Oliver the humanzee, and The Origin of Species

The last thing on earth I want to do is create the impression that I’m obstinate, but I’m afraid that’s may be my only choice — unless I choose to go quietly into that good night, pretending that my curiosity has been completely sated, when in fact it hasn’t.

I almost wish I could fake it. But that will never be my style, I’m afraid.

Long before I began writing Rocky Leonard detective novels, I admired the tenacity of fictional police detective Lieutenant Frank Columbo. I guess his stubborn refusal to never admit a problem might have stumped him rubbed off on me. Also, I graduated from the University of Georgia, which makes me a Bulldog — creatures notorious for refusing to quit. Apparently, it’s in my genes and chromosomes.

Once I began writing detective novels, I realized I had to train my own mind to think like a detective. I had to learn to apply deductive reasoning in situations where I’m evaluating potential evidence. I’m afraid my reticence to simply believe and accept everything I’m told comes quite naturally to me, even when the information is coming from an authority figure. Trust, but verify. Those are words to live by.

When I have questions I feel compelled to ask them, even if they don’t get answered…because if I never ask my questions, no one even knows that I’m legitimately seeking answers. Of course, my stubbornness in refusing to believe something until I can understand it sometimes creates an impression that I’m unable, or unwilling to learn, and occasionally I alienate an acquaintance, sometimes even a friend.

I have no desire to make my atheist friends believe that I’m absurdly stupid or incapable of understanding allegedly simple and straightforward concepts like evolution theory, but it may not be avoidable. Please don’t allow me to add to anyone’s confusion — I know what supposedly has happened for monkeys to make men by descent with modifications, but not how, which is where the rubber actually meets the road.

Simply stated as I see it, there are only three ways that humans could have descended from apes.

The first is that two apes could have mated and given birth to a human via radical sudden mutations — the Goldschmidt “hopeful monster” theory. However, Dr. Ken Miller of Brown University completely eliminated as a possible scenario to explain the origin of species in his recent reply to my letter.

That seems to leave only two other possible ways in which descent with modification could produce a new kind of organism — lucky, accumulated small mutations in an isolated breeding population accumulated over time (the method described by Dr. Miller), or successful hybridization (which is usually ruled out by biologists, because offspring of two different species are almost always sterile.)

If descent with modification over long periods of time is true, oak trees are not only related to pine trees, but they are related to humans by the same basic biological processes as well. Humans would not only be cousins to chimpanzees, but more distant cousins to the banana we both enjoy eating.

The relationships continue to evolve into more and more spectacular morphological forms simply by adding more Deep Time to the equation. LUCA was only a simple, single-celled organism, but if common descent is true, all modern life descended from it.

I believe it’s fairly safe to say that I’m comfortably familiar with the theory of natural selection in general, and with concepts such as genetic drift, allopatric speciation, and the founder effect to attempt following the logic. What I don’t see is how those things add up to the variety we observe in nature, even with the staggeringly long periods of Deep Time suggested by the geologic record.

For example, ape-t0-human evolution requires quite a few morphological changes. But let’s focus on probably the easy change to visualize. Apes and chimps have fur virtually covering their entire body. Humans don’t have an fur. They have body hair. Except for rare cases of hypertrichosis, human hair is nothing remotely comparable to fur. At some point in the process of descent with modification over time, a dominant trait not only must have become recessive, it virtually vanished. The only rational explanation for this happening without a reason for it is merely because it was theoretically possible.

I can’t deny that common descent is theoretically possible. It just isn’t all that plausible, when one considers the alternative of intelligent design by a supernatural creator God, and all the evidence suggesting such a God must exist..

I know that biologists claim they can “test” the theory of macro evolution by making predictions about the past and then finding evidence that can be interpreted as proof the prediction is true. What it seems the theory of natural selection cannot do in regard to the origin of species is provide an observable case in real time. We may assume that slow, gradual changes occurred over time by “careful inference” rather than observation and true experiment, but we can’t reverse-engineer the process and watch it happen, of course.

We can only accept the argument for descent by default, because no other alternative is allowed for consideration. If asked to provide a test for design, about the best I could suggest without giving it a whole lot of thought would probably be the angler fish, with its very unusual means of sexual reproduction and a fishing pole protruding from its head. The female angler fish is much larger than the males, which literally affix themselves to the female, in parasitic fashion. Much like the platypus, the angler fish seems to suggest our creator God has a very interesting sense of humor.

I remain extremely grateful to Dr. Miller for his patience with me over the past few days, as well as his kindness and generous effort to answer all the questions I posed about the theory of evolution, particularly in relation to the origin of species in relation to the origin of humans.

Unfortunately, though I believe I understood the explanations that Dr. Miller provided rather well, I still have plenty of questions noodling around in my head.  It is my fault completely, for failing to ask all the right questions when I had the opportunity. I wouldn’t dream of imposing on Dr. Miller again — I’m sure he has better things to do than correspond with me, and I’m sure I’ve taken enough of his time.

