Year 2 Class 10 Session B Notes Evidence for Human Evolution? The Fossils Neanderthal Man (Germany, 1856) “Neanderthals smarter than previously believed: New dating method shows famous paintings were created at the time of the cavemen, not Homo sapiens By Sharon Begley, Reuters June 15, 2012 (www.canada.com/sports/Neanderthals+smarter+than+previously+believed/6787265/story.html) "Neanderthals buried their dead and placed objects in the graves, ‘as if they recognized some stage after death,’ said Lehman's Delson. They also painted scallop shells and cockleshells. That was the first hard evidence Neanderthals created jewelry, which scientists call evidence of symbolic thinking ["this painted shell pendant means I belong to this clan"]. Such discoveries put the nail in the coffin of the idea that Neanderthals were mentally inferior to Homo sapiens, leading to their demise.” From Science Daily, July 17, 2012: “Neanderthals in Northern Spain Had Knowledge of Plants' Healing Qualities, Study Reveals An international team of researchers, led by the Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona and the University of York, has provided the first molecular evidence that Neanderthals not only ate a range of cooked plant foods, but also understood its nutritional and medicinal qualities. Antonio Rosas, of the Museum of Natural History in Madrid -­‐-­‐ CSIC (Spanish National Research Council), said: "El Sidrón has allowed us to banish many of the preconceptions we had of Neanderthals. Thanks to previous studies, we know that they looked after the sick, buried their dead and decorated their bodies. Now another dimension has been added relating to their diet and self-­‐medication." Dr. Couzzo’s Findings: Falsification of data “I was in the laboratory of the Musee de L’Homme in Paris, France in 1979 when a human paleontologist cut off the chin of the lower jaw of La Quina V, a female Neanderthal. When this skull came out of the ground in 1911, it had a chin. Apes have no chins, so he tried to make it look more ape-­‐like.” Jack Cuozzo, 2005 South-­‐eastern Creation Conference, Pensacola, Florida. Cuozzo also mentions that one museum exhibit had a Neanderthal skull with its lower jaw 30mm out of joint. This was done to make the specimen look more ape-­‐like. Cited by Cuozzo: “People tend to think of bone as a rigid, inert material that holds up their bodied. But bone is far more dynamic. It continuously dissolves and reforms. Indeed, adults replace their skeletons roughly every ten years.” Science 9/3/04, 305:1420 J. Mars “‘Bone is like skin. You’re constantly remodelling it.’ says Susan Greenspan of the University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine in Pennsylvania.” Science 9/3/04, 305:1420 J. Mars Cuozzo’s theory is that fossils individuals with Neanderthal morphology are actually exhibiting signs of extreme old age. Since the Bible describes a time in our history when the average human lifespan did extend over hundreds of years, Christians are not at all surprised to discover individuals with like Neanderthals in the fossil record. Line of Evidence for Cuozzo’s Theory: 1. Burial Levels: The life spans of the post-­‐flood patriarchs are given in the book of Genesis. Assuming that those who lived the longest would exhibit Neanderthal-­‐like morphology, we would predict that they would be found buried in higher stratigraphic layers than those with morphology typically considered modern. According to Cuozzo this is precisely the case in Israel. 2. Small faces in Neanderthal children: According to Cuozzo: Spy I (adult Neanderthal) had a cranium length of 216 mm Engis II (4.5 year old Neanderthal) had a cranium length of 164 mm This is 76 % of Spy I. It was expected to be at least 86 %. Engis II appeared too small. Engis II was reported to be 176 mm or 81 % of 216 mm. This fits the evolution story but only at the cost of giving an inaccurate measurement to Engis II 3. Tipped Palate in Neanderthal Children: On Cuozzo’s theory, people who lived to great ages would have also matured at a much slower rate. Today children developing in the womb have tipped or angulated palates. By the time they are born, their palates normal have developed to become parallel to the ground. In small Neanderthal children, however, their palates are still in the tipped, foetal position. Slower maturation seems to be a feature among Neanderthals-­‐exactly what Cuozzo predicted. 4. “Taurodant” Teeth in Neanderthal Children: On Cuozzo’s theory, slower maturation in the past meant that people would keep their “baby” teeth will into their adult years. Obviously this first set of teeth would have to be more rugged than normal “baby” teeth. According to Cuozzo, Neanderthal children did have teeth that could very possibly last for20-­‐30 years. Java Man (Indonesia, 1891) • Consisted of an ape-­‐like skull cap and a femur found some 50 ft away • Considered both a part of the same creature (ape-­‐like but walked upright) •
•
•
Homo erectus (upright man) Problem: 2 fully-­‐human skulls were found in the same layer (1888, 1890) We cannot be as old as our ape-­‐like ancestors! Piltdown Man (England, 1912) • Found in a gravel pit • Skull fragments and jaw bones • Promoted as the “missing link” for over 40 years • Later discovered to be a hoax • Human skull fragments; orang-­‐utan jaw bone Broken Hill Man (Zambia, 1921) • Found in lead, zinc mine • Almost complete skull (lack lower jaw) • Not mineralized; still bone • Originally thought to be 1,100 years old • Changed to 40,000; now said to be 400,000 years old • Features of the skull indicate disease; excess growth hormone • Not a legitimate “missing link” Nebraska Man (Sioux County, Nebraska, 1922) • A single tooth found • Complete reconstruction of the “ape man” was drawn • Later the tooth was found to be from an extinct pig Taung (Australopithecus Africanus; Africa, 1924) • Appears to be nothing more than a baby chimp. • Its discoverer, Ray Dart, stated: “[The endocast is] what put me on to the idea that the fossil wasn’t just an ape’s…Without that endocast , and without my experience in neurology, I doubt I would have thought it was a hominid.” Ray Dart, as quoted by Roger Lewin, “Bones of •
•
Contention, 1987, p. 48 “Many of the features cited by professor Dart as evidence of human affinity, especially the features of the jaw and teeth mentioned by him are not unknown in the young of the giant anthropoids and even in the adult gibbon.” Grafton Elliot Smith, R.A. Dart, “Adventures with the Missing Link”, 1959, p. 36 “It is unfortunate that Dart had no access to skulls of infant chimpanzees, gorillas, or orangs, of an age corresponding to that of the Taung skull, for had such material been •
•
available he would have realized that the posture and poise of the head, the shape of the jaws, and many details of the nose, face, and cranium upon which he relied for proof of his contention that Australopithecus was nearly akin to man, were essentially identical with conditions met in the infant gorilla and chimpanzee.” Smith, as quoted by R.A. Dart, “Adventures with the Missing Link”, 1959, p. 38 “Our comparison of the profile and full-­‐face of the Taung specimen with corresponding views of human and anthropoid skulls leaves no doubt as to the true anthropoid status of Australopithecus, viz. that in all its essential characters it is a true anthropoid ape.” Sir Arthur Keith, “New Discoveries Relating to the Antiquity of Man”, 1931, p. 103 A second problem: age. “In 1973, South African geologist T.C. Partridge dropped a bomb. His investigations revealed that the cave from which the Taung skull had come could not have formed prior to .87 m.y.a. That meant that the Taung skull could be at most only three-­‐quarters of a million years old.” Marvin Lubenow, “Bones of Contention, 1992, p. 50 (Also see: •
•
Nature 246, Nov. 9, 1973, p. 75-­‐79) “[A less than 1 million year old] date was supported by a date of about 1 m.y.a. by thermoluminescence analysis of calcite and uranium series dates of 942,000 y.a. and 764,000 y.a. on limestone.” Marvin Lubenow, “Bones of Contention”, p. 52, (Also see: Ian Tattersall, Eric Delson, John Van Couvering, eds., “Encyclopedia of Human Evolution and Prehistory”, 1988, p. 571, Richard G. Klein, “The Human Career: Human Biological and Cultural Origins”, 1989, p. 113) Taung was placed on a side branch on the human evolutionary tree. This situation was shattered when the black skull was discovered in 1985. This skull looks nothing like a human, yet was said to have lived at the same time as Taung. Now nobody is sure who evolved from whom, when or how! Peking Man, (China, 1940’s) Most creationists view Homo erectus (Peking Man) as a variety of human. Many evolutionists themselves view erectus this way: “In our view, there are two alternatives. We should either admit that the Homo erectus/Homo sapiens boundary is arbitrary and use nonmorphological (i.e. temporal) criteria for determining it, or Homo erectus should be sunk into it [Homo sapiens].” Milford Wolpoff et al, “Modern Homo sapiens Origins: A General Theory of Hominid Evolution Involving the Fossil Evidence from East Asia”, The Origins of Modern Humans, ed., Fred H. Smith and Frank Spencer (New York: Alan R. Liss, Inc., 1984), pp. 465-­‐66 “It would not be correct to call our fossil ‘Homo pekinensis’ or ‘Homo erectus pekinensis’; it would be best to call it Homo sapiens erectus pekinensis. Otherwise it would appear as a proper species different from ‘Homo