Humans and orangutans

[John Grehan]

I find agreement with the position expressed by Kosmas, but his view does
not conform to what molecular geneticists are claiming about the priority
for molecular evidence in primate evolution - particularly the question
over the nearest living relative for humans.

The question of 'testing' is one of the interesting issues here since
'testing' is often thought of in terms of one line of evidence precluding
another. Here we have a research anomaly where two lines of research are
leading to contradictory results without either result qualifying as an
automatic refutation of the other (of course those molecular geneticists,
such as the one I quoted see matters quite differently and so its somewhat
reassuring to see that at least some molecular geneticists may take a more
open view).

I think I mentioned that we have an artist working on a new rendition of
Australopithecus afarensis - specifically Lucy - and simply by following
the morphology of the skull her appearance appears to be unlike anything
resembling either a chimpanzee or gorilla as portrayed in the 'popular'
literature.

For those who have had the 'joy' of watching "Walking with Cavemen" I can
only add that for the section on afarensis as an upright walking chimp,
reality may prove to be something else entirely (i.e perhaps an upright
walking 'orangutan').

John Grehan

At 08:08 PM 6/17/2003 +0100, Kosmas Theodorides wrote:
>Dear John,
>
>As a molecular geneticist, with an interest in history and philosophy of
>science, I can assure you that the last thing I'd ever say is that any
>approach (even molecular genetics) has the last word on anything. It is a
>very powerful tool but it says little outside the organismic framework. I
>am not sure I agree with you on the specifics of the primate issue, but I
>most definitely welcome the fact that there are people dedicated  in
>examining alternative explanations to the phenomena. You, and all other
>colleagues, would do us a great favor if you could please keep up the
>morphological work, not least to provide  alternative hypotheses to test.
>
>Science (the modern form of what was called  Natural Philosophy in ancient
>times) was reborn in the late Middle ages in monasteries where people were
>naturally inclined to believe one explanation, one book and one leader. It
>has left us that legacy of belief in the form of paradigms. Since for all
>those centuries we've had enough paradigmatic leaders, and a great
>graveyard of theories and methods that were supposed to have the last word
>on everything, I think it is time for pluralism. Both from personal
>experience and as a philosophical stance, no good science is science
>fiction. I have being doing this long enough to remember many molecular
>white elephants.
>
>Above all, it is through collaboration, synthesis and synergy rather than
>some kind of takeover by a brand-new paradigm that science has achieved the
>most. Losing the morphological/organismal side for any sort of
>reductionistic idealism would make us all poorer. Don't give up.
>
>Kosmas Th.
>
>
>
>
>At 14:31 6/17/2003 -0400, John Grehan wrote:
>>Just an update on the orangutan-human front. I have heard from one
>>molecular geneticist informing me that it has been scientifically proven
>>that chimpanzees are human's closest living relatives and that it is highly
>>irresponsible for me to convey to the public information which is known to
>>be incorrect and that I will look like a laughing-stock among my peers.
>>
>>Be that as it may, this geneticist raises the same point I have mentioned
>>earlier. If only molecular genetics scientifically proves phylogeny then
>>all morphological contributions to phylogeny are rendered science fiction.
>>All morphological studies, including those of fossil taxa, are unreliable
>>to the point that they should no longer be funded. This seems to be the
>>inevitable conclusion one would reach if molecular phylogeny were the only
>>reliable way to reconstruct phylogeny and have automatic precedence over
>>morphology. This is the view taken by most primate systematists working
>>with human origins - even by those who study morphology, and including
>>those who study fossil hominid taxa!
>>
>>Are there any morphological systematists on this list who view molecular
>>genetics as the last word on reconstructing phylogeny? (i.e. view their own
>>morphological work as phylogenetically uninformative).
>>
>>John Grehan
>>
>>Dr. John Grehan
>>Director of Science and Collections
>>Buffalo Museum of Science
>>1020 Humboldt Parkway
>>Buffalo, New York 14211-1293
>>Voice 716-896-5200 x372
>>Fax 716-897-6723
>>jgrehan at sciencebuff.org
>>http://www.sciencebuff.org/biogeography/Panbiogeography/Panbiogeography-Gate.htm
>>http://www.sciencebuff.org/HepialidaeGate.htm
>
>********************************
>Kosmas Theodorides
>
>Department of Entomology,
>The Natural History Museum,
>Cromwell Road,
>London, SW7 5BD,
>
>and
>
>Imperial College,
>Department of Biological Sciences,
>Silwood Park, Ascot,
>Berks SL5 7PY, UK
>
>phone +44 (0)207 942 5609/5016
>fax +44 (0)207 942 5229
>
>kost at nhm.ac.uk
>k.theodorides at ic.ac.uk
>
>Everything flows and nothing remains the same. Heraclitus

Dr. John Grehan
Director of Science and Collections
Buffalo Museum of Science
1020 Humboldt Parkway
Buffalo, New York 14211-1293
Voice 716-896-5200 x372
Fax 716-897-6723
jgrehan at sciencebuff.org
http://www.sciencebuff.org/biogeography/Panbiogeography/Panbiogeography-Gate.htm
http://www.sciencebuff.org/HepialidaeGate.htm