A quick heads up for those interested in human evolutionary history: In Journal of Biogeography Grehan and Schwartz presents evidence for the hypothesis that the closest living relative of humans is the orangutan, and not the chimpanzee.The phylogenetic tree of the relationship of these four apes would then look like figure B, rather than the usual one in figure A:
My own beautiful cladograms.
Their conclusion is based on morphological data, rather than molecular data (DNA), and they counter that the well-known percentages of DNA that humans share with other apes are "primitive retentions" (older traits with a deeper evolutionary past shared by a larger group of species). Humans share 98.4% with chimpanzees, 97.5% with gorillas, and 96.5% with orangutans.
The morphological data on which their study is based include features of anatomy, reproductive biology, and behavior. For example, among the great apes only humans and orangutans have thick tooth enamel, long hair, male facial hair, concealed ovulation, a preference for private, face-to-face mating, and an ability to construct shelters and beds.
No doubt this is going to cause a fair amount of debate in the scientific community. Which is great. Stay tuned.
Reference:
John R. Grehan and Jeffrey H. Schwartz (2009). Evolution of the second orangutan: phylogeny and biogeography of hominid origins Journal of Biogeography, in press.
Well, almost. (Greehan is Grehan)
ReplyDeleteClad 1 is genetically correct
Clad 2 is geographically correct, and morphologically correct.
The LCA great ape, from Tunis to Italy, then in Europe was pushed southeast due to cold, gibbons first, then Orangs moved from Greece-Turkey to India, Human ancestors stopped in Levant area bordered by seas, while African apes went further west into Congo, developing knucklewalking independently.
Dude, would be kewl with some refz.
ReplyDeleteAs for the clads, ta Q is which one describes what actually happened in the past. Saying they are both correct is not good enough. Dude.
And thanx for loving my clads.
refz? dood, i'd have to write a book.
ReplyDeletethey ARE both correct! honest!
genetic differs from morphology (parallel convergence due to similar niche in similar environment)
don't change the clads! they're great! wish the other guys would see em.
Write a book!
ReplyDeleteI'll never change them, no worry.
But again, the point of the morphological study is that the evolutionary relationship is like that in cladogram B (in case anyone's confoosed at this point in the discussion).
Which other guys? Bring your friends!
Bjørn, this is really interesting news. I don't understand this distinction between genetic versus morphological/geographic cladograms, but is cladogram B being proposed as representing the temporal sequence of most recent common ancestors? (I.e., very Dawkins' "Ancestor's Tale," if all the extant primate species climbed into their respective time machines and went backwards, we humans would meet the orangs first, then both of us would meet up with the gorillas and chimps and presumably bonobos who have already met?) There are so many behavioral and genetic studies that assume clad A and draw various conclusions.
ReplyDeleteYes, Aldebrn, that's exactly the idea. We could have hoped that the morphological data would have corroborated the genetic data, but no such luck this time around. Only one of the trees can be the correct description of our relationship with the other apes, so it'll be interesting to see which camp is going to give.
ReplyDeleteBonobos are still with chimps. Snakes are still an outgroup. ;)
Well it is getting closer to being correct.
ReplyDeleteAll they need to do now, is to move the human line back one more step so that it comes out on its own separate line from the root.
They are almost there.
Why do you say that would be correct? Religious belief?
ReplyDeleteIf so, why is it that you'll accept common descent among the other apes?
I said nothing about the apes. (I did not say that I accept common descent among apes.) You are putting words in my mouth. Do you notice that you do that quite a bit in your posts? Try to notice it. You are not unique in that - many people with an agenda do that.
ReplyDeleteYou would do better to be more careful and not put words in other people's mouth.
You also used the phrase "other" apes. That is your thinking stated as if it were fact. As if humans and apes are in the same category. Do you see that?
You are so wrapped up in your own thinking that you do not even realize it. You are exactly like a fundamentalist religion person. But again you are not unique in that.
To make progress you need to clear your mind of these prejudices.
Try to see the point I have made. Scientists do not actually know where to place humans. Some think they are near chimpanzees and others think near orangutans.
What this tells us is that in fact they go with neither.
They have their own line from the root.
The Cambrian explosion and the Eocene explosion are evidence of this. Try to look at this in line with the facts and not with the prejudices of neo-Darwinism.
Really - give it a try. You will be intrigued and exhilarated by what you find.
And you do not have to be religious to do this kind of fact-based thinking.
Do people understand what I mean when I say that humans have their own line from the root? And that the Cambrian and Eocene explosions support this?
ReplyDeleteIt is not rocket science.
It is simply acknowledging the fossil record.
And the research that Bjorn has just brought to our attention is also moving to support this.
As I said, all we need is to move the line for humans back one step (so that it has its own line from the root) and we are in line with the fossil record.
As I say this is not rocket science. It is just overcoming the neo-Darwinian prejudices and acknowledging the facts.
When theory (eg. neo-Darwinian theory) disagrees with fact we must accept the facts.
This is not a religious issue. It is a scientific issue.
I was just looking again at the diagram A.
ReplyDeleteIn that diagram, orangutan has its own line so it has already been thought that orangutan has its own line. All we need to do now in diagram B is to acknowledge that. In which case, we see that the human line has its own line from the root.
This is pretty straightforward and brings it into line with the fossil record.
(We can look later at the chimpanzees and gorillas after we have acknowledged that the orangutans and the humans each have their own separate, distinct lines from the root.)
I said nothing about the apes. (I did not say that I accept common descent among apes.) You are putting words in my mouth. Do you notice that you do that quite a bit in your posts? Try to notice it. You are not unique in that - many people with an agenda do that.
ReplyDeleteOkay, man, you did not say anything about the other apes, but you did say that the phylogeny would be correct if just the human line was moved one more step back.
Please tell me where else I am putting words in people's mouthes. Email or a post here is acceptable. Otherwise, it's a strong accusation. If you can show me, then I will take what you say into consideration.
You also used the phrase "other" apes. That is your thinking stated as if it were fact. As if humans and apes are in the same category. Do you see that?
Of course. That's the scientific consensus, that we are apes. The group is monophyletic. Do you have a problem being called an ape?
You are so wrapped up in your own thinking that you do not even realize it. You are exactly like a fundamentalist religion person.
No I am not. I am quite aware that people don't like being called an ape, but I think it's the right way of thinking about it. And I will be persuaded by evidence, which makes me not a fundamentalist.
To make progress you need to clear your mind of these prejudices.
Speak for yourself.
Try to see the point I have made. Scientists do not actually know where to place humans. Some think they are near chimpanzees and others think near orangutans. What this tells us is that in fact they go with neither.
No, that is emphatically NOT what that tells us. It tells us that for some interesting reason, the molecular and the morphological evidence tells different stories. That means there is a problem to be solved, not that both are completely wrong.
They have their own line from the root. The Cambrian explosion and the Eocene explosion are evidence of this.
Then I think that you don't know much about the Cambrian explosion. Look it up. How long did the explosion take? Where is the evidence that humans have a root over 500 million years ago? Please do share this in the name of science (or for the love of God).
As I said, all we need is to move the line for humans back one step (so that it has its own line from the root) and we are in line with the fossil record.
Where is this root that you are talking about? Sounds like at the Cambrian explosion, am I right? If so, note that the fossil record does not show humans having a distinct lineage all the way back to the Cambrian explosion. Please explain.
I was just looking again at the diagram A. In that diagram, orangutan has its own line so it has already been thought that orangutan has its own line.
The cladograms that I made show only how those four species are related. That, of course, does not mean that from there they go all the way back to the Cambrian, or that they aren't related to anything else. We could have added old-world monkeys, new-world monkeys, tarsiers, lorises, lemurs, and all the other primates, not to mention all the other mammals. I strongly suspect that you don't know what you're talking about. Read a textbook or even take a class on phylogenetics, perhaps? I recommend 'Evolutionary Biology' by Douglas Futuyma.
You refer to the "scientific consensus" as if this meant something.
ReplyDeleteThe "scientific consensus" had humans closest to chimps. Now another suggestion is made that humans are closest to orangutans.
Later the consensus may be that humans are close to neither.
Consensus is just how some people see it at a particular point in time.
Don't get so hung up on scientific consensus. It actually means very little.
You have said;
"Where is this root that you are talking about? Sounds like at the Cambrian explosion, am I right? If so, note that the fossil record does not show humans having a distinct lineage all the way back to the Cambrian explosion."
