Orangutans are the closest human relatives, page 1

It seems that orangutans are our closest relatives and not chimps.

Orangutans, not chimpanzees, are the closest living relatives to humans, a controversial new study contends.

The scientist came to this conclusion because,

The authors base their conclusion on a close physical resemblance between orangutans and humans, which they say has been overshadowed by genetic evidence linking us to chimps.

What's more, the study authors argue, the genetic evidence itself is flawed. (Get a genetics overview.)

Evidence supporting this,

What's more, the genetic similarities likely include many ancient DNA traits that are shared across a much broader group of animals.

By contrast, humans share at least 28 unique physical characteristics with orangutans but only 2 with chimps and 7 with gorillas, the authors say.

The thing is that there is a match only in physical characteristics and not genetical ones.

But looking at physical traits rather than genetic ones, orangutans are a better match, Grehan and Schwartz say.

With the sequencing of the chimpanzee genome in 2005, scientists found direct proof that humans and chimps are 96 percent the same genetically.

Source-National Geographic

This is an interesting study and I've gotta admit, I've always preferred the Orangutan out of the great apes. The study paper is attracting quite a lot of criticism and it's not too surprising. Genetic evidence is by far the most accepted way of identifying related species. It relies on mathematics instead of human observation.

If the paper was correct in it's conclusion, it would mean an overhaul of genetic studies and accepted conclusions would be up for discussion once more. Another outcome of the study would require a re-writing of human and ape evolution. Basically, for the conclusion to correct everything else has to be wrong! It also requires a 'missing ape' and reidentification of molars found in Africa.

Some years ago Schwartz published a paper with similar conclusions. It was before the advances in DNA and genetics and seemed plausible. As our knowledge of chromosomes etc improved, the theory that we are descended from a common ancestor (shared with chimps) has grown stronger.

The best thing about the publication of the paper in New Scientist is that it shows science doesn't promote one theory at the expense of all else. It may be scorned, but it's out there for all to see.


the paper....Evolution of the second orangutan:phylogeny and biogeography of hominid origins

reply to post by Kandinsky

---

I absolutely agree.

Scientific theories get disproved all the time if new theories are found.

It's just the way science works.

I would say orang-utans seems more plausible than the great apes.

I'm currently living in SE Asia and you have to be here to observe these red-haired fellahs - behaviorally they're a LOT like humans. In a zoo, for example, orang-utans, out of their own free will, sat around a rock (much like us humans sit around tables) and ate together.

It's very interesting to note, indeed.

I'm going to have to take a look at that paper in your link once I have the time.

reply to post by peacejet

---

I am not a monkey, I am not a monkey, I am not a monkey, I'll keep saying it!!!! WTF? I am not a Dang monkey. When has anyone seen a blonde hair blue eyed orangutan?


Screw darwinism...biggest foul ever made against humanity!

reply to post by ldyserenity

---

You're a Great Ape.

reply to post by PieKeeper

---

Speak for yourself.

Reply to post by ldyserenity

---

Wrong turn, Clyde. You are correct. Science is not anything we should take to heart. Over the ages science has changed its conclusions over and over and over again. Science is basically a "where do we come from why are we here what is our purpose why does this do that why does that do this" application. No one wants to believe the one book that explains it all because it is "written by men" or "has contradictions" or is "full of holes" when in fact those 3 statements describes Science to a "T". Science is the blind leading the blind but because a "scientist" has a degree in bullxxxt we are supposed to jump when they say jump and when they admit they were wrong about something we say "thats ok we will now follow you in this direction". What most people fail to realize is these scientists are paid by individuals to "prove or disprove" according to the individuals beliefs. A child has more knowledge than most scientists since they draw their own conclusion instead of drawing it based on who pays the most.

---

Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com

---

Ex-Vatican Translator, Mauro Biglino\'s Alternative Creation/Translation Theory
  Posted 9 days ago with 40 member flags

EVOLUTION - Did YOU Know?
  Posted 16 days ago with 24 member flags

"I was raised an atheist"- Professor František Vyskočil
  Posted 6 days ago with 6 member flags

Evolution. Not a theory, but a fact!
  Posted 18 days ago with 4 member flags

Evolutionary theory: Gaps and not yet understood phenonemon
  Posted 18 days ago with 3 member flags

Radical Theory Explains the Origin, Evolution, and Nature of Life, Challenges Conventional Wisdom
  Posted 15 days ago with 3 member flags

Please be more specific about which type of creationist you\'re speaking of...
  Posted 15 days ago with 2 member flags

Proof that the pharoes did not build the pyramids, so who did FIND OUT HERE
  Posted 13 days ago with 2 member flags

Newest topics, updated in real-time:

Newest topics getting flags, in real-time:

Newest topics getting replies, in real-time: