One of the continuing claims in the attack upon palaeoanthropology is that Neanderthals (Homo neanderthalensis) specimens were actually AMHs (Anatomically Modern Humans) afflicted with RA (Rheumatoid Arthritis).  It is also claimed that the orbital torus is simply just due to "human variation".

A while ago I tackled this claim and I figured I'd share the information here with you fine folks.  Enjoy.

 

Here is the actual claim I addressed:

“Neanderthal man was found to be pure human, whose brain was deformed by arthritis. [6] Neanderthal had arthritis and was crippled, that is why he would have walked stooped, but not because his whole civilization was like that, and not because he came from a monkey, he was a human. [7] Neanderthal and Homo Erectus had brain sizes like those of modern humans. Neanderthal fossils were found in the same layers as modern human fossils. The skulls of Neanderthal were the only ones with brow ridges, which is supposed to show it to be sub human. But, there are variations in human skulls, one of which is brow ridges. [8] Using the skull of Neanderthal man, an artist can draw either a human, or a monkey; this is not a method to rely upon.”

Source - http://www.freewebs.com/noe...

Homo neanderthalensis is not represented by a singular specimen.  There are many specimens that have been found that represent the Neanderthals.  Not all of them from many separate sites could all have arthritis.  Also, rheumatoid arthritis (which is what the claim is) has specific pathology upon the skeleton.  This does not explain the morphology of the Neanderthal specimens .

“Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is a systematic autoimmune disease that causes chronic inflammation of connective tissue, primarily in the joints.  The first joint tissue to be affected is the synovial membrane, which lines the joint cavity.  Eventually, inflammation may spread to the articular cartilage, fibrous joint capsule, and surrounding ligaments and tendons, causing pain, joint deformity, and loss of function.  The joints most commonly affected are in the fingers, feet, wrist, elbows, ankles and knees, but the shoulders, hips, and cervical spine also may be involved, as well as the tissue of the lungs, heart, kidneys and skin (Huether and McCance, 2000).”

 Arthritis does not deform the brain.  Neanderthals brains were, on average, equal to or larger than modern humans.  Modern humans average approximately 1400 cc (Woolsey et al, 2003) with a range of approximately 1300 – 1500 cc.  The Neanderthals brain size ranged between 1300 and 1640 cc (Poirier, 1999 and Klein, 2000).  The claim that Neanderthals were human is both right and wrong, depending on how you look at it.  They were human in the sense that they are part of the genus Homo.

 The author references the work of Johanson and Shreeve (1989) and uses it as support for the arthritis assertion.  The work does not support this claim at all.  Johnason and Shreeve give the background of the first Neanderthal find described to the scientific community at the time (the mid 1800’s).  A reaction to a paper written by the German anatomist who concluded that the specimens were ancient in origin although incorrectly speculated that they were from a barbarous race encountered by Roman armies (pp. 48).  Johanson and Shreeve give the history of the finds, they do not claim that the Neanderthals were humans with arthritis or rather rickets which is the pathology discussed in the historical context of the reaction to the find.  This means that the author has not actually read the work he cites, has taken this information from another work without properly referencing it or made a claim and cited the work knowing that Johanson and Shreeve did not take that position.

 Any member of the genus Homo warrants being called a human.  However, if the author is referring to modern humans, the Neanderthals were not the same as modern humans.  The scientific community has come to the conclusion that Neanderthals are not a sub-species of Homo sapiens nor were they an ancestor of modern humans.  The evidence warrants a classification of a separate species.  This is a culmination of studies on the Neanderthal specimens ranging from general morphology to DNA analysis.

 Back in 1997 Matthias Krings and his team extracted mtDNA from a Neanderthal specimen found in Germany.  Using PCR techniques and control groups for comparison, Krings found that when compared to modern humans, Neanderthals show differentiation to the extent of being a separate species:

 “DNA was extracted form the Neanderthal-type specimen found in 1856 in western Germany.  By sequencing clones from short overlapping PCR products, a hitherto unknown mitochondrial (mt) DNA sequence was determined.  Multiple controls indicate that this sequence is endogenous to the fossil.  Sequence comparisons with human mtDNA sequences, as well as phylogenetic analyses, show that the Neanderthal sequence falls outside the variation of modern humans (19).”

 Genetic analysis done by Scholz et al. (2000) showed that Neanderthals are not the ancestors of modern humans and not were differentiated enough to show they are not anatomically modern humans.

 Using PCR amplification on two different samples of Neanderthal DNA (one from Germany and one from Croatia), they were compared to Homo sapiens DNA from a German sample and mammoth and reindeer DNA for controls (from Banks Island, Canada).

 “The data presented in this study indicate that the composition of the genomes of Neanderthals and anatomically modern man is significantly different…(1930).”

 Scholz continues to examine more in depth the genetics and concludes:

 “…the mtDNA sequences provided by Krings et al. (1997, 1999) and the data presented here indicate a clear differentiation of Neanderthals and anatomically modern man and support the assumption that both taxa are discrete species.  This also means Neanderthals cannot be the direct ancestor of anatomically modern humans. (1931).”

 A unique study into the Neanderthal/modern human differentiation comes from an examination done by Grine (2004) and molar enamel.  In examining the enamel thickness and molar morphology, Grine found:

 “Evaluation of this purported synapomorphy through an examination of the permanent molars of recent Europeans and Africans reveals that they are indistinguishable from one another in enamel thickness.  Thus, modern Europeans do not share relatively thin molar enamel with Neanderthals.  Rather, thin tooth enamel would appear to represent an ostensibly autapomorophic feature by which they differ from modern as well as other fossil humans. (389).”

 If Neanderthals and modern humans were the same species they would have been able to admix considerably.  Currat and Excoffier’s (2004) research shows this did not happen during the modern humans expansion into Europe.