The fossil record does not show any lineage for humans. That is exactly the point we are talking about.
If there was a lineage shown in the fossil record then there would not be the conflicting opinions shown in your diagrams. Think about that. The fossil record does not show a lineage for humans. It does not show humans being related to any apes. It is only scientists making up diagrams and stories - there is no evidence.
If you have any evidence then present it. The conflicting diagrams is proof that there is no actual evidence.
Anonymous is confusing absence of evidence with evidence of absence. Poor anonymous. Although s/he does grasp that scientific consensus means little---wasn't it Popper that said, "There are two types of theories. Disproven theories, and not-yet-disproven theories."
ReplyDeleteWhaaat?
ReplyDeleteThe conflicting diagrams is proof that there is no actual evidence.
The diagrams are based on evidence, so the fact that the evidence is (so far) in conflict this way means that there is "no actual evidence"? *chuckle*
The pint about consensus within the community is that that consensus is based on best evidence available. Therefore it does mean a lot. This paper about orangutans and humans is about a detail in ape relationships, and does in no way invalidate that humans and other apes are related. That you choose to read that into it is because of your foregone conclusion that all species were created de novo, or some such creationism. Nothing else. I realize that it's futile to argue with you as long as that is the case. And you are boring.
It sounds like this last person acknowledges the fact that there is no evidence.
ReplyDeleteThat is a good start.
Bjorn feigns boredom when he does not have an answer.
ReplyDeleteThere is no evidence.
All we have are people's conflicting diagrams and stories.
Bjorn you have said;
ReplyDelete"That you choose to read that into it is because of your foregone conclusion that all species were created de novo, or some such creationism."
This is once again putting words in my mouth. You do that a lot.
So there is no lineage for the so-called "evolution" of humans.
ReplyDeleteLike other types of creatures, humans appeared abruptly. The fossil record shows that we did not "evolve".
The scientific is slowly starting to acknowledge the Cambrian explosion.
Eventually they will have to acknowledge the Eocene explosion as well.
But change in entrenched establishment thinking is always slow.
Homonid fossils: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/specimen.html
ReplyDeleteCambrian explosion: http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC300.html
Eocene epoch: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eocene
Look, the paper this post was about in the first place presents evidence, and yet you say there is no evidence. What gives?
I'm not feigning boredom. Just being honest. It is my policy not to leave comments on my own blog unanswered. Otherwise I would ignore you.
Ok, briefly, IMO, savanna chimps are offshoots of bonobos, mountain gorillas are offshoots from lowland gorillas, Borneo orangs are offshoots from Sumatran orangs, each of these 3 base groups live in swamp forests, each have laryngeal air sacs which can inflate for both vocalizing and floating face up when foraging for shallow herbs, sedges, crustaceans. Human ancestors after the LCA chimp/human split resembled bonobos, but they lived around the Red Sea (losing the air sacs due to denser seawater) and upper Rift wetlands eating seafoods and ambushing waterside animals while the chimps lived along the lower Rift and the Congo. So, A is right, but B shows the primitive traits still in common between human and orangs that were later altered only in the African apes. Sensible?
ReplyDeleteOops, I meant this: Human ancestors after the LCA chimp/human split resembled a mixed bonobo-orang, arms/legs bonobo-like but face more orang-like than bonobo-like. But this changed as they became better water foragers, the nose enlarged.
ReplyDeleteDude, I'm starting to think you really should write a book. At least a pamphlet. Or, if you want, a longer blog post to be published on Pleiotropy.
ReplyDeleteHey Dude.
ReplyDeleteI notice in your posts you say IMO which I know means "in your opinion".
So I understand you are offering your opinion.
By acknowledging that it is an opinion are you also acknowledging that there is in fact no actual evidence for this. I take it that you are offering an opinion as all others just offer an opinion as well.
My point is that there is no evidence.
From your posts and from the conflicting diagrams and from everything else I have ever seen I see that there is no evidence of a kinship of apes to humans.
In fact the fossil record shows each group appearing abruptly and independently.
The interesting question is why do so many people wish to speculate about a presumed kinship between apes and humans? It is odd, especially when the fossil record does not support this kind of speculation.
ReplyDeleteWhy is it so hard for people to just accept the fossil record evidence that shows the independence of the lines?
It is humorous to see diagram A and diagram B. At one point people think the presumed kinship is one way and then others think it is completely different. This just shows that people are simply trying to make up some relationship between apes and humans when in fact there is no evidence for it. That is why they come up with conflicting pictures.
Why not just accept that the lines are independent and think about how that came to be?
That would be a worthwhile approach rather than making up stories.
Eventually you will start to be attracted to understanding what Bohm means by the implicate and explicate orders.
Anonymous, here's the deal I offer you on my blog:
ReplyDeleteEither you
1) Identify yourself with your real name in your next post, or
2) Stop repeating this asinine claim that there is no evidence, and read up on the link above on hominid fossils, or
3) Don't post here anymore.
There is no evidence that humans have kinship with apes.
ReplyDeleteThe links you gave do not show that. I read them. If you think they show evidence of that kinship please post the specific sentences of those posts that you think show that.
Or do you demand to stop rather than actually making your case?
The hominid fossils are the evidence that humans evolved from ancestors that were not anatomically human. That no anatomically modern humans (AMH) are found if we go millions of years back testifies to this (and the lack of gorilla, chimp, and orang fossils is due to the small likelihood of fossilization in their habits, by the way). Further, the gradual change in those fossils (even though they aren't all thought to be our direct ancestors) is indicative of human ancestry.
ReplyDeleteFrom the summary:
There are a number of clear trends (which were neither continuous nor uniform) from early australopithecines to recent humans: increasing brain size, increasing body size, increasing use of and sophistication in tools, decreasing tooth size, decreasing skeletal robustness. There are no clear dividing lines between some of the later gracile australopithecines and some of the early Homo, between erectus and archaic sapiens, or archaic sapiens and modern sapiens.
Now, anonymous, I realize that this will not persuade you, but if you are to continue to post here, realize that evidence does not equal proof, and that there is plenty of evidence for humans being related to the other apes. If you are just going to continue to say that there isn't, you are saying nothing you haven't already, then please do not post here anymore.
P.S. If you want other evidence that we are related to the other apes, look up the fusing of chimp chromosome 12 and 13 to make human chromosome 2.
Why did you leave out the following two paragraphs?
ReplyDelete"Despite this, there is little consensus on what our family tree is. Everyone accepts that the robust australopithecines (aethiopicus, robustus and boisei) are not ancestral to us, being a side branch that left no descendants. Whether H. habilis is descended from A. afarensis, africanus, both of them, or neither of them, is still a matter of debate. It is possible that none of the known australopithecines is our ancestor.
A number of new genera and species have been discovered within the last decade (Ar. ramidus, Au. amanensis, Au. bahrelghazali, Au. garhi, Orrorin, Kenyanthropus, Sahelanthropus) and no consensus has yet formed on how they are related to each other or to humans. It is generally accepted that Homo erectus is descended from Homo habilis (or, at least, some of the fossils often assigned to habilis), but the relationship between erectus, sapiens and the Neandertals is still unclear. Neandertal affinities can be detected in some specimens of both archaic and modern sapiens. "
Did you think nobody would read the rest of the article?
And besides which - this whole article is just one more opinion.
If you expect me to simply accept the opinion of someone on talkorigins I will expect you to accept the opinions on creationist and ID sites.
It is all opinions.
At least "Dude" had the sense to say "IMO".
You seem to talk as if it were more than opinion.
Concerning chromosome 2 (which I have studied at length previously):
It shows that by mixing and matching component pieces (genes) it is possible to engineer species.
Engineering from component pieces is exactly what we would expect in a non-random process. (Programmers do that in our world when they use re-usable components. It is called "not re-inventing the wheel").
Chromosome 2 is outstanding evidence of engineering in the development of species.
Perhaps it will eventually dawn on you that I know this stuff. You think I know very little only because you disagree with what I have to say.
But I do not insult you and call your posts asinine.
Coming back to the diagrams.
ReplyDeleteDiagram A is a speculation based on overlapping characteristics.
But notice the characteristics selected. Tooth enamel, facial hair etc.
A different researcher could choose a different set of characteristics and make a case for yet again a completely different diagram.
Are we starting to smell something funny yet?
Lineage, descent and ancestry can be re-conceptualized by anybody according to their own speculations - according to their own agenda. And suddenly whole groups of creatures have a different lineage.
