Adam and Eve Report
Prepared by Halbert Katzen with special thanks to Fred
Harris
[Updated 8/2/07]
The Urantia Book's story of Adam and Even
compared with the University of Chicago Study titled: Evidence
that the adaptive allele of the brain size gene
microcephalin introgressed into Homo sapiens from
an archaic Homo lineage.
According to The Urantia Book, Adam and Eve, along with their
progeny, are responsible for a genetic upgrade that has had a
lasting effect on the human population. Specific details are
provided about when and how this occurred. The Urantia Book also
describes the degree to which this genetic upgrade has spread
throughout the world. Additionally, it reveals information about
the nature of this genetic upgrade. In regard to all of these
aspects of our genetic history, research done out of the
University of Chicago (the "Study") is in harmony with
the information provided in The Urantia Book about Adam, Eve, and
their progeny.1 This Study was first published
online on November 7, 2006 in Proceedings of the National Academy
of Sciences of the United States of America.
The Study was presented by Patrick D. Evans, Nitzan
Mekel-Bobrov, Eric J. Vallender, Richard R. Hudson, and Bruce T.
Lahn from the Howard Hughes Medical Institute at the University of Chicago. It was received for
review August 10, 2006 and edited by Henry C. Harpending at the
University of Utah. Naturally, those of us who are enthusiastic
about The Urantia Book are very grateful to and wish to thank
those mentioned above and all others involved with the
development and presentation of this research.
Conversations about genetics, and especially variations in the
quality of genetic endowment, have a tendency to create
discomfort and fear because of current and historical racist and
elitist attitudes and actions. Naturally, there is a concern that
science will be inappropriately used to support those who wish to
continue such attitudes and agendas. Therefore, it is important
to state first and clearly that, notwithstanding the Urantia
Book's very direct treatment of this topic and in ways that
are specific regarding variations in genetic endowment, the
Urantia Book is unequivocal in admonishing us to treat all human
beings with love, kindness, dignity, and respect. According to
The Urantia Book, the significance of our spiritual equality is
paramount. It states:
"God is spirit, and God gives a fragment of his spirit
self to dwell in the heart of man. Spiritually, all men are
equal. The kingdom of heaven is free from castes, classes, social
levels, and economic groups. You are all brethren." (Urantia Book
134:4.7)
"Although you cannot escape the recognition of
differential human abilities and endowments in matters
intellectual, social, and moral, you should make no such
distinctions in the spiritual brotherhood of men when assembled
for worship in the presence of God." (Urantia Book 133:0.3)
Furthermore, even though The Urantia Book encourages us in
general terms to address ourselves to the task of improving
humanity's genetic foundation and does not mince words on the
subject, at the same time it is also unequivocal in stating that
non violent social change is the only appropriate way to effect
social change. With regard to the issue of how people should be
treated, The Urantia Book states:
"[R]eligion should not be directly concerned either with
the creation of new social orders or with the preservation of old
ones. True religion does oppose violence as a technique of social
evolution, but it does not oppose the intelligent efforts of
society to adapt its usages and adjust its institutions to new
economic conditions and cultural requirements." (Urantia Book
99:0.1,2)
"War is an animalistic reaction to misunderstandings and
irritations; peace attends upon the civilized solution of all
such problems and difficulties." (Urantia Book 70:1.2)
"And the fruits of the divine spirit which are yielded
in the lives of spirit-born and God-knowing mortals are: loving
service, unselfish devotion, courageous loyalty, sincere
fairness, enlightened honesty, undying hope, confiding trust,
merciful ministry, unfailing goodness, forgiving tolerance, and
enduring peace." (Urantia Book 193:2.2)
"[Y]ou should manifest the righteous ministry of loving
service to believers and unbelievers alike. . . The fruits of the
spirit, your sincere and loving service, are the mighty social
lever to uplift the races. . ." (Urantia Book 178:1.6)
This report is not being written with the intention, directly
or indirectly, to make a statement about how to handle any of the
racial/genetic issues that we face. As a UBtheNEWS report, it is
intended solely for the purpose of informing people about the
quality of The Urantia Book with regard to its presentation of
scientific and historic information. Because the particular
subject matter of this report will lead readers to those sections
of The Urantia Book that are ripe with the type of straight,
scientific talk about genetics that can cause discomfort, fear,
and concern (and is therefore so easily misunderstood and taken
out of context), there is a need to start this report with these
balancing statements and, as well, to provide the reader with
some of these references. Having done this, the remainder of the
report will stay focused on comparing the Study to the related
information found in The Urantia Book.
When did the introduction of the upgraded genetic
contribution occur?
Before comparing the results of the Study with the Urantia
Book's account of Adam and Eve, it is important to first get
a general appreciation how the research was performed that
supports the findings of the Study. After consideration is given
to the nature of this research and its conclusions regarding when
the genetic upgrade occurred, The Urantia Book's statements
about Adam and Eve will be presented. For a more efficient and
less complex appreciation of this topic readers can start with
the Condensed Report.
By isolating locations on chromosomes that are responsible for
specific traits and then cross referencing the frequency of these
traits in a given population with a baseline genetic ancestor, in
this case a chimpanzee, the researchers were able to calculate
when the trait first appeared in the human gene pool. The
chimpanzee provides a reference point, an "outgroup,"
from which all the human genetic samples are considered
sufficiently distant. This allows statistical and probability
evaluations to be conducted that point to when and how the
genetic contribution in question occurred.
"The estimate that all modern copies of the D alleles
descended from a single progenitor copy about 37,000 years ago is
based on the measurement of sequence difference between different
copies of the D alleles. As a copy of a gene is passed from one
generation to the next, mutations are introduced at a steady
rate, such that a certain number of generations later, the
descendent copies of the gene would on average vary from one
another in DNA sequence by a certain amount. The greater the
number of the generations, the more DNA sequence difference there
would be between two descendent copies, said Lahn. The amount of
sequence difference between different copies of a gene can
therefore be used to estimate the amount of evolutionary time
that has elapsed since the two copies descended from their common
progenitor."2
For the purposes of the Study,
"[A] panel of 89 DNA samples was obtained from the
Coriell Institute that represents the global diversity of major
human populations. It included nine sub-Saharan Africans, seven
North Africans, nine Iberians, seven Basques, nine Russians, nine
Middle Easterners, nine South Asians, eight Chinese, one
Japanese, eight Southeast Asians, six Pacific Islander, and seven
Andeans." "We resequenced the panel for a 29-kb region
that spans exons 4–9 of the 14-exon microcephalin
gene. This process led to the identification of 220 segregating
sites delineating 86 distinct haplotypes. . . Of the 178
chromosomes we sampled, 124 (or 70%) belonged to haplogroup D,
defined by the derived C residue at the G37995C diagnostic
nonsynonymous polymorphic site. (For simplicity, we will refer to
haplogroup D as the D allele and the non-D haplotypes as the
non-D allele.)"
Microcephalin is crucial to the regulation and
development of brain size. Microcephaly is a condition in which
this gene does not operate properly and causes severely
undersized brain development without otherwise effecting
neurological development. Wikipedia.com defines an allele as
follows:
"In genetics, an allele (pronounced al-eel or al-e-ul)
is any one of a number of viable DNA codings occupying a given
locus (position) on a chromosome. Usually alleles are DNA
(deoxyribo-nucleic acid) sequences that code for a gene, but
sometimes the term is used to refer to a non-gene sequence. An
individual's genotype for that gene is the set of alleles it
happens to possess."
With regard to the issue of timing, the Study states that
"[t]hese unusual features of the microcephalin
genealogy suggest the possibility that the MRCA [most recent
common ancestor] of the D clade introgressed into humans from a
divergent Homo lineage at or some time before 37,000 years ago.
In the ensuing sections, we describe stringent statistical tests
that support this introgression model." "Within modern
humans, a group of closely related haplotypes at this locus,
known as haplogroup D, rose from a single copy 37,000 years ago.
. ."
The Urantia Book says, "Adam and Eve arrived on Urantia
[Earth], from the year A.D. 1934, 37,848 years ago." (Urantia Book
74:0.1) Given the rounding and margin of error aspects of the
Study, with respect to when the genetic upgrade occurred, the
Urantia Book and the Study are aligned.
How did the introduction of the upgraded genetic
contribution occur?
Having established alignment regarding when the event
occurred, the next question to ask is how this occurred.
Understanding how this occurred is a rather involved question
both in terms of the Study and The Urantia Book. Therefore, they
will be addressed in turn, starting with the Study.
In order to appreciate how the introduction of this new
genetic material occurred according to the Study, one must first
become familiar with what is meant by "introgression?"
Wikipedia.com describes it this way:
"Introgression, in genetics
(particularly plant genetics), is the movement of a gene from one
species into the gene pool of another by backcrossing an
interspecific hybrid with one of its parents. An example of
introgression is that of a transgene from a transgenic plant to a
wild relative as the result of a successful hybridization.
"An introgression line (abbreviation:
IL) in plant molecular biology is a line of a crop species that
contains genetic material derived from a similar species, for
example a "wild" relative. An example of a collection
of ILs (called IL-Library) is the use of chromosome fragments
from Solanum pennellii (a wild variety of tomato) introgressed in
Solanum lycopersicum (the cultivated tomato). The lines of a
IL-Library covers usually the complete genome of the donor.
Introgression lines allow the study of quantitative trait loci,
but also the creation of new varieties by introducing exotic
traits."
In simpler terms, this means that if two species are
sufficiently similar, then one species can pass along a gene to
the other species in a way that allows this new genetic material
to be influential and persist from generation to generation.
Research done in the Study indicates a strong likelihood that
the microcephalin gene in question introgressed into the
human gene pool from a single source. Bruce Lahn (one of the
researchers in the Study) in a separate article published
November 6, 2006 on the Howard Hughes Medical Institute website
queries and comments, "Might mating between an ancient human
and a Neanderthal - perhaps occurring in only a single instance -
have introduced a gene variant into the human population that
enhanced human brain function? That question is at the heart of a
new study by researchers at the Howard Hughes Medical Institute
and the University of Chicago."3 The Study states,
"Within modern humans, a group of closely related haplotypes
at this locus, known as haplogroup D, rose from a single copy
37,000 years ago and swept to exceptionally high frequency (70%
worldwide today) because of positive selection." This report
will refer to this possibility as "single source
introgression."
