How Long Did People Live in the Bible?

To understand the longevity of biblical figures, we must first examine the scriptural accounts of their lifespans. The Bible provides detailed information about the ages of early humans, particularly in the book of Genesis.

Genesis 5 and the Ages of the Patriarchs

Genesis 5 presents a genealogy of the patriarchs from Adam to Noah, recording remarkably long lifespans. For example:

• Adam lived 930 years (Genesis 5:5)
• Seth lived 912 years (Genesis 5:8)
• Methuselah, the longest-lived person in the Bible, lived 969 years (Genesis 5:27)

Interestingly, Genesis 5 adds the phrase “and then he died” at the end of each patriarch’s record. This repetition serves a significant purpose: It demonstrates the fulfillment of God’s warning to Adam that eating from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil would result in death (Genesis 2:17). While Adam and his descendants did not die immediately upon sinning, their mortality was established, and death became an inevitable part of human existence.

Old Testament Lifespans After the Flood

A notable shift occurs in human lifespans after the Noahic flood. Genesis 11 records a gradual decline in the ages of the patriarchs:

• Shem (Noah’s son) lived 600 years (Genesis 11:10–11)
• Arphaxad lived 438 years (Genesis 11:12–13)
• Peleg lived 239 years (Genesis 11:18–19)
• Abraham lived 175 years (Genesis 25:7)
• Moses lived 120 years (Deuteronomy 34:7)

This decline aligns with God’s declaration in Genesis 6:3: “Then the Lord said, ‘My Spirit will not contend with humans forever, for they are mortal; their days will be a hundred and twenty years.'” This statement has been interpreted in two ways:

• As a limit on human lifespan to 120 years
• As a 120-year warning period before the flood

Regardless of the interpretation, the biblical record clearly shows a significant reduction in human lifespans following the flood.

New Testament Lifespans

By the time of the New Testament, human lifespans had further decreased to lengths more familiar to us today. While specific ages are not always mentioned, we can infer that most individuals lived between 60–80 years, similar to modern life expectancies in developed countries.

Jesus himself, in his earthly ministry, lived to be about 33 years old. The apostle Paul, though his exact age at death is unknown, likely lived to be around 60–65 years old based on historical records and biblical chronology.

How Did People Live So Long in the Bible?

The assertion that humans once lived for hundreds of years may seem implausible to many. However, recent advances in the field of biogerontology (the study of biological mechanisms of aging) have provided intriguing insights that lend credibility to the biblical accounts. Let’s explore some scientific explanations for how people in the Bible might have lived so long.

Protection Against Reactive Oxygen Species

Think of reactive oxygen species (ROS) like tiny sparks in a machine. During normal activity, these sparks occasionally fly out, and over time, they start to wear down the parts—damaging the machine’s wires, gears, and fuel lines. Similarly, ROS, which are unstable molecules, are produced as part of our cells’ regular metabolism. These molecules can harm vital components like DNA, proteins, and fats, which contribute to the aging process as the damage builds up over time.

Thankfully, our bodies have their own built-in “fire extinguishers”—protective enzymes like superoxide dismutase (SOD) and catalase—that help keep ROS damage in check. Studies have shown that by increasing these protective enzymes in laboratory animals, scientists can extend their lifespan by up to 40%.

This discovery suggests a potential explanation for biblical longevity. God could have designed early humans with enhanced expression of these protective enzymes that allowed them to live for hundreds of years. Later, he could have altered this expression to gradually reduce human lifespans.

Caloric Restriction

Another well-documented approach to extending lifespan is caloric restriction. Studies have shown that reducing calorie intake by 30–70% can increase lifespan by up to 40% in various organisms, from yeast to mammals.

The mechanism behind this phenomenon involves an enzyme called Sir2, which is activated when cellular energy levels drop. Sir2 helps silence certain genes within chromosomes, reducing wear and tear on DNA and thereby extending lifespan.

It’s possible that the diet and lifestyle of early biblical figures naturally aligned with the principles of caloric restriction, contributing to their longevity. Alternatively, God could have designed their metabolism to mimic the effects of caloric restriction without requiring a severely restricted diet.

Altered Telomerase Activity

Telomeres, the protective caps at the ends of chromosomes, play a crucial role in aging. As cells divide, telomeres naturally shorten, eventually leading to cellular deterioration and contributing to the aging process.

An enzyme called telomerase can counteract this shortening by adding DNA sequences to the ends of telomeres. Some researchers believe that manipulating telomerase activity could potentially halt or even reverse aging.

In the context of biblical longevity, God could have designed early humans with enhanced telomerase activity, allowing for much slower telomere shortening and, consequently, longer lifespans. The gradual reduction in lifespans after the flood could be explained by a divinely orchestrated decrease in telomerase activity over generations.

Changed Radiation Levels Reaching Earth

Cosmic radiation is a significant factor limiting human lifespan. Interestingly, the levels of cosmic radiation reaching Earth have not been constant throughout history. A major source of deadly cosmic radiation affecting Earth today is the Vela supernova, which occurred approximately 20,000–30,000 years ago.

Before this event, Earth was exposed to much lower levels of cosmic radiation. Under these conditions, lifespans of up to 900 years might have been more feasible. The increased radiation following the Vela supernova could have contributed to the gradual decrease in human lifespans recorded in the Bible.

The scientific understanding gained from these four advances aligns with the biblical narrative and suggests that environmental factors, possibly altered by God, played a role in the changing lifespans of humans throughout history.

Lifespans in the Bible: Frequently Asked Questions

How Did Adam Live 930 Years?

Adam’s extraordinary lifespan can be attributed to a combination of factors discussed earlier. As the first human created directly by God, Adam likely possessed optimal genetic makeup, enhanced protection against cellular damage, and possibly more efficient metabolic processes. Additionally, the pre-flood environment may have been more conducive to longevity, with lower levels of cosmic radiation and potentially other beneficial factors not fully understood today.

Who Lived 900 Years in the Bible?

Several individuals in the Bible are recorded as living around 900 years or more:

• Adam lived 930 years (Genesis 5:5)
• Seth lived 912 years (Genesis 5:8)
• Enos lived 905 years (Genesis 5:11)
• Cainan lived 910 years (Genesis 5:14)
• Jared lived 962 years (Genesis 5:20)
• Methuselah lived 969 years (Genesis 5:27)

These exceptionally long lifespans are primarily found in the pre-flood genealogies of Genesis 5.

How Did Methuselah Live So Long?

Methuselah, who lived 969 years, holds the record for the longest lifespan in the Bible. His longevity can be explained by the same factors that allowed other pre-flood patriarchs to live for centuries. These may include enhanced cellular protection mechanisms, optimal genetic expression, and a more favorable environment. Additionally, as the grandfather of Noah, Methuselah’s exceptional lifespan may have served a specific purpose in God’s plan, allowing him to pass down crucial knowledge and wisdom to future generations.

How Long Did Noah Live?

Noah lived for 950 years (Genesis 9:29). He was 600 years old when the flood began (Genesis 7:6) and lived for 350 years after the flood. Noah’s lifespan bridges the pre-flood and post-flood eras, demonstrating the gradual decline in human longevity that followed the flood.

How Long Did Moses Live?

Moses lived for 120 years (Deuteronomy 34:7). His lifespan is significant because it aligns with God’s declaration in Genesis 6:3 that human lifespans would be limited to 120 years. Moses’s age at death serves as a benchmark for the new “normal” human lifespan in the post-flood era.

God’s Purpose for Long Lives in the Bible

The extraordinary lifespans recorded in the early chapters of Genesis serve several important purposes in God’s plan for humanity. Understanding these purposes can help us appreciate the wisdom behind God’s design for human longevity.

Rapid Development of Human Civilization

Long lifespans in the early stages of human origins facilitated the rapid development of technology and civilization. Living for 900 years would have given individuals ample time to make discoveries, develop and refine technologies, and pass on their accumulated knowledge to subsequent generations. This accelerated progress allowed human civilization to advance dramatically in relatively few generations.

Preservation and Transmission of Knowledge

The longevity of early biblical figures ensured that important knowledge, including the account of creation and humanity’s early history, could be preserved and transmitted accurately.

Demonstration of God’s Provision and Blessing

Humans’ long lifespans reflect God’s abundant provision and blessing. In the perfect environment of Eden and the still-favorable conditions of the pre-flood world, humans could experience a quality and duration of life that demonstrated God’s goodness and care for his creation.

Limiting the Spread of Wickedness

The subsequent reduction in human lifespans after the flood served an important purpose in God’s plan. As human wickedness increased, shorter lifespans helped limit the spread and impact of evil. An exceptionally wicked person living for 900 years could cause immense harm and corruption. By reducing lifespans to around 120 years, God mercifully limited the potential for evil to dominate society, ensuring that righteousness would always have a presence in the world.

Emphasizing Human Mortality and Need for Salvation

The gradual decrease in lifespans throughout biblical history serves as a poignant reminder of human mortality and the consequences of sin. This decline emphasizes humanity’s need for salvation and eternal life through Christ. Rather than an extended earthly existence, humans can look to the promise of eternal life in God’s presence.

Conclusion: Bridging Science and Scripture

The question of how people in the Bible lived so long presents a fascinating intersection of scientific inquiry and biblical interpretation. While the lifespans recorded in Genesis may seem implausible at first glance, advances in our understanding of aging processes and environmental factors provide plausible explanations for these extraordinary ages.

Moreover, the purpose behind these long lifespans reveals God’s wisdom in designing human history. From facilitating rapid technological and cultural development to preserving crucial knowledge and demonstrating divine provision, the longevity of early biblical figures played a vital role in God’s plan for humanity.

As we continue to explore the mysteries of aging and longevity, we can appreciate how scientific discoveries often align with and illuminate biblical accounts. This harmony between science and Scripture reminds us that true knowledge, whether derived from nature or revelation, ultimately points to the same Creator.

The post How Did People in the Bible Live So Long? appeared first on Reasons to Believe.

The story of human origins is filled with the movement of populations from one region to another over thousands of years. These migrations shaped societies and cultures across continents.

Beginning possibly as early as 70,000 years ago, driven by environmental changes and the pursuit of new horizons, this epic journey saw our ancestors navigate challenges and pursue opportunities.

But how and when did Homo sapiens spread and become a global population?

Coupled with scientific insights and enriched by biblical narratives, this exploration will offer a comprehensive view of when, where, and how these migrations occurred.

What Is Human Migration?

Human migration is the movement of people from one location to another. This process has led to the development of communities, cultures, and civilizations throughout history. Migration includes not only physical relocation but also the exchange of ideas, technologies, and beliefs that occur as populations settle in new regions.

Scientists use three main ways to study the timeline and paths the earliest humans took when they migrated around the world. A brief look at these can give us a clearer picture of how researchers piece together the history of humans and how we came to exist across the globe.

Theories on the Migration of Humans

When we consider modern theories of human migration, the Out of Africa theory is the primary scientific explanation for humanity’s migration. This model, often referred to as the replacement model, suggests that humanity began roughly 150,000 to 200,000 years ago in Africa.

Then, around 50,000 to 70,000 years ago, humans first migrated from East Africa, reaching the Middle East, Europe, Asia, and eventually North and South America. This grand movement wasn’t just a journey of distance but also of replacement. As early humans ventured into new territories, they gradually replaced existing Neanderthal populations.

In full, this theory suggests a dynamic and transformative period in the history of humans, where our species spread and adapted to the different environments around the earth.

The Out of Africa theory lets us see how interconnected our past is and sets the stage for exploring the finer details of the story of our early ancestors.

How Does the Bible Support This Theory?

While the Out of Africa theory is primarily rooted in evolutionary science, it also aligns with several details in the Bible and in the human origins model we hold at Reasons to Believe.

This model suggests that humanity emerged recently from a single location—consistent with the biblical account of the Garden of Eden. The RTB model places the Garden of Eden at the bottom of the Persian Gulf today and may have extended into East Africa. This location fits well with the scientific understanding of early human migration.

In Genesis 10, after the flood, the Bible describes the spread of humanity from a central point. This idea mirrors the migration patterns hypothesized by scientists of movement from Africa to the Middle East and beyond. This surface-level connection between the Out of Africa model and biblical texts invites us to further consider how ancient Scriptures and modern science can complement each other.

Other Relevant Theories

For a wider view on the topic, let’s consider other migration theories, even if some have fallen out of favor. Considering other views helps to solidify our positioning and broaden our thinking.

One such theory is multiregionalism. This model suggests that modern humans evolved simultaneously in different regions of the world from earlier hominin populations. However, as our understanding of human genetics, the fossil record, and archaeology has deepened, anthropologists have largely set aside multiregionalism. 

Another theory to consider is the assimilation model. This hypothesis suggests that as Homo sapiens moved out of Africa, they interbred with other hominin populations, such as Neanderthals and Denisovans, rather than entirely replacing them, modern humans and these ancient groups merged into a single population. It is clear that full assimilation didn’t happen. While it is true that modern humans interbred with Neanderthals and Denisovans, they remained distinct with only trace amounts of genetic material present in modern human DNA. (Genetic traces of these ancient groups found in modern human DNA).

Overall, growing evidence strongly supports a more singular origin that aligns with both the Out of Africa theory and the Bible.

Early Human Migration

Where Did Humans Begin?

The question of human origins has intrigued scientists and historians alike for centuries and has driven considerable research and investigation. Current scientific agreement holds that humans emerged near East Africa, in an area referred to as the cradle of humanity.

The East African Origin

East Africa is widely recognized and supported as the birthplace of humankind due to the wealth of fossil discoveries there that trace human existence back thousands of years. Key sites in countries like Ethiopia, Kenya, and Tanzania have provided some of the oldest known humanlike fossils, supporting the scientific theory that modern humans (Homo sapiens) began in this region between 150,000 to 200,000 years ago.

Insights from Who Was Adam?

For those interested in diving deeper into the origins of humanity, the book Who Was Adam? offers a comprehensive examination of the scientific and theological perspectives on human beginnings as well as the genetic and fossil evidence that contributes to the belief in humanity’s East African roots.

Genetic Evidence

Advancements in genetics have further reinforced the East African origin theory. Studies of mitochondrial DNA and Y-chromosome data trace the lineage of all modern humans back to a common ancestor in Africa, often referred to as “Mitochondrial Eve” and “Y-chromosomal Adam”—a throwback to the Bible.

These genetic markers are used as pivotal evidence for piecing together the human family tree and tracing our dispersal across the globe.

The Global Journey

From African origins, humans migrated out of this cradle and eventually populated every corner of the world. This exodus is believed to have occurred in multiple waves, with early humans developing distinct cultures along the way.

Who Was the First Human Being?

The first human beings appeared in Africa, as supported by extensive genetic and archaeological evidence, but science has yet to determine the origin site of the very first human.

While the Bible doesn’t mention a specific location for humanity’s beginnings, it emphasizes that the first humans were Adam and Eve. They and all humans have been created in the image of God. Everyone who has ever lived descended from Adam and Eve.

When Did Early Humans Migrate to New Places?

The great human migrations are believed to have begun around 50,000 to 70,000 years ago when early humans began to move out of East Africa and embark on an adventure that would span continents and millennia.

Evidence for the first leg of this migration saw our ancestors travel through the Middle East. From there, they went into Europe and Asia, gradually spreading across these vast landscapes.

The final stages of this epic journey saw humans crossing into the Americas, a monumental feat that marked the culmination of a long and expansive migration process starting from East Africa.

Why Did Early Humans Migrate?

Scientists think the early migrations were not primarily about survival (forced migration) but about voluntary migration. Researchers believe humans embarked on a journey of discovery, change, and expansion that led to the occupation of new lands.

The Scientific Perspective: Environmental Changes

From a scientific perspective, human migrations out of Africa were predominantly driven by cultural challenges, such as disease and significant environmental changes. Africa, at the time, was thought to be marked by severe drought conditions that pushed early humans to seek more fertile land.

This period coincided with the “greening” of the Middle East, where ample resources awaited those bold enough to venture out. This shift provided both an escape from worsening conditions and an opportunity for a better life in new territories.

Geographical conditions were also highly favorable for human migration. Earth was in an ice age, and water levels were lower, which made it possible for humans to travel between regions that today are disconnected by water.

Due to lower sea levels, it was possible to walk across the Persian Gulf, which is where some scholars believe the biblical Garden of Eden was located. The Rub’al Khali, now a desert, was once a humid and cool passageway with rivers and streams that allowed migration from Africa to the Middle East.

The Biblical Perspective: Divine Providence

From a biblical perspective, migration flows are seen as an act of divine providence. According to Scripture, human movement was either “commanded”—in the form of a decree—or “forced” directly by God’s hand.

Initially, at the point of creation and again after the flood, humans were instructed to “multiply and fill the earth.” How can they fill the earth unless they migrate?

Yet, in one account, they resisted, choosing instead to settle and build the Tower of Babel. It was here that God intervened by confounding human language and compelling people to scatter across the globe:

This biblical account aligns with the rapid migrations suggested by scientific evidence. The idea that accessible routes with abundant resources were part of God’s providence offers a profound understanding of how these great migrations were undertaken. Humans moved not just by necessity but also by divine design.

A Combination of Forces

The migration of the human species was influenced by multiple environmental and spiritual pressures. The challenges our ancestors faced were lessened by how accessible routes and resources were, which suggests a remarkable synergy between natural and supernatural forces.

Scientific Evidence for Early Human Migration

It’s fascinating to consider how scientific evidence can complement and support the biblical perspective of both human creation and migration.

The RTB Model: A Biblical Perspective

The Reasons to Believe (RTB) model provides a framework that aligns with biblical narratives and is supported by scientific data. This model suggests that after God’s intervention at the Tower of Babel, humans began to scatter across the globe.

This scattering was not just spiritual—it also entailed a physical journey. God’s scattering required them to move. RTB’s model holds that migration started in the Middle East, occurred rapidly, and spread outward from this region.

Rapid Migration and Coastal Superhighways

One of the striking aspects of the migration was its rapidity, which is backed by evidence. The coastal routes, often referred to as “coastal superhighways” provided the passageways for these migrations.

Coastal highways played a significant role in speeding up migrations. These routes were stable environments that removed the need for complex clothing or new tools. Coastal highways also provided reliable food sources from the sea and fresh water from rivers leading into the coasts.

The journey to distant lands, such as Australia, points to how quickly early humans could adapt and move across vast distances.

For example, anthropologists estimate that the migration to Australia could have been completed in less than 1,000 years if groups moved at an average pace of just over 10 miles per year. In the grand scheme, this amount of time and distance per year is not excessive and could be easily accomplished.

Archaeological and Fossil Evidence

Archaeological and fossil discoveries reveal important insights into the migration patterns of early humans. Fossilized remains and artifacts found in regions like East Africa, the Middle East, and Asia trace the journey of Homo sapiens as they spread across the globe. Key sites such as Jebel Faya in the United Arab Emirates and the Levant (today’s Israel, Lebanon, Jordan, and Syria) have evidence of human presence dating back over 100,000 years—supporting the idea of early migrations through these regions.

The coastal superhighways are believed to have played a significant role in human dispersal. While much of the evidence along these routes has been lost to rising sea levels, inland archaeological sites provide a glimpse into the lives of early humans who followed rivers away from the coasts. Tools, skeletal remains, and other artifacts found along river systems like the Tigris-Euphrates and the Indus River further show how early humans adapted to the different environments during their migrations.

Genetic Evidence: Mitochondrial and Y-Chromosomal DNA

Science further supports RTB’s model through genetic evidence. Both mitochondrial DNA and Y-chromosomal DNA research support the idea of human migration starting from a common point. These genetic markers trace the lineage and movement of human populations and highlight a pattern that aligns with the RTB model.

Genetic data not only reinforces the idea of a rapid spread but also illustrates the interconnectedness of human populations—that we are all one people—as they migrated and settled across different continents.

Great Human Migrations: Europe

Genetic markers in European populations show that their origins can be linked back to East African (Ethiopian) groups, especially those close to the Middle East.

Mitochondrial DNA studies show the genetic traits of people living outside Africa have subparts of African mitochondrial DNA sequences, called haplotypes. Two important haplotypes, known as M and N, have been key to understanding these migrations. M haplotypes are usually found in Asia, while N haplotypes are mainly seen in western Asia and Europe.

The Route Through Central Asia

The journey from the Middle East to Europe wasn’t a straight path. Instead, it took a winding route through central Asia. Y-chromosomal data helps create a more detailed map. Two dominant Y-chromosome haplotypes in Europe, M173 and M17, seem to come from the M45 type—common in central Asian populations—and traces back to the M89 type found in the Middle East.

Studies place the origin of M173 about 30,000 years ago, and it serves as a significant milestone in the migration timeline.

The third prominent Y-chromosomal haplotype in Europe is known as M172 and it emerged about 10,000 years ago. It also came from M89 and likely represents human migrations due to the rise of agriculture as it changed the culture and economy of Europe.

Great Human Migrations: Asia

Genetic markers from Asian populations reveal a deep connection to East African origins. This African link is foundational, as all genetic markers found among Asian groups trace back to these early populations.

Mitochondrial DNA variants, haplotypes C, D, E, and G, are strong among groups with historical ties to South and East Asia, and even the Americas. They all descend from the M haplotype variant rooted in East African populations. Studies estimate that the M haplotype originated between 25,000 and 80,000 years ago.

Y-chromosome data matches these findings closely. Prominent Y-chromosome haplotypes in East Asia, notably C and D, can be traced back to M168, which also originated in East Africa and provides more evidence for migration from a common ancestor.

Studies estimate that M168 appeared between 31,000 and 79,000 years ago, with other estimates ranging from 56,000 to 81,000 and 36,000 to 109,000 years ago.

The Journey Through Asia

Early human migration routes into Asia appeared to have followed along the southern coast (including what is now India, Pakistan, and Sri Lanka) before turning northward. This path provided temperate climates, abundant resources, and steady expansion into new lands. Some groups are thought to have continued the coastal migration into Indonesia and Australia.

Great Human Migrations: Australia

The Y-chromosomal DNA from indigenous Australian populations reveals a significant genetic connection to African ancestors. This genetic link is shared among various Asian and Oceanic groups, connecting the paths taken by our ancestors.

One unique Y-chromosomal variant, known as haplotype M130, is particularly telling. It occurs with remarkable frequency among aboriginal Australians—over 60 percent—and is also found in populations from New Guinea, Malaysia, and India, although at lower frequencies.

This haplotype doesn’t appear in any other global populations and can also be traced back to the M168 haplotype from East Africa.

Crossing the Waters to Sahul

During the last ice age, the landmass known as Sahul—made up of modern-day Australia, New Guinea, and Tasmania—was separated from Asia by a strait over 50 miles wide, even with the lower sea levels.

To reach Sahul, early humans had to have the knowledge and skill to build and navigate seaworthy vessels. This requirement for sea travel suggests they had advanced cognitive abilities and technological understanding.

Anthropologists propose that the first Australians embarked on numerous voyages and hopped from island to island to complete their journey.

The First Human Migration to America

Scientists generally agree that the initial settlers of the Americas came from Asia and likely crossed the Bering Strait on a land bridge that once connected the two continents. This crossing was a significant milestone in human migration, yet the exact timing and route of these migrations remain the subject of ongoing debate.

The fossil record provides some clues. The oldest human remains in the Americas date between 13,500 and 9,500 years ago. However, these findings do not necessarily point to a single mass migration event. Instead, many scholars believe settling the Americas involved multiple migratory waves, possibly from both northeast and southern Asia.

The Clovis Culture and Beyond

The Clovis culture, a people group identified by unique stone tools, is often considered the earliest well-documented human presence in North America. This culture suggests a rapid spread of humans across the continent. Around 12,000 years ago, other groups like the Folsom culture began to emerge and show a diverse and complex pattern of settlement.

Some researchers think the Clovis people were among the first to reach North America, while others believe there were people before them. Limited and incomplete evidence from early humans in the Americas drives this debate and makes it difficult to clearly understand the early migration patterns.

Genetic Insights into Native American Origins

Native American groups have lower genetic diversity than other populations, which suggests they went through a genetic bottleneck from a small founding group. Five key mitochondrial DNA haplotypes (A, B, C, D, and X) help us trace their ancestry. Most of these haplotypes link back to Siberia and East Asia, but the rare haplotype X, interestingly, points to European roots.

Y-chromosomal DNA studies also add to the understanding and show that haplotypes unique to Native Americans trace back to Siberian ancestors. This genetic evidence supports the theory that multiple waves of migration into the Americas occurred around 12,000 to 15,000 years ago.

Debating Migration Routes

The routes taken by the first American migrants remain debated. Traditionally, it was believed that people traveled through an ice-free corridor between the massive ice sheets covering Canada and Alaska. However, this theory is challenged by the idea that migrants could have followed the Pacific coastline as this route might explain the rapid settlement of South America.

Human Migration Patterns

The Homo sapiens  migration story is a blend of genetic discoveries and archaeological findings that show how early humans ventured into new territories, adapted environmentally, and interacted with other hominid species.

Timeline of Human Migration

The following timeline captures the key milestones of human migration and highlights the significant genetic and archaeological evidence that supports the Out of Africa model.

What Does the Bible Say About Human Migration?

As we conclude our exploration of humanity’s historical migration, let’s also consider some spiritual and moral points that may be relevant to us today. The Bible offers several insights we can apply to human migration that emphasize unity, law and borders, and our shared heritage.

Unity and Shared Heritage

Scripture emphasizes that we are all connected—a truth science supports through genetic ancestry. As the saying goes, “We are all Africans under our skin.” This commonality reminds us of our shared lineage and the fundamental unity of humankind. We are all the descendants of immigrants that bear the image of God.

Compassion and Hospitality

The Bible stresses that fellow human beings should treat strangers and migrants with compassion and kindness. Exodus 22:21 says, “Do not mistreat or oppress a foreigner, for you were foreigners in Egypt.” This passage calls us to remember our own pasts and to treat others with the grace and empathy we would wish for ourselves.

Ephesians 2:11–22 expands on this theme by inviting all people to become part of God’s family. It reminds us that, spiritually speaking, we were all once strangers and aliens until Jesus Christ welcomed us as citizens in his kingdom.

Borders and Laws

While the Bible emphasizes unity and hospitality, it also acknowledges the importance of borders and laws for national protection.

The challenge is to balance security with compassion. The Bible encourages us to seek wisdom and justice and strive for solutions that honor both our shared humanity and the unique identities of nations.

Embracing Our Shared Journey

Reflecting on what the Bible says about human migration, we’re encouraged to embrace our shared journey with humility, love, and wisdom. As descendants of those who crossed great distances in search of safety, opportunity, or community, we inherit a legacy based on movement and change.

It’s a reminder that in the grand weave of human history, we are united by the common threads of migration, faith, and hope.

If we acknowledge this shared heritage, we can better appreciate the richness of the human experience and strive to build connections that reflect the values of compassion, unity, and order that the Bible so profoundly advocates.

The post Migration of Humans: When, Where, and How? appeared first on Reasons to Believe.

For many of us, it starts in our first biology class, learning about the theory of human evolution or seeing a picture like this:

When it comes to human origins, seeing a progression like this from ape to human can make your curiosity run wild and cause you to ask questions such as . . .

• Are our common ancestors really apes?
  
• If humans evolved from monkeys, why are there still monkeys around?
  
• Is this why my Uncle Bob’s so incredibly hairy?

Before your imagination goes too far, we need to pause and clearly address two important questions:

1. Did humans evolve from monkeys?

No, humans did not evolve from monkeys, chimpanzees, or any other ape-like creature—past or present.

Humans are the crown of creation. distinct and unique from the animal kingdom in major ways, originating from Adam and Eve. We’ll unpack this along with the science that supports it later on in this post.

2. Do evolutionary biologists believe humans evolved from monkeys?

No, evolutionary biologists do not claim humans evolved directly from monkeys, chimpanzees, or any other modern apes we see today.

If this is confusing to you, it’s probably because popular media has oversimplified what evolutionists believe.

Throughout this post, we’ll answer common questions about “monkey to human” evolution and help you better understand both the evolutionary and creationist positions so you can have meaningful conversations about human origins.

What Do Evolutionary Biologists Actually Believe about Human Evolution?

Evolutionary biologists claim that humans are part of an evolutionary lineage that includes monkeys. Meaning, monkeys did not eventually become humans, but human beings are a part of a family tree that includes monkeys, chimpanzees, gorillas and orangutans.

It’s known as common ancestry, or common descent, within the macroevolutionary model.

Remember high school biology? It’s the branching tree with humans and monkeys as separate branches stemming from a common trunk.

It’s the theory that human evolution could be traced back to an ancestor that’s neither fully human nor fully monkey but rather an ancient primate from around 25 to 30 million years ago.

And, over time, this ancestral population split into completely different lineages, giving rise to the diverse array of primates we see today, including monkeys, great apes, and humans.

This ancestor’s exact identity is unknown and still debated by evolutionary biologists today. We’ll get into this mystery “ancestor” a little later.

If humans evolved from apes, why do apes still exist?

Now that you understand what evolutionary biologists actually claim, the answer to this question should be easier: Shared ancestry does not claim a linear evolution from apes to humans. So, apes would still be around as a branch from a common ancestor along with human beings.

That means, the question you’re actually trying to answer is: Do we indeed share common ancestry with monkeys and other ape-like creatures?

The simple answer, from both a scientific and biblical perspective is, no.

What we find in science, as well as in the Bible, continues to point to God as the divine Creator who made us distinct, unique, and apart from any other creatures.

In other words, a closer look at the scientific data shows that we DID NOT DESCEND from an unknown ape-like creature. Instead, we were uniquely and specially created as our own species—as human beings, as image bearers of God.

Common Design Comes Before Common Descent

Before Darwin, there was Owen . . .

Before we dive a little deeper into the science, let us first introduce you to Sir Richard Owen, one of Britain’s foremost naturalists (student of natural history).

Back in 1849, even before Charles Darwin proposed his theory of evolution, Owen proposed that shared anatomical features among organisms could be understood through the idea of an archetype, an original pattern or model. He saw these shared features as displays of a common blueprint, rather than evidence of common descent. It’s the idea that instead of us sharing a common ancestor that traces humans down to an ape-like creature millions of years ago, these forms can be looked at as evidence of common design.

Unfortunately, Owen’s work has been overshadowed by Darwin’s theory of evolution, but it’s essential for understanding how common design is consistent with science and Scripture.

This framework gives us a great explanation for why we see similarities between humans and other primates in some of the scientific findings today. The Designer who made you and me could have used the same form or design for other animals. Owen’s work makes perfect sense in understanding how a Creator would create humans and animals by using similar designs to make uniquely different creatures!

The Fossil Record & Lucy (Our Human Ancestor?)

Does the fossil record reveal a mysterious common “ancestor”? 

Lucy. Does that name ring a bell? 

The story of Lucy, the famous Australopithecus afarensis (try saying that three times fast), has long been ingrained in our understanding of human evolution. With her discovery decades ago, Lucy became the figure in the evolutionary tree of human ancestry, portrayed in textbooks and sketches as a significant link in our origin story.

But recent discoveries have shaken up this story, bringing a lot of questions about Lucy’s place in Darwin’s tree as a common ancestor. New evidence suggests that the hominid group Australopithecus afarensis (A. afarensis), to which Lucy belongs, may be considered a dead end or a completely different branch in the human evolutionary tree.

This revelation comes from the analysis of a jawbone belonging to A. afarensis, discovered in 2002. Scientists found that the jawbone closely resembles that of a gorilla rather than a human, indicating a separate branch from the human lineage. This is big. The find continues to challenge the idea of an evolutionary connection between Lucy and human beings and of the validity of the evolutionary model.

For evolution to be accepted as fact, there must be a clear evolutionary pathway supported by in-between forms in the fossil record.

However, as science progresses, these proposed transitional forms (like Lucy) seem to vanish, leaving gaps in the evolutionary story of human origins.

What can these gaps mean?

Well, they can really only mean one thing.

God created human beings uniquely in his image, apart and distinct from any other animals.

In staying committed and faithful to what we find in science as well as in Scripture, the gaps can only mean that creatures like Lucy belong in the animal realm, distinct and separate from human beings who bear the image of their Creator.

Small but Mighty Evidence of DNA in Human Origins

But how do we explain how similar we are to chimps? Aren’t we closely related to them at the genetic level?

Yes!

You may have heard that humans and chimps share 95–99% of their DNA, which many people say provides evidence for our evolutionary connection. This is probably the biggest known argument for common ancestry (hence the traction of Darwin’s theory).

But recent studies have thrown a monkey wrench into that idea (pun intended). It seems that humans and chimps are more genetically distinct than we think, and these differences add to the case for common design when thinking about human origins.

There’s a ton of evidence pointing to this distinction. For example, one of the latest findings in genetics revolves around something called alternate gene splicing.

Let’s break it down:

DNA is like a blueprint that contains instructions for building and regulating all the proteins in our bodies. These proteins are the real MVPs of life, carrying out all sorts of essential tasks in our cells.

When it’s time to make a protein, the cell starts by copying the instructions from a gene into a molecule called messenger RNA (mRNA). But here’s where things get interesting. Before the mRNA can be used to make a protein, it undergoes a process called splicing. This is where the cell snips out the noncoding bits of the mRNA (called introns) and stitches together the important parts (called exons) to form the final mRNA.

And here’s where we humans and chimps really differ.

Researchers have found that humans and chimps have significant differences in how their mRNA gets spliced. While most of the splicing reactions are pretty similar between the two species, some genes show very distinct splicing patterns in humans compared to chimps. And these differences seem to affect genes involved in all sorts of functions, from brain activity to heart health.

In short, while we might share a lot of DNA with chimps, once we get down to the intricacies of how DNA functions, there are significant differences that make us who we are, different from ape-like creatures.

How Are Humans Unique?

We possess many unique characteristics that set us apart from chimps.

For example . . .

• Complex Language and Communication: We have a sophisticated system of language that allows for complex communication, including the ability to convey abstract ideas, share knowledge, and express emotions through spoken and written words.
  
• Advanced Cognitive Abilities: We exhibit higher cognitive functions such as problem-solving, critical thinking, and self-awareness. This includes the ability to plan for the future, reflect on the past, and imagine possibilities beyond immediate reality.
  
• Culture and Civilization: We create and maintain complex social structures, traditions, and belief systems that form the basis of human culture and civilization. This includes art (this is a big one!), music, literature, religion, and technological innovation.
  
• Tool Use and Technology: We’re adept at creating and using tools to manipulate the environment. This includes not only simple tools made from natural materials but also advanced technologies that have shaped the course of human history (you can Google that!).
  
• Bipedalism: We’re the only fully bipedal primates—the only ones that walk on two legs.
  
• Complex Social Structures: We form intricate social networks and relationships, ranging from small family units to large-scale societies. This includes cooperation, consideration of others, and social hierarchies.
  
• Symbolic Thinking and Creativity: We have the ability to think symbolically and imaginatively, allowing for creativity, artistic expression, and abstract thought. This includes the development of language, art, music, and literature.
  
• Self-Awareness and Consciousness: We possess a sense of self-awareness and consciousness, allowing us to reflect on our thoughts, feelings, and experiences, as well as to consider the perspectives of others.

Pretty different, right?

These unique characteristics collectively distinguish us from other animals. And it’s what birthed civilization and culture—from the history of time to the moment we’re living in today.

While individual traits may be present in other species to varying degrees, the combination and extent of these traits are incomparable and unique to humans.

From the Very Beginning . . .

Now that we got the science down, let’s see if the Bible can back it up.

There are many Scripture verses we can find that talk about how God set apart humans to be special and unique (that’s a whole other topic called human exceptionalism), but for the sake of this article, we’ll mention one that supports the creation model (common design) we hold to.

In the Bible, Genesis 2:7 describes how God created Adam. It says God made Adam from the dust of the ground. What stands out here is the word “formed.”

In this verse, the word “formed” comes from a Hebrew word “yasar,” which means to shape or make. And in Genesis 2:19, thesame word is used to say how God made all the animals from the ground, too. So, from these verses, we can gather that both humans and animals were made by God from the same stuff. Which makes sense—the fossil record seems to reveal shared DNA similarities as well as shared features.

However, here’s where human uniqueness comes in.

Even though humans and animals were made from the same material, only Adam got the special treatment of having the breath of life breathed into him by God.

We read in Genesis 1:26–27 and 9:6, that only humans were made in the image of God. We have special and unique qualities that reflect God’s image.

So, it seems like the Bible indeed supports and helps explain what we find in science.

It makes sense that there would be some similarities between us and chimps because we were made of the same material, carefully crafted by a Designer. But the gaps we see in the fossil record, as well as the significant differences in the intricacies of our genes explain how we are indeed specially and uniquely made—because the Spirit of God has been breathed into us.

But Can Christians Believe in Human Evolution?

Although the case for common design is what we hold to as the best explanation of what we find in science and Scripture, there are other Christians who believe God could have created human beings through the evolutionary process.

That’s a topic for an in-depth discussion for another time, but the important thing to know is that evolutionary theory has significant scientific challenges.

Here at Reasons to Believe, we believe the testable creation model, or common design, best explains and integrates science and faith in understanding our origin, design, and history of life.

And with that, our challenge is this:

Let us continue to seek and study both science and the Bible.

Understanding a little more about human origins, and how God has specially created us apart from any other living creature in the world should be an encouragement to us that we are fearfully and wonderfully made, beloved by our Creator.

For in-depth study on the testable creation model of the origin of humanity, be sure to read Who Was Adam? and Thinking about Evolution.

The post Did Humans Evolve from Monkeys? appeared first on Reasons to Believe.

Imagine walking the earth 50,000 years ago. You may have encountered creatures who looked somewhat like us, but weren’t quite human.

They hunted, gathered, and perhaps even cared for each other in ways similar to our ancestors. Yet, despite those similarities, the differences between Neanderthals and humans were significant.

The distinctions raise intriguing questions about our origins:

• Were Neanderthals human?
• What does it mean to be human?
• Where do Neanderthals fit in the Bible’s story of creation?

Let’s examine what separates us from Neanderthals, why it matters, and how our old-earth creationist perspective differs from evolutionary theories.

What Are Neanderthals?

Neanderthals were a distinct species, created by God, that belonged to a group of creatures called hominins. They lived from about 300,000 to 40,000 years ago in the Middle East, Europe, and Asia before going extinct.

Even though Neanderthals were biologically similar to modern humans (Homo sapiens), they were different from humans in significant ways .

In fact, most biologists who believe in evolution would say Neanderthals are an evolutionary dead end, meaning they did not contribute to human evolution. Even for these scientists, Neanderthal DNA would be distinct from that of the human species.

At Reasons to Believe, our biologists hold that God as creator used similar designs for both humans and Neanderthals, but with key differences that set them apart.

Neanderthals were intelligent, capable of using tools, and they likely formed strong emotional bonds with others. However, they lacked something crucial that makes humans unique: the image of God.

This means that while Neanderthals could think, feel, and even behave in ways that seem humanlike, their cognitive abilities were inferior to those of modern humans.

Unlike you, they didn’t possess the same spiritual and intellectual gifts that come from bearing the image of the creator of the universe.

But you do.

You have the unique capacity for a relationship with God—something Neanderthals were not created to experience.

It’s a great reminder that you are fearfully and wonderfully made—not the product of an unguided evolutionary process.

Similarities Between Neanderthals and Humans

How closely do we resemble our ancient neighbors, the Neanderthals? While Neanderthals and humans share intriguing similarities, these parallels tell a story of design, not descent.

From their unique physical structures to their intriguing behaviors, these similar traits highlight the creativity of a common designer rather than suggesting a shared evolutionary path.

Let’s delve into the remarkable traits we share with Neanderthals and explore what they reveal about our unique origins.

Physical and Functional Similarities

Like us, Neanderthals walked upright on two legs. (They were “obligate bipeds” if you want to sound smart—that’s the fancy way of saying they always walked on two legs, just like we do.)

Brain Size

The average Neanderthal brain size was slightly larger than that of modern humans, but brain size alone doesn’t determine cognitive capacity. (See “Brain and Skull Differences” below.)

Genetic Similarities

Neanderthals shared 99.7% of their genetic material with humans. (To keep this in perspective, humans also share about 60% of our genes with bananas. Shared DNA doesn’t necessarily mean direct ancestry.) Neanderthals had 23 pairs of chromosomes, including evidence of a fused chromosome 2.

Behavior

Some researchers claim Neanderthals were very similar to us in terms of their behavior. But some anthropologists and those of us at Reasons to Believe dispute and reject these behavioral claims based on counterevidence, which we’ll explore in the next section.

As you consider these similarities, you might wonder how creatures so similar to us could be fundamentally different.

Glad you asked. . .

Differences Between Neanderthals and Humans

Physical and Functional Differences

Despite overall similarities, Neanderthals and humans have significant morphological differences (meaning their bodies and physical features were very different from ours).

Neanderthals displayed a unique combination of features not found in other hominins, including:

• an extraordinarily long face
• a pronounced midface projection
• a poorly developed chin
• a highly developed brow ridge
• large, round eye sockets
• an extremely long nose
• larger, cavernous sinuses
• larger front teeth
• a retromolar gap
• a rounded bump at the back of the head (occipital bun)
• a flat-front brain that bulged in the back and sides
• a flatter skull bone
• an elongated opening at the base of the skull (foramen magnum)
• a higher voice box (larynx)
• thicker bones
• shorter limbs with a barrel chest

If you were to encounter a Neanderthal, you’d immediately notice these distinctive features. Their appearance would be both familiar and alien to your eyes.

Some scientists once thought that the differences between Neanderthals and modern humans weren’t significant. That is, they believed that Neanderthals’ unique traits came from their environment and way of life, not their genetics.

For example, Neanderthals lived in cold climates and their stocky bodies helped them stay warm. This would be comparable to how people like the Inuits, who live in cold regions today, have similar body shapes.

However, later discoveries like a Neanderthal infant skeleton found in Israel have shown that these differences were present from birth, meaning they were genetic, not just environmental.

Developmental Differences

Studies of Neanderthal dental and skull anatomy across different age groups—infants, children, and young adults—reveal that they underwent a more rapid craniofacial development along a different trajectory than modern humans.

In comparison, humans have the longest developmental period of any known species. We develop slower due to the complexity of our brains and social behaviors (good things are worth the wait).

Behavioral Differences from the Archaeological Record

While some researchers claim that Neanderthals and early modern humans shared behavioral similarities, it’s important to know that these claims are disputed. Archaeologists and RTB scientists reject the assumptions that Neanderthals had developed language, created art, used jewelry, mastered fire, performed ritual burials, cared for their sick/injured, or used medicinal plants.

It’s hard to tell how Neanderthals thought and behaved. Still, when you look at the archaeological record, there are substantial differences between Neanderthals and modern humans.

Neanderthal vs. Modern Human Technology

Neanderthals were on Earth much longer than humans have been to date, yet their “technology” remained static. They managed to make stone flakes, scrapers, and points, but that’s all.

Human technology, on the other hand, started primitively but quickly became more complex and diverse. Archaeological records show that Homo sapiens spread weaponry, jewelry, and art around the world at a rapid-fire rate.

Just picture two parallel timelines: one for Neanderthals, static and unchanging, and another for humans, exploding with innovation and creativity. While a Neanderthal might spend its entire life using the same stone tools their ancestors did, a human of the same era could be crafting intricate jewelry or painting vivid scenes on cave walls.

So, while Neanderthals had amazing abilities, they couldn’t learn or innovate like we can.

As cognitive neurobiologist Johan J. Bolhuis and his colleagues stated well:

Our species was born in a technologically archaic context, and significantly, the tempo of change only began picking up after the point at which symbolic objects appeared. Evidently, a new potential for symbolic thought was born with our anatomically distinctive species, but it was only expressed after a necessary cultural stimulus had exerted itself. This stimulus was most plausibly the appearance of language. . . . Then, within a remarkably short space of time, art was invented, cities were born, and people had reached the moon.

Brain and Skull Differences

The shape of the human skull is unusual and distinct from all hominins. Our skulls are rounder, with large areas in the brain (the parietal lobe) for things like touch, spatial awareness, hand-eye coordination, and balance.

Neanderthal skulls are more stretched out from front to back (anterior-posterior) and don’t have as much brain capacity as humans do.

In terms of our brains, the main difference between human and Neanderthal brains is the size and shape of the cerebellum. This is the part of the brain that helps with movement, thinking, language, memory, and social abilities.

In humans, the cerebellum is larger and sticks out more toward the center of the brain. In Neanderthals, the right side of the cerebellum was much smaller than the left, a condition called volumetric laterality, which doesn’t appear in human brains.

Because of these differences, researchers believe humans were more advanced in thinking and social skills than Neanderthals.

The smaller size of the cerebellum and parietal lobe in Neanderthals likely limited their visual thinking, memory, ability to process language, and ability to understand themselves in relation to the world around them.

Facial Structure Differences

Humans have smaller, flatter faces, while Neanderthals had larger, protruding facial features. These differences in skull and face shape also affect the size and shape of different brain areas in each species.

Genetic Differences

Even though human DNA and Neanderthal DNA are highly similar, there are some important differences, including the way some human and Neanderthal genes are used (called gene expression):

• Some genes that play a role in cognitive development differ in human and Neanderthals that play a role in cognitive development
• Genes that play a role in cognitive development are also expressed (used differently) in humans and Neanderthals
• Specific genes that control the development of the voice box (larynx) differ between humans and Neanderthals. These differences suggest that Neanderthals likely couldn’t speak as humans can.
• Humans have distinct genes that play a role in skull shape, and the design of the rib cage differs in humans and Neanderthals

In other words, your genes tell a story of human exceptionalism. The differences between your DNA and that of Neanderthals reflect the distinct cognitive capacities God designed for each species.

FAQ: Modern Human Origins

Are Neanderthals the Same Species As Us? Are Neanderthals Human?

No, Neanderthals were not the same species as humans, nor were they evolutionarily related to us. They were a distinct species created by God.

Due to similar designs, Neanderthals shared biological similarities with humans but remained biologically distinct. Though intelligent and capable of emotion, they lacked the image of God, making them cognitively inferior to humans.

Did We Evolve from Neanderthals?

No, humans are a distinct species created by God, starting with Adam and Eve. Humans did not evolve from any other creature.

When Did Neanderthals First Appear?

Neanderthals lived from about 300,000 years ago to their extinction around 40,000 years ago.

Where Did Neanderthals Live?

Neanderthals inhabited regions across the Middle East, Europe, and Asia.

How Long Did Neanderthals Live?

As a species, Neanderthals existed for approximately 260,000 years, from about 300,000 years ago until their extinction around 40,000 years ago.

What Did Neanderthals Look Like?

While Neanderthals shared overall anatomical similarities with us, they had noticeable differences in skull and facial anatomy. They possessed a more robust build with a “hyper-polar” body design adapted for cold climates. Key distinguishing features included a pronounced brow ridge, a large nose, and a more compact body with shorter limbs.

What Is the Biblical View of Neanderthals vs. Humans?

There’s no singular biblical view on Neanderthals because the Bible doesn’t mention them directly. Just like there are different perspectives on the age of the earth, there are different Christian perspectives on Neanderthals.

Different Christian Perspectives on Neanderthals

1. As old-earth creationists, we regard Neanderthals as creatures lacking the image of God and a distinct species from modern humans—similar to how we view the great apes.
2. Young-earth creationists often regard Neanderthals as fully human descendants of Adam and Eve, and they attribute differences to factors like disease.
3. Some Christians view Neanderthals as image bearers, though a distinct species from modern humans.

Bridging Science and Faith in Neanderthal Research

These fascinating discoveries about Neanderthals offer more than just scientific insight. They invite us to deepen our appreciation for the complexity and breadth of God’s creation while reflecting on the special place we hold within it.

Scripture and science agree, you—as a human—are exceptional and uniquely set apart for a divine purpose.

The post Neanderthals vs. Humans: How Do We Compare? appeared first on Reasons to Believe.

Spoiler alert!

Blueberries are yummy; blue crayons are yucky

Spaghetti is yummy; worms are yucky

Burgers are yummy; boogers are yucky

For now, my grandson has two categories he uses to organize the world: yummy and yucky. He seems to be much more interested in things that are yucky than yummy. He loves to point them out, talk about them, and even smell them when they’re stinky. 

In my experience as a Christian apologist who barters in the science-faith arena, if there’s one thing that most Christians find yucky—disturbing and disgusting—it is the fact that modern humans and Neanderthals interbred and produced modern human-Neanderthal hybrid offspring. Yet, it’s also a topic that Christians love to discuss.

There’s a good reason for this interest. The prospect of human-Neanderthal interbreeding raises a plethora of questions, such as:

• If interbreeding took place, what does that mean for the credibility of the biblical account of human origins?
• Are humans truly exceptional? 
• Are we truly made in God’s image?
• Did the children resulting from these interbreeding events have a soul? Did they bear the image of God?

I have addressed these questions in two articles: “Answering Scientific Questions on Human-Neanderthal Interbreeding, Part 1,” and “Answering Theological Questions on Human-Neanderthal Interbreeding.” 

The interbreeding between modern humans and Neanderthals is particularly problematic for our (RTB) human origins creation model (presented in detail in Who Was Adam?). On the surface, it appears to falsify several key predictions of our model. 

Yet, new work by investigators from the University of Barcelona helps address this significant challenge to our model.¹ In fact, their work on “gene deserts”—large regions in the human genome where no Neanderthal DNA exists—can be marshaled to make a case that modern humans are exceptional and made in God’s image! That which is yucky has become, in a manner of speaking, yummy.

RTB’s Human Origins Model on Neanderthals
Our model holds that Adam and Eve were the first two humans, created in God’s image through his direct and personal actions. We maintain that Adam and Eve were modern humans and gave rise to all people alive today and all people who have lived throughout human prehistory and history. We affirm that Adam and Eve were created and we deny the notion that Adam and Eve were the products of a God-guided evolutionary process. 

As for the hominins such as Neanderthals, we don’t see them as evolutionary predecessors to modern humans. Instead, we regard them as animals created by God that lived for a period, then went extinct. 

According to our model, these creatures were intelligent and led emotionally rich lives. They had their own technology and culture. Yet we take the view that these creatures were not made in God’s image. That status is exclusive to Adam and Eve and their descendants, modern humans. 

Based on our view of the hominins, we would predict both biological similarities (because humans and animals were made from the same stuff—the dust of the earth) and biological differences. We also predict significant behavioral differences between modern humans (who bear God’s image), and hominins (who lack God’s image).

But What if Modern Humans and Neanderthals Interbred?
Along with the “yuck” factor, several more questions come to mind:

• Doesn’t interbreeding between modern humans and Neanderthals invalidate the RTB model?
• Doesn’t it mean that Neanderthals and modern humans really are the same species? 
• Doesn’t this discovery mean that Neanderthals were just like us?

Not necessarily. There’s plenty of evidence to suggest that modern humans and Neanderthals were distinct species. There’s also plenty of evidence that indicates modern humans were cognitively superior to Neanderthals, as evidenced by genetic differences and differences in brain structure.  (See Resources.) Finally, there’s a plethora of evidence that members of distinct species can interbreed to produce healthy, viable offspring. (See Resources.) So, why wouldn’t the same be true for modern humans and Neanderthals?

According to the RTB human origins model, interbreeding between modern humans and Neanderthals is possible because of the shared biological designs between the two species. This interpretation may explain the evidence scientifically, but it still doesn’t answer troubling theological questions. 

Did Modern Human-Neanderthal Hybrids Have the Image of God?
If Neanderthals lacked the image of God, then what are we to make of the offspring that resulted from the interbreeding between modern humans and Neanderthals? Did these creatures have a soul? Did they bear God’s image?

Even though—according to our model—Neanderthals lacked God’s image, I hold the view that the modern human-Neanderthal hybrids bore God’s image. I offer a detailed explanation for why I embrace this view in the Resources section. 

Briefly, it’s possible to conceive of scenarios in which a human-hominin hybrid receives a soul. For example, one could envision God creating a soul in the human-Neanderthal hybrid at the time of conception, honoring the fact that at least one of the parents is an image-bearer and knowing that the hybrid would likely interbreed with other humans. Alternatively, as long as one of the parents is an image-bearer, then the offspring should also possess God’s image. In effect, the image of God is indivisible. Either a being has the image of God or it doesn’t. It makes no sense to think of a creature having only half of the image of God.

Based on the biblical texts (again, see the Resources section), it appears that God would have been displeased with the interbreeding between modern humans—Adam and Eve’s descendants— and Neanderthals. Interbreeding isn’t what God intended, though he appears to have used the yucky behavior for good purposes. 

Protective Measures
It appears that God put in place protective measures to limit the impact of interbreeding once it took place, as evinced by the discovery of Neanderthal gene deserts in the human genome. The discovery of Neanderthal gene deserts is a bit surprising because Neanderthal DNA sequences are distributed throughout the modern human genome. For example, people of Eurasian descent have about 1–4% Neanderthal DNA in their genomes. These sequences aren’t concentrated in one location. The DNA sequences are found nearly everywhere. 

Neanderthal gene deserts must exist because it would have been a disadvantage for the descendants of the hybrids to have the Neanderthal version of the genes in the desert regions. In other words, over time, the forces of natural selection would have eliminated the Neanderthal version of the genes in these regions of the genome (negative selection). Alternatively, it could have been that the modern human version of these genes was so advantageous for the hybrid’s descendants that they were preserved (positive selection). Yet, for other regions of the modern human genome outside the Neanderthal gene deserts, replacing the modern human version of genes with Neanderthal versions must have had minimal impact or may have even been beneficial.²

As it turns out, a catalog of the genes found in four of the largest Neanderthal gene deserts includes genes that play a central role in language trait development, such as FOXP2, ROBO1, ROBO2, and EPHA3, and it explains why Neanderthal versions of these genes were eliminated from the modern human genome via natural selection. Modern human versions of genes in Neanderthal gene deserts also appear to be expressed at high levels in the developing cerebral cortex. By the same token, the expression of Neanderthal versions of genes is suppressed in modern human brain regions.³

Building off these earlier insights, the research team from Spain wanted to probe more deeply the role played by genes in Neanderthal gene deserts. The team identified genes in four of the largest Neanderthal gene deserts that were under positive selection. Using Allen Brain Atlas (a database that seeks to combine genomics with neuroanatomy) data, they also analyzed the gene expression profile of these genes in different brain regions at different developmental stages. 

