What does the fossil record say?

[David M]

Now, here's a knowledgable fellow who had something to say about it.
The proper thing to do is to refute what he says with facts, not to go around knocking the man himself, the way you did with AWAKE!, looking for some flaw in the man's personal life, beliefs or utterances.

"Oh sure natural selection's been demonstrated. . . the interesting point, however, is that it has rarely if ever been demonstrated to have anything to do with evolution in the sense of long-term changes in populations. . . . Summing up we can see that the import of the Darwinian theory of evolution is just unexplainable caprice from top to bottom. What evolves is just what happened to happen."
(Stanley Salthe, evolutionist, a natural philosopher at Binghamton University with a Ph.D. in zoology)
Business Profiles and Company Information Database | ZoomInfo.com
Honesty - at last.

Here comes the tearing down nastiness that is so much a part of evolutionists' tactics.
Accusations about "quote mining" and all that baloney.
The link should help with that.

(\__/)
( ‘ .‘ )
>(^)<

Wilson

I wonder what is hidden by those ellipses? Of course the quote comes soley via Susan Mazur

Recursivity: Suzan Mazur - Perpetually Clueless

Here's a hint Wilson, when you see ellipses in quotes touted by organisations such as the Discovery institutes its a good clue that it is a quote mine. And 2 sentences do not require "summing up", that phrase alone shows it is part of a longer discourse.

 

[LuisDantas]

Now, here's a knowledgable fellow who had something to say about it.
The proper thing to do is to refute what he says with facts, not to go around knocking the man himself, the way you did with AWAKE!, looking for some flaw in the man's personal life, beliefs or utterances.

I thought Awake was a periodical, not a person...? Why shouldn't I criticize its irresponsibility when I see it?

As for facts, you have the whole field of biology. Is that not enough?

As for the rest of your message, David M handled it pretty well already.

 

[tumbleweed41]

Stanley N. Salthe is a visiting scientist at Binghamton University, State University of New York. He is a dissenter of "Darwinism", or natural selection, not evolutionary biology.
He even signed the Discovery Institutes statement "We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged."

Dr. Salthe, who describes himself as an atheist, said that when he signed the petition he had no idea what the Discovery Institute was. Rather, he said, "I signed it in irritation."
He said evolutionary biologists were unfairly suppressing any competing ideas. "They deserve to be prodded, as it were," Dr. Salthe said. "It was my way of thumbing my nose at them."
Dr. Salthe said he did not find intelligent design to be a compelling theory, either. "From my point of view," he said, "it's a plague on both your houses."

Few Biologists but Many Evangelicals Sign Anti-Evolution Petition - New York Times

 

[Dan4reason]

You used the operative word "GUESS". Guesses were not evidence last time I checked.

You got it right! We do not know what the LCA of insects looked like because it is very hard for insects to fossilize because they have no bones! Fortunately we do find ancient insects in hardened amber.

Your researchers were surprised yet again that a hippo is closer to a whale than a pig. Big difference! So whatever you were theorising before aint right and now there is a scramble to explain the fossil evidence again in a new light.

Assuming what you said is not creationist quote mining, then yes scientists get things wrong sometimes and with better evidence about evolution, they gain a more accurate view of it. So how does the issue over whether hippo are more related to whales than to pigs have to do with common descent of all species? Seems like semantic to me.


http://www.religiousforums.com/wiki/File:Horizental-gene-transfer.jpg

As for your tree of life..It is dying...Cladistics, much more prefered these days by many researchers, can't solve some dilemmas like lizards and aves, either. See wiki Cadistics & Horizontal Gene Transfer.

Please explain with evidence please, and don't make your argument by giving me a reading list.

http://www.religiousforums.com/wiki/File:Horizental-gene-transfer.jpg

Really what it all boils down to is that your researchers have absolutely no idea, really. Another unexpected find kills the irrefuteable LUCA and replaces her with the irrefuteable HGT theories. Yeah yeah..I know this doesn't really mean your researchers do not know what they are talking about..it just looks that way!

1) I don't hire any researchers.
2) I have never heard of "Luca."
3) You need to tell me about this unexpected find with evidence.

The theory of evolution is meant to explain how life evolved. Rather the theory of evolution is about the evolution of the theory, and not much more.

Actually the theory of evolution is not about the evolution of the theory. It is about the evolution of life. You had it right in the first sentence, not in the second.

 

[newhope101]

I wonder what is hidden by those ellipses? Of course the quote comes soley via Susan Mazur

Recursivity: Suzan Mazur - Perpetually Clueless

Here's a hint Wilson, when you see ellipses in quotes touted by organisations such as the Discovery institutes its a good clue that it is a quote mine. And 2 sentences do not require "summing up", that phrase alone shows it is part of a longer discourse.

I love the accusation of quote mining as some sort of desperate throw off. Evos constantly request info and when a creationist provides same it is called quote mining. A summation is an excellent secton of any paper to put up. The readers are welcome to read the full paper, that's why it is cited. Pasting in pertinent sections as a highlight, is what people do. That is not quote mining. Quote mining refers to taking some part of an article and misrepresenting it in context. This is not what creationists do here nor does the creation institute. There is no need to do this as your researchers provide ample examples of inconsistencies and debate. We do not need to make them up.

I feel many here have an extremely overdeveloped sence of self importance. I do not forget that I am here on a religious forum discussing religious beliefs with a majority of atheists that maintain atheism is a religion and defend their interest in being here as anything othet than an outlet for their fanatical hatred of those of dissimilar beliefs. There's not a hell of a lot that posters can say that is truly offensive, given the status quo.

Those of you that are evolutionists with a belief in some God then I ask you what makes you think you have any basis to alledge you are less delusional or higher functioning than any creationist?

As you see below I have pasted in part of an article. I have not pasted in the whole lot to save space. I have pasted in sufficient info to make the point that High school biology teachers are not supportive of teaching Toe. This is not a misrepresentation as the info I pasted truly reflects the information within the article.

High School Biology Teachers in U.S. Reluctant to Endorse Evolution in Class, Study Finds

ScienceDaily (Jan. 27, 2011) &#8212; The majority of public high school biology teachers in the U.S. are not strong classroom advocates of evolutionary biology, despite 40 years of court cases that have ruled teaching creationism or intelligent design violates the Constitution, according to Penn State political scientists. A mandatory undergraduate course in evolutionary biology for prospective teachers, and frequent refresher courses for current teachers, may be part of the solution, they say

In contrast, Berkman and Plutzer found that about 13 percent of biology teachers "explicitly advocate creationism or intelligent design by spending at least one hour of class time presenting it in a positive light." Many of these teachers typically rejected the possibility that scientific methods can shed light on the origin of the species, and considered both evolution and creationism as belief systems that cannot be fully proven or discredited.

Berkman and Plutzer dubbed the remaining teachers the "cautious 60 percent," who are neither strong advocates for evolutionary biology nor explicit endorsers of nonscientific alternatives. "Our data show that these teachers understandably want to avoid controversy," they said


I was surprised to read that the US consitution forbids the teaching of creationism at least alongside Toe. I can see this biased ploy has not bereft biology teachers of their common sense and that is good to see.

They are correct to assert that there is no valid evidence that proves Toe nor disproves creation. The theory of evolution was more convincing before recent research and fossil finds. Now it appears researchers are truly grabbing at straws with all their theories to explain the unexpected.

The fossil evidence is not convincing of ancestry from one kind to another kind. It is evidence of organisms ability to adapt within kind and evidence of a great variety of non human primates and kinds, some of which are now extinct.

 

[outhouse]

FROM THE SAME ARTICLE YOU PLAGIARIZED THAT FROM



"they may play a far more important role in hindering scientific literacy in the United States

 

[Dirty Penguin]

I love the accusation of quote mining as some sort of desperate throw off. Evos constantly request info and when a creationist provides same it is called quote mining.

Creationist are charged this because they in fact do quote mine. You did it not that long ago. You qoted a science article and left out anything the article said about evolution or paragraphs containing the word (evolution/evolutionary), thus you were charged correctly as being a dishonest individual who quote minds....

A summation is an excellent secton of any paper to put up. The readers are welcome to read the full paper, that's why it is cited. Pasting in pertinent sections as a highlight, is what people do. That is not quote mining. Quote mining refers to taking some part of an article and misrepresenting it in context. This is not what creationists do here nor does the creation institute. There is no need to do this as your researchers provide ample examples of inconsistencies and debate. We do not need to make them up.

This is exactly what you have done. I'm sure you will disagree but the fact is...you did it and on more than one occasion.

I feel many here have an extremely overdeveloped sence of self importance. I do not forget that I am here on a religious forum discussing religious beliefs with a majority of atheists that maintain atheism is a religion and defend their interest in being here as anything othet than an outlet for their fanatical hatred of those of dissimilar beliefs. There's not a hell of a lot that posters can say that is truly offensive, given the status quo.

I'm not sure what you're going on about. While this is labled as a religious forum there are threads here designed for jokes and entertainment that have absolutely nothing to do with religion. There are threads setup for politics, philosophy, art and a host of other subjects. There are threads here setup for the explicit purpose of science verses religion. So while this is a religious forum it is not "exclusively" designed to be solely about religion. Additionally, I'm not sure what you know about atheism but I can assure you it's not a religion but whatever atheism is or isn't is not important to this debate.

As you see below I have pasted in part of an article. I have not pasted in the whole lot to save space. I have pasted in sufficient info to make the point that High school biology teachers are not supportive of teaching Toe. This is not a misrepresentation as the info I pasted truly reflects the information within the article.

High School Biology Teachers in U.S. Reluctant to Endorse Evolution in Class, Study Finds

ScienceDaily (Jan. 27, 2011) — The majority of public high school biology teachers in the U.S. are not strong classroom advocates of evolutionary biology, despite 40 years of court cases that have ruled teaching creationism or intelligent design violates the Constitution, according to Penn State political scientists. A mandatory undergraduate course in evolutionary biology for prospective teachers, and frequent refresher courses for current teachers, may be part of the solution, they say

In contrast, Berkman and Plutzer found that about 13 percent of biology teachers "explicitly advocate creationism or intelligent design by spending at least one hour of class time presenting it in a positive light." Many of these teachers typically rejected the possibility that scientific methods can shed light on the origin of the species, and considered both evolution and creationism as belief systems that cannot be fully proven or discredited.

Berkman and Plutzer dubbed the remaining teachers the "cautious 60 percent," who are neither strong advocates for evolutionary biology nor explicit endorsers of nonscientific alternatives. "Our data show that these teachers understandably want to avoid controversy," they said

I was surprised to read that the US consitution forbids the teaching of creationism at least alongside Toe. I can see this biased ploy has not bereft biology teachers of their common sense and that is good to see.

THIS THREAD HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THIS SUBJECT

The fossil evidence is not convincing of ancestry from one kind to another kind. It is evidence of organisms ability to adapt within kind and evidence of a great variety of non human primates and kinds, some of which are now extinct.

Correct. The fossil record has nothing to do with "kinds" rather it has everything to do with species. Your "kind" definition, as you once agreed, can't even address the fossil record. What you call adaptation and/or variation...biologist call Evolution...and rightfully so I might add.

 

[newhope101]

You got it right! We do not know what the LCA of insects looked like because it is very hard for insects to fossilize because they have no bones! Fortunately we do find ancient insects in hardened amber.Yes you do and yet you still do not know their decent. The taxon is a mess. Winged insects have been around for heaps longer than thought and your researchers have no idea. "maybe' 'probably' etc is not scientific terminology. TOE says insects must have been something else, right back to a bunch of cells or single cell (depending on who you believe), it's just that they have no idea what something else was. This fossil below is evidence that kinds were created fully formed and have changed little since.

Assuming what you said is not creationist quote mining, then yes scientists get things wrong sometimes and with better evidence about evolution, they gain a more accurate view of it. So how does the issue over whether hippo are more related to whales than to pigs have to do with common descent of all species? Seems like semantic to me.

One does not need to misrepresent anything. Your researchers provide ample ammunition. There is more than one individual dilemma. It is about the dilemma you have with every taxon. You can provide evidence that a bird and organisms adapt. You have evidence that species can isolate for so long that they can no longer mate (cryptic species). Sometimes this is the case with identical DNA of sexually isolated species. However you have no proof of one kind becoming another kind. This is all theoretical. You have given every in kind variation names eg wolf, dingo, dog. You have traced a dog back to a wolf like creature. You do not have anything that illustrates a dog was anything else but a dog kind. The same goes for any other creature. Your closest experiments with Drosophila have also shown in kind variation and nothing more. Rather what you have recently found are barriers to one kind becoming another kind in the form of sterility and limits to adaptation.



Please explain with evidence please, and don't make your argument by giving me a reading list. So what are you requesting full articles or snips that you call quote mining. Make up your mind. In fact all creationists have put up a plethora of evidence. Your problem is you are unable to differentiate evidence from theory. It is also likely that many of you will reject your own research and only accept what you choose to accept. Hence, creationists have no problem with the continual rhetoric of being accused of not providing evidence. There is plenty of evidence that has been provided to illustrate your researchers are gropping in the dark and desperately clutching at any straw that may prop up their TOE. Unfortunately anything built on a foundation of straw will soon tople as we have repeatedly seen within the garbage bin of delusionary evidence past.





1) I don't hire any researchers.
2) I have never heard of "Luca."
3) You need to tell me about this unexpected find with evidence.

LUCA..Last Universal Common Ancestor. The little bunch of cells that led to us is no more. See Horizontal Gene Transfer Wiki. LUCA was upheld as being the queen of ancestral evidence. The came along HGT and killed her.

Actually the theory of evolution is not about the evolution of the theory. It is about the evolution of life. You had it right in the first sentence, not in the second.

If your Toe was about explaining evolution the evidence would slip in nice and neatly. It doesn't. Punctuated equilibrium, accelerated evolution, dates constantly pushed back, the garbage bin of delusionary evidence past, are just some examples of a theory undergoing constant evolution.



With all the research speaking to deletions, accelerated evolution, genetic drift, etc you really cannot say anything about ancestry for sure. There are huge assumptions made in all this research. Despite the bias and dedication of your researchers to TOE one can still gleen snipets of desperation from within the field. There is excellent research that states the orangutan has 28 traits similar to humans, with chimp and humans having 1. Orangs have male facial hair, long hair, face to face mating, make a bed to lay on, shoulder blade and many other similar features that the chimp does not share with us.

Researchers are desperate to continue the myth of Toe. They really do not know what they are seeing when they look into the genome. I'll say it again, if your researchers can provide genetic comparisons that put a human and chimp closer together genetically than a chimp and orang, then there is obviously something amiss with your methdods. I'm not talking about dates of divergence. I am talking about a knuckle walking, unable to reason, arboreal, primates genetically compared to humans. Non human primates should be closer to each other as their morphology is closer. If genes have anything at all to do with who we are, then it is incredible that the results should speak to anything contrary, yet they do.

This research below speaks to genetic distance and contradicts other research that identifies the chimp as your closest living relative. Surely you can see that this kind of thing truly makes these researchers appear to not know what they are looking at, nor what ancestry should look like nor what 'creation' would look like genomically.

I do invite you to look up and read the article to note I have not misrepresented the article and research base.

Genetic Archaeology Finds Parts of Human Genome More Closely Related to Orangutans Than Chimps

ScienceDaily (Jan. 26, 2011) &#8212; In a study published online in Genome Research, in coordination with the publication of the orangutan genome sequence, scientists have presented the surprising finding that although orangutans and humans are more distantly related, some regions of our genomes are more alike than those of our closest living relative, the chimpanzee.


The study found ILS with orangutan and chimp in approximately 1% of the human genome. "n about 0.5% of our genome, we are closer related to orangutans than we are to chimpanzees," Mailund said, "and in about 0.5%, chimpanzees are closer related to orangutans than us."

Scientists from Aarhus University (Aarhus, Denmark) and the University of Wisconsin (Madison, WI) contributed to this study.
This work was supported by the Danish Natural Sciences Research Council.


Really..the truth be known..Your researchers have no clue about who is related to whom. It is all best guessing. I am sad to think that major churches have thrown their hat in behind this stuff with the reasoning skills humans have been given. Mankind is directed to search the deeper things and to not folow the reasoning of man. This is great advice. Science and evidence are valid. Theories are not.

After 6 months looking into the research I have certainly turned from a post sitting agnostic to a creationist. For that I can thank the forum. You made me look at the difference between evidence and theory. I think the churchs acceptance of Toe was a popularity vote, rather than a spiritual decision. I really believe they threw their hat behind TOE way too soon and they should think seriously about reclaiming it.

 

[LuisDantas]

You certainly have a talent for spinning things. It will be very impressive indeed if it turns out to be accidental as opposed to fully intended.

It is sad to see such a degree of self-delusion run rampant that way.

 

[newhope101]

Creationist are charged this because they in fact do quote mine. You did it not that long ago. You qoted a science article and left out anything the article said about evolution or paragraphs containing the word (evolution/evolutionary), thus you were charged correctly as being a dishonest individual who quote minds....
No, I did not make out the article was defaming Toe, nor did I say the researchers were suggesting so. This is desperation on your part. I pasted the bits that were connected to my argument. Obviously I cannot paste in the whole article.


This is exactly what you have done. I'm sure you will disagree but the fact is...you did it and on more than one occasion.
No indeed I have not. This is your attempt to make yourself feel better when all else fails.


I'm not sure what you're going on about. While this is labled as a religious forum there are threads here designed for jokes and entertainment that have absolutely nothing to do with religion. There are threads setup for politics, philosophy, art and a host of other subjects. There are threads here setup for the explicit purpose of science verses religion. So while this is a religious forum it is not "exclusively" designed to be solely about religion. Additionally, I'm not sure what you know about atheism but I can assure you it's not a religion but whatever atheism is or isn't is not important to this debate. Yeah..but you are not generaly chatting. You are here on this thread. You are getting into hate mail as a pass time aimed at religious people that have sought a religious forum to discuss religious beliefs. Congratualtions.I expect a scientific forum with like minded people does not give you the same satisfaction or perhaps the true scientific community leaves some of you for dead. It must be much more satisfying for 'would be' biologists to attack creationits as a pass time, with or without a belief in some God or deity. You have read the info I posted on biology teachers. You are inadvertantly attacking more peole than you would like to admit to. No doubt everyone in the world that is skeptical about Toe must be idiots including the thousands of researchers that have signed a petition declaring their refute to Toe.



THIS THREAD HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THIS SUBJECT

Wrong again. This thread is about how convincing the fossil record is. Illustrating the flaws, inconsistencies, contradictions and crap your researchers come up with within the fossil record and genomics is an excellent way to demonstrate the fossil record is about as convincing as evidence for Santa Clause whom also leaves evidence for the young mind to misinterpret.

Correct. The fossil record has nothing to do with "kinds" rather it has everything to do with species. Your "kind" definition, as you once agreed, can't even address the fossil record. What you call adaptation and/or variation...biologist call Evolution...and rightfully so I might add.

My definition covered the fossil evidence very well...and I did address the fossil evidence. The request was for a definition of kind. As usual you wanted a complete and accurate irrefutable hypothesis of creation. That was the end result of your desperate attempts to refute me. It's you lot that keep putting up arch as a mid species when it has been recategorized to a sister species and putting up Tiktaalic when you should know that there were already tetrapod footprint around. You put up debated evidence that have a multitude of theories behind them and then alledge that if a creationist can't sort it all out then a definition of kind is worthless This is your desperation surfacing and nothing more. Definitions are not meant to be holistic explanations of a complete theory of creation. My definition stands to this day as you could not find an example to refute it. Rather you called for a complete hypothesis and ridiculous requests for clarification on issues you yourself are unable to answer with any certiantly, in desperation. I loved it and I loved the hypocricy. You lot speaking to outdated examples of debated and inconsistent evidence provides proof that many of you are the ones that need to be re educated and are here as pretenders with 30 year old outdated credentials still purporting some sort of expertise.

Humans More Related To Orangutans Than Chimps, Study Suggests

ScienceDaily (June 18, 2009) &#8212; New evidence underscores the theory of human origin that suggests humans most likely share a common ancestor with orangutans, according to research from the University of Pittsburgh and the Buffalo Museum of Science. Reporting in the June 18 edition of the Journal of Biogeography, the researchers reject as "problematic" the popular suggestion, based on DNA analysis, that humans are most closely related to chimpanzees, which they maintain is not supported by fossil evidence

Jeffrey H. Schwartz, professor of anthropology in Pitt's School of Arts and Sciences and president of the World Academy of Art and Science, and John Grehan, director of science at the Buffalo Museum, conducted a detailed analysis of the physical features of living and fossil apes that suggested humans, orangutans, and early apes belong to a group separate from chimpanzees and gorillas. They then constructed a scenario for how the human-orangutan common ancestor migrated between Southeast Asia&#8212;where modern orangutans are from&#8212;and other parts of the world and evolved into now-extinct apes and early humans.

The study provides further evidence of the human-orangutan connection that Schwartz first proposed in his book "The Red Ape: Orangutans and Human Origins, Revised and Updated" (Westview Press, 2005).

Schwartz and Grehan scrutinized the hundreds of physical characteristics often cited as evidence of evolutionary relationships among humans and other great apes&#8212;chimps, gorillas, and orangutans&#8212;and selected 63 that could be verified as unique within this group (i.e., they do not appear in other primates). Of these features, the analysis found that humans shared 28 unique physical characteristics with orangutans, compared to only two features with chimpanzees, seven with gorillas, and seven with all three apes (chimpanzees, gorillas, and orangutans). Gorillas and chimpanzees shared 11 unique characteristics.

Schwartz and Grehan then examined 56 features uniquely shared among modern humans, fossil hominids&#8212;ancestral humans such as Australopithecus&#8212;and fossil apes. They found that orangutans shared eight features with early humans and Australopithecus and seven with Australopithecus alone. The occurrence of orangutan features in Australopithecus contradicts the expectation generated by DNA analysis that ancestral humans should have chimpanzee similarities, Schwartz and Grehan write. Chimpanzees and gorillas were found to share only those features found in all great apes.

"They have good morphological evidence in support of their interpretation, so that it must be taken seriously, and if it reopens the debate between molecular biologists and morphologists, so much the better," Andrews said. "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."

Schwartz and Grehan contend in the Journal of Biogeography that the clear physical similarities between humans and orangutans have long been overshadowed by molecular analyses that link humans to chimpanzees, but that those molecular comparisons are often flawed: There is no theory holding that molecular similarity necessarily implies an evolutionary relationship; molecular studies often exclude orangutans and focus on a limited selection of primates without an adequate "outgroup" for comparison; and molecular data that contradict the idea that genetic similarity denotes relation are often dismissed.

"They criticize molecular data where criticism is due," said Malte Ebach, a researcher at Arizona State University's International Institute for Species Exploration who also was not involved in the project but is familiar with it.
"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. Grehan and Schwartz are not just suggesting an orangutan&#8211;human relationship&#8212;they're reaffirming an established scientific practice of questioning data."



You see this above. I say this is proof that any theoretical evidence provided is biased and misleading and really researchers have no idea.

Scientists have found homonid facial morphology that predated hominids, there are plenty of flat faced non human primates,they have evidence that morphology and DNA is connected to environment, they have shown that adaptive change occurs at an expressive level not necessarily a genootypic one, they have shown brain size has nothing to do with intelligence, they have shown that bipedability is not a homo feature, they have shown super accelerated genomic regions that do not align with theory, they have shown an orang had many human traits and hence could be confused as 'becoming human' in the fossil record, they have shown inconsistency in genomic and fossil evidence not only in the human lineage but many, and the hippo was just one example.

The thread asks is the fossil evidence convincing. I say it surely IS NOT convincing of one kind poofing into another kind slowly or in a punctuated manner. What I say is the interpretation of the fossil evidence is straw grabbing at its best.

 

[David M]

Genetic Archaeology Finds Parts of Human Genome More Closely Related to Orangutans Than Chimps

ScienceDaily (Jan. 26, 2011) &#8212; In a study published online in Genome Research, in coordination with the publication of the orangutan genome sequence, scientists have presented the surprising finding that although orangutans and humans are more distantly related, some regions of our genomes are more alike than those of our closest living relative, the chimpanzee.


The study found ILS with orangutan and chimp in approximately 1% of the human genome. "n about 0.5% of our genome, we are closer related to orangutans than we are to chimpanzees," Mailund said, "and in about 0.5%, chimpanzees are closer related to orangutans than us."

Scientists from Aarhus University (Aarhus, Denmark) and the University of Wisconsin (Madison, WI) contributed to this study.
This work was supported by the Danish Natural Sciences Research Council.


Really..the truth be known..Your researchers have no clue about who is related to whom. It is all best guessing. I am sad to think that major churches have thrown their hat in behind this stuff with the reasoning skills humans have been given. Mankind is directed to search the deeper things and to not folow the reasoning of man. This is great advice. Science and evidence are valid. Theories are not.

After 6 months looking into the research I have certainly turned from a post sitting agnostic to a creationist. For that I can thank the forum. You made me look at the difference between evidence and theory. I think the churchs acceptance of Toe was a popularity vote, rather than a spiritual decision. I really believe they threw their hat behind TOE way too soon and they should think seriously about reclaiming it.

Still misrepresenting the facts and making stuff up, don't you realise yet how wrong your conclusions are?

Of course there are going to be parts of our genome that are closer to an orangs than a chimps, that is because we are all related and not all of the genome has to change to produce different species.

To those not ignorant of biology the correct conclusion is that since the common ancestor for humans, chimps and orangs some genes that did not change in humans and orangs did in chimps and some genes that did not change in chimps and orangs did in humans.

And its 0.5%. That means that 99.5% of the human genome is closer to that of chimps than it is to orangs. That makes an overwhelming case that we are more closely related to chimps than orangs.

Humans More Related To Orangutans Than Chimps, Study Suggests

This is a particulaly pathetic attempt as it comes after your post that indicates otherwise.

There is no theory holding that molecular similarity necessarily implies an evolutionary relationship; molecular studies often exclude orangutans and focus on a limited selection of primates without an adequate "outgroup" for comparison; and molecular data that contradict the idea that genetic similarity denotes relation are often dismissed..

Yes there is such a theory, its called the Theory of Evolution.

Excludes orangutans? Like the one you just posted that included orangutans and showed that humans are about 200 times closer to chimps than we are to orangutans?

 

[camanintx]

You are joking - right?
Funny thing about a tree! In its natural state, it ALWAYS produces the same kind of fruit on ALL of its branches. Isn't that right?
Therefore, you are not dealing with any kind of tree.
Just plain imagination!
Wilson

Someone must have slept through the discussion on metphores during their seventh grade English class.

 

[newhope101]

Still misrepresenting the facts and making stuff up, don't you realise yet how wrong your conclusions are?
And what facts are you suggesting I made up? This research, between the two articles, suggests our common ancestor may be orang related. Now you go find where I have misrepresented that? The point is not whom we are or are not related to nor how desperate you are. The point I am making is that with convincing evidence of chimp ancestry and orang ancestry it is more likely that in actual fact your researchers have no idea. That is the assumption I am making on evidence your researchers have provided and I have NOT misrepresented. You are surely showing a desperation of higher magnitude now!...I love it..you're playing in my field when showing cognitive or emotional dysfunction.
Of course there are going to be parts of our genome that are closer to an orangs than a chimps, that is because we are all related and not all of the genome has to change to produce different species.
Of course ...nothing. There is no 'of course' about this orang research. Your researchers continue to be bewildered by some results, requiring ever more theories in explanation. What is importantly different in this research is that the researchers used the part of the genome your researchers assumed was junk for years. We share 50% of our genes with a banana and a plant has a foxp2 gene yet does not think or talk. I don't think your researchers can see anything in the distant past. I think they believe they can
To those not ignorant of biology the correct conclusion is that since the common ancestor for humans, chimps and orangs some genes that did not change in humans and orangs did in chimps and some genes that did not change in chimps and orangs did in humans.
For those even more ignorant of biology than I, I have posted 2 separate articles speaking to research that suggests we may have decended from chimps. They also suggest the current fossil evidence does not fit the chimp/human common ancestor. If you refute me, I'll repaste the bits you missed. This is not a misrepresentation and it is curriously desperate and unethical of you to suggest so. That is exactly what this research is suggesting. Hence I believe your researchers have no idea and I have food support for that stance.
And its 0.5%. That means that 99.5% of the human genome is closer to that of chimps than it is to orangs. That makes an overwhelming case that we are more closely related to chimps than orangs.
Darls, It is not about whom of your researchers is right or wrong. It is about their appearing so confused one must challenge anything that is held as 'common thinking'.


This is a particulaly pathetic attempt as it comes after your post that indicates otherwise.
What it all means is that your researchers do not know what they are talking about in any of their research. In case you have not picked it up, I do not believe humans evolved from Orangs either. Are you clear about that?


Yes there is such a theory, its called the Theory of Evolution. The theory of evolution is a theory in evolution. The presumption of ancestry is the given. How, when, where and why are still up for grabs and evolve to fit in with the preheld assumption.

Excludes orangutans? Like the one you just posted that included orangutans and showed that humans are about 200 times closer to chimps than we are to orangutans?

You just don't get it, do You? Or are you now so desperate that you wish to ignore the contradictions within your own field and play in fairyland.


Schwartz and Grehan contend in the Journal of Biogeography that the clear physical similarities between humans and orangutans have long been overshadowed by molecular analyses that link humans to chimpanzees, but that those molecular comparisons are often flawed: There is no theory holding that molecular similarity necessarily implies an evolutionary relationship; molecular studies often exclude orangutans and focus on a limited selection of primates without an adequate "outgroup" for comparison; and molecular data that contradict the idea that genetic similarity denotes relation are often dismissed. That was until last year, when this comprehensive molecular analysis was completed. It is always a good idea to check the date of what you are quoting. Another example of change is the 30% differences found between the chimp and human genome when it is looked at considering deletions, multiplications, non coding regions etc, as opposed to Mtdna comparisons that suggest 1-4% differences (Wiki Chimpanzee Genome Project)

Humans More Related To Orangutans Than Chimps, Study Suggests

ScienceDaily (June 18, 2009) — New evidence underscores the theory of human origin that suggests humans most likely share a common ancestor with orangutans, according to research from the University of Pittsburgh and the Buffalo Museum of Science. Reporting in the June 18 edition of the Journal of Biogeography, the researchers reject as "problematic" the popular suggestion, based on DNA analysis, that humans are most closely related to chimpanzees, which they maintain is not supported by fossil evidence.

Here you have researchers more credentialed than you or I saying the fossil evidence does not support the chimp/homo decent. I have posted info re research that speaks to a genomic link and close ancestry to Orangs. Is there any other way I can spoon feed you this information. Yes, I know, there are other researchers that will oppose. This is relatively recent research.. However, The point being it is not only a stupid little uneducated creationist that remains skeptical. Indeed, these very well educated and credentialed researchers likewise are not happy chappys. These researchers still value Toe but are skeptical in relation to current evidence being convincing of a chimp-human ancestry. The point is not my supporting one assumption over the other. It is about having good evidence for 2 opposing views suggesting to me that your researchers really have no idea....GET IT?

Hence... NO NO NO the fossil evidence is not convincing. How can it be when researchers are not sure what ancestry it is supposed to be convincing us all of ???? (not unlike the knuckle walking ancestry days)

..seriously you shouldn't be pushing this line... it's not a winner

 

[tumbleweed41]

Hey Newhope and Wilsoncole....


Originally Posted by tumbleweed41
Let's see.
If we take the stories in Genesis as literally true, what would we find in the fossil and geological record?

• The fossil record, from bottom to top would be mainly composed of gradually larger species. But there would be the occasional random mixture of species as well: trilobites with humans with dinosaurs with maples with Cycad trees. Species would be somewhat mixed. The very bottom layers would include signs of human habitation. This is not shown however.
• The fossil record clearly shows that land animals developed before birds. But the Genesis account indicates the reverse.
• Theologians have generally agreed that the Bible teaches that the earth is less than 10,000 years of age. However, in Wyoming, the Green River Formation shows that varves -- a 260 meters thick formation made from annual layers of sediment -- were laid down for the past 2 million years. Ice core samples have been taken in Greenland that show 40,000 annual layers of ice. In each case, one detectable layer of sediment or ice is laid down each year.
• When there are fewer than about 40 members to a species, extinction is inevitable, even when massive human intervention occurs. After the flood there would have been only 2 or 7 members to each species; they would not have survived.
• There is no indication of a worldwide flood in ancient Egyptian, Indus or Chinese writings, temples, pyramids, sculptures, etc., which existed at the time of Noah. Yet, if the flood really did occur, then all of the world's early civilizations would have been completely destroyed. The entire population of the world would have consisted of 8 people, in the vicinity of the ark. It would have taken millennia for humanity to become re-established in China and elsewhere.

SOURCE



So, as related to the OP, does the fossil record in any way support a literal interpretation of Genesis?

 

[David M]

This research, between the two articles, suggests our common ancestor may be orang related. Now you go find where I have misrepresented that?

Considering the first article suggests the exact opposite to the second you are misrepresenting it to a huge degree.

An article that shows that 99.5% of our genome is more similar to a chimps than to an orangs does not suggest that we are more closely related to orangs than chimps.

That is your problem, your vast ignorance of the subject caused you to see the words "in about 0.5% of our genome, we are closer related to orangutans than we are to chimpanzees" as providing some support for your argument without realising that what this also means is "in about 99.5% of our genome, we are NOT closer related to orangutans than we are to chimpanzees".

This is why you keep posting things that support evolution, you alight upon a single sentence and, without considering the rest of the article, think that you have found something to disprove evolution. It would be sad if it wasn't so funny.

 

[painted wolf]

Do you know how little 0.05% is?

And again, is this an ape or a human... how do you draw the line between them?

wa:do

 

[Dirty Penguin]

No, I did not make out the article was defaming Toe, nor did I say the researchers were suggesting so.

Nor did I ever accuse you of this. What I said was it is known that you frequently quote out of context and that's what you did.

This is desperation on your part. I pasted the bits that were connected to my argument. Obviously I cannot paste in the whole article.

Yes. This is known as quote mining. You purported the article to basically mean one thing in your favor but every time the articles are read in their entirety they are not what you say they are. I can't remember if it was in this thread or another one but you cut and pasted and article but skipped everything that spoke on the viability of evolution or the evolutionary process.

Yeah..but you are not generaly chatting. You are here on this thread. You are getting into hate mail as a pass time aimed at religious people that have sought a religious forum to discuss religious beliefs.

Please don't believe for one moment this is a one sided situation. Personally I don't engage in hate debates. If you are ill-informed I will point it out. It's without a doubt that there is much more going on at this forum that has absolutely nothing to do with religion so the notion that only the religious should be allowed to participate is ludicrous. We actually have certain sections designed for (science vs. religion) so I see nothing wrong in participating and pointing out the obvious flaws in religion as it pertains to science.

I expect a scientific forum with like minded people does not give you the same satisfaction or perhaps the true scientific community leaves some of you for dead. It must be much more satisfying for 'would be' biologists to attack creationits as a pass time, with or without a belief in some God or deity.

First off, you don't even know me but I enjoy civil conversations here as well as debates. I personally don't have to agree with you on anything and I'm not one who's known for arguments or name calling here. I try to hold civilized debates with you. I haven't posted cartoons or religious jokes...so you may have the wrong person.

You have read the info I posted on biology teachers. You are inadvertantly attacking more peole than you would like to admit to. No doubt everyone in the world that is skeptical about Toe must be idiots including the thousands of researchers that have signed a petition declaring their refute to Toe.

Please don't put words in my mouth. I work for a public school system and I see no reason why ID should be taught as an "alternative" to the ToE but why you decided to post the article in this particular thread serves no purpose other than to throw the debate off course.

Wrong again. This thread is about how convincing the fossil record is. Illustrating the flaws, inconsistencies, contradictions and crap your researchers come up with within the fossil record and genomics is an excellent way to demonstrate the fossil record is about as convincing as evidence for Santa Clause whom also leaves evidence for the young mind to misinterpret.

The article you posted offered no information for or against the fossil record nor did it have anything to do with what the fossil record says. Additionally, the article you posted when read in context says more about the destructive abuse to the young minds from creationist teaching than it does to even begin to help your case. There was no need for you to post it because it did nothing to help your case and seemed to hurt your credibility even more.

Humans More Related To Orangutans Than Chimps, Study Suggests

ScienceDaily (June 18, 2009) &#8212; New evidence underscores the theory of human origin that suggests humans most likely share a common ancestor with orangutans, according to research from the University of Pittsburgh and the Buffalo Museum of Science. Reporting in the June 18 edition of the Journal of Biogeography, the researchers reject as "problematic" the popular suggestion, based on DNA analysis, that humans are most closely related to chimpanzees, which they maintain is not supported by fossil evidence

Jeffrey H. Schwartz, professor of anthropology in Pitt's School of Arts and Sciences and president of the World Academy of Art and Science, and John Grehan, director of science at the Buffalo Museum, conducted a detailed analysis of the physical features of living and fossil apes that suggested humans, orangutans, and early apes belong to a group separate from chimpanzees and gorillas. They then constructed a scenario for how the human-orangutan common ancestor migrated between Southeast Asia&#8212;where modern orangutans are from&#8212;and other parts of the world and evolved into now-extinct apes and early humans.

The study provides further evidence of the human-orangutan connection that Schwartz first proposed in his book "The Red Ape: Orangutans and Human Origins, Revised and Updated" (Westview Press, 2005).

Schwartz and Grehan scrutinized the hundreds of physical characteristics often cited as evidence of evolutionary relationships among humans and other great apes&#8212;chimps, gorillas, and orangutans&#8212;and selected 63 that could be verified as unique within this group (i.e., they do not appear in other primates). Of these features, the analysis found that humans shared 28 unique physical characteristics with orangutans, compared to only two features with chimpanzees, seven with gorillas, and seven with all three apes (chimpanzees, gorillas, and orangutans). Gorillas and chimpanzees shared 11 unique characteristics.

Schwartz and Grehan then examined 56 features uniquely shared among modern humans, fossil hominids&#8212;ancestral humans such as Australopithecus&#8212;and fossil apes. They found that orangutans shared eight features with early humans and Australopithecus and seven with Australopithecus alone. The occurrence of orangutan features in Australopithecus contradicts the expectation generated by DNA analysis that ancestral humans should have chimpanzee similarities, Schwartz and Grehan write. Chimpanzees and gorillas were found to share only those features found in all great apes.

"They have good morphological evidence in support of their interpretation, so that it must be taken seriously, and if it reopens the debate between molecular biologists and morphologists, so much the better," Andrews said. "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."

Schwartz and Grehan contend in the Journal of Biogeography that the clear physical similarities between humans and orangutans have long been overshadowed by molecular analyses that link humans to chimpanzees, but that those molecular comparisons are often flawed: There is no theory holding that molecular similarity necessarily implies an evolutionary relationship; molecular studies often exclude orangutans and focus on a limited selection of primates without an adequate "outgroup" for comparison; and molecular data that contradict the idea that genetic similarity denotes relation are often dismissed.

"They criticize molecular data where criticism is due," said Malte Ebach, a researcher at Arizona State University's International Institute for Species Exploration who also was not involved in the project but is familiar with it.
"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. Grehan and Schwartz are not just suggesting an orangutan&#8211;human relationship&#8212;they're reaffirming an established scientific practice of questioning data."



You see this above. I say this is proof that any theoretical evidence provided is biased and misleading and really researchers have no idea.

Scientists have found homonid facial morphology that predated hominids, there are plenty of flat faced non human primates,they have evidence that morphology and DNA is connected to environment, they have shown that adaptive change occurs at an expressive level not necessarily a genootypic one, they have shown brain size has nothing to do with intelligence, they have shown that bipedability is not a homo feature, they have shown super accelerated genomic regions that do not align with theory, they have shown an orang had many human traits and hence could be confused as 'becoming human' in the fossil record, they have shown inconsistency in genomic and fossil evidence not only in the human lineage but many, and the hippo was just one example.

The thread asks is the fossil evidence convincing. I say it surely IS NOT convincing of one kind poofing into another kind slowly or in a punctuated manner. What I say is the interpretation of the fossil evidence is straw grabbing at its best.

So as it pertains to primates...you're basically saying that scientist are saying we are related. Right....?

 

[newhope101]

Dirty Penguin....Don't just accuse..show me where.

I like the way you have nothing better to talk about than this. Have you run out of intelligent refutes.

I'm basically saying that you have research to suggest we may be related to orangutans rather than chimps. You have convincing evidence for both sides. You also had many of the same fossils connecting humans to knucklewalkers. Hence what is the fossil evidence good evidence of? is it good evidence for knucklewalking ancestry now that you have one or two extra fossils? Is it good evidence of last common ancestor being related to an orangutan? Is it good evidence of the last common ancestor being related to a chimp? Is it good evidence of ancestry to something that was neither chimp not ornag like?

You tell me, which it is? The same evidence cannot be good evidence for whatever you want. It was much the same fossils that connect humans to a knucklewalking ancestry also and the fossils were meant to be good evidence for that. Then Ardi came along and suddenly they were all good evidence for a non knuckle walking ancestry to something that looks little like a chimp

Let's ay for example this guy wins the day. He is suggesting the same fossils we all look to are suggesting a closer relationship to an orang. Same fossils, a researcher that has credentials (not a creationist) has put up good taxanomic evidence. He also alleges that

Schwartz and Grehan contend in the Journal of Biogeography that the clear physical similarities between humans and orangutans have long been overshadowed by molecular analyses that link humans to chimpanzees, but that those molecular comparisons are often flawed: There is no theory holding that molecular similarity necessarily implies an evolutionary relationship; molecular studies often exclude orangutans and focus on a limited selection of primates without an adequate "outgroup" for comparison; and molecular data that contradict the idea that genetic similarity denotes relation are often dismissed.

"They criticize molecular data where criticism is due," said Malte Ebach, a researcher at Arizona State University's International Institute for Species Exploration who also was not involved in the project but is familiar with it.
"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. Grehan and Schwartz are not just suggesting an orangutan&#8211;human relationship&#8212;they're reaffirming an established scientific practice of questioning data."(Humans More Related To Orangutans Than Chimps, Study Suggests ScienceDaily (June 18, 2009)


So are you saying these researchers, Schwartz & Grehan, are geese? Are you saying that finding a human/orang connection is not supportive of the Schwartz and Grehan stance. Regardless the Schwartz & Grehan research is very convincing in itself. They also give a balanced opinion of molecular comparisons being flawed and genetic similarity is not necessarily denoting ancestry.(underlined)

If we'd of had this discussion 15 years ago you would have said there is convincing, irrefuteable fossil evidence that humans evolved from a knuckle walking ancestor, and that I was a goose, or worse, for not accepting it.

So tell me today what you say the fossil evidence is good evidence of? Is it good evidence of transistion from an arboreal, bipedal, chimp like primate? Is it good evidence of some other theory? Then when it changes again I can reqoute this post. One thing for sure the fossil evidence cannot be good evidence for anything you come up with. That's sounds a little to incredible to be believeable.

So again I say that your fossil evidence cannot be good evidence for anything that pops up as a theory. Hence it is not good evidence at all.

 

[David M]

You also had many of the same fossils connecting humans to knucklewalkers.

The truth is that we didn't and no one claimed that we definitely did, we didn't have any such fossils.

We had fossils connecting humans to the ancestors of species that are now knucklewalking apes. We did not have fossils connecting humans to ancestors that were knucklewalking apes.

Thats why the hypothesis that the human line evolved away from knucklewalking was always qualified as being made without fossil evidence that this was the case. The evidence was incomplete but what there was indicated that a knucklewalking common ancestor was more probable based on the evidence that existed at the time.

Now there is more evidence the balance has swung the other way, that the common ancestor was not a knucklewalker.

That is why the evidence than knucklewalking is probably not a basal feature was no big upset (except for the aquatic ape minority) because it was contingent on confirmation or refutation when fossils from the right period were found.

If we'd of had this discussion 15 years ago you would have said there is convincing, irrefuteable fossil evidence that humans evolved from a knuckle walking ancestor, and that I was a goose, or worse, for not accepting it.

No person who knew what the fossil evidence was would have claimed "there is convincing, irrefuteable fossil evidence that humans evolved from a knuckle walking ancestor" because everyone knew that there were no fossils that could demonstrate such a claim.

And I'll point out yet again that the Theory of Evolution is not the history of the evolution of every single species it is the explanation why such a history exists. Until you acknowledge this distinction you will keep making mistakes.

 

[Dan4reason]

Winged insects have been around for heaps longer than thought and your researchers have no idea.

Isn't that great? The more data we collect on the individual theories of how different taxa evolved, the better the theories get and the more about the natural world we understand. This is why I just love science! The evidence and debate is wonderful!

This fossil below is evidence that kinds were created fully formed and have changed little since.

Ha ha, that's hilarious. For all we know that thing is only 2,000 years old, and since we all know that evolution claims that insects evolved hundreds of millions of years ago, this fossil doesn't say jack squat about evolution. You might as well use a chicken bone burried in my front yard as evidence against bird evolution.

You can provide evidence that a bird and organisms adapt. You have evidence that species can isolate for so long that they can no longer mate (cryptic species). Sometimes this is the case with identical DNA of sexually isolated species.

You believe that one species can evolve into another. Great! I never thought I would live to hear that from a creationist. Now once two species cannot mate they can evolve separately without diverging again by interbreeding in often separate environments. After a few billion years, they will be very different.

However you have no proof of one kind becoming another kind.

What's a kind? Is it a genus or something?

This is all theoretical. You have given every in kind variation names eg wolf, dingo, dog. You have traced a dog back to a wolf like creature. You do not have anything that illustrates a dog was anything else but a dog kind. The same goes for any other creature. Your closest experiments with Drosophila have also shown in kind variation and nothing more.

One word. Hominids.

If your Toe was about explaining evolution the evidence would slip in nice and neatly. It doesn't. Punctuated equilibrium, accelerated evolution, dates constantly pushed back, the garbage bin of delusionary evidence past, are just some examples of a theory undergoing constant evolution.

Do you really think that we would understand perfectly how life evolved from the get-go? It will take centuries, maybe even millenia to perfectly understand the mechanisms of evolution, how different taxa evolved and when, etc, if we ever perfectly understand them at all. While the general idea idea of evolution is easy and proven, the devil is in the details.

With all the research speaking to deletions, accelerated evolution, genetic drift, etc you really cannot say anything about ancestry for sure.

Obviously we cannot perfectly predict how a species evolved gene by gene. You might as well say that using physics, we cannot even hope to ever be able to predict with complete certainty how a pair of dice will roll, yet somehow physics works. I suggest that you stop trying to be a perfectionist. Why don't you ever decry the gaps in the evidence for Christianity?

There is excellent research that states the orangutan has 28 traits similar to humans, with chimp and humans having 1. Orangs have male facial hair, long hair, face to face mating, make a bed to lay on, shoulder blade and many other similar features that the chimp does not share with us.

Do they have any genetic evidence? That is ultimately more important than visible anatomical features.

They really do not know what they are seeing when they look into the genome. I'll say it again, if your researchers can provide genetic comparisons that put a human and chimp closer together genetically than a chimp and orang, then there is obviously something amiss with your methdods. I'm not talking about dates of divergence. I am talking about a knuckle walking, unable to reason, arboreal, primates genetically compared to humans.

You know, genes code a lot more than just brains. They code the rest of the body and even though human and chimp brains have major differences, our bodies are very simmilar.

Non human primates should be closer to each other as their morphology is closer.

I bet so.

If genes have anything at all to do with who we are, then it is incredible that the results should speak to anything contrary, yet they do.

Genes are what code you! They say a lot about how you work and how you look like. Get over it. Else try living without genes. And these same genes are saying that we are very simmilar to chimps. That's just life.

This research below speaks to genetic distance and contradicts other research that identifies the chimp as your closest living relative. Surely you can see that this kind of thing truly makes these researchers appear to not know what they are looking at, nor what ancestry should look like nor what 'creation' would look like genomically.

First these different scientists disagree, and second, they are using different yardsticks to measure similarity, so of course they are going to contradict. This is what we call a scientific debate.

Genetic Archaeology Finds Parts of Human Genome More Closely Related to Orangutans Than Chimps

ScienceDaily (Jan. 26, 2011) — In a study published online in Genome Research, in coordination with the publication of the orangutan genome sequence, scientists have presented the surprising finding that although orangutans and humans are more distantly related, some regions of our genomes are more alike than those of our closest living relative, the chimpanzee.

The study found ILS with orangutan and chimp in approximately 1% of the human genome. "n about 0.5% of our genome, we are closer related to orangutans than we are to chimpanzees," Mailund said, "and in about 0.5%, chimpanzees are closer related to orangutans than us."

Scientists from Aarhus University (Aarhus, Denmark) and the University of Wisconsin (Madison, WI) contributed to this study.
This work was supported by the Danish Natural Sciences Research Council.

I appreciate that the scientific community is having this debate about our nearest relative but I have to agree with the vast majority. A few anatomical characteristics are just not going to cut it. Looking at the genome, chimps are shown to be more related and it will take a lot to defeat that.

Really..the truth be known..Your researchers have no clue about who is related to whom.

Scientists do not have a perfect picture of the history of life on this planets with millions of species evolving over billions of years. That does not mean they know nothing. Scientists use morphological, genetic, and fossil evidence that gives them a good idea of how modern life is related to each other, though their picture is not perfect.

Mankind is directed to search the deeper things and to not folow the reasoning of man.

Isn't that the greatest lesson of all. Whenever people try to reason, they often just discover more questions than they create. So instead, we should not reason, and have faith in mythologies people made up thousands of years ago. Who needs the reason and evidence of humans?

This is great advice. Science and evidence are valid. Theories are not.

Theories suck don't they. The worst ones are the theory of gravity and atomic theory. They are only theories.