One very cogent point Dr. Miller made was that no one seems to know of a way to test design, but I would counter that experts such as himself haven’t tried, and they would be most capable.

I wouldn’t know where to begin.

The evidence for descent — the fossil record, comparative anatomy, and DNA, can be argued as evidence for an iterative design process just as easily. Instead of intermediate fossils, if we view transitional species as prototypes created to prove a concept before the final design went into mass production, the fossil record makes even more sense than interpreted to mean common descent.

The evidence for design appears to be ubiquitous: by studying physics, we learn the cosmologists believe that our universe was allegedly “fine-tuned” with incredible precision.  Even the slightest variation in any of six identified cosmological factors would have allegedly prevented life from coming to exist. From chemistry, we learn that the cell is a remarkable construction with up to six billion bits of information encoded into two strands of organic material we call DNA, and recognize to be the building blocks of life.

From simple observation, we can see evidence of patterns, Fibonacci spirals and Mandelbrot fractals, from microscopic scale to the gargantuan. We can see the suggestion of sophisticated design in complex structures and functionality. The immune system, the central nervous system, flight, the ability of bats and dolphins to navigate using echo-location…this is not simple functionality.

But I must admit that I haven’t thought of a biological test or experiment that might provide evidence in support of a design theory. Of course, I’m not a biologist.

In my book Counterargument for God, my theory of design was compared to a theory of descent in the context my Big Picture.  My objective is not to eliminate Darwin from the discussion, but to understand how far Darwin’s theory can go to answer my existential questions.

Descent simply doesn’t fit in the Big Picture as a fully functional alternative to design. You need descent to work, plus a lot of good luck.

From what would the universe descend with modification — the multiverse? Life didn’t descend from inanimate matter. Design is potentially a comprehensive solution, but descent must be augmented with copious amounts of good luck.

Life cannot evolve until it exists. The Big Picture necessary to contemplate our existential questions must begin with the cosmological evidence for the Big Bang, segues into the chemistry of abiogenesis, and finally considers the evidence of descent coupled with lots of good luck versus design before we can conclude humans appeared on Earth without divine intervention.

The reason I directed my open letter to Dr. Miller and Dr. Collins was because I knew both men have impeccable reputations for their work as scientists, and that both have proclaimed themselves to be Christian. To be brutally honest, I had very little hope that either man would find the time for me, given my experiences asking questions of atheist scientists and professors in the habit of making rather audacious claims.

I feel fortunate to have received a response in the first place, given the fact Dr. Brown is a well-respected professor at an Ivy League school, and I have no credentials of merit. After all, Jerry Coyne never even bothered trying to answer my questions, even though I could tell from reading his Why Evolution is True blog that he wasn’t very busy.

Truthfully, had I watched a video lecture by biology professor P. Z. Myers titled “Scientists! If You’re Not An Atheist, You’re Not Doing Science Right!” before ever writing to Dr. Miller, I would have asked much better questions.

In the video, Dr. Myers grudgingly conceded that Dr. Collins and Dr. Miller are both excellent scientists and have produced exemplary work, though he simultaneously mocked them for what he called their “wacky” religious beliefs. My questions would have been largely focused on what Dr. Myers claimed was Dr. Miller’s theory of quantum indeterminacy.

Use of the word “quantum” piques my interest, because I personally believe that discoveries in quantum theory hold the key to coming closer to the answers to our existential questions. I would contend that the separation of the spiritual mind from the physical brain is NOT an illusion or hallucination, but evidence of what I have called quantum consciousness. Scientific evidence exists strongly suggesting that the mind of an incapacitated person can accurately “learn” and retain new information while the physical brain remains temporarily out of commission.

For the record, I have tried to contact Dr. P. Z. Myers directly in the past. I sent him questions via email as well as posting comments at his blog Pharyngula, but I never tried an open letter. All of my attempts to communicate with Dr. Myers failed rather miserably. As a result, I assumed that any additional efforts to make contact would only amount to another exercise in futility, so I didn’t bother.

In his lecture where he poked fun at Drs. Collins and Miller, Dr. P. Z. Myers repeatedly claimed that science and religion were completely incompatible. He also declared that advocates of theistic evolution are creationists in reality.

I’m tempted to agree with Dr. Myers on that point. The majority of theistic evolution advocates do appear to believe in limited creation, that God created the universe and then got tired.

Some even believe that a supernatural creator formed LUCA (although in The Language of God, Dr. Collins doesn’t rule out the possibility that abiogenesis might have been nothing but an accidental chemical reaction.)

In contrast, as an atheist Dr. Myers would seem to believe that good luck created the universe, and nothing caused the animation of matter. Our only real options to explain true miracles of creation on that scale are either a supernatural God or nothing but incredible, stupid good luck.

Unless atheists happen to reject the Big Bang theory (without any evidence to support an eternal universe), they must believe that something (specifically this universe) came from virtually nothing. However, we should believe the universe did have an origin, because of the scientific evidence known as redshift and cosmic microwave background radiation (CMB).

