Bonobos Join Chimps As Closest Human Relatives

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Bonobos Join Chimps As Closest Human Relatives

Posted by timothy on Thursday June 14, 2012 @06:24AM from the but-they-make-terrible-babysitters dept.

sciencehabit writes "Chimpanzees now have to share the distinction of being our closest living relative in the animal kingdom. An international team of researchers has sequenced the genome of the bonobo for the first time, confirming that it shares the same percentage of its DNA with us as chimps do. The team also found some small but tantalizing differences in the genomes of the three species—differences that may explain how bonobos and chimpanzees don't look or act like us even though we share about 99% of our DNA."

259 comments

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

Bonobo Chimpanzee by busyqth · 2012-06-14 06:29 · Score: 4, Interesting

What reason is there to consider the Bonobo and Chimpanzee different species?
Is it just a matter of behavior? If so, has it been proven that the behavioral differences aren't cultural?
1. Re:Bonobo Chimpanzee by i+kan+reed · 2012-06-14 06:33 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  Assuming you're not trolling here:
  There's morphic phenotypes that are different, for one. Bonobos are actually a lot smaller than chimps as mature adults. They are also much less able to solve complex puzzles, a difference that persists even when raised in complete separation of others from their own species. There's also the biological definition of species that requires that they be able to interbreed, we have never seen that happen.
2. Re:Bonobo Chimpanzee by bmo · 2012-06-14 06:35 · Score: 1
  
  >What reason is there to consider the Bonobo and Chimpanzee different species?
  They don't interbreed.
  HTH.
  --
  BMO
3. Re:Bonobo Chimpanzee by NoNonAlphaCharsHere · 2012-06-14 06:37 · Score: 2
  
  They are morphologically different, but probably no more so than human racial differences. I am unaware if they can or cannot cross-breed and produce fertile offspring, which is what many use to differentiate what is a "species" and what is not.
4. Re:Bonobo Chimpanzee by busyqth · 2012-06-14 06:44 · Score: 1
  
  There's also the biological definition of species that requires that they be able to interbreed, we have never seen that happen.
  But isn't that more a matter of geographic distribution rather than lack of interest or ability?
5. Re:Bonobo Chimpanzee by wastedlife · 2012-06-14 06:44 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  I read about this yesterday on Ars. In the second-to-last paragraph, they talk about how Bonobos are well within the standard deviation for chimps, so genetically speaking, they should be the same species. I believe they were even once considered to be the same species, but were separated due to the size and behavior differences. In light of this new evidence, I believe it may cause them to be considered a "sub-species", much like dogs are to wolves.
  
  --
  Said, "It's just like dice but it's got more sides And it tells me who lives and who dies"
6. Re:Bonobo Chimpanzee by nospam007 · 2012-06-14 06:45 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  "Is it just a matter of behavior? "
  That too. Chimps will fuck you up, given the chance, Bonobos will just fuck you.
7. Re:Bonobo Chimpanzee by i+kan+reed · 2012-06-14 06:57 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  Irrelevant. Geographic separation is a direct cause of speciation. Gene pools stop mixing, genetic drift pushes two similar groups far enough apart that they are no longer compatible.
8. Re:Bonobo Chimpanzee by ShanghaiBill · 2012-06-14 06:59 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  They are also much less able to solve complex puzzles,
  I believe bonobos are usually considered to be more intelligent.
9. Re:Bonobo Chimpanzee by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-14 07:01 · Score: 0
  
  No, it's not, but I'll grant that the phrase "we have never seen that happen" can be misleading if you're not familiar with how scientists often speak.
  It sounds like you interpreted that as "we have never seen a chimp and a bonobo try to copulate, and we never tried to get them to do so, either". Under that interpretation you're right that geography might go a long way to explaining the lack of such an observation.
  But what he probably meant was "we have never seen a chimp and a bonobo produce a healthy offspring after copulation, even after coaxing them to try many times". That does pretty well demonstrate that they are two distinct species, according to the definition of "a species is a set of individuals who are capable of mating to produce healthy and fertile offspring".
10. Re:Bonobo Chimpanzee by egamma · 2012-06-14 07:02 · Score: 1
  
  What reason is there to consider the Bonobo and Chimpanzee different species?
  You're misunderstanding the numbers. Simplified Example: We share genes A-Y with Chimps, and Genes B-Z with Bonobo's. Chimps and Bonobo's share Genes B-Y, but you can see that Chimps have gene A, and Bonobos have Gene Z, and are therefore not the same species.
  
  --
  Battlemaster--Game with friends in medival realms
11. Re:Bonobo Chimpanzee by bmo · 2012-06-14 07:04 · Score: 1
  
  >But isn't that more a matter of geographic distribution rather than lack of interest or ability?
  What, exactly, is your problem with this?
  The ability to freely (without human intervention) interbreed and produce fertile offspring is central to the definition of what a species is.
  No interbreeding can come from various factors - oestrus times, physical separation, genetic separation, etc. Physical separation, over time, leads to genetic separation, and that's what we have between bonobos and chimps in addition to physical separation.
  Thus they are different species for two reasons, not just one.
  Nobody knows if they can cross-breed and produce fertile offspring. Nobody has tried to cross-breed them. If they cannot, then they are separate species in a third way.
  --
  BMO
12. Re:Bonobo Chimpanzee by busyqth · 2012-06-14 07:11 · Score: 2
  
  Irrelevant. Geographic separation is a direct cause of speciation. Gene pools stop mixing, genetic drift pushes two similar groups far enough apart that they are no longer compatible.
  Yeah I get that, but if the physical separation has not existed long enough to allow genetic divergence, then they would just be isolated populations.
13. Re:Bonobo Chimpanzee by Insanity+Defense · 2012-06-14 07:12 · Score: 2
  
  There's morphic phenotypes that are different, for one. Bonobos are actually a lot smaller than chimps as mature adults.
  
  There's also the biological definition of species that requires that they be able to interbreed, we have never seen that happen.
  