With regard to the issue of positive selection, Wikipidia.com
explains:
"Whether or not selection takes place depends on the
conditions in which the individuals of a species find themselves.
Adults, juveniles, embryos, and even eggs and sperm may undergo
selection. Factors fostering selection include limits on
resources (nourishment, habitat space, mates) and the existence
of threats (predators, disease, adverse weather). Biologists
often refer to such factors as selective pressures. . .
[S]election does not guarantee that advantageous traits or
alleles will become prevalent within a population. . . Through
genetic drift, such traits may become less common or disappear.
In the face of selection even a so-called deleterious allele may
become universal to the members of a species. Though deleterious
alleles may sometimes become established, selection may act
"negatively" as well as "positively."
Negative selection decreases the prevalence of traits that
diminish individuals' capacity to succeed reproductively
(i.e. their fitness), while positive selection increases the
prevalence of adaptive traits."
This issue is important because without positive selection
coming into play, the likelihood that single source introgression
would not only persist but also spread quickly is extremely
unlikely. In the plant and animal world lack of mind function and
instinct, respectively, are considered responsible along with
environmental factors for defining the circumstances in which
positive selection occurs. With regard to human populations,
broader sociological considerations must be taken into account
with regard to positive selection. Creative choice and intention
become factors to consider as well.
Before directly addressing such issues it is important to
understand how term "genetic drift" is used in the
discipline of genetics research. Again, from Wikipedia.com we get
the following explanation:
"In population genetics, genetic drift is the
statistical effect that results from the influence that chance
has on the success of alleles (variants of a gene). The effect
may cause an allele and the biological trait that it confers to
become more common or more rare over successive generations.
Ultimately, the drift may either remove the allele from the gene
pool or remove all other alleles. Whereas natural selection is
the tendency of beneficial alleles to become more common over
time (and detrimental ones less common), genetic drift is the
fundamental tendency of any allele [which will be defined next]
to vary randomly in frequency over time due to statistical
variation alone, so long as it does not comprise all or none of
the distribution.
"Chance affects the commonality or rarity of an allele,
because no trait guarantees survival or a given number of
offspring. This is because survival depends on non-genetic
factors (such as the possibility of being in the wrong place at
the wrong time). In other words, even when individuals face the
same odds, they will differ in their success. A rare succession
of chance events — rather than natural selection —
can thus bring a trait to predominance, causing a population or
species to evolve."
Of course and for good reasons, genetics researchers are not
free (professionally speaking) to turn to "stories about
Adam and Eve" for guidance on issues of single source
introgression, whether they come from The Urantia Book, the
Bible, or any other text that is not based on scientific
research. They must develop their theories based on the science
that is available. The Study begins by stating,
"At the center of the debate on the emergence of
modern humans and their spread throughout the globe is the
question of whether archaic Homo lineages contributed to
the modern human gene pool, and more importantly, whether such
contributions impacted the evolutionary adaptation of our
species. A major obstacle to answering this question is that low
levels of admixture with archaic lineages are not expected to
leave extensive traces in the modern human gene pool because of
genetic drift. Loci that have undergone strong positive
selection, however, offer a unique opportunity to identify
low-level admixture with archaic lineages, provided that the
introgressed archaic allele has risen to high frequency under
positive selection."
This is what has occurred with the allele in question. So
naturally, researchers in the Study as well as other genetics
researchers must speculate about different theories that can be
supported by the current state of scientific research and
discoveries. Did a mutation occur? "The new research. .
.suggests that human evolution was not just a matter of
spontaneous advantageous mutations arising within the human
lineage."4
Did the allele get introduced through mating with a similar
species in which the allele was either common or anamolous?
Archaic Homo lineages refer to extinct precursors to
modern humans. Naturally, these precursors are not typically
known for producing alleles that introgress from a single source,
and then, against the odds spread quickly (in the context of
genetic developments) throughout most of humanity. The problem is
that research in this field does not provide a great explanation
for the fact pattern. Some research is pointing in a direction
that does not align well with current theories. However, it is
not substantial enough to support a new theory. Currently,
discoveries and research are suggestive, but not definitive.
Therefore, the Study naturally speculates along the following
lines:
"At or sometime before [approximately] 37,000 years ago,
a (possibly rare) interbreeding event occurred between the two
lineages, bringing a copy of the D allele into anatomically
modern humans."
"Speculation about the identity of the archaic
Homo population from which the microcephalin D
allele introgressed into the modern human gene pool points to the
Neanderthal lineage as a potential (although by no means only)
candidate. Anatomically modern humans and Neanderthals shared a
long period of coexistence, from as early as 130,000 years ago in
the Middle East to as late as 35,000 years ago in Europe,
consistent with the estimated introgression time of the
microcephalin D allele at or sometime before 37,000 years
ago."
