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.
That’s an industry?
The ARN server seems to be down: the link doesn’t work.
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!
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.
Is the David Tyler in question this David Tyler?
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.
Thanks for the confirmation Seversky. I’d call it an updated marketing campaign for the same old beast.
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. LOL
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 @ 7
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)
Yellow? 😀
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…
Seversky:
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, 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… 🙂
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?
Joseph
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.
Joseph @ 11
Yes, there is and if you want an accessible site where you can begin learning about it, you could start here.
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.
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.
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?
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?
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:
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,
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
l. INTRODUCTION