sapiens’ which remains doubtful to say the least.” Franz Weidenreich, “The Skull of Sinanthropus pekinensis”, Palaeontol Sinica (n.s. D, No. 10, 1943): p. 246, quoted in Wolpoff et al, p. 466 “We find that significant differences have developed, over a short time span, between closely related and contiguous peoples, as in Alaska and Greenland, and when we consider the vast differences that exist between remote groups such as Eskimos and Bushmen, who are known to belong within the single species of Homo sapiens, it seems justifiable to conclude that Sinanthropus belongs within this same diverse species.” William S. Laughlin, “Eskimos and Aleuts: Their Origins and Evolution”, Science, 142, Nov. 8, 1963, p. 644 Ramapithecus This creature was promoted as a “missing link” throughout the 1970’s, even though the fossil remains consisted of little more than some teeth and jaw fragments. Despite the scanty fossil evidence, the creature was said to be “ideally structured” to be our ancestor: “Ramapithecus is ideally structured to be an ancestor of hominids. If he isn’t, we don’t have anything else that is.” Dr. Elwin Simons, “Time” Magazine, Nov. 7, 1977 Australopithecus Afarensis (Africa, 1974) Sometimes referred to as “Lucy”, this supposed hominid has become perhaps the most famous human “missing link.” Predictably, many today are questioning the legitimacy of Lucy’s status as a human ancestor: “Lucy’s kind occupied only a side branch of human evolution. A. afarensis didn’t contribute to the evolution of modern people, says Tel Aviv University.” Science News April 14, 2007, p. 230 “Lucy” is said to be around 3 million years old. One find in particular that throws her status as a “missing link” into question is the fossil trail at Laetoli, Africa. The Laetoli prints look exactly like human footprints, yet they are dated by evolutionists to be about the same age as “Lucy’s” kind. The footprints are described as “remarkably similar to those of modern man.” … “The form of his foot was exactly the same as ours.” … “Weight-­‐bearing pressure patterns in the prints resemble human ones…” “footprints, so very much like our own,” Footprints in the Ashes of Time Mary Leakey National Geographic April 1979 p. 446-­‐457 Russel H. Tuttle (U. of Chicago) did the most extensive study of the Laetoli footprints as well as studying the footprints of more than 70 habitually barefoot people and found, “the 3.5 million year old footprint trails at Laetoli site G resemble those of habitually unshod modern humans. None of their features suggest that the Laetoli hominids were less capable bipeds than we are.” Russell H. Tuttle, “The Pitted Pattern of Laetoli Feet,” Natural History, Mar. 1990: p. 64, quoted in Bones of Contention, p. 174 “If the G [laetoli] footprints were not known to be so old, we would readily conclude that they were made by a member of our own genus, homo.” Russell H. Tuttle, “The Pitted Pattern of Laetoli Feet,” Natural History, Mar. 1990: p. 64, quoted in Bones of Contention, p. 174, Available from CSE (850) 479-­‐3466 $13 “The Laetoli footprints are virtually identical to those made by humans walking on soft ground.” Jerry Coyne, “Why Evolution is True”, Viking, 2009, p. 202 Obviously if anatomically modern people were around 3 million years ago, Lucy’s kind could not be ancestral to our own. Lucy’s skeleton was not discovered with hands or feet, but other afarensis skeletons have been. They do not resemble those of human kind: "...the pelvis was by no means modern, nor were the feet: the toes were more curved than ours; the heel bones lacked our stabilizing tubercles; and a couple of small ligaments that, in us, tighten the arch from underneath, were apparently not present. The finger bones were curved as they are in tree climbing apes." William Howells (Harvard), “Getting Here”, 1993, p.79 “The prints show that whoever made them had a humanlike foot arch, and the reconstructed A. afarensis foot exhibits just such an arch. So far so good. The problem, Harcourt-­‐Smith and Hilton say, is that the reconstruction is actually based on a patchwork of bones from 3.2 million year old afarensis and 1.8 million year old Homo habilis.” Scientific American, August, 2005, p. 19 “… one of the bones used to determine whether the foot was in fact arched – the so called navicular – is from H. habilis, not A. afarensis.” Scientific American, August, 2005, p. 19 Note that Homo Habilis is a phantom taxon; a mixture of fossils from several different species. Scientists are unable tell which is which. See: Richard Leakey, “Origins Reconsidered”, Doubleday, New York, 1992, p. 132 “…the phylogenetic outlook suggests that if there weren't a Homo habilis we would have to invent one…” Milford Wolpoff (University of Michigan), 1992. Book Review. American Journal of Physical Anthropology, 89(3): 401 “For their part, Harcourt-­‐Smith and Hilton note that a new reconstruction of the A. afarensis foot built exclusively from afarensis remains is needed to confirm these preliminary findings.” Scientific American, August, 2005, p. 19 “As for identifying the real culprit, if A. afarensis did not make the prints, that would put the poorly known A. anamensis in the running. But just as likely, speculates Harcourt-­‐Smith an as yet undiscovered species left the prints.” Scientific American, August, 2005, p. 19 “That is to say, consider the world’s oldest whodunit an unsolved mystery.” Scientific American, August, 2005, p. 19 “....conventional wisdom is that the australopithecine fragments are generally rather similar to humans....the new studies point to different conclusions. The new investigations suggest that the fossil fragments are usually uniquely different from any living form: when they do have similarities with living species, they are as often as not reminiscent of the orangutan, ...these results imply that the various australopithecines are really not all that much like humans. ....may well have been bipeds, .... but if so, it was not in the human manner. They may also have been quite capable climbers as much at home in the trees as on the ground..", Charles Oxnard, Dean of Graduate School, Prof. of Biology & Anatomy, USC The American Biology Teacher, Vol.41, May 1979, pp.273-­‐4 "The australopithecines are rapidly shrinking back to the status of peculiarly specialized apes...” Matt Cartmill (Duke); David Pilbeam (Harvard); Glynn Isaac (Harvard); American Scientist, (July/August 1986) p.419 Bipedalism “The origin of hominid bipedality is one of the most controversial issues paleoanthropology.” Ward, C., 1992. Book review. American Journal of Physical Anthropology, 90(3): 387. “Bipedalism is a fundamental human characteristic yet virtually nothing is known about its origins.” Bernard Wood, Four legs good, two legs better, Nature, 363:587. Reversals? Lucy appears very chimp-­‐like (long arms and short legs). Lucy is said to have evolved into Taung (africanus) who has even shorter legs and longer arms proportionately (see National Geographic Aug., 1998, pp. 94-­‐95) A reversal would be a violation of “Dollo’s Law.” Habilis/Erectus Contemporaneousness (Globe and Mail, Thurs, Aug 9, 2007) Old View: Lucy (3.2 million years ago) to africanus (2.5 million years ago) to habilis (1.8 million years ago) to sapiens (100,000 years ago) The discovery of an erectus skull and a habilis jaw in the same layer dated to 1.44 million years ago throws the human evolution story into question. Rudolphensis (1.9 million years?) This creature is represented by a single skull (KNMER 1470) discovered in 1972 by Richard Leakey. The skull found under the KBS Tuff in Africa. The tuff was originally dated @ 212-­‐220 million years old. The fossils found in the area could not possibly be as old as the dinosaurs (according the evolution story) so the tuff was de-­‐dated and firmly established to be about 2.6 million years old. “To check for this extraneous Argon, they (Fitch and Miller) first dated the raw rocks as they were originally submitted by Leakey. Their analysis gave dates from 212 to 220 million years of age. ‘From these results it was clear that an extraneous argon age discrepancy was present…’” Marvin Lubenow, “Bones of Contention”, 1992, p.249, Citing F.J. Fitch and J.A. Miller, “Radioisotopic Age Determinations of Lake Rudolph Artifact Site”, Nature, 226 (18th April, 1970):447 The 1470 skull was found in hundreds of pieces and had to be put together. Originally it appeared very modern in appearance which threw the whole human evolution story into question. The problem here is that at 2.6 million years old, 1470 (at the time referred to as Homo habilis) was contemporaneous with the very ape-­‐like africanus. Who is ancestral to whom? “Either we toss out this skull or we toss out our theories of early man.” According to Leakey, the skull’s surprisingly large braincase, “leaves in ruins the notion that all early fossils can be arranged in an orderly sequence of evolutionary change.” Richard Leakey, “National Geographic”, 1973 The 1470 skull later underwent radical revision: It was re-­‐dated at 1.9 million years old, it brain case made smaller, its face pushed out, and its name was changed to Homo rudolphensis. Leg bones were found several kilometres from where 1470 was found, but in the same layer. The leg bones (1481) are fully modern in appearance. “The data…clearly show that femurs 1472 and 1481 from East Rudolf belong to the ‘modern human walking’ locomotor group.” B.A. Wood, anatomist at the Charing Cross Hospital Medical School in London, “Remains Attributed to Homo in East Rudolf succession. In Coppens, Y., Howell, F.C., Isaacs, G.I., and Leakey, R.E., eds., Earliest Man and Environments in the Lake Rudolf Basin”, Chicago, U. of Chicago, 1976, p. 502 Even assuming the evolutionist dating for these fossils is correct, we see anything but an orderly sequence of evolutionary change in the fossil record: •