"The extent to which anatomically modern humans admixed
with archaic Homo has been the subject of repeated
speculation, particularly in regards to Neanderthals. Thus far,
the mainstream view from fossil and genetic studies leans toward
a model where anatomically modern humans fully replaced archaic
Homo lineages rather than admixed with them. However, a
number of investigators have voiced opposition to this total
replacement model on a number of grounds, and the debate has yet
to be resolved. Particularly needed to settle this debate is the
identification of genetic loci that show telltale signs of
admixture. There have been several reports of loci in the human
genome that display unusually deep genealogy, and in some cases,
admixture between humans and archaic Homo lineages has
been invoked as a possible explanation. However, these studies
cannot differentiate the admixture model from other
possibilities, such as long-standing balancing selection, that
also could contribute to deep genealogies (see Discussion). As
such, proponents of the admixture scenario have yet to identify a
concrete example of a genetic locus for which there is compelling
evidence of admixture. Furthermore, most discussions of admixture
tend to treat it as a selectively neutral event, one that
happened simply as a byproduct of the geographical overlap
between modern humans and archaic populations. Such discussions
often overlook the possibility that admixture with archaic
lineages, if it indeed occurred, might have brought adaptive
alleles (along with the traits they determine) into the modern
human gene pool, thus profoundly impacting the biological
evolution of our species."
"Three features are prominent in this unusual genealogy.
First, the D chromosomes coalesce to its most recent common
ancestor (MRCA) at 37,000 years before present, whereas the non-D
chromosomes coalesce at a far older 990,000 years before present.
The much younger coalescence age of the D chromosomes, despite
their much higher frequency, is consistent with the action of
positive selection on the D allele as reported previously (
29). Second, and more surprisingly, however, we found that
the D and non-D chromosomes belong to two distinct, deeply
divided clades connected by a single branch around the root of
the tree (except for a few rare recombinants between the two
clades, as discussed later)."5
What is meant by coalesce? To understand the coalescent theory
of genetics requires a certain degree of sophistication in
probability as well as genetics. If the reader wants a more
detail description, Wikipedia.com provides a fairly concise
inroad to an understanding of this issue under the heading
"Coalescent Theory." The following excerpts, however,
will hopefully provide most readers with a sufficient
appreciation of what is meant by coalescence for the purposes of
this report:
"In genetics, coalescent theory states that all genes or
alleles in a given population are ultimately inherited from a
single ancestor shared by all members of the population, known as
the most recent common ancestor. If the inheritance relationships
are written in the form of a phylogenetic tree, termed a gene
genealogy, the gene or allele of interest is said to undergo
coalescence to the common ancestor. . . Basic coalescence theory
assumes that genes do not undergo recombination and models
genetic drift as a stochastic process. . . [In the mathematics of
probability, a stochastic process or random process is a process
that can be described by a probability distribution.] Because the
process of gene fixation due to genetic drift is a crucial
component of coalescence theory, it is most useful when the
genetic locus under study is not under natural selection.
Advances in coalescent theory, however, allow extension to the
basic coalescent, and can include recombination, selection, and
virtually any arbitrarily complex evolutionary model in
population genetic analyses. . . Consider two distinct haploid
organisms who differ at a single nucleotide. By tracing the
ancestory of these two individuals backwards there will be a
point in time when the Most Recent Common Ancestor (MRCA) is
encountered and the two lineages will have coalesced. . .
Coalescent theory seeks to reconstruct the ancestral relationship
of individuals and is therefore of great utility in
reconstructing the phylogenetic relationships of species based on
information at the molecular level. . . Coalescent theory is a
natural extension the more classical population genetics concept
of neutral evolution. . ."
The results of the research fit well into the Coalescence
Theory model. "Three features are prominent in this unusual
genealogy. . .These unusual features of the
microcephalin genealogy suggest the possibility that the
MRCA of the D clade introgressed into humans from a divergent
Homo lineage at or some time before 37,000 years ago. In
the ensuing sections, we describe stringent statistical tests
that support this introgression model."
Tracing the genetic change back to a particular time period
and a single source using methodologies consistent with
Coalescence Theory is, however, only one side of the coin with
regard to single source genetic introgression. We must also
consider how this introduction of new genetic material moved
forward into the human population. If the introduction of new
genetic material comes from a single source, it is highly
unlikely that this genetic material will spread widely and
quickly throughout the population unless certain circumstances
are present. The genetic introgression must be support by
environmental factors and/or have dominant selection
characteristics and/or have socially valued characteristics that
encourage mating with those who have this genetic trait. There
needs to be an explanation for why positive selection occurred
powerfully in this case. The Study puts the issue this way:
"If introgression of archaic lineages into the modern
human gene pool indeed occurred, then genes that have been
subject to recent positive selection in humans may be enriched
for introgressed alleles. Although selectively neutral alleles
introgressed from archaic lineages at low levels are likely lost
by drift or swamped by the large influx of modern human DNA, an
introgressed allele that is selectively advantageous could escape
the effect of genetic drift and rise to high frequency. As such,
these alleles might become detectable in the modern human gene
pool."
