“Neutral theory” and the dynamics of the evolution of “Modern” human morphology

There is a widespread assumption, even among those who reject the Synthetic Theory of Evolution, that the form of “modern”Homo sapiens is somehow superior to that of archaicHomo sapiens (Tattersall 2000). Those who accept the general outlook of evolutionary biology also tend to assume that “modern” form emerged because it was selected for, which also implies that it was better than that which preceded it. However, after years of using craniofacial measurements to compare human populations, I finally came to realize that, with only a few exceptions, the dimensions measured have no relation to differences in adaptation (Brace 1989, 1996, 2000; Brace et al., 1993). Elsewhere the conclusion has been supported that what is shown by craniometrics is selectively neutral on the average (Relethford 2002). With the documentation that approximately 95% of the genome is not functional, molecular genetics has proved to be useful in documenting the length of time of separation of related human populations by investigating the differences that have accumulated in the neutral parts of the genome. Not surprisingly, the picture revealed by the study of genetic differences is very similar to the one revealed by the study of craniometric differences (Brace et al., 2001).