![]() |
A little more than 10 years ago molecular biologists believed that they had found evidence in human genes that all people share a common female ancestor, dubbed Eve, who lived in Africa about 200,000 years ago. The claim has seemingly been challenged on both genetic and fossil evidence, and it had been supported by a repetition of the same kind of analysis. There is an argument that one would expect all current humans to have one common ancestor based on sampling statistics alone.
Then comes corroboration from a different kind of genetic study. While the earlier claim was based on DNA transmitted only through the maternal lineage (mitochondrial DNA), the new report uses DNA transmitted and possessed only by males (the Y chromosome). Michael F. Hammer, a researcher in molecular evolution, reported that his analysis of a part of the Y sex chromosome indicates that modern humans descended from a common male ancestor who lived 188,000 years ago. Although the new report does not say where that ancient man, whom some are calling 'Adam,' lived, his age is close enough to Eve's for this kind of work.
Both analyses are based on counting mutations that distinguish a portion of one modern person's DNA from that of others and using a "molecular clock" that assumes the mutations arise at a known, constant rate.
Even though the studies refer to a single man or woman in the past, they do not imply that those people were a couple or even that they were the only parents of all humans. Their primary significance is in pointing to the time when anatomically modern human beings, Homo sapiens sapiens, evolved from a more primitive ancestor, generally thought to be an archaic form of humans. Many experts propose that the founders of the modern species numbered around 10,000.
Many anthropologists believe this transition happened in Africa and that the subspecies spread to other parts of the world, replacing more primitive forms of humans such as Homo erectus. Others, however, dispute the genetic evidence and argue that modern people evolved in many parts of the world as products both of the people already living there and of immigrants.
There is evidence for this contrary view in fossils. In 1992, for example, researchers found skulls in China that appeared to blend traits of Homo sapiens and the ancestral species, Homo erectus. The skulls are from hominids who they say lived nearly 400,000 years ago, suggesting the transition was happening long before "Adam' or "Eve' could have lived?
Evolutionary or phylogenetic relationships for the hominids are proposed by comparing anatomical features of specimens found in the fossil record and those of still existing species. The available hominid fossils in most cases are partial crania, partial jaw bones, isolated teeth, and infrequently partial upper and lower limbs. Rarely do paleoanthropologists find a complete cranium, let alone a nearly complete skeleton. Typically a hominid species is defined by just a few bone fragments, and many times the remains have been crushed and shattered and damaged prior to fossilization and afterwards deformed by geological processes. Recently two researchers took a look at the reliability of phylogenic analysis by comparing proposed characteristics obtained from gene and protein sequences and those obtained from analysis of cranial and dental features for two currently existing groups of primates, the hominoids (gorillas, chimpanzees, and humans) and the papionins (baboons, mangabeys, and mavcaques). In both cases the molecular phylogenies differed significantly from those derived using cranial and dental characteristics. The researchers concluded that crainodental characteristics cannot be used as reliable indicators of existing primate species evolutionary relationships. "Without a reliable phylogeny, little confidence can be placed in the hypotheses of ancestry..." (Mark Collard and Bernard Wood, "How Reliable Are Human Phylogenetic Hypotheses?" Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA 97 (2000) 5003-6)
Confidence in genetic approaches to this problem should also be tempered by another report. Three British geneticists, led by L. Simon Whitfield, carried out analysis of both mitochondrial DNA and Y chromosome DNA from the same people. The mitochondrial data yielded a time of origin of modern humans between 120,000 and 474,000 years ago. The Y chromosome data indicated the origin was probably between 37,000 and 49,000 years ago. And two more Y chromosome studies using newer techniques and larger sample sizes were reported in "Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA 97 (2000)": report numbers 7354-59 and 7360-65 and they add more evidence for the younger dates. They both support a 50,000 year ago origin for humanity. They also seem to point to a rapid population expansion around 28,000 years ago.
"However, the 50,000 year time may be too long, and the true time may be about 36,525 years, which rounds off to 40,000 years, because it has been shown by Awadalla, Eyre-Walker, and Smith, in Science 286 (24 December 1999) 2524-2525, that "... The assumption that human mitochondrial DNA is inherited from one parent only and therefore does not recombine is questionable. Linkage disequilibrium in human and chimpanzee mitochondrial DNA declines as a function of the distance between sites. This pattern can be attributed to one mechanism only: recombination. ... Many inferences about the pattern and tempo of human evolution and mtDNA evolution have been based on the assumption of clonal inheritance. These inferences will now have to be reconsidered."" (Were Adam and Eve Africans?)
Conclusion: While the results of chromosome research is incredibly exciting, it is still in its infancy and often the findings are overly publicized as is unfortunately often necessary to obtain funding for further research. Hopefully in the future these researchers will consider the true accuracy of their results and will truthfully report their findings without biasing their results by other theories and theological beliefs. We feel that further more accurate research will probably result in more recent dates than any of those discussed above. As has been concluded about one mitrochondrial study, "Many scientists are quite skeptical of the estimated date, ... caution that the mitochondrial clock is none too reliable. "The date is very dubious--it's 135,000 years plus or minus about 300% ..." (from http://web.raex.com/~kitten/origin.htm)
Many scholars have interpreted the Hebrew words translated as "thousand generations" as "a proverbial expression meaning endlessly or forever" and not to mean a literal thousand generations. For the word translated as generations is more properly translated as "a revolution of time" or can also be "an age" as well as a generation. However, possibly one should reconsider that the translation as a literal "thousand generations" is also appropriate, much like for many centuries many "scholars" ignored the translation of "he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth" in Isaiah 40:22 as an indicator that possibly the earth was round.
"I will make him an help meet for him"
"And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh"
But, the Hebrew words translated as "help meet for him" have also been translated as,
"a helper correspondent to himself",
"helper - as his counterpart",
"help to be a
companion for him",
"helper suited to him",
"mate of his own kind",
"suitable
helper, completing him".
Was Eve then just a clone of Adam with appropriately different
reproductive organs?
----------
That men and women are different, everyone knows! But, aside from external anatomical and primary and secondary sexual differences, scientists know also that there are many other subtle differences in the way the brains from men and women process language, information, emotion, cognition, etc.
One of the most interesting differences appear in the way men and women estimate time, judge speed of things, carry out mental mathematical calculations, orient in space and visualize objects in three dimensions, etc. In all these tasks, women and men are strikingly different, as they are too in the way their brains process language. This may account, scientists say, for the fact that there are many more male mathematicians, airplane pilots, bush guides, mechanical engineers, architects and race car drivers than female ones.
On the other hand, women are
better than men in human relations, recognizing emotional overtones in others
and in language, emotional and artistic expressiveness, esthetic appreciation,
verbal language and carrying out detailed and pre-planned tasks. For example,
women generally can recall lists of words or paragraphs of text better than men
The "father" of sociobiology,
Edward O. Wilson, of Harvard University ,
said that human females tend to be higher than males in empathy, verbal skills,
social skills and security-seeking, among other things, while men tend to be
higher in independence, dominance, spatial and mathematical skills, rank-related
aggression, and other characteristics .
When all these investigations
began, scientists were skeptical about the role of genes and of biological
differences, because cultural learning is very powerful and influential among
humans. Are girls more prone to play with dolls and cooperate among themselves
than boys, because they are taught to be so by parents, teachers and social
peers, or is it the reverse order?
However, gender differences are
already apparent from just a few months after birth, when social influence is
still small. For example, Anne Moir and David Jessel, in their remarkable and
controversial book "Brain Sex" ,
offer explanations for these very early differences in
children:
"These discernible, measurable
differences in behaviour have been imprinted long before external influences
have had a chance to get to work. They reflect a basic difference in the newborn
brain which we already know about -- the superior male efficiency in spatial
ability, the greater female skill in speech."
But now, after many careful
controlled studies where environment and social learning were ruled out,
scientists learned that there may exist a great deal of neurophysiological and
anatomical differences between the brains of males and
females.
There are now a number of sophisticated neuroscientific methods which
allow scientists to probe minute differences between any two groups of brains.
There are several approaches, brought forth by advancements in computerized
image processing, such as tomography (detailed imaging of the brain using
"slices"): Scientists working at Johns
Hopkins University, recently reporting in the "Cerebral Cortex" scholarly
journal ,
have discovered that there is a brain region in the cortex, called
inferior-parietal lobule (IPL) which is significantly larger in men than in
women. This area is bilateral and is located just above the level of the ears
(parietal cortex).
Furthermore, the left side IPL is
larger in men than the right side. In women, this asymmetry is reversed,
although the difference between left and right sides is not so large as in men,
noted the JHU researchers. This is the same area which was shown to be larger in
the brain of Albert Einstein, as well as in other physicists and mathematicians.
So, it seems that IPL's size correlates highly with mental mathematical
abilities. Morphological brain differences in intellectual skills were suspected
to exist by neurologists since the times of phrenology
(although this was proved to be a wrong approach), in the 19th century. The end
of the 20th century has witnessed the first scientific proofs for
that.
The study, led by Dr. Godfrey
Pearlson, was performed by analyzing the MRI scans of 15 men and women. Volumes
were calculated by a software package developed by Dr. Patrick Barta, a JHU
psychiatrist. After allowing for the natural differences in overall brain volume
which exist between the brains of men and women, there was still a difference of
5% between the IPL volumes (human male brains are, on average, approximately 10
% larger than female, but this is because of men's larger body size: more muscle
cells imply more neurons to control them).
In general, the IPL allows the
brain to process information from senses and help in selective attention and
perception (for example, women are more able to focus on specific stimuli, such
as a baby crying in the night). Studies have linked the right IPL with the
memory involved in understanding and manipulating spatial relationships and the
ability to sense relationships between body parts. It is also related to the
perception of our own affects or feelings. The left IPL is involved with
perception of time and speed, and the ability of mentally rotate 3-D figures (as
in the well-known Tetris game).
Another previous study by the
same group led by Dr. Godfrey Pearlson
has shown that two areas in the frontal and temporal lobes related to language
(the areas of Broca and Wernicke, named after their discoverers) were
significantly larger in women, thus providing a biological reason for women's
notorious superiority in language-associated thoughts. Using magnetic resonance
imaging, the scientists measured gray matter volumes in several cortical regions
in 17 women and 43 men. Women had 23% (in Broca's area, in the dorsolateral
prefrontal cortex) and 13% (in Wernicke's area, in the superior temporal cortex)
more volume than men.
These results were later
corroborated by another research group from the School of Communication
Disorders, University of Sydney, Australia, which was able to prove these
anatomical differences in the areas of Wernicke and of Broca .
The volume of the Wernicke's area was 18% larger in females compared with males,
and the cortical volume the Broca's area in females was 20% larger than in
males.
On the other hand, additional
evidence comes from research showing that the corpus callosum, a large tract of
neural fibers which connect both brain hemispheres, is enlarged in women,
compared to men ,
although this discovery has been challenged recently.
In another research, a group from
the University of Cincinnati, USA, Canada, presented morphological evidence that
while men have more neurons in the cerebral cortex, women have a more developed
neuropil, or the space between cell bodies, which contains synapses, dendrites
and axons, and allows for communication among neurons . According to
Dr. Gabrielle de Courten-Myers, this research may explain why women are more
prone to dementia (such as Alzheimer's disease) than men, because although
both may lose the same number of neurons due to the disease, "in males, the
functional reserve may be greater as a larger number of nerve cells are present,
which could prevent some of the functional losses."
The researchers made measurements
on slices of brains of 17 deceased persons (10 males and seven females), such as
the cortex thickness and number of neurons in several places of the
cortex.
Other researchers, led by Dr.
Bennett A. Shaywitz, a professor of Pediatrics at the Yale University School of
Medicine, discovered that the brain of women processes verbal language
simultaneously in the two sides (hemispheres) of the frontal brain, while men
tend to process it in the left side only. They performed a functional planar
magnetic resonance tomographic imaging of the brains of 38 right-handed subjects
(19 males and 19 females). The difference was demonstrated in a test that asked
subjects to read a list of nonsense words and determine if they rhyme .
Curiously, oriental people which use pictographic (or ideographic) written
languages tend also to use both sides of the brain, regardless of
gender.
Although most of the anatomical
and functional studies done so far have focused on the cerebral cortex, which is
responsible for the higher intellectual and cognitive functions of the brain,
other researchers, such as Dr. Simon LeVay, have shown that there are gender
differences in more primitive parts of the brain, such as the hypothalamus,
where most of the basic functions of life are controlled, including hormonal
control via the pituitary gland. LeVay discovered that the volume of a specific
nucleus in the hypothalamus (third cell group of the interstitial nuclei of the
anterior hypothalamus) is twice as large in heterosexual men than in women and
homosexual men, thus prompting a heated debate whether there is a biological
basis for homosexuality .
Dr. LeVay wrote an interesting book about the sex differences in the brain,
titled "The Sexual Brain" .
During the development of the
embryo in the womb, circulating hormones have a very important role in the
sexual differentiation of the brain. The presence of androgens in early life
produces a "male" brain. In contrast, the female brain is thought to develop via
a hormonal default mechanism, in the absence of androgen. However, recent
findings have shows that ovarian hormones also play a significant role in sexual
differentiation.
One of the most convincing
evidences for the role of hormones, has been shown by studying girls who were
exposed to high levels of testosterone because their pregnant mothers had
congenital adrenal hyperplasia .
These girls seem to have better spatial awareness than other girls and are more
likely to show turbulent and aggressive behaviour as kids, very similar to
boys'.
But do
these differences mean a superiority/inferiority relationship between men and
women?
"No", says Dr. Pearlson. "To say
this means that men are automatically better at some things than women is a
simplification. It's easy to find women who are fantastic at math and physics
and men who excel in language skills. Only when we look at very large
populations and look for slight but significant trends do we see the
generalizations. There are plenty of exceptions, but there's also a grain of
truth, revealed through the brain structure, that we think underlies some of the
ways people characterize the sexes."
Dr. Courten-Myers concurs: "The
recognition of gender-specific ways of thinking and feeling -- rendered more
credible given these established differences -- could prove beneficial in
enhancing interpersonal relationships. However, the interpretation of the data
also has the potential for abuse and harm if either gender would seek to
construct evidence for superiority of the male or female brain from these
findings."
The conclusion is that
neuroscience has made great strides in the 90s, regarding the discovery of
concrete, scientifically proved anatomical and functional differences between
the brains of males and females. While this knowledge could in theory be used to
justify misogyny and prejudice against women, fortunately this has not happened.
In fact, this new knowledge may help physicians and scientists to discover new
ways to explore the brain differences in the benefit of the diagnosis and treatment of
diseases, the personalized action of drugs, different procedures in surgeries,
etc. After all, males and females differ only by one Y chromosome, but this
makes a real impact upon the way we react to so many things, including pain,
hormones, diseases, medicines, etc.
----------