 “…we estimate that maximum interbreeding rates between the two populations should have been smaller than 0.1%.  We indeed show that the absence of Neanderthal mtDNA sequences in Europe is compatible with at most 120 admixture events between the two populations despite a likely cohabitation time of more than 12,000 y.  This extremely low number strongly suggests an almost complete sterility between Neanderthal females and modern human males, implying that the two populations were probably distinct biological species. (2264).”

 Currat and Excoffier’s work supports similar work previously done four years earlier by Ovchinnikov et al. in 2000.

 Ovchinnikov and his team found that the genetic evidence shows that Neanderthals and humans are two separate species and Neanderthals did not contribute to the modern human gene pool.  The examined a specimen from Mezmaiskaya Cave in northern Caucasus which was 29,000 years old.:

“The sequence shows 3.48% divergence from the Feldhofer Neanderthal.  Phylogenetic analysis places the two Neanderthals [referring to a previous study by Ovchinnikov on a different specimen] from the Caucasus and western Germany together in a clade that is distinct from modern humans, suggesting that their mtDNA types have not contributed to the modern human mtDNA pool.  Comparison with modern populations provides no evidence for the multiregional hypothesis of modern human evolution. (490).”

 Harvati, Frost and McNulty (2004) focused on morphological differences between Neanderthals, modern humans, gorillas and chimps and some old world monkeys.  Their analysis found:

 “Morphological distances between  model taxon pairs were compared to the distances between Neanderthals and modern humans obtained by using a randomization technique.  Results strongly support a specific distinction for Neanderthals. (1147).”

 Bruner et al. (2003) focused on a comparison of endocasts of Neanderthal and modern humans.  One of the major events in our lineage’s evolution was the encephalization of the brain.  The comparison of modern humans and Neanderthals showed marked differences:

 “Enodcranial morphology was studied in a sample of fossil hominines by multivariate approaches using both traditional metrics and geometric morphometrics.

 

The main result was the identification of two different evolutionary trajectories, in which a similar expansion in endocranial size has been reach by different changes in shape. (15335).”

 Caramelli et al. (2003) studied two Cro-magnon specimens and compared them with Neanderthal samples of DNA.  They found what many others have and keep finding, more evidence that Neanderthals and modern humans are two distinct species:

 “Following the most stringent current standards for validation of ancient DNA sequences, we typed the mtDNA hypervariable region I of two anatomically modern Homo sapiens sapiens individuals of the Cro-Magnon type dated at about 23 and 25 thousand years ago.  Here we show that the mtDNAs of these individuals fall well within the range of variation of today’s humans, but differ sharply from the available sequences of the chronologically closer Neanderthals. (6593).”

 Tattersall (1995) accentuates the findings of the status of Neanderthals being a separate species when discussing the cohabitation of modern humans and Neanderthals:

 “…if the Neanderthals were a separate species from us – which the continuity people would deny, of course – significant interchange of genes would have not been possible (though, possibly, individuals might willingly or unwillingly have participated in attempts to hybridize). (226).”

 The non-mixing of genetics has been shown and supported and therefore supports Tattersall’s contention that they were, indeed, a separate species.  In fact, he was one of the first people to formally propose the separate species distinction which was originally determined in the early part of the 20th century:

 “Specifically I urged that, at the very least, the Neanderthals be restored to separate species status as Homo neanderthalensis. (219).”

 Kottak (2002) sums up the contention over the admixture vs. replacement hypothesis (replacement including the non-contribution of Neanderthals to the human gene pool which is supported many times over by genetic evidence):

 “Current interpretations of the fossil evidence and dating seem to support the replacement hypothesis, which denies the Neanderthal ancestry of AMHs [anatomically modern humans] in Western Europe and the Middle East.  AMHs seem likely to have evolved from an archaic H. sapiens African ancestor [Homo heidelbergensis – c.r.o.].  In Africa, as in the Middle East and Asia, the archaic H. sapiens fossils generally had flatter, less projecting faces than the Neanderthals did.  Eventually, AMHs spread to other areas, including Western Europe…(175).”

 There are many other differences between modern humans and Neanderthals in behavior and ecology from paleoanthropological evidence.  As Klein notes:

“…archaeology also suggests important behavioral differences.  Unlike Upper Paleolithic Cro-Magnons, Middle Paleolithic Neanderthals left little compelling evidence for art or jewelry.

 

Their cave sites are generally poorer in cultural debris and richer in bones of bears and other cave dwellers.

 

Finally, the Paleolithic artifact assemblages that Neanderthals produced varied little through time and space.  The Upper Paleolithic assemblages that Cro-Magnons made varied far more and are the oldest from which we can infer identity-conscious ethnic groups (1526).”

Poirier and McKee (1999) discuss more morphological aspects of Neanderthals as they differ from modern humans:

“Face: Overall facial skeleton is massive; midfacial prognathism, large nasal apertures, well-developed but discontinuous brow ridges.

 

Skull: The cranial vault is long, low, and wide.  The occipital bones have occipital ridges, and many have occipital buns.  Perhaps differently shaped foramen magnum and middle ear bones.

 

Dentition and Jaws: No canine diastema in maxillary region; molars have large pulp cavity (taurodontism); large incisors, no chin.

 

Spinal Column: Heavily built; the cervical vertebrae have long projecting spinous processes.

 

Upper Limb Skeleton: Broad scapula, robust humerus with massive head.

 

Pelvis: More dorsally rotated ilia than in modern humans.

 

Lower Limb Skeleton: Massive femurs, short and strong tibiae, large and thick kneecaps. (271).”

In more recent research, genetic analysis of Y-Chromosomal DNA supports the separate species view as well as shown in a presentation by Svante Paabo (Dalton, 2006):

“One finding so far is that the Neanderthal Y chromosome is substantially more different from human and chimp Y chromosomes than are other chromosomes. This suggests that little interbreeding occurred, at least among the more recent Neanderthal species (260).”

