Humans and orangutans

[John Grehan]

The principle appears to have gone out the window when it comes to primate
evolution - particularly human origins. This is readily discernable by the
amount of ridicule and the expressions of shock and dismay I have received
from primate specialists (this does not necessarily equate with primate
systematists) over my intention to publicize the contrasting evolutionary
models. At present there appears to be only one primate specialist in
public support of the orangutan theory, and one non-specialist (me) so the
number two is determined by the 'majority' (i.e. of those with political
and scientific influence) to be too small to qualify the orangutan
hypothesis as a serious scientific concern.

John Grehan

At 09:29 AM 6/18/2003 +0200, Denis Brothers wrote:
>What happened to the scientific principle that hypotheses can only be
>disproved, and that nothing can actually be "proven"? In any case, if
>phylogenies are supposed to represent our best estimate of actual
>evolutionary events there is no way they can ever be known with
>certainty (until someone invents a functioning time machine, at least).
>Until then, we must use all available information to make the best
>estimate.
>Denis
>
>Prof. Denis J. Brothers
>School of Botany & Zoology
>University of Natal
>Private Bag X01
>Scottsville
>3209 SOUTH AFRICA
>tel: +27 (0)33 260 5106
>fax: +27 (0)33 260 5105
>e-mail: brothers at nu.ac.za
>
> >>> John Grehan <jgrehan at SCIENCEBUFF.ORG> 2003/06/17 08:31:41 PM >>>
>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
>
>--------------------------------------------------------------------
>Please find our disclaimer at http://www.disclaimer.nu.ac.za
>--------------------------------------------------------------------
><<<<GWIASIG 0.07>>>>

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