An Orangutan Messes Up The Evolutionary Tree

DNA is the source Darwinians rely upon their story for evidence on how evolution is supposedly able to create brand new information using mutations.  These mutations in turn are supposedly able to one animal into another over a vast period of time with small changes.

Darwinians  interpret DNA  similarities as to determine what animals are closer to other animals. For example, humans share about 98.4 per cent of their DNA with chimps, 97.5 percent with gorillas and 96.5 percent with orangutans. Therefore, according to evolutionists, chimps rather than orangutans are our closest relatives.

Similarities has been causing the hypothesis evolution mounting problems, namely the Organguatan. In the Journal of Biogeography (June 2009) written by scientists at the University of Pittsburgh and the Buffalo Museum of Science, shows this sophisticated animal was found to have many similarities. These similarities include features like anatomy, reproductive biology and behavior with humans. These similarities with mankind are more than any other great ape but according to evolution, this couldn’t be so because the DNA of a chimp has more similarities.

“They have good morphological evidence in support of their interpretation, so that must be taken seriously, and if it reopens the debate between molecular biologists and morphologists, so much the better. They are going against accepted interpretations of human and ape relationships, and there’s no doubt their conclusions will be challenged.”

“But I hope it will be done in a constructive way, for science progresses by asking questions and testing results,” the former head of the Human Origins department at the London Natural History Museum, Anthropologist Peter Andrews, says of the new research.”

It would be safe to assume if it weren’t for DNA, evolutionists would claim the orangutan rather than the chimp would be the one pictured next to the human in the evolutionary tree.

“Palaeoanthropology is based solely on morphology, and there is no scientific justification to favor DNA over morphological data. Yet the human-chimp relationship, generated by molecular data, has been accepted without any scrutiny.”

The problem with prevailing viewpoints in evolution not only effects science but defenders of evolution as well. The dogma declared like Pope speak and then supposedly no longer viewed with any scrutiny in the majority of the scientific community. This is classic reason why students ought to be taught critical thinking in science as the likes of Orangutan messes up the evolutionary tree.

11 thoughts on “An Orangutan Messes Up The Evolutionary Tree

  1. gonovelgo “Are you actually suggesting that a potential revision to the evolutionary tree somehow invalidates all of evolution?”

    YES. Creationist face a dilemma. They castigate scientists for “not following the evidence” whn science gives creationism the horselaugh. Then, oblivious to the inconsistency, the creationists belabor scientists for changing their minds in view of new evidence.

    They seem to be able to delude themselves on a regular basis in this manner.

    PC: Usually I suspect the Institute for Creation Research of writing the material for this blog. However, the ICR writers generally don’t make as many grammatical mistakes.

    It must be a real job combing through—well, let’s see—about 350 articles per week on relevant subjects to find 1 or 2 that are even up to being distorted to say something other than what they plainly mean. You will notice that most of the posts here are third-hand. A common source of research results, for example, is that respected journal New Scientist, a/k/a the National Enquirer of the scientific world.

  2. In legal circles, the technique of denigrating an entire area odf research based upon one small problem is known as daubertization.”[1] while this technique was originally designed to throw out junk science, it has been hijacked to devalue mainstream studies for minor flaws. Dauberization is (was) a major tactic used by the Tobacco Institute for questioning all those inconvenient studies showing that smoking is—gasp!—bad for one’s health. It is now routinely employed by the Discovery Institute for questioning evolutionary research. Any port in a storm, I guess.

    [1] Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals 509 U.S. 579 (1993)

  3. Are you saying the government is wasting their money on scientists who are trying to piece together this metaphor? Scientists over the years have spent a great deal of time and money on the evolutionary tree. In a way it does falsify evolution, this is one of the reasons why it changes so often. Name me one other theory that changes as often as evolution does because the evidence doesn’t match up with the theory? Even with a “revision” which most likely will based on fitting the data into the metaphor rather than the data speaking for itself. Then what happens when the revision of the revision doesn’t work?

  4. Michael: “Name me one other theory that changes as often as evolution does ”

    Chemical bonding theory.

    New, unexpected forms of carbon appear every couple of months, requiring revisions to bonding theory. Recently, scientists discovered a new form of water hitherto thought impossible. Water! We thought we knew everything there was to know about water. We thought the index of refraction for all materials was positive. In the past several years, chemists have constructed materials with negative index—leading to “cloaking” devices.

    Ergo, chemistry is all wrong.

  5. Of course the theory of evolution evolves as well – that is how science works. The ‘evolutionary tree’ gets revised all the time, but I dare say these revisions are usually not major. If they are, great fun ! But it does not falsify the basic premises of the theory of evolution, obviously. Different planet, different tree.

    And all this with the big reminder that the ‘tree’ is a metaphor !

  6. Eelco, creationists seem constitutionally unable to grasp the scientific process. You can explain it over and over again, but they just don’t get it. Especially about extending, modifying, and overturning old theories from new evidence.[1]

    They think that religion—especially their own brand of religion–is immutable, set in stone tablets saecula saeculorum. The ironic thing is that religions change as well. Read Karen Armstrong’s book “A History of God,” and you can see it run past your eyes.[2] The Biblical literalism movement, the weltanschauung of creationism, is only 200 years old. But they can’t see that. Like the South American Indians who literally could not see Magellan’s galleons in the bay, because they had never experienced anything remotely like them before.

    [1] A major barrier is a teleological mindset. In religion, everything has a foreordained goal. For example, when a scientist says that the purpose of the heart is to pump blood, he means that this is its function, this is what it does. But, to a creationist, this implies that the purpose existed before the thing—that someone intended the heart to pump blood, and then the heart came into being.

    [2] Another good source is James Mitchener’s novel “The Source.” If you haven’t read it, it’s a series of extended flashbacks from an archeological dig in Israel. Each flashback tells the story of some of the people who lived at that level of the dig, from 10,000 BCE until 1967. Many events revolve around their—evolving—religious tenets. It’s an engrossing story. Once started, I couldn’t put it down.

  7. “Eelco, creationists seem constitutionally unable to grasp the scientific process. You can explain it over and over again, but they just don’t get it. Especially about extending, modifying, and overturning old theories from new evidence.”

    Dear Olorin, I would even say that they would be able to get it if they wanted to, but actually refuse to do so ….

  8. Eelco, some have understood it—usually as children of creationist parents. There’s a story of one of them in Science (Letters section) a couple weeks back. He was turned on by a lecture on creationism in science class, read up on evolution on his own, and is now an evolutionary research biologist. Talk about unintended consequences!

    The ironic thing is that, when they come to this understanding, kids tend to think that their parents have been lying to them about many things, so they lose all of their faith. I’ve heard it said that the largest source of atheists is fundamentalist parents. Abby Smith (ERV blog) is a good example. Laurie Lebo—the local reporter who covered the Kitzmiller trial–is another. (Her book, “The Devil in Dover,” includes many personal struggles with her fundamentalist father after hearing Ken Miller and Kevin Padian present the evidence for evolution at the trial.)

  9. The problem with older creationists is, as Dorthy Parker once said, “You can’t teach an old dogma new tricks.”

  10. @Olorin:
    Yes, I saw that letter in Science: luckily not everybody can be indoctrinated like that, and decide to think for themselves.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s