That's another problem...how can so called "random" mutations
occur at a "regular" rate? This concept is not particularly
new. Wilson and Sarich in 1969 postulated that the molecular
genetic clocks mutated at regular rates and that allowed them
to think that they could "time" when the primates diverged
into their respective lines. But the same problem...how
does a "random" process mutate at a regular rate? Maybe
it's not random. Maybe it has no bearing on the issue.
P.S....another conundrum is ...why don't living things "back-mutate?"
Could the weather, or whatever environmental influence
is allowing the mutation to survive also reverse?...What
would that concept do to the interpretation of the fossil
record??? I assume there is no evidence for that...why not?
Let's face it, bilogically speaking, the bacteria, and viruses
, and the insects seem to be better fit for this earthly environment,
then mammals...why did they "evolve" to a more precarious
position???? Please no funny comments, like "because it's there.!"
I don't exclude any possibility.
Orangutans and human origins
Evolutionary Evidence Origin of the Theory Points of View
Dr. Jeffrey Schwartz, originator of the orangutan theory of human origins. Department of Anthropology, University of Pittsburgh. USA.
Humans have a larger number of features that are uniquely shared with orangutans than with any other living ape. Schwartz (1984) proposed that humans are more closely related to orangutans than to chimpanzees - a model that contradicts the greater genetic similarity of base pair sequences in humans and chimpanzees.
The view presented here is that genetic similarity of base pair sequences is not a necessary measure of phylogenetic relationship and that morphology continues to exist as an independently reliable source of information on evolutionary relationships. The orangutan model presents a conundrum for biological systematics over how to chose between morphological and genetic evidence when they are in conflict.