Bible’s teachings on and depictions of alcohol consumption. Many Bible passages strongly prohibit drunkenness, inebriation, and habitual drinking of alcoholic beverages (e.g., Proverbs 23:20, 31, Proverbs 31:4–7, Isaiah 5:11, Galatians 5:19–20, and Ephesians 5:18). On the other hand, several scriptural texts condone occasional drinking of wine (e.g., Psalm 104:14–15, Ecclesiastes 9:7, Matthew 15:11, and 1 Timothy 5:23). Most notably, Jesus includes wine in the sacrament of communion and in his first miracle of changing water to wine for a wedding.

Certainly, the analysis demonstrates that using wine in contemporary communion practice is almost always as safe as using grape juice. Drinking a thimble full of wine once or twice a week has no measurable scientific difference over drinking the same quantity of grape juice. Hence, for such communion practices there is no scientific basis for believers to allow one drink choice and not the other.

I used the qualification “almost always” for a reason. I know of a few churches where the priest drinks a five-ounce cup of wine at every communion service he officiates. With more than one such communion service per day that priest is experiencing substantially increased RBA. During the American prohibition era (1920–1933) many churches took advantage of the communion exception in the law to evolve their communion cups from thimble-sized to large cups and to inaugurate daily communion services. At a home Bible study I taught decades ago, a young man consistently arrived inebriated. When I questioned him, he told me he never drank more than two glasses of wine per day and only for communion purposes. When I asked him about the size of his communion glasses, he admitted that the glasses held in excess of 12 ounces of wine.

The team’s analysis implies that redefinitions of “drinking in moderation” or “drink alcohol only in moderation” are in order. My Healthfinder, a US government website, defines a moderate amount of alcohol consumption as “up to 1 drink in a day for women” and “up to 2 drinks in a day for men” where 1 drink is defined as (1) a 12-ounce bottle of regular beer, (2) a 5-ounce glass of wine, or (3) a 1.5-ounce shot of hard liquor.⁸ The research findings of the USC scientists show that these standards for “drinking in moderation” need to be reduced by at least a factor of three. Their results seem consistent with what the Bible teaches about a lifestyle of wisdom, moderation, and care for other human beings.

The biblical account of Adam and Eve makes clear that humanity did not evolve from other primates. God establishes human exceptionalism by creating us in his image and giving us dominion over all other life on Earth (Genesis 1:26–28). If the biblical claims are true, then we can expect humans to possess qualities that are exceptions to what would otherwise be predicted if we were evolutionary descendants. A recent discovery by neuroscientist George Paxinos of Neuroscience Research Australia (NeuRA) suggests an important, previously unknown feature of human exceptionalism.¹

Paxinos’s research yields detailed brain maps (brain atlases) used by neurosurgeons and neuroscientists throughout the world. Now, using imaging and staining techniques previously unavailable to him, Paxinos discovered a 2-mm-long area near the base of the brain where it joins with the spinal cord. He named this area the endorestiform nucleus. It’s a smaller area within the previously mapped inferior cerebellar peduncle (ICP), which conveys sensory information about the positions of the limbs, joints, and body. Paxinos does not yet know the function of the endorestiform nucleus, but believes that due to its location it may be involved in controlling fine motor movements.

According to Paxinos, “The region is intriguing because it seems to be absent in the rhesus monkey and other animals that we have studied. There have to be some things that are unique about the human brain besides its larger size, and the Endorestiform Nucleus may be one of them.”²

If the endorestiform nucleus is unique to humans and further research proves that it controls fine motor movements, this development would support the biblical idea of human exceptionalism and be consistent with predictions of the RTB testable creation model. We can see this distinction in just one example, namely brain activity and music. The ability to imagine music and then to symbolize that music in elaborate notation is unique to humans. Producing the music often requires complex, precise, and sequenced movements of the fingers. Without extraordinarily fine motor control this would be impossible. The endorestiform nucleus may be one of the uniquely human brain functions that sets us apart from all other animals in our ability to produce music.

Creating beauty (including music) is a brilliantly visible power in God’s character, something we see endlessly in nature. The human capacity and ceaseless drive to produce and enjoy the beautiful is a manifestation of the image of God in us. If the biblical account of Adam and Eve is true, then the RTB testable creation model predicts that further studies into the features of human brains will show how we truly are exceptional.

To find out more about Mark Perez, please check out his biography.