In other words, if the allele is introduced into the human
population from a single source, and there is nothing special
about it, then there is a good chance that genetic drift will
occur. A new genetic introgression without any particularly
powerful qualities, biologically, environmentally and/or
socially, might very well just fade out and disappear, or move
along very slowly. It would not be expected to enter the human
population quickly and broadly.
The Study's research does not lend itself well in support
of a theory that allows for multiple introgressions as compared
to single source introgression. "Lahn said the group's
data suggest that the interbreeding was unlikely to be a thorough
genetic mixing, but rather a rare - and perhaps even a single
— event that introduced the ancestral D allele previously
present in this other Homo species into the human
line."6
Coalescence to single source introgression is supported by the
results of the Study's research. However, the factors
associated with genetic drift somehow have to be overcome because
we know that this allele spread quickly and broadly. Consistent
with the introgression model, "microcephalin has
been shown to be the target of strong positive selection in the
evolutionary lineage leading from ancestral primates to
humans." Additionally, with respect to positive selection
the Study states:
"[W]e found that the haplotype structure at the human
microcephalin locus is consistent with the action of
recent positive selection. Specifically, we found that a class of
haplotypes at the locus, dubbed haplogroup D, has a remarkably
young coalescence age (37,000 years) despite an exceptionally
high worldwide frequency (70%). This observation implies a rapid
rise in the frequency of haplogroup D in humans, which is
incompatible with genetic drift and instead supports the notion
that positive selection has operated on haplogroup D to drive up
its frequency."
Having reviewed the Study's presentation of the
characteristics of the allele with respect to introgression and
positive selection, this is where we conclude the discussion of
how the genetic upgrade was introduced. Now begins the Urantia
Book's assertions about the shift in our genetic history
during this time period. The Urantia Book's cosmology
describes how a genetic upgrade occurred, along with the
contributing environmental and sociological factors, which (as
the Study puts it) "rose from a single copy 37,000 years ago
and swept to exceptionally high frequency (70% worldwide today)
because of positive selection." For the sake of efficiency,
this report will address the sociological issues first, saving
most of the discussion of the characteristics of the genetic
uplift for the last section, which will specifically address this
issue.
Of course, if one does not start with a Urantia Book
perspective, there is otherwise a lack of scientific information
that points to a distinctly different order of human(like) beings
suddenly showing up with out any trace of previous ancestry.
Nonetheless, The Urantia Book's assertion that Adam and Eve
appeared on Earth without ancestry is consistent with and
provides a description that is compatible with the results of the
Study with regard to the issue of single source introgression and
positive selection. The recounting of their story on earth begins
with:
"ADAM AND EVE arrived on Urantia, from the year A.D.
1934, 37,848 years ago. . . At high noon and unannounced, the two
seraphic transports, accompanied by the [celestial beings]
intrusted with the transportation of the biologic uplifters to
Urantia, settled slowly to the surface of the revolving planet in
the vicinity of the temple of the Universal Father. All the work
of rematerializing the bodies of Adam and Eve was carried on
within the precincts of this newly created shrine. And from the
time of their arrival ten days passed before they were re-created
in dual human form for presentation as the world's new rulers
["dual" refers to the utilization of both a human and
an "angelic" energy system]." (Urantia Book 74:0.1)
"[Adam and Eve], being. . . personalized in the
similitude of the mortal flesh of this world, were. . . dependent
on the maintenance of a dual circulatory system, the one derived
from their physical natures, the other from the superenergy
stored in the fruit of the tree of life." (Urantia Book 75:7.6)
"Their Urantia offspring did not inherit the [dual
circulatory] endowment. . . They had a single circulation, the
human type of blood sustenance. They were designedly mortal
though long-lived, albeit longevity gravitated toward the human
norm with each succeeding generation." (Urantia Book 76:4.3)
"The "tree of the knowledge of good and evil"
may be a figure of speech, a symbolic designation covering a
multitude of human experiences, but the "tree of life"
was not a myth; it was real and for a long time was present on
Urantia. . . This superplant stored up certain space-energies
which were antidotal to the age-producing elements of animal
existence. The fruit of the tree of life was like a superchemical
storage battery, mysteriously releasing the life-extension force
of the universe when eaten. This form of sustenance was wholly
useless to the ordinary evolutionary beings on Urantia. . . When
Adam and Eve went astray, [they and their] family were not
permitted to carry the core of the tree away from the
Garden." (Urantia Book 73:6.3,4,7)
"AFTER more than one hundred years of effort on Urantia,
. . . the realization of race betterment appeared to be a long
way off, and the situation seemed so desperate as to demand
something for relief not embraced in the original plans. Adam and
[Eve] were loyal, but they were isolated from their kind, and
they were sorely distressed by the sorry plight of their
world" (Urantia Book 75:0.1)
"[T]hey would have sometime met with success had they
been more farseeing and patient. . . They wanted to see
some immediate results, and they did, but the results thus
secured proved most disastrous both to themselves and to their
world." (Urantia Book 75:1.6)
"Every time the Garden pair had partaken of the fruit of
the tree of life, they had been warned by the archangel custodian
to refrain from yielding to the [temptation] to combine good and
evil. They had been thus admonished: "In the day that you
commingle good and evil, you shall surely become as the mortals
of the realm; you shall surely die.""(Urantia Book 75:4.4)
Understandably, for a person unfamiliar with The Urantia Book,
the previous quotes may raise more questions than answers. Even
still, given that this is written for people who are unaware of
Urantia Book cosmology (but presumably aware at least generally
of the Biblical account about Adam and Eve), and notwithstanding
that such readers are discouraged from making presumptions about
how these two accountings compare and contrast, hopefully, the
above quotes provide enough of a sense of this aspect of Urantia
Book cosmology for one to appreciate that it works well with the
single source introgression model.