  So Chihuahuas and Great Danes are different species?
14. Re:Bonobo Chimpanzee by busyqth · 2012-06-14 07:22 · Score: 2
  
  Is this an accurate depiction of the genetic situation, or did you just make it up?
15. Re:Bonobo Chimpanzee by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-14 07:23 · Score: 0
  
  Bonobos and chimps have interbreeded succesfully. They differ genetically less than some groups of humans do.
16. Re:Bonobo Chimpanzee by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-14 07:27 · Score: 0
  
  What possible reason would you think that post was trolling? There's not even a tiny hint of troll in the post to which you responded.
17. Re:Bonobo Chimpanzee by ShanghaiBill · 2012-06-14 07:28 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  So Chihuahuas and Great Danes are different species?
  No. They may be physically incompatible, but they are not genetically incompatible. If you inseminate a Great Dane with Chihuahua semen, it would have fertile puppies. Additionally, they could both interbreed with dogs of intermediate size. If A is the same species as B and B is the same species as C, then A is the same species as C.
18. Re:Bonobo Chimpanzee by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-14 07:33 · Score: 0
  
  The ability to freely (without human intervention) interbreed and produce fertile offspring is central to the definition of what a species is.
  You sure about that? I don't think toy poodles and great mastiffs have been labelled different species yet. Taxonomy is a very fuzzy science so you shouldn't be so arrogant as to presume your definition means anything. It's almost done on a case by case basis with plenty of infighting among the scientist that make a living defining species. All human races were isolated from each other at one point in time (it's what made the races branch in the first place) but according to your definition Africans are a different species than Europeans or Asians, or Native Americans or Aborigines etc.
  
  Much of your answer conflates isolated populations of the same species with different species. Which is exactly what the OP was asking. Are these isolated populations or different species?
19. Re:Bonobo Chimpanzee by jez9999 · 2012-06-14 07:34 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  I take issue with that campaign about bonobos being the most intelligent ape. Humans deserve at least an honourable mention.
  
  --
  == Jez ==
  Do you miss Firefox? Try Pale Moon.
20. Re:Bonobo Chimpanzee by jdgeorge · 2012-06-14 07:36 · Score: 1
  
  Bonobos and chimps have interbreeded succesfully. They differ genetically less than some groups of humans do.
  Seriously, cite your source if you're going to say stuff like this.
  Have chimps and bonobos interbred and produced fertile offspring? Yes, there have been bonobo/chimp matings that produced live offspring, but were the offspring fertile? (None of the information I found appears to answer that question).
21. Re:Bonobo Chimpanzee by Mindcontrolled · 2012-06-14 07:39 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  That's for history to decide. Which, of course, will be written by the victorious species. I for one preemptively welcome or future bonobo overlords.
  
  --
  Ubi solitudinem faciunt, pacem appellant.
22. Re:Bonobo Chimpanzee by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-14 07:39 · Score: 0
  
  > They don't interbreed.
  Only because of geographical separation. They certainly can interbreed from a genetic standpoint.
23. Re:Bonobo Chimpanzee by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-14 07:48 · Score: 0
  
  > Have chimps and bonobos interbred and produced fertile offspring?
  Who cares? The F2s are all over the place as with any hybrid breeding. Our lab is producing nice consistent F1s from the parent strains.
24. Re:Bonobo Chimpanzee by osu-neko · 2012-06-14 07:52 · Score: 1
  
  I am unaware if they can or cannot cross-breed and produce fertile offspring, which is what many use to differentiate what is a "species" and what is not.
  Probably not if they're professional biologists, who understand that this is a gross oversimplification of the problem.
  For the record, lions and tigers can cross-breed and produce fertile offspring. Expect to be laughed out of the room if you suggest this means they're the same species. :p
  
  --
  "Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth than lies."
25. Re:Bonobo Chimpanzee by bmo · 2012-06-14 07:57 · Score: 1
  
  >I don't think toy poodles and great mastiffs have been labelled different species yet
  They probably should be.
  We consider canis lupus dingo a separate species from canis lupus familiaris, and they interbreed more often than most people think.
  --
  BMO
26. Re:Bonobo Chimpanzee by busyqth · 2012-06-14 07:57 · Score: 2
  
  When I'm the one posting, it makes sense to assume troll.
27. Re:Bonobo Chimpanzee by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-14 08:05 · Score: 1
  
  Yeah, they are too intelligent to solve pointless puzzles.
28. Re:Bonobo Chimpanzee by bmo · 2012-06-14 08:17 · Score: 1
  
  I missed this in my previous message:
  >Are these isolated populations or different species?
  Given enough time (a few thousand years) divergence will happen. There is no question about it. We see it time and again in species that were once one species, and became separated by a river or ocean (Darwin's finches for example).
  --
  BMO
29. Re:Bonobo Chimpanzee by serviscope_minor · 2012-06-14 08:28 · Score: 1
  
  Interestingly that logic holds even when they aren't genetically compatible. Some ring species have that property. All neighbours can interbreed, but distantly separated individuals cannot. If the distribution forms a circle then you have a rather curious type of species.
  
  --
  SJW n. One who posts facts.
30. Re:Bonobo Chimpanzee by brusk · 2012-06-14 08:30 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  Actually, no. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ring_species
  
  --
  .sig withheld by request
31. Re:Bonobo Chimpanzee by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-14 08:36 · Score: 0
  
  At first glance, I read the description as
  >>Chimpanzees now have to share the distinction of being our closest living relative in the united kingdom
32. Re:Bonobo Chimpanzee by rthille · 2012-06-14 08:43 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Bonobos spent a greater percentage of their lives copulating. I think it's pretty obvious which species is more intelligent...
  
  --
  Awesome furniture, accessories and cabinetry in Santa Rosa, CA: http://humanity-home.com/
33. Re:Bonobo Chimpanzee by rthille · 2012-06-14 08:44 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  Not so. See "Ring Species"
  
  --
  Awesome furniture, accessories and cabinetry in Santa Rosa, CA: http://humanity-home.com/
34. Re:Bonobo Chimpanzee by pecosdave · 2012-06-14 08:44 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  I decided to look, I found this:
  Hybridizations
  Hybrids between common chimps and bonobos in captivity have occurred
  But I can't find a lot more than that. I was looking for pictures.
  
  --
  The preceding post was not a Slashvertisement.
35. Re:Bonobo Chimpanzee by Smauler · 2012-06-14 09:28 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  The ability to freely (without human intervention) interbreed and produce fertile offspring is central to the definition of what a species is.
  This definition is crap though. If animal A can interbreed with animal B, and animal B with C, but A cannot with C, then you cannot define the species. There are real world examples of this, albeit a little more convoluted : see the herring gull and lesser black backed gull.
36. Re:Bonobo Chimpanzee by ilguido · 2012-06-14 09:34 · Score: 1
  
  Irrelevant. Geographic separation is a direct cause of speciation.
  That doesn't imply that they are not able to interbreed. Besides the fact that the definition of species is much more complex and foggy than what you said, we know that sometimes even different species can, in facts, interbreed succesfully: http://www.ratbehavior.org/Hybridization.htm#Fertile http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leopard_cat#Leopard_cats_as_pets .
37. Re:Bonobo Chimpanzee by TFAFalcon · 2012-06-14 09:37 · Score: 1
  
  Were the hybrids fertile?
38. Re:Bonobo Chimpanzee by pecosdave · 2012-06-14 09:52 · Score: 1
  
  With that link you have absolutely all the reputable information I have.
  
  --
  The preceding post was not a Slashvertisement.
39. Re:Bonobo Chimpanzee by infaustus · 2012-06-14 10:15 · Score: 1
  
  I thought the post had some trollish racial subtext.
  
  --
  Frosty piss posts are worthless, GNAA posts are worthless and hurtful, but they are the least of this site's neuroses.
40. Re:Bonobo Chimpanzee by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-14 10:28 · Score: 0
  
  The definition of "species" is more fuzzy than "can they interbreed or not", and can also differ depending on the context in which you are trying to define it.
  Wikipedia's page explains pretty well.
41. Re:Bonobo Chimpanzee by bmo · 2012-06-14 10:37 · Score: 1
  
  The big picture depends largely on interbreeding. While I have simplified it, I'm not wrong, just not detailed to your satisfaction. This is slashdot. It is not a place for writing one's doctoral dissertation on taxonomy.
  --
  BMO
42. Re:Bonobo Chimpanzee by ZigiSamblak · 2012-06-14 11:10 · Score: 5, Funny
  
  Well, that does explain why they don't visit Slashdot.
43. Re:Bonobo Chimpanzee by EdIII · 2012-06-14 11:27 · Score: 1
  
  If you inseminate a Great Dane with Chihuahua semen, it would have fertile puppies
  Yes, Yes... but would the Chihuahua survive the birth?
44. Re:Bonobo Chimpanzee by ShanghaiBill · 2012-06-14 12:11 · Score: 1
  
  Yes, Yes... but would the Chihuahua survive the birth?
  Sure. Remember, it is only half Chihuahua. Also, Great Dane puppies are bigger than Chihuahua puppies, but the proportional size is much closer than with adult dogs. Small dogs are able to do this by having much smaller litters. Great Danes will have 8-10 puppies in a litter. Chihuahuas will have 2-4.
45. Re:Bonobo Chimpanzee by Intropy · 2012-06-14 12:14 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  They aren't. Chimpanzee is a genus (Pan) not a species. Bonobo (Pan paniscus) is a species on chimpanzee. The other extant species of chimpanzee is the common chimpanzee (Pan troglodytes). Those two species of chimpanzee are diffierent species from one another for the same reason any other two species of animal in the same genus are, they can't reliably produce offspring that can themselves reliably produce offspring.
46. Re:Bonobo Chimpanzee by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-14 12:18 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  It seems like Parent is trolling for "You can't define a species, therefore Evolution is a bunch of bullshit", so I'm going to nip that in the bud. "Species" as we define them in the family tree of organisms are merely labels of convenience for common animals of the present, and those of the past that are of significance due to either their place in the evolutionary timeline and/or the fact that they're one of the rare few we've gotten good fossil evidence for (fossil formation is a rare event). When you take a big picture view of all life on the planet over all time, the distinction of "species" actually has very little meaning. Most animal populations, on the large timescale, are in a constant process of evolution.
  Speciation is fluid. AnimalX from year Y, and something very like AnimalX from year Y+1000 might be able to inter-breed if they met through a time machine, although they probably already differ in several minor features. Fast-forward another several hundred thousand years, and you might be hard-pressed to even identify which (zero or more) surviving animals are descendants of AnimalX's genetics and which aren't, much less try to interbreed them.
  The notion of a fixed "Species" is really only even remotely relevant when you're talking about one localized animal population at a single point in time. Trying to come up with a rigorous definition for the "boundary" between distinct species is futile: Species will fluidly evolve into other things over time gradually. Even experts in the field regularly argue over the boundaries between well-known species, but they also realize that their arguments aren't about the science of speciation, they're about convenient labels and categorization systems for pools of beings of interest.
47. Re:Bonobo Chimpanzee by Coren22 · 2012-06-14 12:26 · Score: 1
  
  Naa, they are laughing at the Liger, those things are fugly.
  
  --
  APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
48. Re:Bonobo Chimpanzee by busyqth · 2012-06-14 14:14 · Score: 1
  
  Those two species of chimpanzee are diffierent species from one another for the same reason any other two species of animal in the same genus are, they can't reliably produce offspring that can themselves reliably produce offspring.
  Got any citation for this?
49. Re:Bonobo Chimpanzee by __aaltlg1547 · 2012-06-14 16:29 · Score: 1
  
  If it could happen, bonobos would make it happen. Oversexed little bastards...
50. Re:Bonobo Chimpanzee by __aaltlg1547 · 2012-06-14 16:35 · Score: 2
  
  But have they been separated long enough to become reproductively incompatible? For 12000 years, aboriginal Americans were separated from old world humans, but when Columbus sailed, lo and behold the people were reproductively compatible. Australian aborigines were separated even longer, and dingos longer than that if you count generations instead of years, but no speciation occurred.
  Reproductive isolation is apparently necessary for speciation, but not sufficient.
51. Re:Bonobo Chimpanzee by __aaltlg1547 · 2012-06-14 16:40 · Score: 1
  
  That doesn't follow. It's possible for different ends of a population chain like that to be genetically incompatible.
52. Re:Bonobo Chimpanzee by __aaltlg1547 · 2012-06-14 16:42 · Score: 1
  
  So the pigs on Maui are not the same species as the pigs in Iowa?
53. Re:Bonobo Chimpanzee by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-14 18:27 · Score: 1
  
  I don't think they can produce fertile offspring with a bonobo.
54. Re:Bonobo Chimpanzee by Dracophile · 2012-06-14 22:29 · Score: 1
  
  Wait a minute:
  
  If A is the same species as B and B is the same species as C, then A is the same species as C.
  is not the same as
  
  If A can interbreed with B and B can interbreed with C, then A is the same species as C.
  
  --
  Athy, athier, athiest.
55. Re:Bonobo Chimpanzee by sFurbo · 2012-06-14 23:05 · Score: 2
  
  This definition is crap though. If animal A can interbreed with animal B, and animal B with C, but A cannot with C, then you cannot define the species.
  
  This makes all definitions of species crap. Species is a human construct that nature does not care about. As long as you are aware of that, it is fine to use definitions with problematic corner cases.
56. Re:Bonobo Chimpanzee by brusk · 2012-06-15 00:16 · Score: 1
  
  No, they're not quite the same thing. But in the case of ring species, by normal standards A and B would be the same species and B and C would be the same species but A and C would not.
  
  --
  .sig withheld by request
57. Re:Bonobo Chimpanzee by RivenAleem · 2012-06-15 03:14 · Score: 2
  
  If animal A can interbreed with animal B, and animal B with C, but A cannot with C, then you cannot define the species.
  Seriously, if A can breed with B, then we have a scenario where A is male and B is female. This makes the Pairing between B and C such that B is female and C is Male. Animals A and C could never (successfully) breed as they would be both male.
  Also B is somewhat of a slut.
58. Re:Bonobo Chimpanzee by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-15 05:45 · Score: 0
  
  Or blacks to whites.
59. Re:Bonobo Chimpanzee by egamma · 2012-06-15 07:16 · Score: 1
  
  Is this an accurate depiction of the genetic situation, or did you just make it up?
  It's pretty close. read the Bonobo article on Wikipedia
  relevant quotes: " the bonobo genome is about 0.4% divergent from the chimpanzee genome" "Initial genetic studies characterised the DNA of chimpanzees (common chimpanzee and bonobo, collectively) as being as much as 98% (99.4% in one study) identical to that of Homo sapiens." "the genetic differences between chimpanzees and humans, covering 98% of the same genes."
  
  --
  Battlemaster--Game with friends in medival realms
60. Re:Bonobo Chimpanzee by mcgrew · 2012-06-15 08:01 · Score: 1
  
  Considering the "bonobo's" twice in his comment, my guess is either a) he's not a native speaker, so he may not have made it up, and is either accurate or he may have mis-written it and changed the meaning completely from what he meant to write, or b) He's a fucking high school dropout and the last book he ever read was Cat In The Hat and nothing he says should be given any credibility whatever.
  To paraphrase Twain, the aliterate has no advantage over the illiterate. If you sound like an ignorant dufus, there's a good chance you are an ignorant dufus. You should always be skeptical of anybody who doesn't know the difference between lose and loose, there their and they're, and when, when not, and why an apostrophe should be used. Anyone who has read more than a handful of books doesn't make those retarded mistakes.
  
  --
  Free Martian Whores!
61. Re:Bonobo Chimpanzee by busyqth · 2012-06-15 08:09 · Score: 1
  
  That doesn't say anything like what you said.
  There is no indication in that that quote that Bonobos share genes with humans that they don't share with chimpanzees, which is what you asserted.
62. Re:Bonobo Chimpanzee by metaforest · 2012-06-15 13:46 · Score: 1
  
  12000 years is not even close to long enough for speciation. In order for this to happen you would be looking at timelines on the order of millions of years.
  At the very least you would be looking at minimums of many hundreds of thousands of years.
  Homo Sapiens have not been around long enough.
63. Re:Bonobo Chimpanzee by cthulhu11 · 2012-06-15 18:32 · Score: 1
  
  The whole interbreeding thing wrt species is distinctly flawed. Heck, snakes hybridize across *genera*.
64. Re:Bonobo Chimpanzee by Hognoxious · 2012-06-15 19:07 · Score: 1
  
  Nobody knows if they can cross-breed and produce fertile offspring. Nobody has tried to cross-breed them.
  I hereby invoke rule 34.
  
  --
  Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
65. Re:Bonobo Chimpanzee by Hognoxious · 2012-06-15 19:14 · Score: 1
  
  We get all that, twerp.
  The question isn't whether they do, but whether they could if one lot jumped on an airplane.
  
  --
  Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
66. Re:Bonobo Chimpanzee by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-15 20:00 · Score: 0
  
  It doesn't say where on the Venn diagram that 0.4% would go. Logic fail.
67. Re:Bonobo Chimpanzee by Hognoxious · 2012-06-15 20:02 · Score: 1
  
  Such vitriol. Did the cat shit in your slippers again?
  
  --
  Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
68. Re:Bonobo Chimpanzee by __aaltlg1547 · 2012-06-16 02:59 · Score: 1
  
  OK, so how long have bonobos been isolated from Pan troglodytes? What keeps them from crossbreeding other than interference from modern people?
69. Re:Bonobo Chimpanzee by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-16 03:27 · Score: 0
  
  Humans deserve at least an honourable mention.
  Not if humans can't spell honorable correctly. The human race speaks American, damnit!
70. Re:Bonobo Chimpanzee by metaforest · 2012-06-16 06:37 · Score: 1
  
  1.5 to 2 million years ago a big fucking river formed in their neighborhood. Pans do not swim well enough to cross that river. And they are not quite smart enough to make boats or bridges.
  The isolation between them is most likely not perfect, on the time scale of 2My... but it appears to have been effective.
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congo_River
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bonobo
71. Re:Bonobo Chimpanzee by __aaltlg1547 · 2012-06-16 17:08 · Score: 1
  
