Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 167 (8188 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 12-22-2014 8:28 AM
82 online now:
Faith, jar, JavaMan, Jon, JonF, Percy (Admin), Phat (AdminPhat), Tempe 12ft Chicken (8 members, 74 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: Golffly
Post Volume:
Total: 744,357 Year: 30,198/28,606 Month: 1,927/3,328 Week: 89/614 Day: 28/61 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Humans More Related To Orangutans Than Chimps, Study Suggests
Stagamancer
Member (Idle past 1441 days)
Posts: 174
From: Oregon
Joined: 12-28-2008


Message 1 of 4 (512505)
06-18-2009 3:14 PM


Humans More Related To Orangutans Than Chimps, Study Suggests

quote:
Jeffrey H. Schwartz, professor of anthropology in Pitt's School of Arts and Sciences and president of the World Academy of Art and Science, and John Grehan, director of science at the Buffalo Museum, conducted a detailed analysis of the physical features of living and fossil apes that suggested humans, orangutans, and early apes belong to a group separate from chimpanzees and gorillas. They then constructed a scenario for how the human-orangutan common ancestor migrated between Southeast Asiawhere modern orangutans are fromand other parts of the world and evolved into now-extinct apes and early humans.

quote:
Schwartz and Grehan scrutinized the hundreds of physical characteristics often cited as evidence of evolutionary relationships among humans and other great apeschimps, gorillas, and orangutansand selected 63 that could be verified as unique within this group (i.e., they do not appear in other primates). Of these features, the analysis found that humans shared 28 unique physical characteristics with orangutans, compared to only two features with chimpanzees, seven with gorillas, and seven with all three apes (chimpanzees, gorillas, and orangutans). Gorillas and chimpanzees shared 11 unique characteristics.

quote:
Schwartz and Grehan contend in the Journal of Biogeography that the clear physical similarities between humans and orangutans have long been overshadowed by molecular analyses that link humans to chimpanzees, but that those molecular comparisons are often flawed: There is no theory holding that molecular similarity necessarily implies an evolutionary relationship; molecular studies often exclude orangutans and focus on a limited selection of primates without an adequate "outgroup" for comparison; and molecular data that contradict the idea that genetic similarity denotes relation are often dismissed.


We have many intuitions in our life and the point is that many of these intuitions are wrong. The question is, are we going to test those intuitions?
-Dan Ariely
Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by Mr Jack, posted 06-18-2009 3:18 PM Stagamancer has responded

    
Mr Jack
Member
Posts: 3492
From: Leicester, England
Joined: 07-14-2003


Message 2 of 4 (512506)
06-18-2009 3:18 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Stagamancer
06-18-2009 3:14 PM


The Red Ape Returns is a decent blog discussion of this.

Here's the skinny: Schwartz essentially discards all of the molecular data and simply looks at morphology. This is, frankly, both unjustified and bad science. Molecular data is less certain than perhaps it is sometimes presented, molecular clocks in particular have large uncertainties associated, but to disregard them entirely is baby-with-bathwater nonsense.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Stagamancer, posted 06-18-2009 3:14 PM Stagamancer has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by Stagamancer, posted 06-18-2009 6:56 PM Mr Jack has not yet responded
 Message 4 by RAZD, posted 06-18-2009 7:02 PM Mr Jack has not yet responded

  
Stagamancer
Member (Idle past 1441 days)
Posts: 174
From: Oregon
Joined: 12-28-2008


Message 3 of 4 (512530)
06-18-2009 6:56 PM
Reply to: Message 2 by Mr Jack
06-18-2009 3:18 PM


Molecular data is less certain than perhaps it is sometimes presented, molecular clocks in particular have large uncertainties associated, but to disregard them entirely is baby-with-bathwater nonsense.

Agreed. I put this up more because I was pretty shocked that they would disregard the molecular data so off hand. I didn't really find the article too convincing, I just thought it was interesting the press it was getting. I'll take a look at that blog post, though


We have many intuitions in our life and the point is that many of these intuitions are wrong. The question is, are we going to test those intuitions?
-Dan Ariely
This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by Mr Jack, posted 06-18-2009 3:18 PM Mr Jack has not yet responded

    
RAZD
Member
Posts: 16234
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.0


Message 4 of 4 (512532)
06-18-2009 7:02 PM
Reply to: Message 2 by Mr Jack
06-18-2009 3:18 PM


Schwartz schlap schtik
Hi Mr Jack,

Here's the skinny: Schwartz essentially discards all of the molecular data and simply looks at morphology. ...

When I saw the title of this thread I had a feeling that it would be about Schwartz ...

This is, frankly, both unjustified and bad science.

Cherry picking evidence and only using evidence that supports your preferred concept is always bot wrong and bad science. I've read Schwartz's book ("Sudden Origins" by Jeffery H Schwartz), and also let my dad (taught biology at UofMich) read it, and he had the same opinion.

quote:
Chapter 12 is where he goes off the deep end. Specifically he equates the loss of a fully evolved HOX gene complex together with the cascade of orchestrated elements needed for the production and assembly of features ... to the development of that HOX gene by one mutation. He specifically dismisses the argument Dawkins makes on eye evolution and ignores the evidence of intermediates. He suggests that eyes evolved fully developed, because when you destroy one specific HOX gene in a population that any homozygous individual is sightless -- no eye and no eye socket. He goes on to propose that other "novel" features are likewise developed whole by single HOX mutations.

Frankly, I would not give this book away, certainly not to anyone looking for honest information.

Also see comments Dr Schwartz made on Message 38 and Message 40, another thread that takes another of his books apart.

Enjoy.

Edited by RAZD, : linky


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by Mr Jack, posted 06-18-2009 3:18 PM Mr Jack has not yet responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2014 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2014