•
•
•
•
Lucy 3 million years (body is ape-­‐like in a appearance) Taung (africanus) 2.5 million years (body is even more ape-­‐like in appearance) Oldest Erectus fossils 2 million years old (body modern in appearance) Rudolphensis (1470) 1.9 million years (legs are fully modern!) Habilis 1.8 million years resembles Australopithecus (very ape-­‐like): o “This poorly known species [Homo Habilis] closely resembles Australopithecus and might actually belong in that genus instead of in Homo.” Kate Wong, Scientific American, Jan., 2009, p. 62 • Erectus and Habilis both alive at 1.44 million years ago. Who evolved from whom? When? How? The confusing picture does not deter resolute evolutionists: "This is not questioning the idea at all of evolution; it is refining some of the specific points…This is a great example of what science does and religion doesn't do. It's a continuous self testing process.” Susan Anton, New York University anthropologist, Cited in an Associated Press article by Seth Borenstein (Wed, Aug 8th, 2007) http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070808/ap_on_sc/human_evolution Ardipithecus Ramidus This hominid is said to have existed some 4.4 million years ago. It consists of a few scraps of bone and teeth. What has been discovered looks very chimp-­‐like: “…all other hominids, including modern humans, have relatively thick enamel… . So the thin enamel of ramidus is more of what you'd expect from a fossil chimp.” Peter Andrews, Natural History Museum, London, cited in Fischman, 3., 1994. Putting our oldest ancestors in their proper place.” Science, 265:2011 “Two small fossil fragments from the base of the skull are all that Australopithecus ramidus has to offer by way of evidence. White et al. state that these fossils '…evidence a strikingly chimpanzee-­‐like morphology…’” Tim White et. al. 1994, Australopithecus ramidus a new species of early hominid from Aramis, Ethiopia: Nature, 371:p. 310 Fossil Failure “These gaps make it difficult, if not impossible, to establish secure evolutionary links between populations that lived millions of years ago and those living today.” Richard Leakey, “Origins Reconsidered”, 1992, p. 217 “All scientists work from some kind of theoretical framework and interpret the evidence in its light. Weak evidence can often be made to fit such a framework, whatever its form. I’ve seen that happen many times in paleoanthropology.” Richard Leakey, “Origins Reconsidered”, p. 51 “There are not enough fossil records to answer when, where,and how homo sapiens emerged.” Takahata, Molecular anthropology, Annual Review of Ecology & Systematics 1995, p. 355 “One of these early hominids was ancestral to us, but we don’t know which. It could well be something we haven’t found yet.” Meave Leaky, “National Geographic”, Oct., 2001, p. 84 “We thought we had just about nailed human evolution, now everything is up for grabs again.” Ed Yong, New Scientist, July 30, 2011, p. 35 “The origin of our own genus remains frustratingly unclear.” Bernard Wood paleoanthropologist in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, June 15, 2011 “But with so little evidence to go on, the origin of our genus has remained as mysterious as ever.” Kate Wong, ‘First of Our Kind’ Scientific American, April 2012, p. 32 Genetics “Considering the very close genetic relationship that has been established by comparison of biochemical properties of blood proteins, protein structure and DNA and immunological responses, the differences between a man and a chimpanzee are more astonishing that the resemblances...Something must have happened to the ancestors of Homo sapiens which did not happen the ancestors of gorillas and chimpanzees.” Science writer Elaine Morgan, as quoted by Mario Beauregard, “The Spiritual Brain”, p. 19 Ø 23 % of the human genome shares no immediate ancestry with chimpanzees [Ebersberger, I. Et al, 2007, Mapping Human Genetic Ancestry, Molecular Biology and Evolution, 24(10): 2266-­‐2276] Ø > 30 % dissimilarity between human and chimp Y chromosome DNA sequence [Hughes, J.F., 2010, Chimpanzee and Human Y Chromosomes are Remarkable Different in Structure and DNA Sequence and Gene Content, Nature, 463 (7280): 536-­‐539] “The relationship between the human and chimp Y chromosomes has been blown to pieces.” David Page of the Whitehead Institute for Biomedical