  Indeed, that's the boundary. I don't think it has provided sharp isolation for 2 million years or anything like that. River channels are not stable over time. They form loops and subchannels, digging into one bank. They form islands on one side and end up connecting them on the other side. You can see this happening in the present-day Congo near the mouth, also near Kinshasa and everywhere above N2 45' E16 11.5'. If you go on Google Earth you'll see this clearly. Also you can see evidence of more ancient channels to either side.
  Animals on one side don't have to cross the river to get on the other side. The river will do it for them. In order for this NOT to happen they would have to stay away from the river.
  The ranges of both animals must have varied a lot during the last million years so it's very likely that some animals were transferred in both directions.
72. Re:Bonobo Chimpanzee by metaforest · 2012-06-16 18:50 · Score: 1
  
  The Congo is clearly a somewhat porous barrier, for the reasons you have given. However, it appears to have been effective enough to isolate the Pans long enough to create the cultural and biological differences. Which was my point.
  More interesting questions for me are:
  a) Why did Chimps become aggressive, and Bonobos (relatively) docile.
  b) Which social pattern did the Pans start with?
  c) How long have their social patterns been divergent?
73. Re:Bonobo Chimpanzee by metaforest · 2012-06-16 19:07 · Score: 1
  
  Sorry to post a second reply.. but something just occurred to me. The section of the Congo that overlaps the Pan's range doesn't behave like a river so much as a big lake. I wonder if typical river behavior applies for that section of the Congo and relatedly, how long that section of the river as been swollen.
  An additional question on that front would be what has the Pan's home range over the last 2 million years. Did they extend into ranges where the Congo is less of a barrier, and how long ago was that?
  Such questions might relate to how much mixing has occurred, if any. The way things are at present social differences between the two make it highly unlikely that they could interbreed in the wild even though it is biologically possible, and has been recorded under artificial situations.
74. Re:Bonobo Chimpanzee by __aaltlg1547 · 2012-06-17 03:57 · Score: 1
  
  I guess I assume that until a few thousand years ago, both Pan species ranged more widely and that humans pushed them to more remote areas only recently. I know that's assuming a lot. I think the difference here is I'm thinking of how recently they might have crossbred while you're thinking about how long ago they might have been separated.
  None of us know how long ago there might have been Pan troglodytes bands south of the river or Pan paniscus north of the river.
  It's hard to say why their social patterns emerged. The difference is very stark. I'd suggest that their parent species was more like us than either of them is today, or maybe more like gorillas. It seems like the violence of P. troglogytes is now innate, given the tendency of adult males raised by humans to rip your face off. P troglodytes might have become more and more agressive due to being pushed into remote areas where there was intense competition for food and range. P. paniscus might have stayed ahead of predation by maximizing their rate of reproduction,
No real surprise here by doston · 2012-06-14 06:29 · Score: 5, Funny

Always figured they were closely related to man, considering how endlessly horny they are.
1. Re:No real surprise here by knappe+duivel · 2012-06-14 06:35 · Score: 2, Funny
  
  Always figured they were closely related to man, considering how endlessly horny they are.
  Always figured they were closely related to me, considering how endlessly horny they are.
2. Re:No real surprise here by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-14 06:52 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  humans: somewhere between licentious bonobos and face tearing chimpanzees.
3. Re:No real surprise here by Bill_the_Engineer · 2012-06-14 10:33 · Score: 1
  
  Always figured they were closely related to man, considering how endlessly horny they are.
  Well they are an Irish rock band... Oh wait... Wrong Bonobos.
  
  --
  These comments are my own and do not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of my employer or colleagues...
4. Re:No real surprise here by __aaltlg1547 · 2012-06-14 16:55 · Score: 1
  
  I always figured that chimpanzees were closer, considering how prone to violence they are.
5. Re:No real surprise here by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-14 23:52 · Score: 0
  
  Humans - the place where the falling angel meets the fucking (rising in the original quote by T.P.) ape....
  Posting AC because of moderation
I've suspected this for a long time actually. by conspirator23 · 2012-06-14 06:30 · Score: 2, Funny

I always figured that conservatives evolved from the innocent-seeming but violent, territorial, face-eating chimpanzees, and liberals evolved from those oversexed, touchy-feely bonobos. Now we know the truth!
1. Re:I've suspected this for a long time actually. by bill_mcgonigle · 2012-06-14 06:44 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  I always figured that conservatives evolved from the innocent-seeming but violent, territorial, face-eating chimpanzees, and liberals evolved from those oversexed, touchy-feely bonobos. Now we know the truth!
  Real liberals, yeah. The socialists who think nothing of threatening others with violence to get their way - chimps.
  
  --
  My God, it's Full of Source!
  OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
2. Re:I've suspected this for a long time actually. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-14 06:54 · Score: 1
  
  Based on the toilet sex scandals and the cases of yoga-rage those characteristics are distributed evenly from a common ancestor. It's just a matter of gene expression, which is clearly a function of street address.
3. Re:I've suspected this for a long time actually. by Curunir_wolf · 2012-06-14 08:01 · Score: 2
  
  Let me guess, the "violence" you are talking of is actually the fact that you have to pay taxes to finance part of the society that is supporting you?
  Just like chimps, the coercive hierarchy is primarily enforced by the mere threat of violence. And, similarly, an occasional example must be made.
  
  --
  "Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
  --- Jerry Garcia
4. Re:I've suspected this for a long time actually. by conspirator23 · 2012-06-14 08:29 · Score: 1
  
  Well I was trying to be an equal opportunity offender there, but it's good to see those competetive instincts are driving you to take the lead in the brittle, self-important market niche.
5. Re:I've suspected this for a long time actually. by serviscope_minor · 2012-06-14 08:32 · Score: 0
  
  Real liberals, yeah
  Real liberals or true scotsmen?
  The socialists who think nothing of threatening others with violence to get their way
  Basically everyone threatens others with violence to get their way, especially if their way means not being murdered, enslaved, etc, etc, etc.
  
  --
  SJW n. One who posts facts.
6. Re:I've suspected this for a long time actually. by bill_mcgonigle · 2012-06-14 08:34 · Score: 1
  
  Well I was trying to be an equal opportunity offender there, but it's good to see those competetive instincts are driving you to take the lead in the brittle, self-important market niche.
  I was just being matter of fact about it. Nice of you to bring ego into it.
  
  --
  My God, it's Full of Source!
  OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
7. Re:I've suspected this for a long time actually. by bill_mcgonigle · 2012-06-14 08:41 · Score: 1
  
  Let me guess, the "violence" you are talking of is actually the fact that you have to pay taxes to finance part of the society that is supporting you?
  Here, let me genericize that for you:
  
  the "violence" you are talking of is actually the fact that you have to _______ or you'll be hurt
  I favor non-violent regulation.
  
  --
  My God, it's Full of Source!
  OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
8. Re:I've suspected this for a long time actually. by bill_mcgonigle · 2012-06-14 08:51 · Score: 1
  
  Real liberals or true scotsmen?
  The usage of the word that predominated from the Enlightenment until FDR attempted to re-define it and conflate it with governmental positivism.. The liberal concept itself goes back at least to Sumer (that's as far back as we have written evidence).
  Basically everyone threatens others with violence to get their way, especially if their way means not being murdered, enslaved, etc, etc, etc.
  Political and moral philosophers make a distinction between the initiation of violence and a violent response required to defend against violence. The former is generally understood when talking about violence in political terms. Another term that's used is "(non)aggression". Don't tread on me, porcupines, etc. - there are many metaphors used.
  
  --
  My God, it's Full of Source!
  OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
9. Re:I've suspected this for a long time actually. by Mindcontrolled · 2012-06-14 08:52 · Score: 1
  
  So, you would be "fine" with paying taxes, as long as no one enforced it on you? I.e. making it basically voluntary?
  
  --
  Ubi solitudinem faciunt, pacem appellant.
10. Re:I've suspected this for a long time actually. by MiniMike · 2012-06-14 09:15 · Score: 1
  
  Similar to my first thought on this subject. What I want to know is if you combine the DNA from a Bonobo and a Chimp, do you have enough to make a particular Hungarian politicain?
11. Re:I've suspected this for a long time actually. by mfwitten · 2012-06-14 09:39 · Score: 1
  
  Yes. It's called commerce: Paying for services and goods that you use directly. (Note that this doesn't preclude pushing one's expenses onto the costs paid by someone else further down the line of trade.)
12. Re:I've suspected this for a long time actually. by bill_mcgonigle · 2012-06-14 10:08 · Score: 2
  
  So, you would be "fine" with paying taxes, as long as no one enforced it on you? I.e. making it basically voluntary?
  Absolutely. Except you can't call them taxes, because taxes, by definition, are backed by violence or threats thereof. Voluntary payments are not a problem.
  Except, say in the case of welfare, I'd donate money to the organization that has the best services and the lowest expense ratios. The government's expense ratios for welfare are sky-high, but if the same people were competing peacefully for my money and doing a great job, I'd donate to them too.
  I'd also happily pay to travel on well-maintained roads and support the local schools that do a good job teaching their students.
  Since I'd have nearly double my current income, I'd have plenty to donate too. I already volunteer at least 600 hours a year for nonprofits, but without wasteful taxes I'd have some money to give them as well.
  
  --
  My God, it's Full of Source!
  OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
13. Re:I've suspected this for a long time actually. by Sentrion · 2012-06-14 10:25 · Score: 0
  
  It's not entirely far-fetched. Half of the richest members of the Republican party pay so little tax that it might as well be voluntary.
  www.drudge.com/news/157634/bartlett-more-rich-pay-no-taxes
  money.cnn.com/2012/06/07/pf/taxes/rich-who...no...tax/index.htm
  www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-17661011 (yes, you Brits have the same problem!)
  Seriously though, in a socialist system that "gives away" free healthcare, retirement benefits, subsidized housing, employment rights, etc. taxes should be voluntary. Those who refuse to pay taxes should not be "entitled" to things like passports, government ID, protection of human rights (ie if your neighbor abuses you or enslaves you, do not expect rescue from tax supported law enforcement), enforcement of private contracts, right to private property, right to vote, etc. Selective Service Registration should also be voluntary in such a state. In such a system anyone who accepts and uses a social security number (or other form of government issued ID) voids any claim to be free from taxation. Anyone who begins their adult life consuming the benefits of government services should be required to pay an exit tax which would equal the estimated benefits received minus the taxes paid into the system. BTW - if you use US currency, are you not benefiting from the service provided by the US Treasury? "Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's..." Consuming services without paying and with no intent to pay is theft and unjust enrichment. This legal doctrine is already enforced even in cases of implied consent, such as receiving medial treatment while unconscious - so no getting out of medical bills just because you were not able to say "no, I won't pay!" The punishment for such theft is forceful detention, both in a practical matter to restrain further theft, to deter future theft, and to deter others from even thinking about it. Resisting detention or attempting to escape may result in personal injury or death.
  In such a voluntary system all future benefits would be forfeited by those who refuse to pay. Hopefully exceptions would continue to be made for those with limited means. Those who do not want to pay would be just one step away from denouncing citizenship - a right already made available to most US citizens after they leave US territory, present themselves in person to a US embassy or consulate, fill out an application, and pay a $600.00 fee. I could see a case for allowing individual "sovereign" citizens the right to refuse all government services, pay no taxes, and live basically like an illegal immigrant that cannot be deported. But who would want to live that way? Most illegal immigrants would love to pay taxes if it would make them "legal". Most illegals actually pay taxes anyway during the natural process of living and working in the US. Such a "sovereign" citizen living in the US would have to rely on his own ability to defend what he claims is his own property with force. If a thief takes his possessions, what right would he have to receive aid from police? Same as if another "sovereign" citizen were to squat on his land and lock him out of his own home. Such "sovereign" citizens wouldn't be much different than two homeless beggars fighting over the same abandoned warehouse to which neither holds title nor lease.
  So, in theory, I agree that taxes should be voluntary and nobody should be forced to pay under threat of force, but were such a "voluntary" system feasible, what reasonably minded person would choose to be a non-payer?
14. Re:I've suspected this for a long time actually. by Coren22 · 2012-06-14 12:30 · Score: 2
  
  You point out the repubs that don't pay taxes, but I'll bet there are just as many demos that don't pay...
  
