Oo-ga! oo-ga! We orangs, NOT chimps!!

_{Denyse O'Leary

July 18, 2009

Intelligent Design}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

British physicist David J. Tyler writes, in “Humanity as the second orang-utan” (ARN, 2 July 2009)

The world of human phylogeny has been hit by a bombshell. Although scholars and textbooks are presenting chimpanzees as man’s closest relatives, Grehan and Schwartz have revived the case for orangutans. They consider hominoids to be comprised of two sister clades: the human-orangutan clade (dental hominoids) and the chimpanzee-gorilla clade (African apes). They claim that humans and orangutans “share a common ancestor that excludes the extant African apes”. Since it is received wisdom that chimps are the nearest relative to humans because we share over 98% of their genes and since humans are referred to as the “third chimpanzee”, the ramifications of the new paper are immense!

You bet, especially for the 98% chimpanzee industry. Read more here.

Comments

Lenoxus, ID doesn't say one way or another whether or not chimps, orangs and humans are related. As for why the designed to evolve is finished just read- A Prescribed Evolutionary Hypothesis by John A. Davison Abstract
I propose that phylogeny took place in a manner similar to that of ontogeny by the derepression of preformed genomic information which was expressed through release from latency (derepression) by the restructuring of existing chromosomal information (position effects). Both indirect and direct evidence is presented in support of the Prescribed Evolutionary Hypothesis.
l. INTRODUCTION
Historically there have been two major hypotheses to explain organic change, that of Lamarck, based on the transmission of characters acquired during the life of the individual and that of Darwin, which placed Nature in the role of selecting and thereby preserving those genetic changes which proved to be of advantage to the organism. These changes were presumed to be the means by which evolution proceeded. Each of these hypotheses has been thoroughly tested. The Lamarckian hypothesis was tested by August Weismann in Darwin’s own day with negative results. The Darwinian hypothesis has been tested with limited success. There is no question that artificial selection can significantly alter the phenotype as demonstrated with dogs, goldfish, and a host of other domesticated forms, both plant and animal. Nevertheless, the products of the most intensive selection have not exceeded the species barrier. It seems that sexual reproduction is incapable of transforming species even to new members of the same genus. Even if this could be demonstrated, it seems very unlikely that such a process could ever produce the higher categories of genus, family, order or class. I realize that these are contentious matters and it is with some trepidation that I have abandoned each of these hypotheses in order to offer what seems to me the only real viable alternative. It is the responsibility of the scientist to expose failed hypotheses, but it is equally his responsibility to offer a replacement for them. That is the purpose of this paper. Some of what I will present is not new with me but was proposed long ago by those I will cite, in their own words, so there is no misunderstanding of what they meant.
Joseph_{July 21, 2009
July
07
Jul
21
21
2009
06:17 AM
6
06
17
AM
PDT}

Joseph:
Lenoxus, If ID says anything about universal common descent it says that it was carried out via some plan. IOW the original populations were designed to evolve into some pre-specified diversity.
Thanks for your answer. That suggests that chimp-vs-orang debates are fundamentally immaterial because ID holds that we are, in fact, related to other apes, just that our divergence was triggered by designed features of our DNA or other biological aspects. What's really neat about that idea is that it suggests that as we learn more about genomes and grasp the concept of "designed to evolve", we should be able to plot a species' future evolution! Unless, of course, all the pre-specified diversity is already "done". But why should that be? :)Lenoxus_{July 20, 2009
July
07
Jul
20
20
2009
07:26 PM
7
07
26
PM
PDT}

Lenoxus, If ID says anything about universal common descent it says that it was carried out via some plan. IOW the original populations were designed to evolve into some pre-specified diversity.Joseph_{July 20, 2009
July
07
Jul
20
20
2009
11:20 AM
11
11
20
AM
PDT}

What happens when a full genome comparison is made and it tells us that several mutations per generation would have to become fixed (yes in each generation) in order to account just for the genetic differences?Joseph_{July 20, 2009
July
07
Jul
20
20
2009
06:25 AM
6
06
25
AM
PDT}

Mr Charrington, What is the scientific data which demonstrates the transformations required are even possible? Start simple with that opposible big toe- what DNA sequence or sequences is/are responsible for the positioning of the big toe?Joseph_{July 20, 2009
July
07
Jul
20
20
2009
06:21 AM
6
06
21
AM
PDT}

Seversky, Thanks for linking to perhaps the most dishonest website there is on this topic. And too bad no one even knows if such a transformation- from chimp-like to human- is even possible.Joseph_{July 20, 2009
July
07
Jul
20
20
2009
06:18 AM
6
06
18
AM
PDT}

