Posted on 07/18/2009 7:17:27 PM PDT by GodGunsGuts
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!...
(Excerpt) Read more at arn.org ...
You are right, that would be tough to swallow, even for the evos. Think about it, each species would have to separately evolve into humans at about the same time via RANDOM MUTATIONS plus natural selection.
No, because the chimpanzee and orangutan DNA had already diverged.
We’re not descended from either species. Rather, in the past, humans and chimpanzees and orangutans shared a common ancestor species. We share about 98 percent of our DNA, but that two percent is a whopper.
See link in reply #1
That doesn’t affect my argument.
OK. What was it?
Then how do we explain why some creatures seem to undergo 'evolution' or random mutation/natural selection, and some don't?
Knocking DNA similarity from 98% all the way down to as low as 86% doesn’t affect your argument?
when it comes to bones, this has always stuck in my craw... at one time, Peking Man was the oldest known found and then the entire country of China was sealed off forever.
later along comes Leakey, but, China has remained sealed off and who is to say there aren't undiscovered surprises left unfound for not being allowed to search for them.
One of the reasons why I’m a young earth creationist is because I don’t believe the evidence suggest any species have evolved via random mutation. As a YEC, I do acknowledge limited change within the boundary of the created kinds over time, but I have yet to see any evidence, other than evo-assumptions, that suggests that random mutation plus natural selection is capable of macroevolution.
(This was the San People news we had a few weeks back ~ well known all the way back to Niels Van Der Post's "Sands of the Khalihari" in fact).
At the same time various genes that appear to have popped up in East Asia and Western Europe have made their way back down the line into Africa.
People do get around don't they.
At this time in history all 14 lines of humans are members of the same species. Given enough time and genetic isolation its possible you could end up with 14 different species of modern humans.
The speculation concerning the Orangutangs has been around for most of a century. In fact, the "chimp thesis" wasn't all that well established until it was understood that the Bonobos were NOT the same species as the larger chimps (that tear your face off and eat your brains).
One variation on the human/chimp deal is the idea that modern chimps didn't arise out of the human/chimp milieu all at once but that genetic isolation was followed by cross-breeding, and then isolation and then more cross-breeding for several million years. This "blurred" distinctions, and also allowed for some back breeding with passing orangutangs ~ giving humans both chimp and orang relationships, without there being any strong chimp and orang relationships.
That idea is not new of course.
If the means of research can be controlled the results of the research can be controlled and this obvious bias in the choosing data certainly has been no secret within the Darwinist camp.
Like the defense of peppered moth fiasco, this cherry-picking of data is an example of the intellectual bankruptcy in The Temple of Darwinism.
So much drama and so little science from the creationists.
Speaking of the peppered moth...
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2009/07/peppered_moth_now_reverts_back.html#more
With moth’s falling numbers the only explanation is that birds can see them better than when they used to be able to see the moths better.
Maybe the natural selection is for the eye sight of the birds since the numbers of moths has fallen by over half since the pollution has decreased.
Thanks for the ping!
I wouldn't take it that way and I'll bet she didn't either.
Nope. She was rather embarrased. She would agree that it is a funny story to tell later, though.
There are no two groups of humans, no matter how isolated from each other for how ever long, that cannot intermarry and have children. In fact, we have been shown through our DNA that we are all descended from a single woman.
I know you do not mean anything derogatory by your question, but that belief was actually popular in the beginning of the 20th century in the Margret Sanger wing of Eugenics. The belief is able to promote an extraordinary amount of racism by promoting the belief that all humans are not created equal.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.