Given the limitations on current scientific methodologies,
tracing back an allele that seems to coalesce to a single source
is essentially the same as evidence supporting that it came from
a pair of individuals. The accuracy of the Study's
methodologies does not provide the degree of precision necessary
to distinguish between one or two donors when considering the
possibility of a single source introgression model. With this in
mind, The Urantia Book's cosmological perspective about Adam
and Eve is altogether harmonious with the Study.
Now we will consider some of information in The Urantia Book
that supports positive selection. Because both the specifics of
the spread of this genetic contribution and the specifics
regarding the quality of the genetic contribution will be take up
later, at this point only the more sociological considerations
will be addressed. The Urantia Book states:
"[A]dam [was counseled] not to initiate the program of
racial uplift and blending until his own family had numbered
one-half million. It was never intended that the Garden should be
the permanent home of the Adamites. They were to become
emissaries of a new life to all the world; they were to mobilize
for unselfish bestowal upon the needy races of earth." (Urantia Book
73:7.3)
"After becoming established in the second garden on the
Euphrates, Adam elected to leave behind as much of his life plasm
as possible to benefit the world after his death. . . [B]efore
Adam died. . . 1,682. . . women were impregnated with the Adamic
life plasm [through artificial insemination]. Their children all
grew up to maturity except 112, so that the world, in this way,
was benefited by the addition of 1,570 superior men and women. .
." (Urantia Book 76:4.8)
"THE second Eden was the cradle of civilization for
almost thirty thousand years. Here in Mesopotamia the Adamic
peoples held forth, sending out their progeny to the ends of the
earth. . ." (Urantia Book 78:0.1)
"The purer strains of [Adam and Eve's progeny] had
retained the Adamic tradition of peace-seeking, which explains
why the earlier race movements had been more in the nature of
peaceful migrations. But as the Adamites united with the Nodite
stocks, who were by this time a belligerent race, their Andite
descendants became, for their day and age, the most skillful and
sagacious militarists ever to live on Urantia. Thenceforth the
movements of the Mesopotamians grew increasingly military in
character and became more akin to actual conquests." (Urantia Book
78:4.5)
"[T]he Adamites were a real nation around 19,000 B.C.,
numbering four and a half million, and already they had poured
forth millions of their progeny into the surrounding
peoples."(Urantia Book 78:2.5)
"The practice of some subsequent nations of permitting
the royal families, supposedly descended from the gods, to marry
brother to sister, dates from the traditions of the Adamic
offspring -- mating, as they must needs, with one another."
(Urantia Book 74:6.9)
"When all is summed up, Adam and Eve made a mighty
contribution to the speedy civilization and accelerated biologic
progress of the human race. They left a great culture on earth,
but it was not possible for such an advanced civilization to
survive in the face of the early dilution and the eventual
submergence of the Adamic inheritance. It is the people who make
a civilization; civilization does not make the people." (Urantia Book
76:6.4)
Of course, the significance of the above quotes, as the
pertain to sociological aspects of positive selection, is that
they reflect how, according to The Urantia Book, the genetic
introgression was planned and acted upon (notwithstanding the
comments about how the original plan failed to be carried out
fully). Introgression and positive selection were planned for and
created events. Additionally, this cosmology explains why
scientists have trouble finding any evidence of the "archaic
Homo lineage." And naturally, this is explains why
they would have just as much trouble finding evidence that
supports other theories as well. The Urantia Book's cosmology
may not contribute anything by way of proof, but it does
contribute something by way of explanation; it is consistent with
the science and deserves credit for advancing an explanation in
advance of the supporting science.
Specifically, how much has the genetic
contribution spread throughout the human
population?
Having consider when and, in a general sense, how the allele
was able to spread quickly and broadly throughout the human
population, then next question to consider is whether the results
of the Study are consistent with Urantia Book's more specific
description of the spread of the genetic upgrade that
occurred.
The results of the Study provide both the percentage of
admixture into the human population as well as a general
description of where it started and to where it has spread. The
Study states:
"[W]e found that a class of haplotypes at the locus,
dubbed haplogroup D, has a remarkably young coalescence age
(37,000 years) despite an exceptionally high worldwide frequency
(70%)."