 The report was given at New York's Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory.

A study by Noonan, Coop, Kudaravalli, Smith, Krause, Alessi et al. (2006) examined a sequence of 65, 250 base pairs of Neanderthal DNA and estimate that the lineage of AMHs and Neanderthals diverged ~370,000 years ago which supports the previously proposed common ancestor of Neanderthals and AMHs in Homo heidelbergensis.  The research also supports the non-admixture of the two genomes in a significant amount.

The Neanderthals were NOT the only ones with “brow ridges”.  This part of the facial skeleton is called a supraorbital torus, is found in many hominids, Neanderthals, Homo erectus, Homo heidelbergensis, Homo habilis, Homo ergaster, et al. 

The supraorbital tori of Neanderthals is distinct in that they are “extensively pneumatized by the frontal air sinuses, whereas those of Homo erectus are less so, often being composed of solid bone” and are still distinct from modern humans which lack this trait (Aiello and Dean, 2002, pp. 203).  The “brow ridge” is not the single morphological trait by which the separation of modern humans and Neanderthals is made.  To suggest such implies gross ignorance upon the subject.

References (In order of appeareance):

Huether, S. and McCance, K. (2000). Understanding Pathophysiology. (2^nd ed.). St. Louis: Mosby.

Woolsey, T., Hanaway, J. and Gado, M. (2003). The Brain Atlas. (2^nd ed.). Hoboken: John Wiley & Sons.

Poirier, F. and McKee, J. (1999). Understanding Human Evolution. (4^th ed.). Upper Saddle River: Prentice Hall.

Klein, R. (2000). Whither the Neanderthals?  Science, 299, 1525-1527.

Johanson, D. and Shreeve, J. (1989). Lucy’s Child: The Discovery of a Human Ancestor. New York: William Morrow and Co.

Krings, M., Stone, A., Schmitz, R., Krainitzki, H., Stoneking, M. and Paabo, S. (1997). Neanderthal DNA sequences and the origin of modern humans. Cell, 90, 19-30.

Scholz, M., Bachmann, L., Nicholson, G., Bachmann, J., Giddings, I., Ruschoff-Thale, B. et al. (2000). Genomic differentiation of Neanderthals and anatomically modern man allows a fossil-DNA-based classification of morphologically indistinguishable hominid bones.  American Journal of Human Genetics, 66, 1927-1932.

Grine, F. (2004). Geographic variation in human tooth enamel thickness does not support Neanderthal involvement in the ancestry of modern Europeans. South African Journal of Science, 100, 389-394.

Currat, M. and Excoffier, L. (2004). Modern humans did not admix with Neanderthals during their range expansion into Europe. Public Library of Science - Biology, 2, 2264-2274.

Ovchinnikov, I., Gotherstrom, A., Romanova, G., Kharitonov, V. Liden, K. and Goodwin, W. (2000). Molecular analysis of Neanderthal DNA from the northern Caucasus. Nature, 404, 490-493.

Harvati, K., Frost, S. and McNulty, K. (2004). Neanderthal taxonomy reconsidered: Implications of 3D primate models of intra- and interspecific differences. Nature, 101, 1147-1152.

Bruner, E., Manzi, G. and Arsuaga, L. (2003). Encephalization and allometric trajectories in the genus Homo: Evidence from the Neanderthal and modern lineages. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 100, 15335-15340.

Caramelli, D., Lalueza-Fox, C., Vernesi, C., Lari, M., Casoli, A., Mallegni, F. et al. (2003). Evidence for a genetic discontinuity between Neanderthals and 24,000-year-old anatomically modern Europeans. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 100, 6593-6597.

Tattersall, I. (1995). The Fossil Trail. New York: Oxford U.P.

Kottak, C. (2002). Anthropology. (9th ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.

Dalton, R. (2006). Neanderthal DNA yields to genome foray. Nature, 441, 260-261.

Noonan, J., Coop, G., Kudaravalli, S., Smith, D., Krause, J., Alessi, J. et al. (2006). Sequencing and analysis of Neanderthal genomic DNA. Science, 314, 1113-1118.

Aiello, L. and Dean, C. (2002). An Introduction to Human Evolutionary Anatomy. London: Elsevier Academic Press.

An atricle in the journal Biology Letters* surveyed a group of hunter-gatherers in Tanzania (to control for items such as birth control).  They found that voice pitch was a good determinant of number of offspring the individual would have - a higher reproductive success.

The reason for this is hypothesized that men with deeper voices are seen as more attractive and a marker for being more masculine and possibly having "good genes". 

So, those of us who don't have a nice, deep voice may have another hurdle to jump in our quest for a mate.  I guess I should only speak after I wake up in the morning then...

* Source - Apicella, C., Feinberg, D. and Marlowe, F. (2007). Voice pitch predicts reproductive success in hunter gatherers. Biology Letters, Preprint, January 2007. doi:10.1098/rsbl.2007.0410.

People often ask me for proof of evolution "in action" or "happening now".  After reading current stories in newspapers and online about the new deadly strain of anti-biotic resistant Staphylococcus aureus, it makes my job in those instances easier - just e-mail them the news stories.

A new strain of resistant Staph has been noticed - a "superbug".  A superbug is a strain of bacteria or other microorganism (bacteria are often referred to as "bugs") that is extremely resistant to first line medications (such as antibiotics).  These can be common bacteria which are known for being easy to treat.  However, we see evolution through natural selection work and what happens?  Superbugs.

This is shown through the numbers from a paper authored by Jaime Fergie and Kevin Purcell in the journal Pediatric Annals.  The strain is referred to as Community-associated methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (CA-MRSA).  In the article, Fergie and Purcell state that:

"Since the first case reports of methicillin-resistant S. aureus (MRSA) infections in the United States in 1968, MRSA has become an increasing problem, now accounting for 50% or more of the nosocomial S. aureus isolates nationwide."