  --
  APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
15. Re:I've suspected this for a long time actually. by __aaltlg1547 · 2012-06-14 16:57 · Score: 1
  
  Could be true for bonobos and chimps too. They don't live on the same streets.
16. Re:I've suspected this for a long time actually. by rbrander · 2012-06-15 05:25 · Score: 1
  
  The good news is that people also say that about software. The bad news - only 5% of users pay their shareware fees.
17. Re:I've suspected this for a long time actually. by bill_mcgonigle · 2012-06-15 05:55 · Score: 1
  
  The bad news - only 5% of users pay their shareware fees.
  Right, but open source has proven itself to be a far more successful model than shareware. Non-zero-sum games.
  
  --
  My God, it's Full of Source!
  OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
18. Re:I've suspected this for a long time actually. by Sentrion · 2012-06-15 09:20 · Score: 1
  
  Probably true...but if you got upset about it and told them to pay up, they would. Tell the same to a repub and they start loading their shotguns and barricading their doors and windows.
19. Re:I've suspected this for a long time actually. by Hognoxious · 2012-06-15 21:35 · Score: 1
  
  Except, say in the case of welfare, I'd donate money to the organization that has the best services and the lowest expense ratios.
  
  You appear to have misspelled "spend it on blackjack and hookers"
  
  --
  Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
20. Re:I've suspected this for a long time actually. by Hognoxious · 2012-06-15 21:38 · Score: 1
  
  Irrelevant. The point was that when people say "I would donate..." it's a lie 19 times out of 20.
  
  --
  Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
21. Re:I've suspected this for a long time actually. by bill_mcgonigle · 2012-06-16 03:30 · Score: 1
  
  Irrelevant. The point was that when people say "I would donate..." it's a lie 19 times out of 20.
  No, it's not. And you can find the statistics on how many people give how much of their disposable income to charity each year. It's over $1000 for every man, woman, and child in the US, and that's despite tax rates that can climb over 50% when fully considered.
  Besides, even if people were stingy and spending that money on themselves, that would mean more goods and services, hence lower unemployment and less need for charitable giving. Non-zero-sum games are wonderful like that.
  
  --
  My God, it's Full of Source!
  OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
News? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-14 06:30 · Score: 0

I thought this was known. My copy of The Ancestors Tale is several years old, and it says chimps and bonobs are closer cousins to each other than either is to humans, which means they are equally distantly related to humans, genetically speaking.
1. Re:News? by Ungrounded+Lightning · 2012-06-14 09:56 · Score: 1
  
  I thought this was known.
  I also thought that the consensus was that bonobos were at least as closely related to humans as chimps are. Further, I had heard bonobos were thought to be substantially closer to humanity than chimps are. This news would be that gene sequencing shows bonobos are AS DISTANT from humans as chimps, not that they're AS CLOSE.
  My copy of The Ancestors Tale is several years old, and it says chimps and bonobs are closer cousins to each other than either is to humans, which means they are equally distantly related to humans, genetically speaking.
  Just because they're more closely related to each other than they are to us doesn't mean they're equally related to us. For insatnce, imagine the three in a line on a "genetic distance" map, with humans at one end of the line, one of (chimps, bonobos) at the other end, and the other nearly in the middle between us.
  
  --
  Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
2. Re:News? by Xtifr · 2012-06-14 13:04 · Score: 1
  
  Just because they're more closely related to each other than they are to us doesn't mean they're equally related to us. For insatnce, imagine the three in a line on a "genetic distance" map, with humans at one end of the line, one of (chimps, bonobos) at the other end, and the other nearly in the middle between us.
  Yeah, it kinda does, unless they've been around long enough to have developed different rates of genetic drift, which would be extremely unlikely in species that have diverged so recently. I'm not sure what you mean by a "genetic distance map", but a standard clade map, as shown here should make it clear why bonobos and chimps are equadistant from humans (and why humans/bonobos/chimps are almost certainly equadistant from gorillas).
1% of three billion by Bill,+Shooter+of+Bul · 2012-06-14 06:35 · Score: 4, Insightful

Three billion DNA pairs in human dna. 1% is 30 million. So we differ by 30 million dna pairs. To the layperson, saying we have 30 million differences explains the differences quite well versus 99% in common.

--
Well.. maybe. Or Maybe not. But Definitely not sort of.
1. Re:1% of three billion by codewarren · 2012-06-14 07:01 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  The difference from humans to other humans can be 3 million base pairs, (0.1%), for perspective. 30 million (a factor of 10) doesn't seem like that much.
2. Re:1% of three billion by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-14 07:01 · Score: 1
  
  This seem superficially to be reasonable, but in fact this is even more misleading than the 99% figure. You have to remember the sheer quantity of useless stuff in our genome, as well as the redundancy of protein structure. Almost half of the human genome is derived form a specific class of genetic parasite called retrotransposons, there are many other types of repetitive element too. Structural DNA,which needs to be roughly the same but who's actual content has little value, includes the centromere (middle bit of the chromosomes) and the telomeres (end bits) . In addition to this the genetic code is redundant so almost 1/3 of changes have no affect, and most of the amino acids in most proteins can be substituted for similar ones again with little or no affect, only big changes in important areas actually matter.
  Added to this
  "Typical human and chimp homologs of proteins differ in only an average of two amino acids. About 30 percent of all human proteins are identical in sequence to the corresponding chimp protein."
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chimpanzee_genome_project
  So 30 million differences, most of which are just line noise, the real visible changes are in a much smaller set of actually important sites, and many (even most) of these are not important in "making us human" but just disease resistance.
3. Re:1% of three billion by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-14 07:04 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  Humans have 23 chromosome pairs.... 46 chromosomes in total. In women, there are 2 X and in males, 1X and 1Y. Males of our species share 45/46 or 98% with females.
  Explains why I understand male monkeys much better than female humans
  Oooh Oooh Ah Ah Ah
4. Re:1% of three billion by Bill,+Shooter+of+Bul · 2012-06-14 07:08 · Score: 1
  
  While I respect scientific authority to a large extent, I'm not sure how serious to take their current understanding of the subtle interpay between various parts of our genome. There is still a great deal that is not understood, which makes it a great time to be in the field. I think in another 20- 30 years when the result of all of this reasearch is as obvious as the world champion 95 year old sprinter's bulging leg muscles, I'll have more faith in their prouncements on the ultilization of various parts of the genome.
  
