Humans and Gorillas not close at all, Dr. Zaius says
Posted on 03/07/2012 1:49:57 PM PST by Pharmboy
Edited on 03/07/2012 4:13:35 PM PST by Admin Moderator. [history]
Humans and Gorillas not close at all, Dr. Zaius says
Gadzooks! I can watch the main stream media... 
and see that proved without doubt each and every day!
Isn't that... 
being racist, Bender?
No, Al. That's... 
being observant--
Good, Bendy! Otherwise, I'd have thought I'd picked the wrong day... 
to give up my biases!
That’s the most relevant reply so far. Why would a gorilla admit to being more closely related to our species?
It might be taken as proof positive of the connection between our species. I’ve studied linguistics and language change but this is interesting since sign language seems immutable to change. Gorillas also fling feces at opponents. These obsevances may explain the evolution of cab drivers and Democrats. But that’s unfair to the simians, they were much more honest in their gestures and actions. In the case of the latter it’s just ‘Monkey see, monkey do’.
Just like Willard.
But this only applies to white people, right? Because if anyone ever posts a picture of a black person and a gorilla or compares black people to gorillas, monkeys, apes or chimps, they’re called racists. So no one can say that black people descended from apes. But isn’t that racist if black people are less than human? Hmmm. BTW, I don’t believe we’re related to primates but I wish those who do would bring blacks into the conversation :-)
If you're human, you are a member of the Family Hominid, one of several in the Order Primate. So, assuming you're human, you ARE a Primate.
The Scars of Evolution:"The most remarkable aspect of Todaro's discovery emerged when he examined Homo Sapiens for the 'baboon marker'. It was not there... Todaro drew one firm conclusion. 'The ancestors of man did not develop in a geographical area where they would have been in contact with the baboon. I would argue that the data we are presenting imply a non-African origin of man millions of years ago.'"
What Our Bodies Tell Us
About Human Origins
by Elaine MorganOrangutans and human originsHumans 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.
Dr. Jeffrey Schwartz
Department of Anthropology
University of Pittsburgh
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.Asian Roots for AnthropoidsIn previous decades, evidence for early anthropoids (the group including all living and extinct monkeys, apes, and humans) came predominantly from northern Africa. Notable finds included the Oligocene's Aegyptopithecus in Egypt's Fayum region dating about 36-25 million years ago (myr). While many known phylogenetic links exist between Aegyptopithecus and an abundant range of later, Miocene, primates found in Africa and Asia, until recently there was little data on ties with the earlier primates of the Eocene era.
Athena Review: Vol.2, no. 3 (2000)
A few years ago in 1994-96, caves in central China revealed the first evidence of a 45-million- year-old primate named Eosimias or "Dawn Ape" by discoverers K.C. Beard of the Carnegie Institute and colleagues from the Beijing Institute of Verterbrate Paleontology and Paleoanthropology (AR 1,1). While preliminary findings of Eosimias were limited to a few tiny teeth and jaw fragments, it was enough for Beard and his IVPP colleagues to suggest a Middle to Late Eocene emergence in eastern Asia of the mosaic of traits leading from primitive to anthropoid physiology. This has been further supported by more recent evidence reported in the journal Nature of new findings in China of an Eosimias leg and foot bones, which are claimed to exhibit diagnostic anthropoid traits.
More recently, fossil teeth and jaw fragments found in 1996-98 in Myanmar (Burma) in southeast Asia have provided further evidence that higher primates may have originated in Asia. The 40-million-year-old Bahinia pondaungensis, a tarsier-like tree-dweller and insect eater the size of today's smallest monkey, has been classified by Jean-Jacques Jaeger of France's Université Montpellier-II as an anthropoid.
|
|
|
| GGG managers are SunkenCiv, StayAt HomeMother & Ernest_at_the_Beach | |
|
|
Thanks Pharmboy. This story is going to drive some people out of their tree. |
|
|
|
|
Aren’t we closely related to a lot of things measured by DNA sequencing? Is this the last percent percent?
And yet, in spite of any physical similarities, God never said that gorillas were made in His image and likeness. He never became a gorilla and died to redeem their eternal souls.
Funny, you answered my questions with ridicule of me and my skepticism...
“ad hominem” anyone?
The whole idea that we evolved from an apelike ancestor is pretty much the basis of racism. Those with more “apelike” features, under this theory, are less evolved and therefore not as advanced, and finally, “inferior”, to those who have less apelike features - even if that similarity/dissimilarity is only in skin color.
However, the biblical worldview declares us all to be descendents of the same 2 original humans created in God’s image, funneled through Noah and his wife, and separated by language at Babel. No one with this understanding of people groups could be considered racist. Differences in behaviors and cultures are due to social grouping and not due to “inferior genetics”.
Bingo.
As measured by DNA sequencing, we are related to every living thing, however remotely.
Nearly every living thing shares some DNA characteristics, whether 10% or 90+%, and they generally correspond to the fossil record of common ancestors.
Thanks for the reply. As this is one of your specialties around here, would you tell me if the following is true? I’d heard that slugs or some insects share like 95+% of their DNA with us. Is that correct?
My understanding is that most life on earth shares an enormous amount of DNA with us and speciation occurs in a very narrow band of differences. Correct?
Everything depends on how you measure it -- what exactly is the denominator, how precisely is the numerator determined, etc.
This may explain why a quick google does not turn up a simple chart showing DNA percentage comparisons (definition #1, definition #2, etc.) amongst various species.
Most of the google results we do see amount to discussions amongst folks such as you and I -- laymen.
A key factor is how what seems to be non-functioning DNA (the majority of all DNA) is treated.
Anyway, in general, it appears that basic processes of life take up something like 50% of DNA, meaning that humans and cabbage have about 50% similar DNA functions.
By that measure then for any animal the percentages will be higher, in the 60% range for, say fruit-flies, 80% for cows, 90% for cats and 90+ percent for primates.
Humans are said to hold about 99.5% of DNA in common with each other.
The key point here is that these measured differences correspond to roughly what you'd expect from the fossil records of common ancestors.
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.