Source - Fergie, J. and Purcell, K. (2007). The Epidemic of Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus aureus Colonization and Infection in Children: Effects on the Community, Health Systems, and Physician Practices. Pediatric Annals, 36, 402-412.

I'd say that constitutes a problem.

So how does this happen?  Well folks, it's "evolution in action".  Let's take a single person who has a bacterial infection.  The person goes to their physician who prescribes an appropriate antibiotic.  The person is instructed to take all the antibiotics even if they feel better.  Let's say John Doe feels better after a couple of days and stops taking the meds.  Well, what John doesn't realize is that he's killed off the least resistant bacteria but they aren't all gone (and still enough to keep his immune system busy, busy, busy - which is why extra help is needed).  The bacteria who are more resistant to the antibiotics are the ones that are left and then they begin to reproduce.  John starts to feel sick again and even worse than before.

With our societies use of anitbiotics we've saved untold millions of lives.  However, there's always those little bugs which are genetically configured with the ability to be unfazed by the medications.  These are the little bugs that reproduce and create their own little communities of drug resistance - superbugs.  Natural selection worked in this instance to select for organisms with heightened resistance to antibiotics and over time we get the prevalence of these superbugs rising - evolution in action.

The strains of staph aren't the only ones and this isn't a recent thing.  The prevalence of such strains has been steadily rising over the past several decades.  So if there's someone who wants "proof" of "evolution in action" or evolution itself - there you have it, ripped from the headlines.

Homologous structures are explained by shared ancestors which can be seen in the fossil record, is supported by genetic study, comparative morphology et al.  Homologous structures are just one line of evidence that supports a common ancestry. Evolutionary lineages may be somewhat categorized by comparative morphology of homologous structures.

One example of homologous structures is that of the skeletal structure of the human arm and hand and the leg of a cat, the fin of a whale and the wing of a bat.

As Strahler (1987) points out:

“Corresponding organs that agree in their basic structures are said to be homologous.  Of course, the same homologous relationships would also extend to all parts of the skeleton and to the soft parts, such as muscles, nerves, and internal organs.  When the vast number of homologous relationships is taken into account, the evidence for descent from a common ancestor becomes overwhelming (pp. 326)”

The idea that homology implies a need is the incorrect way to look at evolution.  These ‘variations on a theme’ don’t arise because some organism “needed” them and it was endowed to them.  What we observe in nature is the result of natural selection.  Organisms have ‘adapted’ to their environment through a weeding out of unfit geno/phenotypes.  Or, formally defined by Curtis and Barnes (1994) as, “a process of interaction between organisms and their environment that results in a differential rate of reproduction of different phenotypes in the population; can result in changes in the relative frequencies of alleles and genotypes in the population – that is, evolution (pp.G-14)”.

Aside from forelimb structure, another example would be the middle ear of tetrapods which can be traced all the way back to prehistoric fish.  This structure is shared by mammals, reptiles, dinosaurs, amphibians and so forth.  A detailed analysis of the Devonian fish, Panderichthys, finds representations of “the earliest stages in the origin of the tetrapod middle ear architecture” (Brazeau and Ahlberg, 2006).

These similarities are not arbitrarily chosen on some whim.  Homology supports what we should find as evolutionary theory states.  These structures should not be confused with analogous structures which are only superficially similar such as the wing on a bird and the wing of an insect.

Homologies are not restricted to comparative anatomy either it also appears in genetics, biochemistry, neuroscience and may other areas.  One well studied homologue is cytochrome c which is found to be similar in over 60 different species (Curtis and Barnes, 1994).  The amygdaloid complex in the brain of amniotes share “basic developmental, subdivisions, hodological and neurochemical features” (Moreno and Gonzalez, 2006).  The book lungs within species of the class Arachnida are homologous (Scholtz and Kamenz, 2006). 14% of nervous system specific genes have found orthologs across 13 different species (Noda, Ikeo and Gojobori, 2006).

Lizards, along with some other vertebrates has a “third eye” called the parietal eye which has photosensitive cells.  Su, Luo, Terakita, Shichida, Liao, Kazmi et al. (2006) showed that a particular opsin, called parietopsin has orthologs across many species.

Davis, Dahn and Shubin (2007) reported on the functional Hox gene of Polyodon spathula also known as the paddle fish.  They found several genetic orthologs between the Hox gene expression and regulation in this fish and tetrapods further supporting the homologous structure of forelimbs.

The list goes on and on.  Homology goes far past the example of forelimb structure in high school text books – a fact the author doesn’t seem to know.  Homology is predicted by evolution and is validated through a wealth of research across many fields within science.


Strahler, A. (1987). Science and Earth History: The Evolution/Creation Controversy.  Buffalo: Prometheus Books.

Curtis, H. and Barnes, N. (1994). Invitation to Biology. (5^th ed.). New York: Worth Publishers.

Brazeau, M. and Alhberg, P. (2006). Tetrapod-like middle ear architecture in a Devonian fish. Nature, 439, 318-321.

Moreno, N. and Gonzalez, A. (2006). The common organization of the amygdaloid complex in tetrapods: New concepts based on developmental, hodological and neurochemical data in anuran amphibians. Progress in Neurobiology, 78, 61-90.

Scholtz, G. and Kamenz, C. (2006). The book lungs of Scorpiones and Tetrapulmonata (Chelicerata, Arachnida): evidence for homology and a single terrestrialisation event of a common arachnid ancestor. Zoology, 109, 2-13.

Noda, A., Ikeo, K. and Gojobori, T. (2006). Comparative genome analyses of nervous system-specific genes. Gene, 365, 130-136.

Su, C., Luo, D., Terakita, A., Shichida, Y., Liao, H., Kazmi, M. et al. (2006). Parietal-eye phototransduction components and their potential evolutionary implications. Science, 311, 1617-1621.