Sounds like what science generally tries to avoid.
And yet it passes for "science" when enough people go along. Sounds like the emperor's clothes.
Why not just acknowledge that there is no solid reason to mix humans in with apes. They share characteristics, that is true. But humans did not "evolve from apes.
(Note, pens and pencils overlap in characteristics and appearance. That does not mean pens "evolved" from pencils.
And if you want to think of a DNA composition overlap analogy, think about a wooden chair and a wooden table. Tremendous overlap in their composition. That does not mean chairs evolved from tables.)
When people come to the realization that Darwinian "evolution" is not the right path, then the really interesting work begins.
What in fact has gone on with what we call the origin of species?
For starters, I recommend again Bohm's implicate and explicate orders.
Before I get the fatuous comment that nobody says humans evolved from apes.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.religioustolerance.org/ev_noway.htm
" Scientists have been trying to explain for over a century that humans did not evolve from apes. Rather, humans and apes share an ancient, common ancestor."
Let me more precise.
Humans and apes do not share an ancient, common ancestor.
Look, Anonymous, I really don't want to spend more time reading your posts. I got your point a long, long time ago. You may go ahead and interpret the evidence as you wish. I (actually) look forward to hearing more about the "really interesting work" once is has begun and is some way underway.
ReplyDeleteUntil you have something new and interesting to add that you haven't already shared with us, please hold your comments on this thread.
How often is it the case that morphological analysis leads to different cladograms than genetic analysis? For example, the cool research that establishes whales' closest relatives as hippos, based on genetic comparisons?
ReplyDeleteIs it the case that usually the two methods mostly agree, or are both rarely done so one really can't how often this kind of uncertainty exists?
Aldebrn, sorry for the late reply.
ReplyDeleteI don't know how often it's the case that molecular and morphological phylogenies differ. I know that most confidence is put into the phylogenies based on DNA.
From wikipedia:
Later molecular analyses included a wider sampling of artiodactyls and produced a more complete tale. Hippos were determined to be the closest relative of whales, ruminants were related to a whale/hippo clade, and pigs were more distant. In addition to producing the controversial whale/hippo clade, these analyses suggested that hippos and pigs were not closely related. This had been a popular taxonomic hypothesis (Suiformes) based on similarities in morphological (physical) characteristics.
Excellent. An evolutionary controversy that does belong in science class.
ReplyDeleteThese days it's almost accepted that molecular data is the gold standard for determining the cladistics of lineages - but its generally based on genetic mutation occuring at a constant rate for all lineages (something we know is not true).
When we get down to <1% difference in DNA, can we really rely on number of base differences (even across the entire genome) to resolve who evolved with who and when? (Not that i think morphological data could really be superior)
Zayzayem, I agree it's nice with evolutionary controversies that actually belong in science class and biology departments. This is not the only one, though. Genetic determinism (nature/nurture) is one of the persistent ones (though often also discussed in non-scientific terms that I personally do not approve of), but there are others, such as the evolution of sex, or group selection. Fertile ground.
ReplyDeleteWithout going into the details, note that molecular cladistics is not simply comparing the number of base-pairs in common, and the grouping those with fewer closer to each other. Check out wikipedia on using molecular vs. morphological data for a quick primer.
Bjørn, what about the neutralist-selectionist debate? Does that conversation have the same issues as as the nature/nurture?
ReplyDeleteI really enjoyed Andreas Wagner's recent papers linking both of them. Gradual exploration of neutral space punctuated by rapid selectionist pressure (although his analysis does seem to rely a lot on neutrality, and recent results seem to indicate that mutations thought to be neutral can be physiologically non-neutral).
Bjørn, what about the neutralist-selectionist debate? Does that conversation have the same issues as as the nature/nurture?
ReplyDeleteIt definitely is another good example of a controversy within the field itself. Another example would be the regulatory vs. protein evolution.
I haven't seen Wagner's paper. Perhaps I'll take a look later.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteI dont think humans are direct descendants of chimps. They would have had their unique social environment. Still the knowledge we have about the human evolution is not complete
ReplyDeleteI dont think humans are direct descendants of chimps.
ReplyDeleteOf course not. No one in their right mind would claim that. We share a common ancestor, is.