The evidence in favor of the Big Bang appears to be overwhelming.

Because he’s a biologist and not a physicist, Dr. Myers doesn’t seem to feel the need to worry about the origin of the universe, even though he has been intellectually honest enough to assert that claiming abiogenesis is not part of evolution is a cop-out.

Dr. Myers mockingly claimed that Dr. Miller believes that all evolutionary mutations are intentional. If that’s really true, I suspect there may not be nearly as much difference between my interpretation of the scientific evidence and Dr. Miller’s as I would have believed.

However, I suspect that Dr. Myers may have misrepresented Dr. Miller’s views on that subject. I didn’t see any room for divine intervention to play a role in the explanation of evolution that Dr. Miller provided. There was no mention of quantum indeterminacy.

Natural selection is not difficult a difficult concept to understand. I feel confident that I understand the concept well enough. Random mutation and descent with modification allow one species of animal to evolve into another. I just don’t accept that the attempts to explain evolution offer the best possible explanation for the existence of modern life we can easily observe watching Planet Earth DVDs.

The problem is that I didn’t give Dr. Miller enough information in my open letter to fully explain in full my questions/problems/objections to evolution theory as it’s been explained to me, over and over, and now I’ve blown the opportunity. I wouldn’t dream of presuming to bother him with additional questions.

I really would like to understand how evolution might work in the real world. According to Darwin’s theory of natural selection (which Dr. Miller confirmed), primates with fur are believed to have gradually evolved to become human over millions of years. Nobody really believes rapid emergence of new species is possible, not through “hopeful monster” sudden, major changes, or through hybridization.

Then what caused the furor about Oliver, the alleged humanzee?

Humans are one species, and chimpanzees clearly another. Though there are similarities easily discerned using comparative anatomy and DNA comparison, . For example, if you put a human in a room full of chimps or vice versa, it wouldn’t be difficult to tell the species apart. Nobody in their right mind believes a human could mate with a chimp and produce viable offspring. So why did scientists allow the general public to speculate for so long about whether or not Oliver was half-chimp, half-human? The reason was probably because Oliver looked and acted like a cross between a human and a chimp.

The first image on display in this article is an artistic representation of what Australopithecus Afarensis (nicknamed Lucy) might have looked like when she lived approximately 4.5 million years ago.

Lucy has often been described as a transitional fossil, a missing link in the fossil record bridging the gaps between apes and humans. Her remains are shown on the right.

Of course, Lucy is far from the only alleged transitional fossil. She’s not even the only transitional species filling the gaps in the fossil record from “Old World” apes to humans.

One of the most famous of the alleged missing links was Archaeopteryx, the alleged intermediate species filling the gape between reptiles and birds.

The problem with assuming Archaeopteryx was a transitional fossil seems to be that we must ignore the more recent paleontological discovery of Protoavis, a more true bird fossil that allegedly lived more than 60 million years prior to Archaeopteryx.

If the evidence about Protoavis is accurate, it suggests that Archaeopteryx was not a transitional species, but actually a biological dead-end.

I trust and believe that Dr. Miller is absolutely telling me the truth, or at minimum what he believes in his expert opinion to be true, when he says that the Robertsonian translocation of human chromosome 2 didn’t abruptly turn some apes into humans — but what did?

Random mutation, isolation, and luck made humans out of furless apes? Not long ago, an untrue rumor circulated saying that Josef Stalin once funded research attempting to create hybrid soldiers with the strength of a chimp but the intelligence of a human being.

Now back to Lucy — humans are humans, and chimps are chimps. Nobody really believes that humans could ever successfully interbreed with chimps, not since Russian scientist Ilya Ivanov conducted a few experiments in the 1920s, in what proved a futile effort to prove ape-to-human evolution was true and humans and apes could interbreed.

Because of the presumed physical appearance extrapolated from her skeletal remains, scientists have assumed Lucy had mostly ape-like physical traits with a few characteristics of the future human race, namely the ability to walk upright.

She was considered the earliest of several missing links in the assumed gradual transformation of apes to humans.

Scientists were able to observe Oliver in action and learned from his behavior over a period of several decades and observed that Oliver didn’t act like other chimps. He walked upright, and preferred the company of humans over chimps, so much that many people suspected he was a hybrid species, half-human, half-chimpanzee.

Literally, people believed that he was the biological offspring of a human that somehow mated with a chimpanzee, referring to Oliver as a humanzee.

Oliver certainly acted human — he walked upright most of the time. He performed household chores. Oliver tried to have sex with human females, but apparently showed no interest in mating with other chimps. He even smoked cigars.

No kidding.

But DNA testing proved once and for all that Oliver was nothing but a chimpanzee — a very rare and special chimp perhaps, but at the end of the day, still only a chimp.

One wonders — could Oliver have mated with Lucy, if both had been alive at the same time? Would he have even tried?

It seems that no matter what we believe, it eventually becomes a matter of faith.