What was that line out of a famous movie scene? "Right turn Clyde! " Allan
On Wed, Jul 22, 2009 at 8:21 PM, Chris Jenkins <[email protected]>wrote: > From another list I'm on...chimps may not be our closest relative after > all? > > From the Pittsburgh-Tribune Review. Anyone interested in a pdf of the > original article please let me know. John Grehan > *Pitt anthropologist argues humans more like orangutans than chimps* > A University of Pittsburgh anthropologist argues in a paper published today > that humans most likely share a common ancestor with orangutans, and not > chimpanzees, which is the prevailing belief. > > Jeffrey H. Schwartz hopes the paper will get researchers to practice > fundamental science and question some assumptions. > "What I'll be happy with is if people actually think out of the box and > consider alternative theories of human relationships with apes," Schwartz > said Wednesday in a phone interview from Zagreb, Croatia. > > He concedes it won't happen overnight, but the paper in the Journal of > Biogeography that he co-authored could help, said Schwartz, who's the > president of the World Academy of Art and Science. > > "We've done the analysis," said John Grehan, who is the paper's other > co-author, director of science at the Buffalo Museum in New York and a > research associate at the Carnegie Museum of Natural History. > > Jeffrey L. Boore, an adjunct biology professor at the University of > California-Berkeley who specializes in interpretive genome sequences, said > he knows of no strong reason to discount the DNA studies that have > demonstrated chimps and gorillas are more closely related to humans than > orangutans. > > "The overwhelming majority of those studies have given very strong support > to excluding orangutans from the human-chimp-gorilla group," said Boore, > who's also CEO of Genome Project Solutions, Inc., in Hercules, Calif. > > "If people disagree with it, they need to put out their evidence and let it > go back and forth," said Grehan, an entomologist who also studies the origin > and evolution of animals and plants. "But I think a lot of people are > incapable of dealing with it." > > That's because for years most of the scientific community accepted DNA > analyses that suggest humans are most closely related to chimps, Schwartz > and Grehan said. > > But an examination of fossil and other evidence shows humans and orangutans > share 28 features -- including reproductive systems, tooth structures and > mouth palates, the scientists say. > > Schwartz and Grehan write in their paper that humans share only two > features with chimpanzees and seven with gorillas. > "In science, you must integrate the fossil record with the living record," > Grehan said. "That's what we've done." > They propose a scenario that explains the migration of the human-orangutan > common ancestor from Southeast Asia, where modern orangutans are from. > > The molecular evidence that scientists commonly cite to demonstrate the > link between humans and chimps is flawed, Schwartz said. > > "Only 2 percent of the entire human genome can be verified," he said. "But > people are saying that chimps and humans share 98 percent of some portion of > that 2 percent to make their case." > > That's not good science, said Malte Ebach, a paleontologist at Arizona > State University's International Institute for Species Exploration, who, > like Grehan, studies the origin and evolution of animals and plants. > > "People think DNA data is better because they perceive it as > technologically superior and more progressive," Ebach said. "But technology > doesn't make data better." > > Schwartz proposed his human-orangutan theory in 1982. He wrote the book, > "The Red Ape: Orangutans and Human Origins," in 1986 that expanded on those > ideas. In 2005, Schwartz published and revised an updated version of the > book. > > The work was ignored as molecular studies came out that showed the > similarity between chimps and humans. > Grehan said alternative views should not be dismissed when a theory becomes > so accepted. > During the mid-20th century, scientists so fervently disagreed with Barbara > McClintock's theory that genes could move along a chromosome that she > stopped publishing, Grehan said. In 1983, McClintock won a Nobel Prize for > her research in "jumping genes." > > Subscription options and archives available: > http://listserv.buffalo.edu/archives/anthro-l.html > > > > > > -- ( ) I_D Allan --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups ""Minds Eye"" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/Minds-Eye?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