Compared to random regions of the genome (of comparable size to the four Neanderthal gene deserts), they discovered that key genes that play a role in neuronal growth and brain development (such as CADPS2, ROBO2, and SYT6) were under positive selection and were expressed at high levels in three brain regions: 

• The striatum, which integrates different areas of the brain, plays a role in coordinating motor functions, action planning, decision making, motivation reinforcement, and reward perception;
• The thalamus, which serves as a hub in the brain for the exchange of information and for relaying sensory information to the cerebral cortex. The thalamus also regulates consciousness, alertness, and sleep; and 
• The cerebellum, which plays an integrator’s role by coordinating motor activities. It also plays a role in language, regulates emotions, and controls attention.

Collectively, these observations suggest that:

• Neanderthals and modern humans are, indeed, distinctive species. 
• A species barrier exists between the two groups of hominins, preventing them from merging into a single species. 
• Cognitive differences exist between modern humans and Neanderthals. 

The final observation (cognitive differences) in the list finds affirmation from other independent lines of evidence. For example, the shape of the modern human skull appears to be unusual and distinct compared to the skulls of hominins such as Neanderthals, H. heidelbergensis, and H. erectus. The skull shape of these hominins was more elongated along the anterior-posterior axis. But the skull shape of modern humans is globular, with bulging and enlarged parietal and cerebral areas. Additionally, in the modern human skull, the face is retracted and relatively small. 

The difference in skull shape and facial structure impacts the shape of the modern human brain and the relative sizes of different brain regions. 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 modern human brain than it is in the Neanderthal brain and the volume of the modern human cerebellum is larger. 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 modern human brain. The parietal regions in the modern human brain were also larger than those regions in Neanderthals’ brains.⁴

Genome-wide comparisons of the Neanderthal and modern human genomes have identified different versions of genes that play a role in skull morphology (shape) and cognitive development.⁵ Molecular anthropologists studying neurological and neuropsychiatric disorders in modern humans have also inferred differences in the expression of genes in coding regions of the Neanderthal and modern human genomes. They’ve also detected differences in expression patterns for genes that play a role in facial and vocal tract development.⁶

While these genetic differences suggest disparities in cognitive capacities between modern and archaic humans, the evidence is circumstantial. Recently, however, researchers have developed experimental approaches to directly assess the impact of these genetic differences on brain development and function. 

Researchers have generated and characterized brain organoids produced from modern human stem cells and have compared them with “Neanderthalized” brain organoids generated with gene-editing techniques. To date, four independent studies have identified physiological differences between modern human and “Neanderthalized” brain organoids. They observed the differences when the modern human versions of the genes TKTL1, NOVA1, Adenylosuccinate Lyase, KIF18A, KNL1, and SPAG5 were gene-edited to the Neanderthal versions. These distinctions all indicate that the genetic differences in these genes (which all play a role in neural development) are significant and that Neanderthals were cognitively inferior to modern humans.⁷

Yummy or Yucky?
From a biblical perspective, the quality that makes modern humans unique and exceptional is the image of God. While theologians debate the nature of God’s image in human beings, it’s reasonable to think that the image of God refers to capabilities that modern humans alone possess, such as the capacity for symbolism, which manifests in language, music, and art. This quality most likely involves an immaterial aspect of our nature as human beings, but it’s also reasonable to think that there must be brain structures and neurochemical processes that support the expression of the image of God. This expectation is being fulfilled before our eyes as life scientists produce mounting evidence for the uniqueness of the human brain. Along with it, they’re providing evidence that modern humans display a distinct type of advanced cognition that separates us from the other hominins, including Neanderthals.

The discovery of Neanderthal gene deserts in the modern human genome adds to the case for human exceptionalism. These gene deserts point to the existence of a species barrier between modern humans and Neanderthals—a barrier that ensures the brain structures that grant modern humans the capacity for advanced cognition remain undisturbed, even when we interbred with Neanderthals. 

From a theological standpoint, it appears that God put in place a protective mechanism that ensures that the image of God was not lost when modern humans interbred with Neanderthals. Ironically, when the scientific consequences of interbreeding between modern humans and Neanderthals are studied in detail, instead of undermining the case for human exceptionalism, interbreeding affirms it. 

Now, I find that affirmation to be delicious.

Resources

• Who Was Adam? A Creation Model Approach to the Origin of Humanity by Fazale Rana with Hugh Ross (book)
• Thinking about Evolution: 25 Questions Christians Want Answered by Anjeanette Roberts, Fazale Rana, Sue Dykes, and Mark Perez (book)

Responding to Questions about Human-Neanderthal Interbreeding

• “Answering Scientific Questions on Human-Neanderthal Interbreeding, Part 1” by Fazale Rana (article) 
• “Answering Scientific Questions on Human-Neanderthal Interbreeding, Part 2” by Fazale Rana (article) 

Brain Structure Differences between Modern Humans and Neanderthals

• “Neanderthal Brains Make Them Unlikely Social Networkers” by Fazale Rana (article) 
• “Blood Flow to Brain Contributes to Human Exceptionalism” by Fazale Rana (article)
• “Differences in Human and Neanderthal Brains Explain Human Exceptionalism” by Fazale Rana (article)
• “Did Neanderthals Have the Brains to Make Art?” by Fazale Rana (article)
• “When Did Modern Human Brains—and the Image of God—Appear?” by Fazale Rana (article)

Brain Organoid Studies

• “Brain Organoids Cultivate the Case for Human Exceptionalism” by Fazale Rana (article)
• “Key Difference in Developing Human and Neanderthal Brains” by Fazale Rana (article)

Genetic Differences between Modern Humans and Neanderthals

• “Ancient DNA Indicates Modern Humans Are One-of-a-Kind” by Fazale Rana (article)
• “New Genetic Evidence Affirms Human Uniqueness” by Fazale Rana (article)

Endnotes

1. Raül Buisan et al., “A Brain Region-Specific Expression Profile for Genes within Large Introgression Deserts and Under Positive Selection in Homo sapiens,” Frontiers in Cell and Developmental Biology 10 (April 26, 2022): 824740, doi:10.3389/fcell.2022.824740.
2. Buisan et al., “A Brain Region-Specific Expression Profile,” 824740. 
3. Buisan et al., 824740.
4. Takanori Kochiyama et al., “Reconstructing the Neanderthal Brain Using Computational Anatomy,” Science Reports 8 (April 26, 2018): 6296, doi:10.1038/s41598-018-24331-0.
5. Richard E. Green et al., “A Draft Sequence of the Neandertal Genome,” Science 328, no. 5979 (May 7, 2010): 710–722, doi:10.1126/science.1188021.
6. For example, see Laura L. Colbran et al., “Inferred Divergent Gene Regulation in Archaic Hominins Reveals Potential Phenotypic Differences,” Nature Ecology and Evolution 3 (November 2019): 1598–1606, doi:10.1038/s41559-019-0996-x; David Gokhman et al., “Reconstructing the DNA Methylation Maps of the Neandertal and the Denisovan,” Science 344, no. 6183 (May 2, 2014): 523–527, doi:10.1126/science.1250368; David Gokhman et al., “Differential DNA Methylation of Vocal and Facial Anatomy Genes in Modern Humans,” Nature Communications 11 (March 4, 2020): 1189, doi:10.1038/s41467-020-15020-6.
7. Cleber A. Trujillo et al., “Reintroduction of the Archaic Variant of NOVA1 in Cortical Organoids Alters Neurodevelopment,” Science 371, no. 6530 (February 12, 2021): eaax2537, doi:10.1126/science.aax2537; Vita Stepanova et al., “Reduced Purine Biosynthesis in Humans after Their Divergence from Neandertals,” eLife 10 (May 4, 2021): e58741, doi:10.7554/eLife.58741; Felipe Mora-Bermúdez et al., “Longer Metaphase and Fewer Chromosome Segregation Errors in Modern Human Than Neanderthal Brain Development,” Science Advances 8, no. 30 (July 29, 2022): eabn7702, doi:10.1126/sciadv.abn7702; Anneline Pinson et al., “Human TKTL1 Implies Greater Neurogenesis in Frontal Neocortex of Modern Humans Than Neanderthals,” Science 377, no. 6611 (September 9, 2022): doi:10.1126/science.abl6422.

The post Neanderthal Gene Deserts Provide Oasis for RTB’s Creation Model appeared first on Reasons to Believe.

Craig is not alone in his assessment of this portion of Scripture. In their book, The Lost World of the Flood, theologians Tremper Longman III and John Walton also claim that the author of Genesis 6–8 repeatedly used hyperbole to describe the extent of Noah’s Flood,  as well as other elements of the story—the people and animals destroyed, the waters’ sources, and the dimensions of the ark.⁴ Other Christian scholars also conclude that the descriptions in Genesis 6–11 must be hyperbolic, based on their assumption that the human population at the time of Noah had already geographically dispersed throughout most of Earth’s landmasses. If that were the case, they would have good reason to agree with geophysicists and geologists who are adamant that there is no physical evidence for a flood covering all or most of Earth’s continents and islands.

Unfortunately, these alternate views have led many Christian apologists and theologians to abandon the  historical interpretation of Genesis 1–11. These individuals have become convinced that recent scientific findings require a reinterpretation. The sad irony, here, is that recent scientific findings go a long way toward affirming a literal, historical interpretation of Genesis 1–11.

Dispersal of Humanity
Genesis 9–11 records that after the Flood, humans remained in one region, refusing to obey God’s twice stated command to “spread out over the earth and multiply upon it” (Genesis 9:1, 7). In Genesis 11:4, we read that post-Flood people had a different plan, their own plan, not God’s:  “Let us build ourselves a city and a tower with its top in the sky. Let us make a name for ourselves; otherwise, we will be scattered throughout the earth.” Genesis 11:7–9 describes how God dealt with this bold rebellion. He forcibly scattered people across Earth’s continents and islands.

Evidence now shows that an aggressive, nearly simultaneous scattering of humanity from the region encompassing the Near and Middle East, and parts of Africa did, in fact, occur. Researchers use four means for determining when humans first colonized Europe, far-eastern Asia, and Australia, in particular. The four include (1) fossilized remains of anatomically modern humans, (2) archaeological artifacts associated with anatomically modern humans, (3) indicators of agriculture and food preparation, and (4) genetic analysis.

The earliest undisputed evidence for anatomically modern human fossil remains in Europe date to 44,000–39,000 years ago.⁵ The earliest undisputed modern human archaeological artifacts in Europe date to 42,000–38,000 years ago.⁶ The earliest evidence in Europe for harvesting grains and roasting and grinding of these grains to make bakery products dates back to 32,600 years ago.⁷ Food preparation as evidenced by soaking, grinding, and charring of seeds has been dated (via carbon-14) to have occurred in Greece as early as 40,000 years ago.⁸ The earliest genetic evidence for anatomically modern humans living in Europe dates to 45,000–39,000 years ago.⁹ These four methods yield consistent dates indicating that anatomically modern humans migrated and began to colonize nearly all of Europe between 44,000 and 40,000 years ago. 

The same four dating methods establish that anatomically modern humans began to colonize virtually all the land area of Asia between 50,000 and 40,000 years ago.¹⁰ The first human colonization of Australia dates back to between 47,000 and 40,000 years ago.¹¹ The colonization of southeast Asia and Australia by modern humans was made possible, even facilitated, by the much lower sea levels known to have existed at that time. 

The lower sea levels provided several essential land bridges. These land bridges connected most of the islands of Indonesia and the Philippines to the mainland of Asia, a region called Sunda. Present-day Australia, New Guinea, and Tasmania were all one continent, called Sahul. The waters separating Sahul from Sunda were narrow enough that people could see one landmass from the other (see figure).

Figure: Sunda and Sahul during the Last Ice Age
Credit: Kanguole, Creative Commons Attribution–Share Alike

The best scientific dates for the arrival of anatomically modern humans to Europe, the far-eastern part of Asia, and Australia all coincide. Genesis 10–11 makes clear that Noah’s Flood predates— by at least several generations—humans’ first efforts to colonize regions beyond East Africa, the Near East, and the Middle East. On this basis, it seems likely that Noah’s Flood occurred prior to 40,000 years ago, most probably earlier than 45,000 years ago.

This early date for Noah’s Flood and the subsequent, near simultaneous dispersal of humanity throughout Europe, Asia, Australia, and New Guinea appears consistent with a literal, historical interpretation of Genesis 1–11.¹² It also aligns with the most reliable scientific methods for dating the origin of anatomically modern humans.¹³ Thus, the dispersal of humanity described in Genesis 10–11 need not be considered a fantastic element. The data provide no warrant, scientific or otherwise, to abandon or alter the traditional historical doctrine of biblical inerrancy. The doctrinal and hermeneutical affirmations and denials of the International Council of Biblical Inerrancy still stand.¹⁴  

Endnotes

1. William Lane Craig, In Quest of the Historical Adam: A Biblical and Scientific Exploration (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2021), 104–129.
2. Craig, In Quest of the Historical Adam, 127.
3. Craig, 128.
4. Tremper Longman III and John H. Walton, The Lost World of the Flood: Mythology, Theology, and the Deluge Debate(Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2018), 36–41.
5. Tom Higham et al., “The Earliest Evidence for Anatomically Modern Humans in Northwestern Europe,” Nature 479, no. 7374 (November 2, 2022): 521–524, doi:10.1038/nature10484; Stefano Benazzi et al., “Early Dispersal of Modern Humans in Europe and Implications for Neanderthal Behaviour,” Nature 479 (November 2, 2011): 525–528, doi:10.1038/nature10617; Mark A. Jobling, Mathew Hurles, and Chris Tyler-Smith, Human Evolutionary Genetics: Origins, Peoples and Disease (New York: Garland, 2003), 284–285.
6. Sahra Talamo et al., “A 41,500 Year-Old Decorated Ivory Pendant from Stajnia Cave (Poland),” Scientific Reports 11 (November 25, 2021): id. 22078, doi:10.1038/s41598-021-01221-6; Jonathan A. Haws et al., “The Early Aurignacian Dispersal of Modern Humans into Westernmost Eurasia,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA 117, no. 41 (September 28, 2020): 25414–25422, doi:10.1073/pnas.2016062117; Benazzi et al., “Early Dispersal of Modern Humans, 525–528; Jobling, Hurles, and Tyler-Smith, Human Evolutionary Genetics, 284–285.
7. Marta Mariotti Lippi et al., “Multistep Food Plant Processing at Grotta Paglicci (Southern Italy) around 32,600 Cal B.P.,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA 112, no. 39 (September 8, 2015): 12075–12080,doi:10.1073/pnas.1505213112.
8. Ceren Kabukcu et al., “Cooking in Caves: Palaeolithic Carbonised Plant Food Remains from Franchthi and Shanidar,” Antiquity 97, no. 391 (February 2023): 12–28, doi:10.15184/aqy.2022.143.
9. Rasmus Nielsen et al., “Tracing the Peopling of the World through Genomics,” Nature 541 (January 18, 2017): 302–310, doi:10.1038/nature21347; Iosif Lazaridis, “The Evolutionary History of Human Populations in Europe,” Current Opinions in Genetics & Development 53 (December 2018): 21–27, doi:10.1016/j.gde.2018.06.007; Serena Aneli et al., “Through 40,000 Years of Human Presence in Southern Europe: The Italian Case Study,” Human Genetics 140, no. 10 (October 2021): 1417–1431, doi:10.1007/s00439-021-02328-6.
10. Qiaomei Fu et al., “Genome Sequence of a 45,000-Year-Old Modern Human from Western Siberia,” Nature 514 (October 22, 2014): 445–449, doi:10.1038/nature13810; Solange Rigaud et al., “Symbolic Innovation at the Onset of the Upper Paleolithic in Eurasia Shown by the Personal Ornaments from Tolbor-21 (Mongolia),” Scientific Reports 13 (June 12, 2023): id. 9545, doi:10.1038/s41598-023-36140-1; Melinda A. Yang, et al., “40,000-Year-Old Individual from Asia Provides Insight into Early Population Structure in Eurasia,” Current Biology 27, no. 20 (October 23, 2017): 3202–3208.E9, doi:10.1016/j.cub.2017.09.030; Fabrice Demeter et al., “Anatomically Modern Human in Southeast Asia (Laos) by 46 ka,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA 109, no. 36 (August 20, 2012): 14375–14380, doi:10.1073/pnas.1208104109; Graeme Barker et al., “The ‘Human Revolution’ in Lowland Tropical Southeast Asia: The Antiquity and Behavior of Anatomically Modern Humans at Niah Cave (Sarawak, Borneo),” Journal of Human Evolution 52, no. 3 (March 2007): 243–261, doi:10.1016/j.jhevol.2006.08.011.
11. J. F. O’Connell and J. Allen, “The Process, Biotic Impact, and Global Implications of the Human Colonization of Sahul about 47,000 Years Ago,” Journal of Archaeological Science 56 (April 2015): 73–84, doi:10.1016/j.jas.2015.02.020; Anna-Sapfo Malaspinas et al., “A Genomic History of Aboriginal Australia,” Nature 538 (September 21, 2016): 207–214, doi:10.1038/nature18299.
12. I discuss this consistency in my forthcoming book, Noah’s Flood: Global, Worldwide, or Myth? (Covina, CA: RTB Press, 2025), chapter 10.
13. Hugh Ross, “Errors in Human Origins Dates,” Today’s New Reason to Believe (blog), Reasons to Believe, June 29, 2020.
14. International Council on Biblical Inerrancy, The Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy: Articles of Affirmation and Denial (November 7, 1978); International Council on Biblical Inerrancy, The Chicago Statement on Biblical Hermeneutics: Articles of Affirmation and Denial (November 13, 1982).

The post New Research Confirms Postflood Dispersal of Humanity appeared first on Reasons to Believe.

These questions (and more) are the focus of the third installment of the Netflix documentary series Unknown. This episode, “Cave of Bones,” is directed by Mark Mannucci and tells the stories of paleoanthropologist Lee Berger and his team of collaborators (paleoanthropologist John Hawks, evolutionary anthropologist Agustin Fuentes, and cultural anthropologist Keneiloe Molopayane) who led the excavations of the Rising Star cave system between 2017 and 2022. This cave system houses the remains of the highly enigmatic hominin species, Homo naledi.

The film masterfully tells the story of the collaborators’ discovery of evidence from the cave system’s Dinaledi Chamber and Dragon’s Back Chamber that—if true—upends everything we think we know about our identity as human beings—regardless of the worldview we hold.

The cinematography in “Cave of Bones” is worth the subscription to Netflix. The video footage of the Rising Star cave system is stunning. So, too, is the videography of the dangerous ascent up Dragon’s Back and the even more risky descent through the chute to the Dinaledi Chamber. 

Mannucci expertly captures the allure and intrigue of paleoanthropology. After watching “Cave of Bones,” it’s easy to understand why paleoanthropologists devote their lives to excavating cave sites and studying ancient bones and artifacts. Over and over, Mannucci captures the amazement and unbridled joy that Berger and his team experienced each time they gained new insight into the biology and behavior of H. naledi—insights that they quickly realized have the potential to revolutionize the way we think about ourselves as human beings. Mannucci also does an excellent job of conveying the strange bedfellows made by adventure and tedious hard work that researchers experience when excavating sites for fossil and archaeological treasures. 

I particularly enjoyed getting a firsthand look at the cutting-edge scientific tools that are used to excavate cave sites and analyze the finds. My favorite part of the documentary was the scene in which the team encased a rock slab harboring a juvenile specimen of H. naledi with plaster. This unusual step was necessary because the fossils were too fragile to excavate. It was remarkable to see the team’s Herculean effort to transport the plaster slab out of the Dinaledi Chamber through the narrow chute and down Dragon’s Back. It was also fun to watch the way the team used CT technology to image the interior of the rock slab, with Berger eventually traveling to France to use high-energy synchrotron X-rays to get a detailed look at a tool-shaped rock contained in the slab with the juvenile’s remains.

Bombshell Revelations  
What fun is a documentary if there aren’t a few bombs to drop? Mannucci drops three high-power “explosives” about H. naledi—and ultimately about us as modern humans. These three revelations add up to one singular idea: human beings are not special after all.

Funerary Practices
Mannuci takes us on the adventure as Berger and his collaborators discover evidence in the Dinaledi Chamber of presumed grave sites where H. naledi ritualistically buried their dead. This hominin species wasn’t simply dropping dead bodies down the chute leading to the Dinaledi Chamber, thereby caching their dead. According to Berger and his team, these hominins were engaging in funerary practices in which they would transport the remains of dead community members through Superman’s Crawl and up Dragon’s Back. Then they carefully lowered the bodies into the Dinaledi Chamber where they were deliberately placed in a grave, along with grave goods (items buried along with the body). If so, then the Dinaledi Chamber was a H. naledi graveyard.

Figure 1: A cartoon of the section of the Rising Star cave system that leads to the Dinaledi Chamber 
Credit: Wikipedia 

Mannucci interviews Agustin Fuentes about the significance of this claim. According to Fuentes, anthropologists have long regarded funerary practices as something that defined us as modern humans. Some animals deliberately bury their dead. And many animals experience loss and grief when a member of their group dies. But none engage in organized communal ritualistic activities that are packed with meaning as modern humans do. 

Funerary practices reflect an awareness and understanding of our own mortality—something that animals apparently lack. These rituals also connote a sense of the afterlife—a recognition that the person who died will continue to exist in another realm. In many cultures, funerary practices are considered an essential step in the transition from our plane of existence to another. Grave goods are often included with the interred body because the community believes their deceased loved one will need these items in the afterlife. Funerary practices also reflect a deep level of care and respect for the deceased members of the community, in which the community sees it as their obligation to come together and invest resources to assist and prepare those who have died for the transition to the afterlife. 

Such practices are a manifestation of the combination of four qualities that some anthropologists think make humans unique and exceptional. These include:

• Capacity for symbolism
• Open-ended ability to combine and recombine symbols 
• Our theory of mind
• Ability to form complex, hierarchical social structure 

As a Christian, I see these properties as scientific descriptors of the image of God. Yet, if H. naledi engaged in funerary practices, then they would be image bearers just like us. 

Use of Fire
The second bombshell revealed in the documentary was the evidence Berger and his collaborators discovered for fire use by H. naledi. Presumably, this hominin was making and using fires to light its way through the dark and inaccessible cave passages leading to the Dinaledi Chamber.

Cave Art
The final and most explosive bombshell came near the end of the documentary, when, for the first time, Berger entered the Dinaledi Chamber. Because the chute that drops into the Dinaledi Chamber is quite narrow, only people of small size can be lowered into the Hill Antechamber that opens into the Dinaledi Chamber. For nearly a decade, Berger could only experience the chamber through the video feed provided by anthropologists who were small enough to fit through the chute. In preparation for the 2022 excavations, Berger lost weight and got in shape so he could experience the Dinaledi Chamber firsthand. It is an emotionally gripping scene to see Berger’s response to finally experiencing the cave site that has consumed his life for the past 10 years—a location he never thought he would ever be able to visit.

As Berger begins to look around the cave, he spots something startling: a collection of hatch marks on the pillar that separates the Hill Antechamber from the Dinaledi Chamber. It looks like these hatch marks were deliberately carved into the pillar by a tool much like the one discovered with the H. naledi juvenile that was encased in rock. Berger and his team interpret these markings as evidence that H. naledi made art and had the capacity for symbolism.

These three claims are shocking to many evolutionary scientists who have no commitment to human exceptionalism because H. naledi had a brain size comparable to a chimpanzee. Most paleoanthropologists have long held the view that a large brain size was necessary for advanced cognition. But if these claims stand, they will upend the prevailing thinking among evolutionary biologists about what makes us human and prompt questions about why our brain evolved to be so large. Paleoanthropologist Christopher Stringer (who wasn’t affiliated with the research) said, “These are challenging finds, and they certainly make us think about what it is to be human.”¹

Defusing the Bomb
One weakness in “Cave of Bones” is Mannucci’s telling of the H. naledi story as a point-of-view documentary. This style makes Berger’s interpretations of H. naledi’s cognitive capacity and culture quite persuasive. Yet, Mannucci’s approach does a disservice to the viewer because he fails to convey the scientific controversy surrounding Berger and his views of H. naledi. (I detail some of this controversy in a recent article Does H. naledi Undermine the Case for Human Exceptionalism?)

Just before the release of “Cave of Bones,” Berger and his collaborators posted three online scientific papers, as preprints, detailing the discoveries featured in the Netflix documentary.² These papers were submitted concurrently with the open-access journal eLife for peer review.

This method is called an open-access approach. The traditional approach for publishing scientific papers involves submitting the article(s) to a journal for peer review by experts in the field. Based on the quality of the science, the reviewers decide the paper should be accepted or rejected for publication or should be revised and resubmitted—all of which occurs before the final manuscript is published and available for wide-scale public consumption.

In recent years, there’s been a movement toward an open-access approach to science, in which work is made available before the peer-review process takes place. Sites such as BioRxiv post manuscripts as preprints before or concurrently with the formal peer review process. This path makes scientific findings immediately available. (The formal peer review process can take over a year in some cases.) It also makes the peer review process more transparent.

eLife has adopted an open-access route to publishing scientific works. In their model, a paper is neither accepted nor rejected. It is posted along with the peer reviewers’ comments. The paper can stand as is or the authors can revise it and repost the revised version.  

There is much to laud about the open-access strategy to communicating the results of scientific studies. But a word of caution is justified. This approach gives preprints, and even articles posted with peer-reviewed comments, an air of respectability and credibility they may not deserve. 

Berger and his collaborators have taken advantage of the open-access model to give the impression that the “Cave of Bones” documentary is undergirded with published scientific support for their claims. But it isn’t.

Paleoanthropologist Andy Herries has chided Berger for this approach, stating “I do have the expectation that there is robust scientific evidence to support such statements before scientists go on massive media campaigns regarding these ideas.”³ 

It doesn’t appear that the claims about H. naledi cognition and culture are supported by robust scientific evidence. The peer reviews are now coming for the three preprints submitted to eLife and it doesn’t look good for Berger and his coauthors. Respected science journalist Robin McKie, in a piece for The Guardian, quotes three of the peer reviewers who concluded that the papers:

• “Do not present convincing science”
• “Are inadequate, incomplete, and largely assumption-based—rather than evidence based”
• Are “imprudent and incomplete”

Paleoanthropologist Maria Martian-Torres, who wasn’t an official reviewer but coauthored a piece that criticized the Berger team’s claims in the three preprints, told Ewen Callaway for the journal Nature that “I don’t see an anatomical connection. I don’t see a hole or a pit that has been intentionally dug. These hypotheses have been sold with a very strong media campaign before the evidence was ready to support it.”⁴

Unfortunately, the perception of many paleoanthropologists is that Berger and his collaborators are unresponsive to the concerns raised by the papers’ reviewers. Archaeologist Sven Ouzman, who reviewed the paper describing and interpreting the rock engravings, has expressed concern that the papers are “essentially up there and published, and they can say, ‘we have reviewed the reviewer’s comments, and we thank them for it. But we stand by our arguments.’” ⁵

So even though Unknown’s “Cave of Bones” episode wows Netflix viewers with a compelling scientific story about H. naledi, one can’t help but wonder if it is little more than a subversive attempt to bypass the scientific process of peer review and supplant it with sensationalized speculation that gains an air of credibility thanks to eLife’s publication model.

Nonscientific Motivations?
All scientists want their work to be placed in the best light. They desire for people to appreciate the significance of their work. Berger and his collaborators are no exception. And they shouldn’t be criticized for these motives. But it appears as if they let their desires get the best of them. 

Sadly, paleoanthropology is unusually susceptible to nonscientific influences when advancing ideas. Many fossil and archaeological sites have scant, precious remains available for scientists to study. At best, the remains tell an incomplete story. As a result, paleoanthropologists are left looking through the glass dimly. Yet they are tasked with offering an interpretation of their finds. This is where philosophical and scientific preconceptions and commitments—and career aspirations—can come into play. 

Science journalist Jon Mooallem made this point a few years ago in a New York Times piece. He stated:

All sciences operate by trying to fit new data into existing theories. And this particular science, for which the “data” has always consisted of scant and somewhat inscrutable bits of rock and fossil, often has to lean on those meta-narratives even more heavily. . . . Ultimately, a bottomless relativism can creep in: tenuous interpretations held up by webs of other interpretations, each strung from still more interpretations. Almost every archaeologist I interviewed complained that the field has become “overinterpreted”—that the ratio of physical evidence to speculation about that evidence is out of whack. Good stories can generate their own momentum.⁶

With the expert help of Mannucci, Berger and his collaborators have told a good story about H. naledi. Yet, it’s a tale that signifies nothing. It’s an account that lacks evidential support.

At the end of the day, what we genuinely know about H. naledi doesn’t challenge the notion of human exceptionalism. And for Christians, it doesn’t undermine the biblical claim that we are uniquely made in God’s image—the crown of creation.  

We do, indeed, stand alone. Humans are the only creatures who have ever lived that have the capacity to create the enterprise we call science—giving us tools to systematically investigate and understand the world. We are the only creatures who have the wherewithal to ask metaphysical questions about who we are and our place in the cosmos. And we are the only creatures who have the capacity to tell stories designed to answer these questions.

Resources

• Who Was Adam? A Creation Model Approach to the Origin of Humanity by Fazale Rana (book)

• “Does Homo naledi Undermine the Case for Human Exceptionalism?” by Fazale Rana (article)

• Stars, Cells, and God: Homo naledi Art? and Sandgrouse Features by Fazale Rana and Jeff Zweerink (video)

• “Were Neanderthals People, Too? A Response to Jon Mooallem” by Fazale Rana (article)

Endnotes

1. Alison George, “Homo naledi May Have Made Etchings on Cave Walls and Buried Its Dead,” New Scientist, June 5, 2023.
2. Lee R. Berger et al., “241,000 to 335,000 Years Old Rock Engravings Made by Homo naledi in the Rising Star Cave System, South Africa,” BioRxiv (June 5, 2023), doi:10.1101/2023.06.01.543133; Lee R. Berger et al., “Evidence for Deliberate Burial of the Dead by Homo naledi,” BioRxiv (June 5, 2023), doi:10.1101/2023.06.01.543127; Agustin Fuentes et al., “Burials and Engravings in a Small-Brained Hominin, Homo naledi, from the Late Pleistocene: Contexts and Evolutionary Implications,” BioRxiv (June 5, 2023), doi:10.1101/2023.06.01.543135.
3. Robin McKie, “Were Small-Brained Humans Intelligent? Row Erupts Over Scientists’ Claims,” The Guardian (July 22, 2023).
4. Ewen Callaway, “Sharp Criticism of Controversial Ancient-Human Claims Tests eLife’s Revamped Peer-Review Model,” Nature 620 (July 25, 2023): 13–14, doi:10.1038/d41586-023-02415-w.
5. Callaway, “Sharp Criticism.” 
6. Jon Mooallem, “Neanderthals Were People, Too,” New York Times Magazine, January 11, 2017.

The post A Response to “Unknown: Cave of Bones” appeared first on Reasons to Believe.

It’s the tale of Plato’s Cave. In this allegory, Plato describes a group of prisoners chained to a wall deep within a cave. The only thing they can see is the cave wall in front of them. Occasionally, shadows are projected on the wall as people and animals walk past the cave opening. These shadows are all that the prisoners know of reality. But the shadows provide only a limited—and, at times, inaccurate—understanding of the real world. Only when the prisoners break free and escape the cave do they gain true knowledge about the world as it is.

While Plato would have each of us climb out of our own cave and ascend into the real world to gain access to the truth, some paleoanthropologists think that the only way we can know the truth about our origins is to descend into the cave—in this case the Rising Star cave system located in South Africa. This cave system is in an area called the Cradle of Humankind, a UNESCO World Heritage site.

The Rising Star cave system houses the remains of a highly enigmatic hominin called Homo naledi. Recently, a team of paleoanthropologists headed by Lee Berger of the University of Witwatersrand in South Africa made a splash when they announced that H. naledi buried their dead ritualistically, mastered fire, and made art.¹ These claims are shocking to many scientists because H. naledi had a brain size comparable to a chimpanzee. Most paleoanthropologists have long held the view that a large brain size was necessary for advanced cognition. But if these claims stand, they will upend the prevailing thinking among evolutionary biologists about what makes us human and prompt questions about why our brain evolved to be so large. Paleoanthropologist Christopher Stringer (who wasn’t affiliated with the research) said, “These are challenging finds, and they certainly make us think about what it is to be human.”²

A Theological Challenge
These claims also threaten to undermine the notion of human exceptionalism. Many paleoanthropologists have thought that ritualistic burials and art were possible only for modern humans. But if H. naledi was also engaged in these behaviors, perhaps modern humans aren’t unique at all. If so, such behavior would challenge the biblical claim that human beings uniquely bear God’s image.

As Berger states, “We are facing a remarkable discovery here of hominids, nonhumans with brains a third of the size of [modern] humans . . . burying their dead, using symbols, and engaging in meaning-making activities.” “Not only are [modern] humans not unique in their development of symbolic practices, but [we] may not have even invented such behaviors.”³

So, are Berger’s claims credible? Do these new insights undermine the concept of human exceptionalism and the theological view that humans uniquely bear God’s image? How should Christians make sense of hominins such as H. naledi?

Before I offer my perspective on the finds and these questions, a bit of background on H. naledi may be helpful.

Homo naledi’s Recent Discovery
The remains of Homo naledi were unearthed in 2013 and the first scientific reports on this hominin surfaced in 2015. Berger’s team recovered about 1,550 fossils from the Dinaledi Chamber of the Rising Star cave system. These fossils corresponded to about 730 skeletal elements from 15 individuals that spanned from infancy to old age at the time of death. 

H. naledi had an unusual anatomy that appears to blend Homo and australopithecine features. This creature was about 4 feet in height, weighed about 90 pounds, and had a brain size that approximated a chimpanzee’s. Its lower limbs resembled those of an early member of Homo, indicating that this creature had a human-like gait. Its arms and torso were reminiscent of an australopithecine, indicating that this hominin could also move through the trees using arboreal locomotion. No tools were recovered in the Dinaledi chamber, but the hand structure indicates that H. naledi had the dexterity to manufacture and handle tools. Based on the tooth wear, this creature appeared to consume gritty foods, perhaps dirt-covered tubers and roots.

H. naledi’s position in the human evolutionary tree is uncertain. When originally recovered, its remains were undated. But based on the hominin’s blended anatomical features, Berger and his collaborators speculated that H. naledi lived about 2 million years ago and may well have been the key transitional form that gave rise to early H. erectus and the Homo genus. 

However, to everyone’s surprise, when the H. naledi site was dated, the hominin was discovered to have lived around 330,000 to 250,000 years ago. This much more recent date would make it a contemporary with Neanderthals, Denisovans, archaic Homo sapiens, and perhaps modern humans.

Homo naledi Funerals?
Even more startling than H. naledi’s unusual anatomy was the claim from Berger’s team that this hominin buried its dead and by doing so engaged in funerary practices. This behavior connotes a sense of the afterlife and implies the capacity for symbolism.

To understand the basis for the claim, it helps to have some understanding of the Dinaledi Chamber’s location in the Rising Star cave system (see figure 1). The cave entrance leads to a descent of approximately 150 feet that terminates in an extremely narrow passage called Superman’s Crawl. The only way through the passage is for the caver to hold one arm tightly against his/her body and extend the other one straight above the head—like Superman in flight. This narrow passage opens into a large chamber that contains a stair-like structure that extends upward about 50 feet toward the ceiling, called the Dragon’s Back. At the top of Dragon’s Back is a narrow opening that leads to a chute that drops to the floor of the Dinaledi Chamber.

Figure 1: Depiction of a Section of the Rising Star Cave System Showing Access to the Dinaledi Chamber
Credit: Wikipedia

Dinaledi Chamber is the location of the H. naledi remains. These remains are well preserved and mostly articulated. They show no evidence of damage from predators, and do not appear to have been washed into the chamber by flooding. These features led Berger and his collaborators to conclude that H. naledi must have intentionally buried their dead in the chamber. Because it would have been so difficult to carry a dead body from the surface (cave entrance) to the chamber, where it would have been deposited, Berger argued that the burial must have been ritualistic in nature. If so, it means that H. naledi would have had symbolic capabilities. 

A recent preprint on H. naledi presents apparent evidence for ritualistic burials.⁴ Berger and his team recovered the remains of a single individual consisting of 83 bones and teeth in an area of disturbed soil shaped like an oval. Elsewhere in the chamber they found bones and teeth from a single juvenile that had seemingly formed into a fetal position. This location also contains partial remains of three other juveniles. A crescent-shaped stone with striations was recovered near the hand of one of the juveniles. Berger and his team contend that the orientation of the bones and the disturbed soil indicate that these individuals were deliberately interred in pits that were dug out from the Dinaledi Chamber floor.

While Berger’s interpretation of the burial evidence is plausible, other interpretations are equally plausible—and perhaps more reasonable. Instead of performing a ritualistic burial, could H. naledi have been caching their dead? But if so, why choose a location that is so hard to get to? It could be that Superman’s Crawl was much wider in the past than today. If so, the chamber with the Dragon’s Back would have been more accessible.

If this hominin was caching its dead, is there evidence that H. naledi dropped the remains down the chute? Perhaps. Yet, the recovery of nearly intact H. naledi remains far from the bottom of the chute refutes this explanation. In some instances, the intact remains are buried underneath scattered remains of several different H. naledi individuals. If H. naledi was dropping its dead down the chute, then the most intact individuals should be near the chute and on top of remains that display greater skeletal disarticulation.⁵ Still, if this latter pattern is verified, does it indicate that H. nalediwas transporting the remains of their dead group members down the chute into the Dinaledi Chamber?

Not necessarily. Some geologists who have been in the Rising Star cave system believe that the Dragon’s Back resulted from a relatively recent ceiling collapse.⁶ If so, then when H. naledi occupied the cave, Dragon’s Back wouldn’t have existed. And the chute that drops into the chamber would have been about 50 feet from the cave floor and inaccessible to H. naledi.

Paleoanthropologist Aurore Val has argued that there may have been an alternative entrance to the Dinaledi Chamber that was easily accessible from the surface.⁷ She has also challenged the claim that the H. naledi remains from the chamber weren’t modified by predators. She maintains that the absence of the heads on the long bones is a sure indicator that the remains were processed by predators. She has also identified evidence that beetles and snails damaged the H. nalediremains and contributed to their decomposition. The chamber conditions aren’t ideal for snails and beetles and no snail remains were recovered there. These two observations imply that significant decomposition of the H. naledi remains took place on the surface before they were deposited in the chamber. These observations support the notion that H. naledi was caching its dead using an opening into the chamber that was easily accessed from the surface and that no longer exists.

What about the H. naledi remains associated with oval areas formed from disturbed soil? In a piece published at The Conversation website, four paleoanthropologists point out that none of the claimed H. naledi burials satisfy the standards used by paleoanthropologists to determine if hominin remains have been deliberately buried.⁸ They argue that these locations on the cave floor don’t appear to be deliberately excavated and may simply be shallow areas. They also note that the remains don’t appear to have been aligned, nor do they display the high degree of skeletal articulation expected if the remains were deliberately buried.

H. naledi Fires?
Berger also contends that these creatures must have mastered fire because they would have needed to illuminate the cave so that they could make their way from the surface deep into the cave to the Dinaledi Chamber while transporting dead bodies. Berger recently announced at a lecture at the Carnegie Institution of Science that he had evidence that H. naledidid, indeed, master fire. It is important to point out that at the time of this writing, Berger and his collaborators have yet to publish their evidence.⁹ As such, it is an unsubstantiated claim.

Nevertheless, in support of his claim, Berger points to blackened areas on the ceiling of the Dinaledi Chamber and soot particles on some of the rocks. He also notes that stone hearths containing burnt antelope bones have been found in other areas of the Rising Star cave system.

Some researchers interpret this evidence differently. It could well be that the blackened areas on the cave ceiling come from mineral discoloration, not burning activity. Without dates for the soot particles and the burnt antelope remains, it’s impossible to connect the hearth construction and the presumed burning activity with H. naledi. It’s possible that the hearths were constructed and used by cave dwellers other than H. naledi (such as archaic or modern humans). 

The team of four paleoanthropologists mentioned earlier questions the fire mastery claims. They write, “Yet none of the scientific research needed to confirm the use of fire has been carried out. Or if it has, it hasn’t been published. Previously acquired radiocarbon dates obtained by the site investigators on the apparent hearth material provided very late dates that distanced the hearths from the remains of Homo naledi by several hundred thousand years.”¹⁰

H. naledi Art?
In another preprint, Berger and his collaborators claim that they have evidence of H. naledi artwork in the Dinaledi Chamber.¹¹ This putative art takes the form of hatch marks that were impressed into a pillar in the chamber. The hatch marks appear to form several patterns including Xs, crosses, triangles, and squares that the Berger team interprets as geometric shapes. Presumably, the hatch marks were made using a tool like the one found near one of the juveniles in the oval area of disturbed soil on the chamber floor.

I question whether these hatch marks legitimately constitute art or some type of symbol. I had a dog who scratched furniture. When he did, he left behind markings that formed geometric patterns. So, is it possible that H. naledi simply marked on the cave wall without any artistic intent whatsoever?

Even if the hatch marks are art, there’s no evidence that they were produced by H. naledi. It could be that this “art” was made more recently by another hominin occupying the cave site. The hatch marks haven’t been dated. Until they are, there’s no way to know who the “artist” might have been.

The Mystery Continues
Without question, H. naledi is a fascinating, enigmatic hominin. Berger and his co-investigators deserve much credit for the work they’ve done to unearth and characterize H. naledi. Scientific mystery and intrigue surround this creature. Yet, at this juncture, one would be hard-pressed to conclude that this small-brained hominin buried its dead ritualistically, mastered fire, and produced art. The evidence presented to support these claims is scant and their interpretations are rife with speculation. In fact, given H. naledi’s brain size, we wouldn’t expect this hominin to have these capabilities at all. 

Alternative scenarios readily account for the archaeological evidence associated with H. naledi—scenarios that seem more likely given the brain size of this creature. A more sober-minded approach understands H. naledi to be a fascinating creature with intelligence and emotional capacity but, unlike modern humans, it lacked the cognitive capacity to engage in symbolic behaviors. In short, H. naledi poses little threat to the idea of human exceptionalism. 

For Further Exploration

• “One-of-a-Kind: Three Discoveries Affirm Human Uniqueness” by Fazale Rana (article)

• “New Research Douses Claims that Neanderthals Mastered Fire” by Fazale Rana (article)

• “Did Neanderthals Start Fires?” by Fazale Rana (article)

• “Neanderthal Burials Deep-Sixed” by Fazale Rana (article)

• “Did Neanderthals Bury Their Dead with Flowers?” by Fazale Rana

• “Rabbit Burrowing Churns Claims about Neanderthal Burials” by Fazale Rana (article)

• “Cave Art Tells the Story of Human Exceptionalism” by Fazale Rana (article)

• “Did Neanderthals Produce Cave Paintings?” by Fazale Rana (article)

• “Did Neanderthals Make Art?” by Fazale Rana (article)

• “Further Review Overturns Neanderthal Art Claim” by Fazale Rana (article)

• “Did Neanderthals Have the Brains to Make Art?” by Fazale Rana (article)

• “Do Neanderthal Cave Structures Challenge Human Exceptionalism?” by Fazale Rana (article)

Endnotes

1. Lee R. Berger et al., “241,000 to 335,000 Years Old Rock Engravings Made by Homo naledi in the Rising Star Cave System, South Africa,” BioRxiv (June 5, 2023), doi:10.1101/2023.06.01.543133; Lee R. Berger et al., “Evidence for Deliberate Burial of the Dead by Homo naledi,” BioRxiv (June 5, 2023), doi:10.1101/2023.06.01.543127; Agustin Fuentes et al., “Burials and Engravings in a Small-Brained Hominin, Homo naledi, from the Late Pleistocene: Contexts and Evolutionary Implications,” BioRxiv (June 5, 2023), doi:10.1101/2023.06.01.543135.
2. Alison George, “Homo naledi May Have Made Etchings on Cave Walls and Buried Its Dead,” New Scientist, June 5, 2023. 
3. Ann Gibbons, “Was a Small-Brained Human Relative the World’s First Gravedigger—and Artist?” Science, June 5, 2023. 
4. Lee R. Berger et al., “Evidence for Deliberate Burial of the Dead by Homo naledi,” BioRxiv (June 5, 2023), doi:10.1101/2023.06.01.543127.
5. Bruce Bower, “Pieces of Homo naledi Story Continue to Puzzle,” Science News (April 19, 2016). 
6. Private email correspondence with Sue Dykes, a paleoanthropologist who had been in the Rising Star cave system, September 11, 2015.
7. Aurore Val, “Deliberate Body Disposal by Hominins in the Dinaledi Chamber, Cradle of Humankind, South Africa? Journal of Human Evolution 96 (July 2016): 145–148, doi:10.1016/j.jhevol.2016.02.004.
8. Petraglia et al., “Major New Research Claims Small-Brained Homo naledi Made Rock Art and Buried the Dead. But the Evidence is Lacking,” The Conversation, June 5, 2023. 
9. Alison George, “Homo naledi May Have Used Fire to Cook and Navigate 230,000 Years Ago,” New Scientist, December 6, 2022. 
10. Michael Petraglia et al., “Major New Research Claims.”
11.  Berger et al., “241,000 to 335,000 Years Old Rock Engravings.”

The post Does <i>Homo naledi</i> Undermine the Case for Human Exceptionalism? appeared first on Reasons to Believe.

My Answer: I have two books and three blogs. Genesis 2 states that God created Adam near Eden and Eve in Eden where four known rivers come together. Today, that location is more than 200 feet below sea level, but during the last ice age, it was above sea level. During the last ice age, the climate was highly unstable and the atmospheric carbon dioxide level was about a hundred parts per million lower than it was before the beginning of the industrial revolution. Such a low carbon dioxide level seriously limited photosynthetic productivity. These conditions made cultivation and animal husbandry extremely difficult but not impossible, provided they were done intermittently on small scales.      

The small scales and intermittent nature of such agriculture explain why archeologists have not found any evidence for such activity until just the past several years. Papers have been published showing that humans living 14,400, 23,000, and 32,600 years ago were harvesting grains, roasting and grinding the grains, and turning the subsequent flour into bakery products. While owing to climate instability and low atmospheric carbon dioxide, hunter-gathering may have been the predominant means for humans to obtain food during the last ice age, evidently there were episodes when humans engaged in sophisticated agriculture. The books where I write about evidence for early agriculture are Improbable Planet and Weathering Climate Change. In Weathering Climate Change, I also write about the early use of metallurgy from collected iron meteorites. You can access the three blogs here:  https://www.reasons.org/explore/blogs/todays-new-reason-to-believe/read/todays-new-reason-to-believe/2018/08/27/confirmation-that-early-humans-were-making-bread

https://www.reasons.org/explore/blogs/todays-new-reason-to-believe/read/tnrtb/2015/10/05/the-first-humans-developed-food-processing-technology

https://www.reasons.org/explore/blogs/todays-new-reason-to-believe/read/todays-new-reason-to-believe/2016/07/26/farming-revolution-simultaneously-launches-in-multiple-locations

The post Were Early Humans Engaged in Farming and Metallurgy? appeared first on Reasons to Believe.

This assessment began to change in 2015, when anthropologists discovered that ancient humans were engaged in preparing and baking bread.² I have written two articles documenting and describing discoveries of how humans living 14,400, 23,000, and 32,600 years ago were harvesting grains, roasting and grinding the grains, and baking the flour over hearths they manufactured to produce a variety of breads.³ In those articles, I explained the reason why these discoveries were so late in coming. Previous to 12,000 years ago, the global climate was so unstable and the atmospheric carbon dioxide so low that any agricultural activity, by necessity, had to be small-scale and mixed (unspecialized), which made any potential discovery of ancient agricultural sophistication extremely difficult.

Additional Food Preparation Discoveries
A team of seven paleoanthropologists led by Ceren Kabukcu sought to determine the level of ancient agriculture and food preparation through the analysis of carbonized plant food remains that they found⁴ in the Franchthi and Shanidar caves. These sites are located in Greece’s Peloponnesian peninsula and in the Zagros Mountains of Iraqi Kurdistan, respectively (see figure).

Kabukcu’s team analyzed four plant aggregates, the charred residues of food preparation, recovered from the Franchthi Cave. Using a scanning electron microscope, the researchers determined that the residues included processed lentils, pea seeds, and bitter vetch (Vicia ervilia), a broad bean species. The observed damage to the plant cells revealed that the seeds were soaked, then subjected to coarse grinding and/or pounding, and then charred. They also found evidence that the food had been mashed and boiled. Such food processing would make the seeds easy to chew and digest. It also transformed the bitter vetch from being poisonous for human consumption to a flavorful spice. Previous research teams had found the processed remains of oats, barley, almonds, and pistachios at the Franchthi Cave.⁵ Kabukcu and her colleagues measured carbon-14 dates for the four aggregates that ranged from 13,100 to 12,900 years ago.

The team then analyzed five charred plant aggregates recovered from the Shanidar Cave. The food residues in these aggregates included pistachios, peas, and a variety of mustards. Here, too, they found evidence that the peas, nuts, and mustards had been soaked, ground, mashed, boiled, and charred. The carbon-14 dates for the five aggregates showed that the food therein had been cooked and eaten at least 40,000 years ago.

In another study, three Israeli researchers found charred plant macrofossils (large enough to be seen without a microscope) in the Kebara Cave (Mt. Carmel, Israel) showing that early humans were processing and eating wild almonds, acorns, and vetches in addition to peas, lentils, and fruits.⁶ Wild acorns, almonds, and vetches in their natural state are filled with tannins, cyanide, astringents, and other toxic compounds. Making such foods safe to eat requires a complex combination of soaking, grinding, roasting, mashing, and boiling. The charred food, seeds, and nuts found in the Kebara Cave date previous to 40,000 years ago. Electron spin resonance indicates that the charred food, seeds, and nuts date from 65,000 to 48,000 years ago. However, electron spin resonance dating is subject to large systematic errors.⁷

The Israeli researchers concluded that the diet of early humans must have been predominantly plant-based and the plants they consumed were more diverse than previously thought. They demonstrated that the labor needed to transform toxic plants into food that can be safely eaten is so large and complex that early humans would have undertaken such measures only if the quantities of plants being so transformed were huge. Their explanation for why such plant remains are rarely found in Paleolithic excavations is that “most caves and open-air sites did not encourage the preservation of these kinds of organics.”⁸

Evidence for complex food preparation by early humans is not limited to Europe and the Middle East. Archaeobotanical studies in Borneo uncovered evidence that humans 50,000–40,000 years ago were processing highly toxic yams and nuts into safe and edible foods.⁹ These studies now establish beyond reasonable doubt that complex food processing and preparation was ubiquitous among early humans.

Implications of Early Complex Food Preparation
A naturalistic bias imposed on the origin and history of human beings asserts that the first humans possessed technology and manifested behavior that is indistinguishable from the technology and behavior of Neanderthals, Denisovans, and Homo erectus. This same bias also avows that for early anatomically modern humans technology and behavior advanced at a slow, gradual pace.

However, the latest discoveries by paleoanthropologists now soundly refute these naturalistic beliefs. There is no scientific evidence, at least no evidence that is not widely disputed, that the bipedal primates that preceded anatomically modern humans had control over fire, ever engaged in cooking, or purposefully roasted, ground, or boiled their food. Instead, there is now widespread evidence that all early humans were engaged in these activities. This evidence sustains the biblical claims about the technological capability of the earliest generations of humanity. It also sustains the biblical doctrine of human exceptionalism.

Endnotes

1. Most anthropologists use the term humans to include the several hominid species that preceded present-day human species.
2. Ainit Snir et al., “The Origin of Cultivation and Proto-Weeds, Long before Neolithic Farming,” PLOS One 10 (July 22, 2015): id. 0131422, doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0131422; Marta Mariotti Lippi et al., “Multistep Food Plant Processing at Grotta Paglicci (Southern Italy) around 32,600 Cal B.P.,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA 112, no. 39 (September 8, 2015): 12075–12080, doi:10.1073/pnas.1505213112.
3. Hugh Ross, “The First Humans Developed Food-Processing Technology,” Today’s New Reason to Believe (blog), Reasons to Believe, October 5, 2015; Hugh Ross, “Confirmation That Early Humans Were Making Bread,” Today’s New Reason to Believe (blog), Reasons to Believe, August 27, 2018.
4. Ceren Kabukcu et al., “Cooking in Caves: Palaeolithic Carbonised Plant Food Remains from Franchthi and Shanidar,” Antiquity, published online November 23, 2022, id. 143, doi:10.15184/aqy.2022.143.
5. Eleni Asouti, Maria Ntinou, and Ceren Kabukcu, “The Impact of Environmental Change on Palaeolithic and Mesolithic Plant Use and the Transition to Agriculture at Franchthi Cave, Greece,” PLoS ONE 13, no. 11 (November 20, 2018), id. e0207805, doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0207805.
6. Efraim Lev, Mordechai E. Kislev, and Ofer Bar-Yosef, “Mousterian Vegetal Food in Kebara Cave, Mt. Carmel,” Journal of Archaeological Science 32, no. 3 (March 2005): 475–484, doi:10.1016/j.jas.2004.11.006.
7. Hugh Ross, “Errors in Human Origins Dates,” Today’s New Reason to Believe (blog), Reasons to Believe, June 29, 2020.
8. Lev, Kislev, and Bar-Yosef, “Mousterian Vegetal Food,” 475.
9. Graeme Barker et al., “The ‘Human Revolution’ in Lowland Tropical Southeast Asia: The Antiquity and Behavior of Anatomically Modern Humans at Niah Cave (Sarawak, Borneo),” Journal of Human Evolution 52, no. 3 (March 2007): 243–261, doi:10.1016/j.hevol.2016.08.011.

The post Early Humans’ Complex Food Preparation Supports Exceptionalism appeared first on Reasons to Believe.