Davis, M., Dahn, R. and Shubin, N. (2007). An autopodial-like pattern of Hox espression in the fins of a basal actinopterygian fish. Nature, 447, 473-477.

Or at least a scanned electronic version of one.  What am I talking about?  Well one of the world's oldest scientific societies, the Royal Society has made available some of its notable papers. They include papers by Newton, Crick and Watson, Edmond Stone's discovery of salicylic acid (used in aspirin), Stephen Hawking's first published paper, Ben Franklin's kite experiment, and a paper telling of the wonders of an 8-year-old musician (Mozart).

So if you dig stuff like this, it's worth checking out.

**Another older post from November of last year.  It's almost a year old but I still think the research findings on this subject were fascinating**

I'm sure most people have seen the commercials for several antidepressants or even recognize many by brand name (Paxil, Xanax, Prozac). Some may even know them by how they works such as SSRIs. Antidepressants have several mechanisms by which they work and there is a plethora of different ones out there. Some newer ones have proven effective and aren't plagued by the side-effects of older ones such as sleep interruption or decreased libido.

So what's my point? Well for a number of reasons antidepressants can take up to several weeks before symptom alleviation is seen. But what if there was a medication which helped in a matter of hours instead of weeks? It would be pretty popular and in demand by those who suffer from depression. What if such a drug had been around for a long time? Horsepucky you say? Well, yes and no.

A recent study detailed the results of a trial in which participants were alleviated of depressive symptoms in a matter of just a couple of hours and the effects lasted up to a week. What is this miracle drug? How is it that it has existed for a while and no one has found these great results? Well, the drug is ketamine. Ketamine is usually seen in the role of an anesthetic.

The study is detailed in the latest issue of the Archives of General Psychiatry.*

Ketamine works as a N-methyl-D-aspartic acid antagonist. That is, it blocks NMDA receptors on post synaptic neurons from binding with neurotransmitters. The dose was through a very direct method - intravenously administered whereas most medications for depression are taken orally.

The problem however is that ketamine is notorious for it's side effects such as euphoria and hallucinations. Maybe it can lead to other innovations in medications used to treat depression.

* Zarate et al. (2006). A randomized trial of an N-methyl-D-aspartic acid antagonist in treatment resistant major depression. Archives of General Psychiatry, 63, 856-864.

**This is an old post from my MySpace blog I did back in July**:

Some recent research in the open access, peer reviewed online journal PLoS Genetics has provided empirical support to propositions made by scientists previously.  The study done by researchers from Cornell University showed that up to 10% of the human genome has been changed by natural selection in the past 15,000 - 100,000 years.  This has involved things like skin pigmentation due to regional climate variation - you awesome anthropologists were right all along.  Not to mention it provides even more empirical support for natural selection working on our species to put us where we are today despite what many might say to the contrary.

Another interesting study of which the findings were presented in Philadelphia back in March at the meeting of the American Association of Physical Anthropologists shows that human evolution is actually "speeding up".  An interesting trend is that the overall average size of the human braincase has been getting smaller in the last 20,000 - 30,000 years.

These findings also support predictions made by Jeffrey McKee 7 years ago utilizing a computer modeling program.  However, the accelerated evolution being tied to population growth is still being debated and is not resolved completely in this work - it will open avenues for further study later to see if there is, in fact, a link.  This also is more evidence to silence those who claim that human evolution has stopped - which of course is ridiculous as there are certain criteria that must be met to stop evolution from occurring and some are virtually impossible (at least at the current time) such as stopping mutations from happening.  It also flies in the face of a recurring anti-evolutionist argument of "why aren't we still evolving?" - the answer now has substantial empirical backing - "it didn't stop, we are still evolving".

**First, a caveat - What this blog post contains will most likely offend some and not bother others in the least.  It is not my intention to insult anyone's beliefs, insinuate that anyone's beliefs are incorrect or suggest that holding a particular belief casts a negative reflection of anyone, that is not my intention at all.  My concern in writing this blog post is more a focus on scientific literacy and the too often rejection of solid science.  If this post does offend anyone, I apologize in advance and am merely posting my opinions on this matter and thanks for reading.**

I think the phrase in the title is more than simple satire. It is an effective commentary of sorts (indirectly). It illuminates the vast misunderstanding of much of the public about the theory of evolution as well as the rejection of a scientific theory most people think they understand but really don't have a clue about. Anyone that knows me also knows that I am an ardent defender of evolution. On many a messageboard I've debated those who attack it - most often supporters of creationism (in its many forms) or "intelligent design" (simply creationism dressed in a lab coat). I am also a huge advocate of science literacy and regularly comment on the sad state of it here in the U.S. A good report on this very topic can be found in the National Science Foundation's Science and Engineering Indicators report. Each report has a section titled "Public Attitudes and Understanding". The last report was last year (2006) and it showed some small improvements in certain areas (such as environmental concerns) but overall still gut-wrenching to see in the 21st century. Some of the highlights from the report include:

Many people throughout the world cannot answer simple, science-related questions. Nor do they have an understanding of the scientific process.

Less than half the American population accepts the theory of evolution. Whether and how the theory of evolution is taught in public schools remains one of the most contentious issues in science education.

A sizeable segment of the U.S. population has some reservations about S&T. For example, in 2004 surveys, more than half of the respondents agreed that "we depend too much on science and not enough on faith," that "scientific research these days doesn't pay enough attention to the moral values of society," and that "scientific research has created as many problems for society as it has solutions." However, agreement with the last two statements declined in recent years.

