It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Orangutans are the closest human relatives

page: 1

log in


posted on Jun, 26 2009 @ 10:46 PM
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

posted on Jun, 26 2009 @ 11:35 PM
Interesting, I had always believed it was 98%, not 96%

posted on Jun, 26 2009 @ 11:36 PM
From what I thought I understood, chimpanzees, orangutans, and humans all have a common ancestor, and branched out from there. Are they saying that there is a direct line from orangutans to humans?

posted on Jun, 26 2009 @ 11:37 PM
Good work, but those researchers have never met my ex-son-in-law.

Somewhere between Neanderthal and Australopithicus Aferensis.


posted on Jun, 27 2009 @ 12:20 AM
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

posted on Jun, 27 2009 @ 03:41 AM

Originally posted by dooper
Good work, but those researchers have never met my ex-son-in-law.

Somewhere between Neanderthal and Australopithicus Aferensis.



I'm sorry to hear that.

How bad WAS he?

posted on Jun, 27 2009 @ 04:07 AM
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.

posted on Jun, 27 2009 @ 06:56 AM
It is apparent that there is a conspiracy regarding scientific exploration of chimpanzees and orangutans. The main focus is on chimps, while orangutans are quite neglected.

In my opinion orangutans are far more intelligent than chimps, and that is "scary", isn't it?

As well as the fact that they are not very social beings and nothing as aggressive as chimps, which makes chimps a very good excuse for human aggressive display...

posted on Jun, 27 2009 @ 07:41 AM
Yeah let's not forget Koko and the likes, these are really smart animals!

posted on Jun, 27 2009 @ 07:56 AM
When I was a child I always thought orangutans were our closest relatives, not chimps. Now that I'm older what I thought has came true.

posted on Jun, 27 2009 @ 04:16 PM
This is certainly an interesting idea being proposed. I'm not all that convinced that it is true, though. Though Orangutans are fascinating animals, I still believe they have more in common with Gibbons and Siamangs. Humans are African Apes.

posted on Jun, 27 2009 @ 04:20 PM
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!

posted on Jun, 27 2009 @ 05:52 PM
reply to post by ldyserenity

You're a Great Ape.

posted on Jun, 27 2009 @ 05:55 PM
reply to post by PieKeeper

Speak for yourself.

posted on Jun, 27 2009 @ 06:06 PM
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:

new topics

top topics


log in