To be human or something else?

In 1982, forty-four percent of Americans did not accept evolution as fact. Nearly four decades later, that percentage has dropped to forty. I do not wish to list the myriad reasons for which my countrymen reject evolution. Instead, I will note that a common theme in my encounters with those who dismiss the science is that they tend to have a limited understanding of what the science says. A common argument I hear against evolution is the absence of “missing links” between species, most notoriously the supposed absence of some human-beast hybrid. The notion of a “missing link” is rather absurd, but I think it stems largely from humanity’s obsession with categorization. It makes sense. It’s a lot easier to talk about a wolf instead of “that big grey-thing over there.” Unfortunately, it is this very obsession with categorization that blinds us to some aspects of reality that seem paradoxical to beings with such a strong desire to give order to our world.
I will use the evolution of languages to illustrate why the notion of a missing link is illogical. In the Roman Empire, many citizens spoke Vulgar Latin. Let’s focus on two areas, Hispania and Italia, the modern-day Iberian (Spain, Portugal) and Italian peninsulas. Let’s imagine that you can speak Vulgar Latin and that you have a time machine. In the year 1 CE, if you time-travel to various locations across both peninsulas, you will be able to communicate perfectly well with any inhabitants who speak Vulgar Latin. Sure, you’ll hear some variations due to influences from some of the local languages, like Iberian and Basque, depending on where you are in Hispania, and likewise in Italia. If you time-travel a century into the future, there will probably be a couple of new words here and there, the kids will have some new sayings, but overall, you’ll still be able to communicate with no problem. You continue doing this for several hundred more years, until 800 CE. At this point, there will probably be some fairly significant linguistic differences in both regions. The Iberian Peninsula will be mostly conquered by Berbers and Arabs, whose linguistic influence will overshadow that of the Visigoths a few centuries earlier. The Roman Empire will no longer exist, and the Italian Peninsula will be broken up into several entities, among them the Byzantine Empire, the Papal States, and the Holy Roman Empire. Different areas of each peninsula will speak different types of Latin, but you will likely still understand parts of it, depending on where you visit. Now that the differences are much more apparent, you might start advancing into the future by decades instead of centuries. In some parts, you understand about half of what is spoken, in others, about 10%. When can you definitively say that Latin is no longer spoken? Even nowadays, there are some words that a speaker of a Romance language can guess, even though most do not speak Vulgar Latin. Is there any point in your travels during which you might discover a child that does not end up speaking as its parents or caretakers do, and instead speaks some new language? The truth is, at no point did Latin definitively switch to Spanish, Italian, Galician, Catalan, Lombard, Cantabrian, or any of the many languages descended from the central Roman tongue. We don’t know all of the dialects and changes that occurred in these languages throughout their history, and unless this time machine is ever invented, we never will. And yet we know that they happened because modern Romance languages share many similarities with Latin and many of the changes from Latin to these languages are documented. Such is the case with evolution and these “missing links.” What we have are a series of human-like fossils which look more and more like us the closer they get to our time. Are there “missing links?” Sure, if you wish to count the thousands of generations between their ancestors and them and the thousands of generations between them and us. But there was no definitive moment at which Homo erectus became Homo ergaster, no one change which made our direct ancestors become human, no singular mutation that caused the leap from one species to the next. Just as with language evolution, there is a nebulous period in the evolutionary history of each species in which it could be argued that it was one species or the preceding one. This doesn’t mean that we shouldn’t have names for different animals, or that we shouldn’t categorize things. It just shows that the world is strange, complex, and in many cases, hard to define.

A progression of hominid skulls for the last few million years. It is not clear whether these are our direct ancestors or cousins of our ancestors

https://news.gallup.com/poll/21814/evolution-creationism-intelligent-design.aspx

Image Credit: Skull evolution via Creative Commons

Your journey starts here! Let’s talk!

ThemeRex © 2026. All rights reserved.
  Timothy Durham was convicted of rape when a test showed his DNA genotype matched the DNA recovered from the crime scene. Eye witnesses testified that Durham was in a different state at the time of the incident, but he wasn’t exonerated from his 3000 year sentence until follow up DNA analysis showed that the preliminary forensic analysis used in the trial was misinterpreted (Thomas et al.). DNA testing serves an invaluable part in our criminal justice system, but it comes with complications and bias that can lead to wrongful convictions and misinformed juries.  

Background:

Forensic genetics aims to identify the origin of a biological sample. It can be traced back to Karl Landsteiner who discovered human ABO blood groups. With blood groups, suspects could be eliminated based on their blood type. For example, if a suspect had type A blood and there was type B blood left at the scene by the perpetrator, the investigators could rule out the suspect. Unfortunately, the reverse didn’t work. If the suspect and perpetrator both had the same blood type, it can’t be concluded that the suspect was guilty. Blood identifiers evolved into 8 distinct categories which improved the ability to eliminate suspects, but could only conclude that (if the system matched) it might be the perpetrator or this person might be related to the perpetrator (Jobling and Gill). The field evolved in the 1980s with the discovery of Minisatellites, lines of repetitive DNA that don’t encode proteins. Minisatellite patterns in DNA create what we know today as the DNA fingerprint, and it has a much higher accuracy rate than previous methods (Augustyn et al.). Around the same time, a breakthrough for victims of sexual assault was discovered. In the case of assault, bodily fluids of both the victim and the assaulter can get mixed. A process called differential lysis was created which could selectively increase the concentration of sperm in a fluid sample thereby allowing for accurate DNA testing (Jobling and Gill). Forensics evolved to use single-locus probe testing after several years because of its ease of interpretation. It looked at specific minisatellites that had high variability between subjects. This was the first DNA-based method to be used in a criminal investigation. Two murder homicides from several years apart were connected using DNA evidence. The evidence was then used to exonerate an innocent man, and the guilty party was found when he tried to evade mandatory DNA testing for all men in the small town. His guilt was then reinforced when the DNA profiles matched, and he gave a confession (Jobling and Gill). Finding DNA at a crime scene doesn’t guarantee that you’ll find a murderer. There are issues with non-pure samples and limited samples that make DNA work difficult, and accreditation of facilities and new techniques and take time (Jobling and Gill).  

Subjectivity of DNA Interpretation:

In a 2009 publication, the National Academy of Science discusses the possibility for subjective influence in lab based forensics. The interpretation bias happens in complex cases where, for example, there could be a mixture of DNA. A study published in 2011 looked specifically at this issue. A gang rape happened in Georgia, and the mixture in DNA from the case was used to prosecute one suspect after another suspect took a plea bargain to testify against him. With DNA mixtures, there are three possible conclusions: suspect excluded, suspect cannot be excluded, and inconclusive. If the suspect is excluded, it means that there’s little to no possibility that his DNA is part of the sample. If the suspect cannot be excluded, it means that there’s a possibility that his DNA is part of the sample. In the trial, the DNA examiners who knew the context of the case concluded that the suspect being prosecuted could not be excluded. The 2011 study gave the DNA evidence from this case and the DNA profiles of the suspects to 17 forensic examiners. These examiners had no context of the case, and they all worked independently. Of the 17, only 1 came to the same conclusion (suspect cannot be excluded) as the examiners who knew the context of the case. Twelve of the 17 concluded that the suspect who was prosecuted and convicted had no relation to the DNA found in the sample. Not only does this show that subjectivity occurs due to the context of the case, but the 17 examiners came up with different findings based on their past experiences meaning that not all DNA analysis is objective. Some organizations like the Scientific Working Group on DNA Analysis Methods say that quantitative statistical evidence should be presented with every categorical conclusion, but the US doesn’t require this (Dror and Hampikian).

False Positives:

There are two categories that cause wrongful identification in a DNA report: coincidental matches and false positives. Coincidental matches are DNA matches between two unrelated people. The probability of these matches is about 1 to 500,000 for white individuals and about 1 to 350,000 for black individuals. This small probability of coincidental matches makes people feel confident in DNA evidence. False positives, on the other hand, are matches between DNA and test DNA that result from issues in the forensics lab. There have been multiple cases of forensics labs accidentally switching victim and suspected rapist DNA which lead to convictions that were later overturned when the lab realized the error. There are also cases of misreading or misunderstanding a sample. In a case from 1993, a man was convicted of rape because someone interpreted a mixed sample of victim and perpetrator DNA as an individual sample. The conviction was again overturned. To prevent false convictions, retesting DNA is allowed, but it’s not an efficient solution. Many people are pushing for statistical information on the probability of false positives, so that the jurors can make accurate judgements based on DNA evidence (Thomas et al.).  

Conclusion:

DNA analysis is a useful tool for the criminal justice system, but subjectivity can be an issue in forensic testing. To combat wrongful convictions, there are organizations like The Innocence Project who use DNA testing to free the innocent, but reformed forensic testing standards should be put in place to prevent subjectivity and to ensure juries are correctly informed during trials. https://www.innocenceproject.org/    

Citation:

Augustyn , Adam, et al. “DNA Finerprinting.” Encyclopedia Britannica , 26 Apr. 2018, www.britannica.com/science/DNA-fingerprinting#ref153186. Dror, Itiel E., and Greg Hampikian. “Subjectivity and Bias in Forensic DNA Mixture Interpretation.” Science & Justice, vol. 51, no. 4, 2011, pp. 204–208., doi:10.1016/j.scijus.2011.08.004. Jobling, Mark A., and Peter Gill. “Encoded Evidence: DNA in Forensic Analysis.” Nature Reviews: Genetics, vol. 5, no. 10, Oct. 2004, pp. 739–751., doi:10.1038/nrg1455. Thompson, William C, et al. “How the Probability of a False Positive Affects the Value of DNA Evidence.” Journal of Forensic Sciences, vol. 48, no. 1, Jan. 2003, pp. 1–8., doi:10.1520/jfs2001171.