This table shows some of the questions asked and the percentage of correct answers. For the U.S., the overall decrease was quite disturbing:

Specifically, the understanding of evolution in the U.S. is reprehensible. With the amount of talk and debate about it, you'd think people in this country would know what the hell they are talking about - unfortunately most don't. In 2006, Gallup did a poll which assessed the public's opinion on evolution, creationism and intelligent design. To put the results into perspective, let's look at the results of a poll on the same subject years ago - in 1982. In 1982, the question was asked:

Which of the following statements comes closest to your views on the origin and development of human beings -- [ROTATE 1-3/3-1: 1) Human beings have developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, but God guided this process, 2) Human beings have developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, but God had no part in this process, 3) God created human beings pretty much in their present form at one time within the last 10,000 years or so]?

In 1982 38% agreed with #1, 44% agreed with #3 and only 9% agreed with #2. This poll was repeated years later in 1993, 1997, 1999, 2001, 2004 and finally again in 2006. The results for the 2006 poll (24 years after the first poll) were sickenly similar. In 2006 36% agreed with #1, 46% agreed with #3 and only 13% agreed with #2. The amount of people who believe God created humans in their present form less than 10,000 years ago is nearly half of the people!

A poll done by Newsweek shows similar and just as disturbing results:

Sixty-two percent say they favor teaching creation science in addition to evolution in public schools; 26 percent oppose such teaching, the poll shows. Forty-three percent favor teaching creation science instead of evolution in public schools; 40 percent oppose the idea.

Even more repulsive is the results in the 2001 Gallup poll (which had similar results to the 2006 poll) which asked the additional question:

How informed would you say you are about the theory of evolution? Do you feel that you are very informed about the theory of evolution, somewhat informed, only a little informed, or not informed at all?

81% of people asked said they were somewhat to very informed about evolution! These "informed" people have decided that evolution is trumped by creationism and intelligent design. That is sad. But why would people say they are so informed but swallow the humbug of ID and creationism? Most likely because what they think they know is, as Penn Jillette would say - BULL$&*%! People attend seminars and talks by the likes of Ken Ham which feed them a distorted version of what evolution is which often includes the origins of life and big bang cosmology. A wonderful example can be found in a part of the HBO series "Friends of God". A segment from one of the episodes focuses on a lecture by Ham and his cohorts and Pelosi asks several kids and a couple of adults what they think about evolution. The older individuals (the kids just reply "I believe in creation") claim that the evidence supports creationism and one girl implies that those who believe evolution "don't have all the facts". Then there's the skater/punk kid who wants to be a biochemist and work for the ICR (I can only hope when he gets to college he sees what kind of tripe he's been fed).

All of this information only supports a contention I've held for a while - most people actually know jack about evolutionary theory. They receive most of their information from TV (with the internet close behind) and apparently the sources are less than reputable. In my encounters with people online I often see references to creationist/ID websites or literature. Rarely do I encounter someone who references a text, scientific book or a peer-reviewed scientific journal and when I do it is usually one of several things:

1. The reference in no way even closely supports the person's claim.

2. A section of text is quote-mined from the work they cite.

3. The person cites a reference for their claim but has misunderstood what the reference is even about.

As an example of #1, I found an essay online which someone wrote about evolution. In this essay the author cites several scientific references along with many creationist references. However, the scientific references cited do not support the author's claims at all. An example:

"Pliopithecus was named a hominid because it was a cross between the spider monkey and a gibbon. [11]"

My reply:

Howell said nothing of the sort which is, again, who the author cites. Howell labeled Pliopithecus as "one of the earliest protoapes" which "looked much like a gibbon and is classed as its ancestor." (Howell, 1970).

The author referenced a book by the late F. Clark Howell titled Early Man which was a Time-Life book targeted for what appears to be the middle school aged. The complete reference is:

Howell, F. (1970). Early Man. New York: Time-Life Books.

Another example by this author in the same essay is an example of #3:

The author states:

"Also, Roger Lewin, a paleontologist, acknowledges that the mitochondrial DNA method is in support for Noah's Ark story. [34]."

To which I reply:

The "Noah's Ark" hypothesis is not supporting the biblical story. It is the name given to the origination of the human lineage from Africa – now called the "Out of Africa" hypothesis. His exact words are:

"In other words, the mitochondrial DNA technique appears to support the argument that modern humans evolved in one place and then migrated, replacing premodern populations – the Noah's Ark hypothesis." (Lewin, 1988, pp. 131).

This is not stating that some people built a boat for all animals to wait out a world-wide flood in – very different things. Mellars, Aitken and Stringer (1992) give a short explanation specifically of what the hypothesis postulates:

"One view – frequently referred to in the more popular scientific literature as the 'Garden of Eden' or 'Noah's Ark' hypothesis – asserts that biologically and genetically modern human populations evolved initially in one fairly limited and closely prescribed region of the world and subsequently dispersed – at varying times – to all other regions, either with or without significant degrees of genetic intermixture and interbreeding with the pre-existing populations within the same regions (127)."

Here we have the author citing a reference which they think supports the biblical story of Noah when it, in fact, explains a theory which directly contradicts their claims. The citations to the references are as follows:

Lewin, R. (1988). In the Age of Mankind. Washington, D.C.: Smithsonian Books.

Mellars, P., Aitken, M., and Stringer, C. (1992). Outlining the problem. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 337, 127-130.

#2 is a favorite found in creationist literature - even entire books have been written utilizing this tactic. Quote-mining is simply taking a section of text from a work out of it's context so it seems to say something which the author didn't intend. One widespread example is a section of text from Charles Darwin's The Origin of Species about the eye. An example from the creationist book The Collapse of Evolution by Scott Huse reads:

Charles Darwin acknowledged the inadequacy of evolution when he wrote:

To suppose that the eye, with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest possible degree. (Darwin 1872).

However, Huse neglects what Darwin wrote next:

"Yet reason tells me, that if numerous gradations from a perfect and complex eye to one very imperfect and simple, each grade being useful to its possessor, can be shown to exist; if further, the eye does vary ever so slightly, and the variations be inherited, which is certainly the case; and if any variation or modification in the organ be ever useful to an animal under changing conditions of life, then the difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection, though insuperable by our imagination, can hardly be considered real."

The author took a section of text out of context and it made it seem that Darwin believes that evolution cannot explain how the eye could have evolved - but in context Darwin said nothing of the sort.

So what is the deal with all the misinformation? Well, first off, reading scientific literature isn't for everyone - much of it is very complicated and not directed toward a lay audience. Even much of the work which is written for a lay audience is still often too complicated for much of the populace to grasp or to want to learn further about. Enter the creationists who pop in with pretty, simple diagrams and their nice, neat Power Point slides and relate their version of what "science says" to something most of the populace is familiar with - the Bible. Most people will not take the time to check the claims of people like Ham and see what actual science says about the fossil record or even how fossilization occurs, it's easier to engage in low effort thinking and just accept their straw-man version of evolution. Therefore we have intellectual laziness, ignorance and personal ideology combined to create a force which shows up in the results of polls by Gallup and Newsweek and reports by the National Science Foundation.

It is extremely sad that in the 21st century that a well supported and established scientific theory like evolution is trumped by an idea founded on a collection of Iron Age myths. It is sad that in a time when so much knowledge is so unbelievably easily accessed - through the internet, vast libraries, documentaries, radio programs - that this self imposed ignorance is still rampant in the most powerful country in the world. Not to mention even in the face of a unanimous consensus by the scientific community (the AAAS, AGS, NAS, NSF, BRS et al., hell even the APA issued a statement against ID, all have made public statements against ID and creationism as not being scientific or supported by the scientific evidence) - people choose to accept the easiest route, the route that they can relate to or easily grasp.

This is why I believe, just as the late Carl Sagan did, that science education and literacy are of the upmost importance in the U.S. If we do not focus on this and get the populace caught up with science, then we'll be resigning ourselves to a dark age of scientific understanding. It is bad enough and only seems to be getting slowly worse as time marches on. This is why I ramble on, this is why I take some much time when debating online, this is why I take so much time to explain things to people in conversations, this is why I do what I can to spread knowledge and destroy the ignorance - so that science (as Dr. Sagan believed) can be that candle that leads us out of the dark.

I posted an article not too long ago that I wrote last year on the theories of love.  In dealing with physiology much was mentioned about the role of oxytocin in pair bonding.  Much of the work supporting this has been done previously in animals like prairie voles.  Some work has been done in humans but not too much.

A recent study in the journal Psychological Science, put out by the APS (Association for Psychological Science) studied the levels of oxytocin in soon to be mothers.  They found that the oxytocin levels in these women predicted bonding behavior with their children.  This study appears to substantiate the previous non-human studies in pair bonding and this particular mechanism seems to be conserved across taxa.  This would allude to a long evolutionary history of such a process arising long ago in our mammalian history - possibly further back.

The journal is still in press but here's the info if you want to look for that article when it comes out (or if you are a member of APS, just go to the November issue to see the draft pdf):

Ruth Feldman, Aron Weller, Orna Zagoory-Sharon, and Ari Levine. (2006). Evidence for a Neuroendocrinological Foundation of Human Affiliation: Plasma Oxytocin Levels Across Pregnancy and the Postpartum Period Predict Mother-Infant Bonding. Psychological Science - November 2007.

I told ya I'd get some brain stuff here sooner or later.

Sometimes I have to wonder about the people from the small town I grew up in - Cuero, Texas.  I also have to keep in mind that it's a small town with an agricultural history and foundation which is often steeped in folk-lore.

All I have to say in relation to the goings on is that people will be greatly disappointed when the DNA results come back and show the animal to be of the genus Canis - that's the genus which includes dogs, wolves and jackals.  The other possibility which is far less more likely is it is a member of Vulpes which contain foxes.  However, the pictures seem to show an animal which highly resembles a type of Mexican hairless dog - similar features, skin color and so forth.

The least likely conclusion is that this animal is the legendary goat sucker.  I have to admit that skepticism takes a back to fantasy and imagination in Cuero.  Even when the results of the DNA test comeback with a mundane explanation, this will not destroy the wonder of many.  They will do like many people who are so motivated by the euphoria and excitement of that wonder and awe and will make rationalizations to protect it - no matter how much evidence to the contrary they are presented.

I know some of you may see the name of my blog and wonder, "where's the brain stuff at dude?".  Well the simple answer is I just haven't posted it yet.  My blog here is pretty new and I'm pretty limited on time and post some stuff here and there.

I work full time and I'm also a full time graduate student - that sucks up the time right there.  If I'm not at work, I'm in class or doing homework or working on some project for a class.  I get small bits of time here and there where I sit down in front of the computer and it's never really enough to sit and hammer out a decent blog about some subject in the brain sciences.  However, as I've alluded to in my previous post, I'm seeking to change employment so that it better accentuates my school work.  Or at least give me more time to focus on it.  That'll give me more time to come here and give you cats the skinny on some stuff from the wide world of brains.

I have a couple of ideas that I'll work on here and there and maybe post a good one in a few days or week or so - whenever I can get to it.

Yes folks, after cramming for my multivariate statistics mid-term I write a blog.  In just two short hours I'll have ANOVA tables, F-tests, Levene tests for homogeneity of variance all staring me down.  They'll mock me as I attempt to extract some garbled memory in relation the question and try not to be too hasty and make simple mistakes (as I seem to do when the test anxiety sets in).

Then it's time to work on the substance abuse presentations...woohoo.  I have mine pretty much done but nowhere near the amount of material I'd like to have.  I am, however, constrained by limited time.  So, I'll go over the wonders of what MDMA and Lortab, or one of the other many names given to a hydrocodone bitartrate and acetaminophen combination, does to the brain and body.

Then, I get to start work on my sleep disorders seminar - gotta put together and 1 or more of material in the next 4 weeks.  As well as fitting in a presentation on HIV/AIDS as it relates to Health Psychology.  Although that one is a group project and I'll probably ramble on about CCR5 receptors, HIV deniers and basic virology.  All fun an interesting stuff - see all the great fun you can have as a graduate student?  And yes, that was sarcasm.

Pure academics aside, I'm also formulating a plan to worm my way into a TA position.  There is a class that everyone is required to take called the Biological Basis of Behavior.  It's basically a type of graduate level introductory neuroscience course.  Of course, this is the stuff that gets my...well, I like this stuff.  So, I have no doubt that I'll get an A in the course.  Now, the first thing to do is find out if the course has a TA since the instructor is new, there is a possibility this class does not have one.  Therefore I will inquire about being a TA for the class and if I have to prove I am knowledgeable in that material, I think making the highest grade in the class would be sufficient proof.

What?  What's that you say?  Highest grade?!  A bit of arrogance there Mr. Overby? Actually, no.  Neuroscience has always interested me.  I did well in my undergraduate physiological psychology course, I took the subsequent graduate level biology of behavior course and did excellent in there as well.  I went to UTD for a year in the neuroscience program (there's several reasons why I didn't stay in that program and not because it was "too hard") where I studied systems neuroscience, cellular neuroscience, developmental neuroscience, neuropharmacology et cetera.  I have the advantage of having a good amount of formal education in this area.  So, my plan is to plead my case for a TA position for the class, show what I know and even add some icing on the cake by going above and beyond what is asked in that class.

So why a TA spot?  Well it would work best for me.  It would mean that I get to work at the school and spend more time there.  I would not have to work so many hours and get paid much more than I am now - I believe the going rate for TAs is somewhere around $2000 a month.  This will also give me time and resources (but most of all enough time) to begin work on my thesis which will require a lot of work but that's what I get for choosing to do some neuroendocrinology work.

If I don't get into the Ph.D. program at UT I plan on staying and getting my second masters at TSU in Health Services Research so maybe they'd let me stay on as a TA for that class...hopefully, but I won't hold my breath for a comfortable position like that past graduation.

Well, there's my mid-term rant and ramble.  It is what it is.  Just wait until finals, then I'll really sound as if I've lost my mind.

Why? Well, to boost the lifespan of subsequent offspring of course! Humbug you say? Nay, verily I speak of research! Yes, research my friends!

Okay, I'll chill on the theatrics. But I'm not kidding about the older guy/younger girl thing. A new study published online in PLoS One by Shripad D. Tuljapurkar and crew found that older men mating with younger females eliminates a higher mortality, what they called the "wall of death". Evolutionarily it will serve to raise the lifespan upper boundary for later offspring.

So there you have it folks! So next time you see that older guy with a younger woman, don't scoff they're benefiting the entire species!

Actually the question is diseased modern human or not diseased modern human in relation to the specimen (LB-1) nicknamed the "Hobbit". The specimen was discovered in 2003 in a cave on the island of Flores. The initial paper describing it (published in the October 28, 2004 issue of Nature) assigned it to a previously unknown hominid species, Homo floresiensis. Some in the community were, and continue to be, skeptical of this assignment. The prominent alternative hypothesis has been that the specimen is a modern human which had a disorder called microcephaly. This disorder is said to explain the small brain size and small stature of the specimen. The debate has continued over the last few years.

Flash forward to the present. An article published in the September 21, 2007 issue of the journal Science has claimed to show evidence supporting the new species argument. Matthew W. Tocheri and colleagues studied the wrist bones of LB-1. Their conclusions were:

A recent study published in the journal Science has found evidence that the famed Velociraptor had feathers! Examination of a specimen unearthed in 1998 found quill knobs on a forearm bone. It has been suspected for some time but not confirmed that the species had feathers - now it is confirmed. The raptor most likely didn't fly at all.

I have a blog elsewhere on this here interweb, but I figured joining here would most likely let more people read my ramblings - and oh there are ramblings.  Not to mention Victoria was my home for a number of years.

So who the hell am I?  Well, my name's Cory (Crobar was a nickname bestowed upon me a few years ago and I thought it sounded cool) and I'm currently living in San Marcos.  I'm a graduate student at Texas State University in Research Health Psychology and Epidemiology and plan to obtain my Ph.D. from the University of Texas-Austin in Behavioral Neuroscience.

I'm a recent addition to San Marcos - moved here in July.  I spent the previous year in Dallas attending UTD and studying Applied Cognition and Neuroscience with a specialization in Neuropathology.  However, for many reasons I transferred schools and now I'm here.  Dallas was pretty great and my friends Joey and Kelli kept me sane - you guys are the greatest.

Before that I lived in Victoria for a few years and graduated from UHV with my BS in Psychology.  I also worked as a lab assistant in the UHV computer labs and wrote for the UHV Flame a few times.

So what does this Cory guy do in his very small amount of free time?  Well, I'm a member of a few online messageboards here and there, check my MySpace like a man obsessed, and read the latest journal articles in scientific journals (yeah, I know, I'm a complete and utter nerd).  I do have some talent though, I play the guitar when I can and I feel I'm pretty decent at it.  I'm a lover of music - listening and playing.  I'm primarily classified as a metalhead I suppose and am always on the look out for new, quality metal (which is usually not from this country nor bands anyone here has even heard of - but they rock nonetheless).

I have many wonderful friends and I love them all very much.  Many are still in Victoria and I wish I could see them more often than I get to.

My love-life is a complete and utter tragedy of Shakespearian proportions - I'm nearly convinced that the only girls who come into my life are those who seek to make my life as close to any concept of Hell as possible.  That's not to say there aren't wonderful girls out there - there are, I just haven't caught the eye of any of them...but the evil, subversive, heartless, cruel ones?  Those are the ones I seem to attract.  But enough about my wasteland of a love life.

I'll probably post some stuff I have from my other place of residence on the web here just to get things rolling.  I hope everyone continues to drop by, thanks for reading.