When I was a kid, I enjoyed reading Ripley’s Believe It or Not! I couldn’t get enough of the bizarre facts described in the pages of this comic.

I was especially drawn to the panels depicting people who had oddly shaped heads. I found it fascinating to learn about people whose skulls were purposely forced into unnatural shapes by a practice known as intentional cranial deformation.

For the most part, this practice is a thing of the past. It is rarely performed today (though there are still a few people groups who carry out this procedure). But for much of human history, cultures all over the world have artificially deformed people’s crania (often for reasons yet to be fully understood). They accomplished this feat by binding the heads of infants, which distorts the normal growth of the skull. Through this practice, the shape of the human head can be readily altered to be abnormally flat, elongated, rounded, or conical.

Figure 1: Deformed ancient Peruvian skull. Image credit: Shutterstock.

It is remarkable that the human skull is so malleable. Believe it, or not!

Figure 2: Parts of the human skull. Image credit: Shutterstock.

For physical anthropologists, the normal shape of the modern human skull is just as bizarre as the conical-shaped skulls found among the remains of the Nazca culture of Peru. Compared to other hominins (such as Neanderthals and Homo erectus), modern humans have oddly shaped skulls. The skull shape of the hominins was elongated along the anterior-posterior axis. But the skull shape of modern humans is globular, with bulging and enlarged parietal and cerebral areas. The modern human skull also has another distinctive feature: the face is retracted and relatively small.

Figure 3: Comparison of modern human and Neanderthal skulls. Image credit: Wikipedia.

Anthropologists believe that the difference in skull shape (and hence, brain shape) has profound significance and helps explain the advanced cognitive abilities of modern humans. The parietal lobe of the brain is responsible for:

• Perception of stimuli
• Sensorimotor transformation (which plays a role in planning)
• Visuospatial integration (which provides hand-eye coordination needed for throwing spears and making art)
• Imagery
• Self-awareness
• Working and long-term memory

Human beings seem to uniquely possess these capabilities. They make us exceptional compared to other hominins. Thus, for paleoanthropologists, two key questions are: when and how did the globular human skull appear?

Recently, a team of researchers from the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology in Leipzig, Germany, addressed these questions. And their answers add evidence for human exceptionalism while unwittingly providing support for the RTB human origins model.¹

The Appearance of the Modern Human Brain

To characterize the mode and tempo for the origin of the unusual morphology (shape) of the modern human skull, the German researchers generated and analyzed the CT scans of 20 fossil specimens representing three windows of time: (1) 300,000 to 200,000 years ago; (2) 130,000 to 100,000 years ago; and (3) 35,000 to 10,000 years ago. They also included 89 cranially diverse skulls from present-day modern humans, 8 Neanderthal skulls, and 8 from Homo erectus in their analysis.

The first group consisted of three specimens: (1) Jebel Irhoud 1 (dating to 315,000 years in age); (2) Jebel Irhoud 2 (also dating to 315,000 years in age); and (3) Omo Kibish (dating to 195,000 years in age). The specimens that comprise this group are variously referred to as near anatomically modern humans or archaic Homo sapiens.

The second group consisted of four specimens: (1) LH 18 (dating to 120,000 years in age); (2) Skhul (dating to 115,000 years in age); (3) Qafzeh 6; and (4) Qafzeh 9 (both dating to about 115,000 years in age. This group consists of specimens typically considered to be anatomically modern humans. The third group consisted of thirteen specimens that are all considered to be anatomically and behaviorally modern humans.

Researchers discovered that the group one specimens had facial features like that of modern humans. They also had brain sizes that were similar to Neanderthals and modern humans. But their endocranial shape was unlike that of modern humans and appeared to be intermediate between H. erectus and Neanderthals.

On the other hand, the specimens from group two displayed endocranial shapes that clustered with the group three specimens and the present-day samples. In short, modern human skull morphology (and brain shape) appeared between 130,000 to 100,000 years ago.

Confluence of Evidence Locates Humanity’s Origin

This result aligns with several recent archaeological finds that place the origin of symbolism in the same window of time represented by the group two specimens. (See the Resources section for articles detailing some of these finds.) Symbolism—the capacity to represent the world and abstract ideas with symbols—appears to be an ability that is unique to modern humans and is most likely a manifestation of the modern human brain shape, specifically an enlarged parietal lobe.

Likewise, this result coheres with the most recent dates for mitochondrial Eve and Y-chromosomal Adam around 120,000 to 150,000 years ago. (Again, see the Resources section for articles detailing some of these finds.) In other words, the confluence of evidence (anatomical, behavioral, and genetic) pinpoints the origin of modern humans (us) between 150,000 to 100,000 years ago, with the appearance of modern human anatomy coinciding with the appearance of modern human behavior.

What Does This Finding Mean for the RTB Human Origins Model?

To be clear, the researchers carrying out this work interpret their results within the confines of the evolutionary framework. Therefore, they conclude that the globular skulls—characteristic of modern humans—evolved recently, only after the modern human facial structure had already appeared in archaic Homo sapiens around 300,000 years ago. They also conclude that the globular skull of modern humans had fully emerged by the time humans began to migrate around the world (around 40,000 to 50,000 years ago).

Yet, the fossil evidence doesn’t show the gradual emergence of skull globularity. Instead, modern human specimens form a distinct cluster isolated from the distinct clusters formed by H. erectus, Neanderthals, and archaic H. sapiens. There are no intermediate globular specimens between archaic and modern humans, as would be expected if this trait evolved. Alternatively, the distinct clusters are exactly as expected if modern humans were created.

It appears that the globularity of our skull distinguishes modern humans from H. erectus, Neanderthals, and archaic Homo sapiens (near anatomically modern humans). This globularity of the modern human skull has implications for when modern human behavior and advanced cognitive abilities emerged.

For this reason, I see this work as offering support for the RTB human origins creation model (and, consequently, the biblical account of human origins and the biblical conception of human nature). RTB’s model (1) views human beings as cognitively superior and distinct from other hominins, and (2) posits that human beings uniquely possess a quality called the image of God that I believe manifests as human exceptionalism.

This work supports both predictions by highlighting the uniqueness and exceptional qualities of modern humans compared to H. erectus, Neanderthals, and archaic H. sapiens, calling specific attention to our unusual skull and brain morphology. As noted, anthropologists believe that this unusual brain morphology supports our advanced cognitive capabilities—abilities that I believe reflect the image of God. Because archaic H. sapiens, Neanderthals, and H. erectus did not possess this brain morphology, it makes it unlikely that these creatures had the sophisticated cognitive capacity displayed by modern humans.

In light of RTB’s model, it is gratifying to learn that the origin of anatomically modern humans coincides with the origin of modern human behavior.

Believe it or not, our oddly shaped head is part of the scientific case that can be made for the image of God.

Resources

• Who Was Adam? A Creation Model Approach to the Origin of Humanity by Fazale Rana with Hugh Ross (book)
• “Update: When Did the Genetic Adam and Eve Live?” by Fazale Rana (article)
• “When Did Mitochondrial Eve and Y Chromosomal Adam Live?” by Fazale Rana (article)
• “New Archeological Evidence Fills the Gap in the Biblical Case for Human Origins” by Fazale Rana (article)
• “The Oldest Art in the World” by Fazale Rana (article)
• “Sophisticated Cave Art Evinces the Image of God” by Fazale Rana (article)
• “Did Neanderthals Have the Brains to Make Art?” by Fazale Rana (article)
• “Differences in Human and Neanderthal Brains Explain Human Exceptionalism” by Fazale Rana (article)

When I was a little kid, my mom went through an Agatha Christie phase. She was a huge fan of the murder mystery writer and she read all of Christie’s books.

Agatha Christie was caught up in a real-life mystery of her own when she disappeared for 10 days in December 1926 under highly suspicious circumstances. Her car was found near her home, close to the edge of a cliff. But, she was nowhere to be found. It looked as if she disappeared without a trace, without any explanation. Eleven days after her disappearance, she turned up in a hotel room registered under an alias.

Christie never offered an explanation for her disappearance. To this day, it remains an enduring mystery. Some think it was a callous publicity stunt. Some say she suffered a nervous breakdown. Others think she suffered from amnesia. Some people suggest more sinister reasons. Perhaps, she was suicidal. Or maybe she was trying to frame her husband and his mistress for her murder.

Perhaps we will never know.

Like Christie’s fictional detectives Hercule Poirot and Miss Marple, paleoanthropologists are every bit as eager to solve a mysterious disappearance of their own. They want to know why Neanderthals vanished from the face of the earth. And what role did human beings (Homo sapiens) play in the Neanderthal disappearance, if any? Did we kill off these creatures? Did we outcompete them or did Neanderthals just die off on their own?

Anthropologists have proposed various scenarios to account for the Neanderthals’ disappearance. Some paleoanthropologists think that differences in the cognitive capabilities of modern humans and Neanderthals help explain the creatures’ extinction. According to this model, superior reasoning abilities allowed humans to thrive while Neanderthals faced inevitable extinction. As a consequence, we replaced Neanderthals in the Middle East, Europe, and Asia when we first migrated to these parts of the world.

Computational Neuroanatomy

Innovative work by researchers from Japan offers support for this scenario.¹ Using a technique called computational neuroanatomy, researchers reconstructed the brain shape of Neanderthals and modern humans from the fossil record. In their study, the researchers used four Neanderthal specimens:

• Amud 1 (50,000 to 70,000 years in age)
• La Chapelle-aux Saints 1 (47,000 to 56,000 years in age)
• La Ferrassie 1 (43,000 to 45,000 years in age)
• Forbes’ Quarry 1 (no age dates)

They also worked with four Homo sapiens specimens:

• Qafzeh 9 (90,000 to 120,000 years in age)
• Skhūl 5 (100,000 to 135,000 years in age
• Mladeč 1 (35,000 years in age)
• Cro-Magnon 1 (32,000 years in age)

Researchers used computed tomography scans to construct virtual endocasts (cranial cavity casts) of the fossil brains. After generating endocasts, the team determined the 3D brain structure of the fossil specimens by deforming the 3D structure of the average human brain so that it fit into the fossil crania and conformed to the endocasts.

This technique appears to be valid, based on control studies carried out on chimpanzee and bonobo brains. Using computational neuroanatomy, researchers can deform a chimpanzee brain to accurately yield the bonobo brain, and vice versa.

Brain Differences, Cognitive Differences

The Japanese team learned that the chief difference between human and Neanderthal brains is the size and shape of the cerebellum. The cerebellar hemisphere is projected more toward the interior in the human brain than in the Neanderthal brain and the volume of the human cerebellum is larger. Researchers also noticed that the right side of the Neanderthal cerebellum is significantly smaller than the left side—a phenomenon called volumetric laterality. This discrepancy doesn’t exist in the human brain. Finally, the Japanese researchers observed that the parietal regions in the human brain were larger than those regions in Neanderthals’ brains.

 

Because of these brain differences, the researchers argue that humans were socially and cognitively more sophisticated than Neanderthals. Neuroscientists have discovered that the cerebellum helps motor functions and higher cognition by contributing to language function, working memory, thought, and social abilities. Hence, the researchers argue that the reduced size of the right cerebellar hemisphere in Neanderthals limits the connection to the prefrontal regions—a connection critical for language processing. Neuroscientists have also discovered that the parietal lobe plays a role in visuo-spatial imagery, episodic memory, self-related mental representations, coordination between self and external spaces, and sense of agency.

On the basis of this study, it seems that humans either outcompeted Neanderthals for limited resources—driving them to extinction—or simply were better suited to survive than Neanderthals because of superior mental capabilities. Or perhaps their demise occurred for more sinister reasons. Maybe we used our sophisticated reasoning skills to kill off these creatures.

Did Neanderthals Make Art, Music, Jewelry, etc.?

Recently, a flurry of reports has appeared in the scientific literature claiming that Neanderthals possessed the capacity for language and the ability to make art, music, and jewelry. Other studies claim that Neanderthals ritualistically buried their dead, mastered fire, and used plants medicinally. All of these claims rest on highly speculative interpretations of the archaeological record. In fact, other studies present evidence that refutes every one of these claims (see Resources).

Comparisons of human and Neanderthal brain morphology and size become increasingly important in the midst of this controversy. This recent study—along with previous work (go here and here)—indicates that Neanderthals did not have the brain architecture and, hence, cognitive capacity to communicate symbolically through language, art, music, and body ornamentation. Nor did they have the brain capacity to engage in complex social interactions. In short, Neanderthal brain anatomy does not support any interpretation of the archaeological record that attributes advanced cognitive abilities to these creatures.

While this study provides important clues about the disappearance of Neanderthals, we still don’t know why they went extinct. Nor do we know any of the mysterious details surrounding their demise as a species.

Perhaps we will never know.

But we do know that in terms of our cognitive and social capacities, human beings stand apart from Neanderthals and all other creatures. Human brain biology and behavior render us exceptional, one-of-a-kind, in ways consistent with the image of God.

Resources

• Who Was Adam? A Creation Model Approach to the Origin of Humanity by Fazale Rana with Hugh Ross (book)
• “Were Neanderthals People, Too? A Response to Jon Mooallem” by Fazale Rana (article)
• “One-of-a-Kind: Three Discoveries Affirm Human Uniqueness” by Fazale Rana (article)
• “Paleoanthropologists Mixed-Up about Neanderthal Behavior” by Fazale Rana (article)
• “Rabbit Burrowing Churns Claims about Neanderthal Burials” by Fazale Rana (article)
• “New Research Douses Claim that Neanderthals Mastered Fire” by Fazale Rana (article)
• “Did Neanderthals Make Glue?” by Fazale Rana (article)
• “Did Neanderthals Self-Medicate?” by Fazale Rana (article)
• “Did Neanderthals Make Jewelry?” by Fazale Rana (article)
• “Are Perforated Shells Evidence for Neanderthal Symbolism?” by Fazale Rana (article)
• “Do Neanderthal Cave Structures Challenge Human Exceptionalism?” by Fazale Rana (article)
• “Did Neanderthals Bury Their Dead with Flowers?” by Fazale Rana (article)
• “Neanderthal Burials ‘Deep Sixed’” by Fazale Rana (article)
• “Did Neanderthals Make Art?” by Fazale Rana (article)
• “Did Neanderthals Have the Brains to Make Art?” by Fazale Rana (article)
• “Neanderthal Brains Make Them Unlikely Social Networkers” by Fazale Rana (article)
• “Darwin’s Problem: The Origin of Language” by Fazale Rana (article)
• “Speaking about a Controversy, Part 1 of 2” by Fazale Rana (article)
• “Speaking about a Controversy, Part 2 of 2” by Fazale Rana (article)
• “Science News Flash: Chimps Use Tools to Fish for Algae” by Fazale Rana (article)

Are you a left-brain or a right-brain person?

In the 1960s, Nobel laureate Roger W. Sperry advanced the idea of the split-brain, with each hemisphere involved in distinct activities. According to this model, the activities of the left hemisphere of the brain include thinking in words, logic, and mathematics while the right hemisphere’s activities include imagination, artistic expression, intuition, and feeling. The popular narrative is that some people, such as artists and musicians, have a more dominant right brain. And people such as scientists and engineers, have a dominant left brain. As it turns out, there is no truth to this idea. Although the activities of the two hemispheres differ, no evidence exists that one side of the brain is more dominant in some people than the other. In reality, both sides of the brain work together to carry out any task.

While there may not be any obvious differences in the brains of artists and scientists, there do appear to be some significant differences between the brains of modern humans and Neanderthals and, according to psychologist Richard Coss, these differences make it unlikely that Neanderthals had artistic capabilities.¹

As discussed in Who Was Adam?, one of the differences between the brains of modern humans and Neanderthals is the size of the parietal lobe (cortex).² The modern human brain has a much larger parietal lobe, contributing to the globular shape of our skull (compared to the elongated Neanderthal skull). This area of the brain is involved in the processing required for language and mathematics. It is also the part of the brain responsible for visuomotor coordination.

Coss argues that the underdeveloped parietal lobe of Neanderthals accounts for the differences in hunting practices between Neanderthals and modern humans. Neanderthals hunted easy-to-kill game that wouldn’t have been wary of their presence. This lack of wariness allowed these hominins to get close enough to the game to thrust their spears into them. On the other hand, the first modern humans hunted dangerous game that would have been cautious of their presence. Modern humans killed these animals from a distance by throwing spears at them. This special hunting practice requires a high degree of hand-eye coordination that is only possible because of our large parietal lobe.

Coss points out that the same degree of hand-eye coordination required to throw a spear is needed to make representative art. To make art, the first modern humans had to mentally visualize from memory animals that they had previously seen and then translate those mental images into highly coordinated hand-eye movements needed to etch, draw, and paint those animals. According to Coss, Neanderthals were not able to do this because of their underdeveloped parietal lobe. To put it simply, Neanderthals did not have the brain for art.

This insight has important implications for recent claims that Neanderthals made art, made music, possessed language, and displayed symbolic behavior, all of which require an enlarged parietal lobe. These claims of Neanderthal symbolism have all been questioned based on additional scientific scrutiny. This latest insight from Coss further justifies skepticism about the claims that Neanderthals displayed symbolism and advanced cognition like us. In fact, I would even go one step further. If these hominins didn’t have the brain structure to support artistic expression, then claims of Neanderthal symbolism should be dismissed altogether.

Many people view symbolism as a quality unique to human beings, contributing to our advanced cognitive abilities and a reflection of our exceptional nature—in ways that align with the image of God. In fact, as a Christian, I see symbolism as a manifestation of the image of God. Yet, if Neanderthals possessed symbolic capabilities, it would undermine human exceptionalism (and with it the biblical view of human nature), rendering human beings nothing more than another hominin.

But when the full body of scientific evidence about Neanderthal biology and behavior is carefully weighed, it becomes clear that human beings uniquely stand apart from all creatures. We are exceptional.

Resources

• Who Was Adam? A Creation Model Approach to the Origin of Humanity by Fazale Rana with Hugh Ross (book)
• “Darwin’s Problem: The Origin of Language” by Fazale Rana (article)
• “Were Neanderthals People, Too? A Response to Jon Mooallem” by Fazale Rana (article)
• “Are Perforated Shells Evidence for Neanderthal Symbolism?” by Fazale Rana (article)
• “Rabbit Burrowing Churns Claims about Neanderthal Burials” by Fazale Rana (article)
• “New Research Douses Claim that Neanderthals Mastered Fire” by Fazale Rana (article)
• “Did Neanderthals Make Glue?” by Fazale Rana (article)
• “Did Neanderthals Self-Medicate?” by Fazale Rana (article)
• “Did Neanderthals Make Jewelry?” by Fazale Rana (article)
• “Do Neanderthal Cave Structures Challenge Human Exceptionalism?” by Fazale Rana (article)
• “Did Neanderthals Bury Their Dead with Flowers?” by Fazale Rana (article)
• “Neanderthal Burials ‘Deep Sixed’” by Fazale Rana (article)
• “One-of-a-Kind: Three Discoveries Affirm Human Uniqueness” by Fazale Rana (article)
• “Did Neanderthals Make Art?” by Fazale Rana (article)
• “Neanderthal Brains Make Them Unlikely Social Networkers” by Fazale Rana (article)
• “Blood Flow to Brain Contributes to Human Exceptionalism” by Fazale Rana (article)
• “Speaking about a Controversy, Part 1 of 2” by Fazale Rana (article)
• “Speaking about a Controversy, Part 2 of 2” by Fazale Rana (article)
• “Paleoanthropologists Mixed-Up about Neanderthal Behavior” by Fazale Rana (article)
• “Science News Flash: Chimps Use Tools to Fish for Algae” by Fazale Rana (article)

As I sit down at my computer to compose this post, the new Justice League movie has just hit the theaters. Even though it has received mixed reviews, I can’t wait to see this latest superhero flick. With several superheroes fighting side-by-side, it begs the question: “Who is the most powerful superhero in the DC universe?”

I’m not sure how you would respond, but in my opinion, it’s not Superman or Wonder Woman. Instead, it’s a superhero that didn’t appear in the Justice League movie (but he is a longtime member of the Justice League in the comic books): the Martian Manhunter.

Originally from Mars, J’onn J’onzz possesses superhuman strength and endurance, just like Superman. He can fly and shoot energy beams out of his eyes. But, he also has shapeshifting abilities and is a powerful telepath. It would be fun to see Superman and the Martian Manhunter tangle. My money would be on J’onn J’onzz because of his powerful telepathic abilities. As a telepath, he can read minds, control people’s thoughts and memories, create realistic illusions, and link minds together.

Image credit: Fazale Rana

Even though it is fun (and somewhat silly) to daydream about superhuman strength and telepathic abilities, recent work by Spanish neuroscientists from the Basque Center on Cognition, Brain, and Language indicates that mere mortals do indeed have an unusual ability that seems a bit like telepathy. When we engage in conversations with one another—even with strangers—the electrical activities of our brains synchronize.¹ In part, this newfound ability may provide the neurological basis for the theory of mind and our capacity to form complex, hierarchical social relationships, properties uniquely displayed by human beings. In other words, this discovery provides more reasons to think that human beings are exceptional in a way that aligns with the biblical concept of the image of God.

Brain Synchronization

Most brain activity studies focus on individual subjects and their responses to single stimuli. For example, single-person studies have shown that oscillations in electrical activity in the brain couple with speech rhythms when the test subject is either listening or speaking. The Spanish neuroscientists wanted to go one step further. They wanted to learn what happens to brain activities when two people engage one another in a conversation.

To find out, they assembled 15 dyads (14 men and 16 women) consisting of strangers who were 20–30 years in age. They asked the members of each dyad to exchange opinions on sports, movies, music, and travel. While the strangers conversed, the researchers monitored electrical activities in the brains using EEG technology. As expected, they detected coupling of brain electrical activities with the speech rhythms in both speakers and listeners. But, to their surprise, they also detected pure brain entrainment in the electrical activities of the test subject, independent of the physical properties of the sound waves associated with speaking and listening. To put it another way, the brain activities of the two people in the conversation became synchronized, establishing a deep connection between their minds.

Brain Synchronization and the Image of God

The notion that human beings differ in degree, not kind, from other creatures has been a mainstay concept in anthropology and primatology for over 150 years. And it has been the primary reason why so many people have abandoned the belief that human beings bear God’s image. Yet, this stalwart view in anthropology is losing its mooring, with the concept of human exceptionalism taking its place. A growing minority of anthropologists and primatologists now believe that human beings really are exceptional. They contend that human beings do, indeed, differ in kind, not merely degree, from other creatures, including Neanderthals. Ironically, the scientists who argue for this updated perspective have developed evidence for human exceptionalism in their attempts to understand how the human mind evolved. But, instead of buttressing human evolution, these new insights marshal support for the biblical conception of humanity.

Anthropologists identify at least four interrelated qualities that make us exceptional: (1) symbolism, (2) open-ended generative capacity, (3) theory of mind, and (4) our capacity to form complex social networks.

As human beings, we effortlessly represent the world with discrete symbols. We denote abstract concepts with symbols. And our ability to represent the world symbolically has interesting consequences when coupled with our abilities to combine and recombine those symbols in a countless number of ways to create alternate possibilities. Our capacity for symbolism manifests in the form of language, art, music, and even body ornamentation. And we desire to communicate the scenarios we construct in our minds with other human beings.

But there is more to our interactions with other human beings than a desire to communicate. We want to link our minds together. And we can do this because we possess a theory of mind. In other words, we recognize that other people have minds just like ours, allowing us to understand what others are thinking and feeling. We also have the brain capacity to organize people we meet and know into hierarchical categories, allowing us to form and engage in complex social networks.

In effect, these qualities could be viewed as scientific descriptors of the image of God.

It is noteworthy that all four of these qualities are on full display in the Spanish neuroscientists’ study. The capacity to offer opinions on a wide range of topics and to communicate our ideas with language reflects our symbolism and our open-ended generative capacity. I find it intriguing that the oscillations of our brain’s electrical activity couples with the rhythmic patterns created by speech—suggesting our brains are hard-wired to support our desire to communicate with one another symbolically. I also find it intriguing that our brains become coupled at an even deeper level when we converse, consistent with our theory of mind and our capacity to enter into complex social relationships.

Even though many people in the scientific community promote a view of humanity that denigrates the image of God, common-day experience continually supports the notion that we are unique and exceptional as human beings. But, for me, I find it even more gratifying to learn that scientific investigations into our cognitive and behavioral capacities continue to affirm human exceptionalism and, with it, the image of God. Indeed, we are the crown of creation.

Resources to Dig Deeper

• Who Was Adam? A Creation Model Approach to the Origin of Humanity by Fazale Rana with Hugh Ross (book)
• “Neanderthal Brains Make Them Unlikely Social Networkers” by Fazale Rana (article)
• “Were Neanderthals People, Too? A Response to Jon Mooallem” by Fazale Rana (article)

When Jesus saw his mother there, and the disciple whom he loved standing nearby, he said to her, “Woman, here is your son.”

–John 19:26

I’ve learned the hard way: It is best to be circumspect when offering commentary about pregnancy, especially when women are around.

So, it’s with some hesitation I bring up the latest scientific insight developed by a team of researchers from Spain. These investigators discovered that pregnancy alters a woman’s brain. In fact, pregnancy reduces her grey matter.¹ (Okay Fuz. Hold your tongue. Don’t say what you’re thinking.)

But, as it turns out, the loss of grey matter is a good thing. In fact, it reveals the elegant design of the human brain and adds to the growing evidence of human exceptionalism. This scientific advance also has implications for the pro-life movement.