Mr Charrington, ------"To say that “there is no scientific data to support the idea we descended from a common ancestral ape” is beyond idiotic." It most certainly is not idiotic, and I would refrain from that language unless you want to be moderated. I'll only tell you this once.Clive Hayden_{July 19, 2009
July
07
Jul
19
19
2009
09:01 PM
9
09
01
PM
PDT}

Joseph @ 11
Seversky:
In any event, regardless of which of the other apes is our closest relative, we are still apes ourselves and still descended from a common ancestral ape.
That is a bold proclamation but too bad there isn’t any scientific data to support it.
Yes, there is and if you want an accessible site where you can begin learning about it, you could start here.Seversky_{July 19, 2009
July
07
Jul
19
19
2009
05:57 PM
5
05
57
PM
PDT}

Joseph
That is a bold proclamation but too bad there isn’t any scientific data to support it.
That's a joke right? At this point in time that's equivilent to asserting that the earth orbits a comet. To say that "there is no scientific data to support the idea we descended from a common ancestral ape" is beyond idiotic. What sort of evidence would convince you? A DVD of it happening? To borrow a saying, it's establised beyond a reasonable doubt. It's clear that your doubt is not reasonable.Mr Charrington_{July 19, 2009
July
07
Jul
19
19
2009
03:58 PM
3
03
58
PM
PDT}

To the degree that we are (or appear to be) genetically related to other organisms (especially primates), and this relatedness is measurable… what exactly does ID predict? Simply that biologists will continue to argue over precisely which apes we are more related to? Is it going too far to say that ID means we should find ourselves totally unrelated to apes? If it is, why?Lenoxus_{July 19, 2009
July
07
Jul
19
19
2009
03:31 PM
3
03
31
PM
PDT}

Joseph, the 'christian' typing this message (also known as 'me') has also acted like an ape many times. There is some scientific data to support the notion that we are descended from apes. Even so, I agree that the bold statement made by Seversky is too strong. Anytime it becomes about us, our ends, ergo our pride, as opposed to our actual humble understanding of God (or reality), we all become more animal-like. 28 All this happened to King Nebuchadnezzar. 29 Twelve months later, as the king was walking on the roof of the royal palace of Babylon, 30 he said, "Is not this the great Babylon I have built as the royal residence, by my mighty power and for the glory of my majesty?" 31 The words were still on his lips when a voice came from heaven, "This is what is decreed for you, King Nebuchadnezzar: Your royal authority has been taken from you. 32 You will be driven away from people and will live with the wild animals; you will eat grass like cattle. Seven times will pass by for you until you acknowledge that the Most High is sovereign over the kingdoms of men and gives them to anyone he wishes." 33 Immediately what had been said about Nebuchadnezzar was fulfilled. He was driven away from people and ate grass like cattle. His body was drenched with the dew of heaven until his hair grew like the feathers of an eagle and his nails like the claws of a bird. Daniel 4:28-33 One glaring inconsistency for naturalism, is that they very often expect others to not act like apes (or animals in general). That would be very strange if that is truely all we are. We attempt to reason with each other as though we are not mere apes. And that reasoning always implies a moral certitude that we expect each other to acknowledge and submit to. And I expect that you all would submit to that... :)Lock_{July 19, 2009
July
07
Jul
19
19
2009
09:49 AM
9
09
49
AM
PDT}

Seversky:
In any event, regardless of which of the other apes is our closest relative, we are still apes ourselves and still descended from a common ancestral ape.
That is a bold proclamation but too bad there isn't any scientific data to support it. True evolutionists act like apes but that doesn't mean they are related.Joseph_{July 19, 2009
July
07
Jul
19
19
2009
08:10 AM
8
08
10
AM
PDT}

Yellow? :D It doesn't seem to me that O'leary's endeavors are meant, at all, to capitalize on pop culture. On the other hand, the Discovery Channel program I watched the other night entitled, 'Are we Alone' is another matter. The title even caught my eye. Who doesn't want to know the answers into that question? The substance however was as sophomoric as it gets. But it makes for good advertizing revenue. btw, the answer is no... we are not alone. They (in the trinitarian sense of course) even visited us in person (in the flesh that is). It wasn't the answer that the pop culture was looking for. Not much has changed...Lock_{July 18, 2009
July
07
Jul
18
18
2009
08:39 PM
8
08
39
PM
PDT}