"Speculation about the identity of the archaic
Homo population from which the microcephalin D
allele introgressed into the modern human gene pool points to the
Neanderthal lineage as a potential (although by no means only)
candidate. Anatomically modern humans and Neanderthals shared a
long period of coexistence, from as early as 130,000 years ago in
the Middle East to as late as 35,000 years ago in Europe,
consistent with the estimated introgression time of the
microcephalin D allele at or sometime before 37,000 years
ago. Furthermore, the worldwide frequency distribution of the D
allele, exceptionally high outside of Africa but low in
sub-Saharan Africa suggests, but does not necessitate, admixture
with an archaic Eurasian population."
In a separate article, Bruce Lahn, the lead researcher, also
put it this way, "And a third line of evidence, albeit
weaker, is that the D alleles are much more prevalent in Eurasia
and lower in sub-Saharan Africa, which is consistent with an
origin in the former area. And we know that Neanderthals evolved
outside of Africa."7 Unfortunately, the results of
this particular research do not provide a more detailed
description how the allele spread. But what is provided is
harmonious with what The Urantia Book says on the subject:
[T]hese candidate mothers were selected from all the
surrounding tribes and represented most of the races on earth. .
. These children were born and reared in the tribal surroundings
of their respective mothers. [The "candidate mothers"
refers to the 1,682 women who were selected for artificial
insemination by Adam- information which can also be found at the
same citation.] (Urantia Book 76:4.8)
"Infusion of the Adamic stock into the human races not
only quickened the pace of civilization, but it also greatly
stimulated their proclivities toward adventure and exploration to
the end that most of Eurasia and northern Africa was presently
occupied by the rapidly multiplying mixed descendants. . ."
(Urantia Book 81:3.8)
"THE second Eden [between the Tigris and Euphrates
rivers] was the cradle of civilization for almost thirty thousand
years. Here in Mesopotamia the Adamic peoples held forth, sending
out their progeny to the ends of the earth. . . From this region
went those men and women who initiated the doings of historic
times, and who have so enormously accelerated cultural progress
on Urantia." (Urantia Book 78:0.1)
"The secondary or northern . . . headquarters [was]
situated east of the southern shore of the Caspian Sea near the
Kopet mountains. From these two centers there went forth to the
surrounding lands the culture and life plasm which so immediately
quickened all the races." (Urantia Book 78:1.3)
"Some of the Adamites early journeyed westward to the
valley of the Nile; others penetrated eastward into Asia, but
these were a minority. The mass movement of the later days was
extensively northward and thence westward. It was, in the main, a
gradual but unremitting northward push, the greater number making
their way north and then circling westward around the Caspian Sea
into Europe.
"About twenty-five thousand years ago many of the purer
elements of the Adamites were well on their northern trek. And as
they penetrated northward, they became less and less Adamic
until, by the times of their occupation of Turkestan, they had
become thoroughly admixed with the other races. . . Very few of
the pure-line [Adamites] ever penetrated far into Europe or
Asia." (Urantia Book 78:3.2,3)
"As the period of the early Adamic migrations ended,
about 15,000 B.C., there were already more descendants of Adam in
Europe and central Asia than anywhere else in the world, even
than in Mesopotamia. . . The lands now called Russia and
Turkestan were occupied throughout their southern stretches by a
great reservoir of the Adamites mixed with. . . [the] red and
yellow [races]." (Urantia Book 78:3.5)
"The black peoples were moving farther south in Africa and . . . were virtually isolated." (Urantia Book
78:3.6)
The Urantia Book's description of the racial development
of humanity is extensive and detailed. There is much more that
could be said on the subject. However, this other material is not
directly related to the results of the Study and is, therefore,
omitted, notwithstanding that it would provide additional
contextualization for and correlations with the results of the
Study. Nonetheless, the above quotes demonstrate the harmony that
exists between the Study and The Urantia Book.
The nature of the genetic
upgrade.
Lastly, we look at the correlation between the Study and the
Urantia Book regarding the nature and effect of the genetic
upgrade. It is important to remember that this Study focused on
just on alleles that specifically relate to
microcephalin. As the Study noted, the research techniques
used for their research can equally be applied to other alleles.
In time, additional correlations may develop.
According to the Study:
"The gene microcephalin is a critical regulator
of brain size. In humans, loss-of-function mutations in this gene
cause a condition known as primary microcephaly, which is
characterized by a severe reduction in brain volume (by 3- to
4-fold) but, remarkably, a retention of overall neuroarchitecture
and a lack a overt defects outside of the brain. The exact
biochemical function of microcephalin has yet to be
elucidated, but this gene likely plays an essential role in
promoting the proliferation of neural progenitor cells during
neurogenesis. Microcephalin has been shown to be the
target of strong positive selection in the evolutionary lineage
leading from ancestral primates to humans. This observation,
coupled with the fact that this gene is a critical regulator of
brain size, suggests the possibility that the molecular evolution
of microcephalin may have contributed to the phenotypic
evolution of the human brain."
"In the case of microcephalin, it is all the
more intriguing given the fact that the adaptive allele is
associated with an important brain development gene."
In a separate article Bruce Lahn makes additional comments on
the subject of brain development and also expands his commentary
with regard to general reproductive fitness:
"Lahn also said that although the disruption of the
microcephalin gene in humans leads to smaller brains, the
role of the D alleles in brain evolution remains unknown.
"The D alleles may not even change brain size; they may only
make the brain a bit more efficient if it indeed affects brain
function," he said. "For example, someone inheriting
the D allele may have only a slightly more efficient brain on
average. While that enhancement might confer only a subtle
evolutionary advantage on that person, when that effect is
propagated over a thousand generations of natural selection, the
result will be to drive the D alleles to a very high
prevalence.""
""This rapid rise in frequency indicates that the D
alleles underwent positive selection in the recent history of
humans. This means that these alleles conferred a fitness
advantage on those who possessed one of them such that these
people had slightly higher reproductive success than people who
didn't possess the alleles," said Lahn."
"Human evolution may also have been influenced by
interbreeding with other Homo species, which introduced
gene variants, known as alleles, that are beneficial to human
reproductive fitness," according to Bruce Lahn, one of the
Study's contributors."8
From The Urantia Book we get the following comments regarding
the nature of genetic upgrade brought to Earth by Adam and
Eve:
"[T]he Adamic blood did augment the inherent ability of
the races and. . .improved the brain power of the races, thereby
greatly hastening the processes of natural evolution." (Urantia Book
81:5.1)
"Adam and his offspring . . . were characterized by fair
complexions and light hair color -- yellow, red, and brown.
"The body cells of [Adam, Eve,] and their progeny are
far more resistant to disease than are those of the evolutionary
beings indigenous to the planet. The body cells of the native
races are akin to the living disease-producing microscopic and
ultramicroscopic organisms of the realm. These facts explain why
the Urantia peoples must do so much by way of scientific effort
to withstand so many physical disorders. You would be far more
disease resistant if your races carried more of the Adamic
life." (Urantia Book 76:4.7)
"Primitive man is for the most part carnivorous; [Adam
and Eve did] not eat meat, but their offspring within a few
generations usually gravitate to the omnivorous level. . . This
double origin of the post-Adamic races explains how such blended
human[s] exhibit anatomic vestiges belonging to both the
herbivorous and carnivorous animal groups." (Urantia Book 52:3.8)
"[T]he combination of the wheat, rice, and vegetable
diet with the flesh of the herds marked a great forward step in
the health and vigor of these ancient peoples." (Urantia Book
81:1.8)
From the above quotes one can see that The Urantia Book's
comments about the genetic upgrade contributed by Adam and Eve
not only parallel the conclusions of and comments about Study
specifically with regard to brain function, but also provide
additional information that supports the issues related to
positive selection. As well, though The Urantia Book does not
give a specific percentage regarding how much their genetic
contribution intermixed with the rest of humanity, the seventy
percent figure given in the Study reasonably correlates to the
description given in The Urantia Book about how Adam, Eve, and
their progeny intermixed with the rest of humanity.
Conclusion
In every respect the Study and The Urantia Book are harmonious. The correlations include when the genetic upgrade occurred, how it occurred, where and how much it spread, and the nature of the genetic upgrade. Additionally, analysis of the data also supports The Urantia Book's assertion that the first human beings evolved 990,000 years ago.
The information in The Urantia Book was first published in 1955. The research in the Study that correlates with The Urantia Book's history of humanity has developed nearly fifty years after its publication and involves advanced techniques in genetics research that had not been invented at the time of The Urantia Book's publication.
Footnotes
1 Unless
otherwise noted as a Urantia Book reference (example: (Urantia Book
60:1.9), meaning the 60th chapter, first section,
ninth paragraph), all references in quotations are taken from the
Study which can be found at the following website.
http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/full/103/48/18178?maxtoshow=&HITS=10
&hits=10&RESULTFORMAT=&fulltext=lahn&searchid=1&FIRSTINDEX=0
&resourcetype=HWCIT
Footnotes have been removed from selected quotations in an effort
to eliminate distracting extraneous material that otherwise can
be accessed by going directly to the full text of the Study. The
word "Urantia" refers to, is synonymous with, Earth.
The vast majority of the material pertaining to Adam, Eve, and
their progeny can be found in Chapters 74 through 80 (referred to
in the book as "Papers," and is a little over 60
pages.
2 From the
Howard Hugh Medical Institute's online Research News dated
November 6, 2006.
http://www.hhmi.org/news/lahn20061006.html
3 From the
Howard Hugh Medical Institute's online Research News dated
November 6, 2006.
http://www.hhmi.org/news/lahn20061006.html
4 From the
Howard Hugh Medical Institute's online Research News dated
November 6, 2006.
http://www.hhmi.org/news/lahn20061006.html
5 This
dating corresponds to when The Urantia Book says the first human
beings appeared on Earth. "From the year A.D. 1934 back to
the birth of the first two human beings is just 993,419
years." (Urantia Book 62:5.1)
6 From the
Howard Hugh Medical Institute's online Research News dated
November 6, 2006.
http://www.hhmi.org/news/lahn20061006.html
7 From the
Howard Hugh Medical Institute's online Research News dated
November 6, 2006.
http://www.hhmi.org/news/lahn20061006.html
8 From the
Howard Hugh Medical Institute's online Research News dated
November 6, 2006.
http://www.hhmi.org/news/lahn20061006.html
|
