Orangutan - Points of View

Primate specialists give their perspectives on the orangutan hypothesis

There are few published statements on the scientific importance of the orangutan theory. The following quotes are the few I have been able to obtain at this time. A number of primate specialists who expressed strong opposition to the orangutan hypothesis being the subject of public attention were not willing to allow their views to be made public.

Orangutan Considered

Jeffrey Schwartz, University of Pittsburgh

"In spite of claims of the closeness of humans and chimps, orangs are much more uniquely human-like in their morphology, reproductive physiology, and development. Also, early hominids are facially and dentally very orang-, not chimp-like. Since communication between regulatory molecules and not simply molecular sequences "makes" an organism, it might be profitable to ask if evolutionary closeness can be faithfully revealed simply by comparing DNA and other molecules." (Direct communication, 2003)

 
Ian Tattersall, American Museum of Natural History

"I have been standing back somewhat on this issue, but I think that the general scientific unwillingness even to consider the notion that orangutans are more closely related to us than African apes is testimony more to the power of received wisdom than it is to the power of the evidence. I wonder, indeed, whether resistance would be so strong if Darwin hadn't backed the African apes in the nearest relative stakes." (Direct communication, 2003)

Orangutan Rejected

 
Colin Groves. Australian National University

"Accepted ideas do need to be challenged,and if the challengers sometimes go rather over the top and find themselves in the realms of science fiction, well, at least they had made the challenge. As for Jeff Schwartz, may the Force be with him." (Journal of Human Evolution, 1987) 

Maryann Ruvolo, Harvard University

Scientists should realize that this is a golden opportunity to get at some of the more interesting aspects of evolution. When molecules and morphology don't agree, that usually means some interesting convergence has occurred - and this is a good opportunity for studying selection and adaptation”. (Direct communication, 2003)

Andrew Hill. Yale University

“In Huxley, Darwin had his bulldog to promote and support his theory. As he himself more or less admits in the book, Schwartz has yet to find as much as a poodle. In the dogged pursuit of his idea, he is barking up the wrong family tree. (Nature, 1987)

David Pilbeam. Harvard University

“Nothing about genetic data is now pre-selected, and there are several different approaches, phenetic as well as cladistic, using many many genes, which give a consistent answer. There are many people, much smarter than I am, who have addressed all of these issues long since. As far as I'm concerned, the issue is closed." (Direct communication, 2003)