Nakashima @ 7
Tyler’s commentary is what it is, commentary. A better question is why O’leary’s pass-through blogging should be considered journalism.
Agreed it is a minor point but the author of the commentary was identified as "British physicist David J. Tyler" which is an implicit appeal to (inappropriate) authority. As for the posts, they do qualify as journalism but with a distinctly yellow tinge. (No offense intended)Seversky_{July 18, 2009
July
07
Jul
18
18
2009
07:06 PM
7
07
06
PM
PDT}

Mr Seversky, Tyler's commentary is what it is, commentary. A better question is why O'leary's pass-through blogging should be considered journalism. At the very least she could have brought up the obvious dino-bird parallels.Nakashima_{July 18, 2009
July
07
Jul
18
18
2009
06:01 PM
6
06
01
PM
PDT}

Mr. Jiggs, a six-year-old orangutan at London Zoo, is capable of mopping his own quarters. I think that pretty much destroys any chance orangutans and human males are at all related. LOLherb_{July 18, 2009
July
07
Jul
18
18
2009
05:27 PM
5
05
27
PM
PDT}

Thanks for the confirmation Seversky. I'd call it an updated marketing campaign for the same old beast.Lock_{July 18, 2009
July
07
Jul
18
18
2009
05:21 PM
5
05
21
PM
PDT}

Is the David Tyler in question this David Tyler?
David Tyler, Ph. D. Ph.D. University of Manchester 1990 Geology and Origins General Interests David Tyler has a background in the physical sciences with a BSc in Physics from Southampton University (1968) and an MSc in physics, by research, from Loughborough University (1972). He gained a PhD in the area of management science from the University of Manchester (1990) Current Research Current research interests relate to teamworking in product development and the optimisation of performance of textile/apparel supply chains. He is a Senior Lecturer, a Member of The Textile Institute and a Member of the Institute of Physics. In 1995, he was awarded the Golden Medal by The Textile Institute.
It is not immediately apparent how someone with "a background in the physical sciences" and who is currently working on "the optimisation of performance of textile/apparel supply chains" is especially qualified to pass judgment on a paper discussing human phylogeny. In any event, regardless of which of the other apes is our closest relative, we are still apes ourselves and still descended from a common ancestral ape.Seversky_{July 18, 2009
July
07
Jul
18
18
2009
05:09 PM
5
05
09
PM
PDT}

I wouldn't make too much about the change in clothes though Denyse. It is her glory to change while retaining the splendor of her core business.Lock_{July 18, 2009
July
07
Jul
18
18
2009
03:40 PM
3
03
40
PM
PDT}

Well yeah! The industry of ideas of course. Philosophy (or religion) is the #1 industry of humanity in my estimation. It is with these ideas(many of them cleverly implied), that we motivate others to act upon a value system and build a culture. That's my explanation anyway... The full description of this industry is better: Revelation 18:11 "The merchants of the earth will weep and mourn over her because no one buys their cargoes any more-- 12 cargoes of gold, silver, precious stones and pearls; fine linen, purple, silk and scarlet cloth; every sort of citron wood, and articles of every kind made of ivory, costly wood, bronze, iron and marble; 13 cargoes of cinnamon and spice, of incense, myrrh and frankincense, of wine and olive oil, of fine flour and wheat; cattle and sheep; horses and carriages; and bodies and souls of men. 14 "They will say, 'The fruit you longed for is gone from you. All your riches and splendor have vanished, never to be recovered.' 15 The merchants who sold these things and gained their wealth from her will stand far off, terrified at her torment. They will weep and mourn 16 and cry out: "'Woe! Woe, O great city, dressed in fine linen, purple and scarlet, and glittering with gold, precious stones and pearls! 17 In one hour such great wealth has been brought to ruin!' "Every sea captain, and all who travel by ship, the sailors, and all who earn their living from the sea, will stand far off. 18 When they see the smoke of her burning, they will exclaim, 'Was there ever a city like this great city?' 19 They will throw dust on their heads, and with weeping and mourning cry out: "'Woe! Woe, O great city, where all who had ships on the sea became rich through her wealth! In one hour she has been brought to ruin!Lock_{July 18, 2009
July
07
Jul
18
18
2009
03:07 PM
3
03
07
PM
PDT}

The ARN server seems to be down: the link doesn't work.David Kellogg_{July 18, 2009
July
07
Jul
18
18
2009
09:01 AM
9
09
01
AM
PDT}

You bet, especially for the 98% chimpanzee industry.
That's an industry?dbthomas_{July 18, 2009
July
07
Jul
18
18
2009
08:45 AM
8
08
45
AM
PDT}

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply