September-October 1998
Volume 1 Number 1
Neanderthals Again? Has the Media Got It Right?
Neanderthals are newsworthy, but did they mix their genes with early humans? Some members of the media report no. Are they right? Or do we need to get the data straight?
Neanderthals always seem to make the news. There is even a Web site devoted to them and those whose genetic endowment is decidedly on that side. Would you believe that a species that became extinct 20,000 years ago would command such interest in the lay public? Several folks brought to my attention the recent stories that science now has evidence that Neanderthals were not our ancestors. I suppose they found it comforting that we mere mortals did not arise from the Neanderthal family Uncle Bubba notwithstanding. They were after all, big brutish looking creatures. So, they are not near kin. So what?
What bothers me most is not the lay misconception about present-day models seeking to explain the origin of anatomically modern Homo sapiens. Rather, it is the misconception held by the press. Statements in the secular and the religious press, reporting on the recent Neanderthal DNA research stating that Neanderthals "never mixed their genes with early humans" and "are not the ancestors of humans," are not particularly accurate accounts. Apparently relying on secondary sources some well-meaning fundamentalist Christian writers claim the new findings once and for all disprove human evolution. Hardly. It appears to me that the authors of such statements simply do not know enough about the concepts and vocabulary of the discipline they are talking about to accurately report such research let alone to suggest its implications. The study did not rule out a Neanderthal genetic contribution to anatomically modern H. sapiens (that is us folks). Now I do not suggest anything about the origins of modern humans for that would miss my point.
Neither the public nor members of the press know much about genetics, Neanderthals, archaic H. sapiens, nor the issues involved in the scholarly discussion of the origin of anatomically modern Homo sapiens. This is what we should expect. Our public high schools, under-funded as they are, do not offer courses in anthropology although these topics may appear in high school biology. Moreover, colleges and universities generally do not require students to study anthropology as part of their general education requirements. So learning in this discipline is a hit and miss situation.
My suggestion to you, my friend, is that you spend some time with anthropology. In my own case, I consider myself a biblical anthropologist. I enjoy the Bible and its central truths as well as the holistic approach of anthropology. Both help me make sense in understanding the natural world and lifeways of humans. One provides me knowledge through spiritual insight and the other through application of the scientific method. For me the two complement each other and assist me in extending my understanding in both. Remember education is more than preparing for a career to make money. Education also makes you into the kind of person you are and shapes your values and worldview. It enriches you culturally.
If you are a college student, I suggest you round out your education with three courses: (1) cultural and social anthropology, (2) biological anthropology, and (3) introduction to archaeology. Some colleges and universities combine cultural anthropology with archaeology. If you are beyond traditional college age, and think you cannot take courses, study the subject on your own. It is worth it. At least you will know what the issues are and will be capable of communicating an informed understanding. We suggest helpful readings for you in our Research Aids page.
Page last edited: 12/17/05 12:56 PM
|
starting web/internet resource by the