The Spanish research team was motivated to study brain changes in pregnant women because of the effects that sex hormones have on adolescent brains. During this time, sex hormones cause extensive reorganization of the brain. This process is a necessary part of the neural maturation process. The researchers posited that changes to the female brain should take place, because of the surge of sex hormones during pregnancy. While pregnant, women are exposed to 10 to 15 times the “normal” progesterone levels. During nine months of pregnancy, women are also subjected to more estrogen than the rest of their life when not pregnant.

To characterize the effect of pregnancy on brain structure, the research team employed a prospective study design. They imaged the brains of women who wanted to become pregnant for the first time. Then, they imaged the brains of the subjects once the women had given birth. Finally, they imaged the brains of the subjects two years after birth, if they didn’t become pregnant again. As controls, they imaged the brains of women who had never been pregnant and the brains of the fathers.

The Effects of Pregnancy on Women’s Brains

While the brain’s white matter is unaffected, the researchers found that pregnancy leads to a loss of grey matter that, minimally, lasts up to two years. They also discovered that the grey matter loss was not random or arbitrary. Instead, it occurred in highly specific areas of the brain. In fact, the grey matter loss was so consistent from subject to subject that the researchers could tell if a woman was pregnant or not from brain images alone.

As it turns out, the area of the brain that loses grey matter is the region involved in social cognition that harbors the theory-of-mind neural network. This network allows human beings to display a quality anthropologists call theory of mind. Along with symbolism, our theory-of-mind capacity makes us unique compared to other animals, providing scientific justification for the idea of human exceptionalism. As human beings, we recognize that other humans possess a mind like ours. Because of that recognition, we can anticipate what others are thinking and feeling. Our theory-of-mind capability makes possible complex social interactions characteristic of our species.

Even though the pregnant women lost grey matter, they showed no loss of memory or cognitive ability. The researchers believe that the loss of grey matter stems from synaptic pruning. This process occurs in adolescents and is a vital part of brain development and maturation. Through the loss of grey matter, neural networks form. The research team posits that synaptic pruning in pregnant women establishes a neural network that plays a role in the deep attachment mothers have with their children. This attachment helps mothers anticipate their babies’ needs. The deep social connection between mother and child is critical for human survival, because human infants are so vulnerable at birth and have a prolonged childhood.

In support of this proposal, the researchers found that when they showed the pregnant women pictures of their babies, the brain areas that lost grey matter became active. On the other hand, they saw no corresponding brain activity when the mothers were shown pictures of other babies.

The Case for Human Exceptionalism Mounts

This work highlights the elegant design of human pregnancy and child rearing—features that I take as evidence for a Creator’s handiwork. It is nothing short of brilliant to have the surge of sex hormones during pregnancy, priming the brain to ensure a close attachment between mother and child, at the time of birth and throughout the first few years of childhood.

More importantly, this work adds to the mounting scientific evidence for human exceptionalism. Not only do humans uniquely possess theory of mind, but our theory-of-mind neural network is more complex and sophisticated than previously thought. It is remarkable that this neural network can be adapted and fine-tuned to ensure an intimate mother-infant attachment while maintaining relationships in the midst of complex social surroundings, typical of human interactions.

As an interesting side note: Recent research indicates that for Neanderthals, the area of their brain devoted to maintaining social interactions was much smaller than the corresponding area in modern humans, highlighting our unique and exceptional nature even when compared to the hominids found in the fossil record.²

Pro-Life Implications

In my view, this work also has pro-life implications. I frequently hear pro-choice advocates argue that the fetus is a mass of tissue, just like a tumor. But, this study undermines this view. It is hard to think of a fetus as being just a lump of tissue, when such a sophisticated system is in place during pregnancy to form a neural network (that is, a subset of the theory-of-mind network) in the mother’s brain that generates the special capacity of the mother to bond with the fetus at birth.

It also raises concerns for the health of women who receive abortions. Though speculative, one has to wonder what effect prematurely terminating a pregnancy has on women whose brains have become fine-tuned to bond to the very infants that are destroyed by the abortion.

Resources

“Placenta Optimization Shows Creator’s Handiwork” by Fazale Rana (article)
“Curvaceous Anatomy of the Female Spine Reveals Ingenious Obstetric Design” by Virgil Robertson (article)
“Does the Childbirth Process Represent Clumsy Evolution or Good Engineering?” by Fazale Rana (article)
“Neanderthal Brains Make Them Unlikely Social Networkers” by Fazale Rana (article)