Research in Cambridge, Massachusetts, quoted in Buchen, L., The fickle Y chromosome, Nature 463(7278):149, 14 January 2010 “It looks like there’s been a dramatic renovation or reinvention of the Y chromosome in the chimpanzee and human lineages.” David Page of the Whitehead Institute for Biomedical Research in Cambridge, Massachusetts, quoted in Buchen, L., The fickle Y chromosome, Nature 463(7278):149, 14 January 2010 “...when data are provided in research papers that allow the determination of DNA sequence gaps in alignments, actual overall identities are 70 to 87 percent.” Jeffery Tomkins, PhD (Genetics, Clemson University), Acts & Facts, October, 2011, p. 6 (references Ebersberger, I. Et al, 2002, Genomewide Comparison of DNA Sequences Between Humans and Chimpanzees, American Journal of Human Genetics, 70(6):1490-­‐1497; Wantanabe, H. Et al, 2004, DNA Sequence and Comparative Analysis of Chimpanzee Chromosome 22, Nature, 429 (6990):382-­‐388; The Chimpanzee Sequencing and Analysis Consortium, 2005) “For almost 30 years [from about 1972], researchers have asserted that the DNA of humans and chimps is at least 98% identical. Now research reported here last week at the American Society for Human Genetics meeting [in Baltimore, October 2002] suggests that the two primate genomes might not be quite as similar after all. A closer look has uncovered nips and tucks in homologous sections of DNA that weren’t noticed in previous studies.”Elizabeth Pennisi, “Jumbled DNA Separates Chimps and Humans”, Science 298 (25 October, 2002), p. 719 “Indeed, 83% of the 231 coding sequences, including functionally important genes, show differences [even] at the amino acid sequence level. ... the biological consequences due to the genetic differences are much more complicated than previously speculated.” H. Watanabe et al., “DNA Sequence and Comparative Analysis of Chimpanzee Chromosome 22,” Nature, Vol. 429, 27 May 2004, pp. 382, 387. “The new figure, 94.5 percent or less, was proposed by the same man who many decades ago had published the 98.5 percent figure, Roy Britten (California Institute of Technology). Britten’s original 98.5 percent figure compared only one type of variation, called single base variation, in which a single “letter” of genetic code is different in corresponding strands of DNA from humans and chimps. However, there are two other major variations that Britten ignored in his original analysis. These types involve large sections of many “letters” of DNA, called insertions and deletions. When Britten factored these types of variations in, they added 4 percent to the difference between humans and chimps. Further, this difference is based on only about one million DNA bases out of the estimated three billion that make up each of the human and chimp genomes. Britten says of his estimate, “Its just a glance.” Marvin Lubenow, “Bones of Contention”, Revised and Updated, Master Books, 2004, pp. 304-­‐305. Lubenow quotes Britten from Andy Coghlan, “Not Such Close Cousins after all”, New Scientist Magazine, 28 September, 2002, p. 20 “Notwithstanding the enthusiasm in the 1970’s and the 1980’s for the similarities between humans and our primate cousins, both in popular culture and among academics, the fact is that humans are very different from even our ape sister species.” Robin Dunbar (University of Liverpool), review of “A Brief History of the Mind: From Apes to Intellect and Beyond”, by William H. Calvin, Nature Magazine, 427, Feb. 26, 2004, p. 783 “What’s the difference between Stuart Little and William Shakespeare? Answer (to a very rough approximation): is about 300 genes.” The Mouse Within, New Scientist Magazine, December 7, 2002 “The two genomes, it turns out, are remarkably similar: 99.9 % of mouse genes have a direct human counterpart.” Alison Abott, “Sorry Dogs – Man’s got a new best friend”, Nature Magazine, 420, December 19, 2002, p. 729 “Now that we've finally sequenced the genomes of both chimp and human, we can see directly that more than 80 percent of all the proteins shared by the two species differ in at least one amino acid. Since our genomes have about 25,000 protein-­‐making genes, that translates to a difference in the sequence of more than 20,000 of them. That's not a trivial divergence. Obviously, more than a few genes distinguish us. And molecular evolutionists have recently found that humans and chimps differ not only in the sequence of genes, but also in the presence of genes. More than 6 percent of genes found in humans simply aren't found in any form in chimpanzees. There are over fourteen hundred novel genes expressed in humans but not in chimps.” Jerry Coyne Professor of Ecology and Evolution at the University of Chicago:, “Why Evolution is True 2009 p.211