  --
  Well.. maybe. Or Maybe not. But Definitely not sort of.
5. Re:1% of three billion by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-14 07:25 · Score: 1
  
  your argument boils down to that I can not be certain of everything so you are right.....
  There may indeed be an underestimation by current methods, but that does not change the fact that most of the 30 million differences do nothing. If the regions they where in where actually important and they did something then they would show the inheritance patterns of selection, which they do not, whether or not we understand what is being selected for or against is unimportant for this. Only about 600 genes show signs of selection although each may have more than one change in it.
6. Re:1% of three billion by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-14 07:30 · Score: 0
  
  Same kernel, different GUI?
7. Re:1% of three billion by Bill,+Shooter+of+Bul · 2012-06-14 08:19 · Score: 1
  
  No, its not an argument.
  On one level its like brining in a fifthgrader and having them watch a lecture on quantum electro dynamics and then asking him if he agrees with the lecture.
  On the other level its a questioning of the confidence level of the field's understanding. Science moves at a certain rate, growing more confident of findings over time as the wealth of research.
  
  --
  Well.. maybe. Or Maybe not. But Definitely not sort of.
8. Re:1% of three billion by TFAFalcon · 2012-06-14 10:57 · Score: 1
  
  Different scheduler.
9. Re:1% of three billion by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-14 11:39 · Score: 0
  
  30 million (a factor of 10) doesn't seem like that much.
  True. At least for some people it doesn't.
10. Re:1% of three billion by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-14 12:07 · Score: 0
  
  Each chromosome does not have the same amount of useful genetic information. The sex chromosomes are much less than 1/46 of our genes.
11. Re:1% of three billion by gstrickler · 2012-06-14 14:35 · Score: 1
  
  But if you RTFA, you'll find out it's not a 99%/1% split, it's about 1.6% different, so with rounding, it should be 98%, 98.4%, or 98.5% (depending upon your rounding criteria). So, it's not 30M, it's 48M pairs difference.
  
  --
  make imaginary.friends COUNT=100 VISIBLE=false
12. Re:1% of three billion by __aaltlg1547 · 2012-06-14 17:34 · Score: 1
  
  This seem superficially to be reasonable, but in fact this is even more misleading than the 99% figure. You have to remember the sheer quantity of useless stuff in our genome, as well as the redundancy of protein structure.
  What useless stuff? Can you identify it? Would you be willing to have it deleted in your children and replaced with harmless filler from another species? Do you think something that looks and acts like a human being would result?
13. Re:1% of three billion by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-14 19:03 · Score: 0
  
  Yeah, which makes me wonder why so many people are so confident there are no racial differences.
  If 1% difference in DNA produces such a difference between chimp and human, why wouldn't genes make for a significant difference between say Khoikhoi and Ashkenazi Jew?
  Of course from the perspective of an Alien creature there may be no big difference between a worm (e.g. c elegans) and a human...
14. Re:1% of three billion by sFurbo · 2012-06-14 23:54 · Score: 1
  
  Sure, there is a lot of things we don't know about non-coding DNA, but there are quite a lot of DNA which we do know performs at most very little useful work. Things like pseudogenes, SINEs and LINEs (the last two might be useful, but we don't need 500.000 and 1.500.000 copies of them, respectively, especially not when most of the copies are broken). A lot of or DNA is certainly junk, but that is not an acurate description of all non-coding DNA.
15. Re:1% of three billion by sFurbo · 2012-06-15 00:09 · Score: 1
  
  For a lot of it, yes. 42% of human DNA consists of retrotranposons or remnants of retrotransposons, and much of that is whole or partial copies of the same strand. We don't need 500.000 LINEs, most of them broken, or 1.500.000 SINEs. Pseudogenes are mostly useless, as can be seen from their mostly constant rate of mutations (if they weren't useless, selection would keep down the rate of mutation as the harmful mutations would be weeded out).
  
  There is certainly a lot we do not know about non-coding DNA, and some of it is surely useful (as can be seen from the rate of mutations), but for much of it, we can say that it serves very little function, if any.
16. Re:1% of three billion by metaforest · 2012-06-15 14:09 · Score: 1
  
  Some of the non-coding DNA is structural. Without it the strands would not fold correctly, and that would have dire consequences for transcription and protein assembly. To the degree that non-coding sequences function as desired, their exact sequence appears to be (mostly) irrelevant. The noise in those sequences makes perfect sense in that there is very little selection pressure for them to have an exact 'spelling.'
False by noh8rz3 · 2012-06-14 06:35 · Score: 0

My mom is my closest relative.
1. Re:False by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-14 06:43 · Score: 0
  
  She's not your mother.
2. Re:False by dietdew7 · 2012-06-14 06:44 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  Is she a bonobo or a chimpanzee?
3. Re:False by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-14 07:36 · Score: 0
  
  You are your closest relative.
4. Re:False by Sentrion · 2012-06-14 09:43 · Score: 1
  
  Are you a bonobo or a chimpanzee?
Chimps? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-14 06:35 · Score: 1

Erm, Bonobos (Pan paniscus) are "chimps": they share the genus "Pan" (=chimpanzee") with the "common chimpanzee" (Pan troglodytes).
1. Re:Chimps? by NoNonAlphaCharsHere · 2012-06-14 06:45 · Score: 1
  
  So dog == wolf == fox == coyote == jackal == dingo? Erm, no.
2. Re:Chimps? by Baloroth · 2012-06-14 07:00 · Score: 2
  
  Dog == wolf == dingo, yes (they are all in the canis lupus species). The other three are different species, but bonobos and common chimps are both often referred to as chimps: the only real reason they are considered separate species is that they have never been observed to interbreed (which doesn't mean they can't). They do have a few physical differences, but then again so do Asians and Caucasians.
  
  --
  "None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license." --John Milton
3. Re:Chimps? by alva_edison · 2012-06-14 07:05 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  Well dog == wolf == dingo is true, they are all Canis lupus (C. lupus familiaris, C. lupus lupus, C. lupus dingo).
  Coyote and Jackal (and occassionally wolf) are used for other species within the Canis genus, so are closely related.
  Foxes are members of the same sub-family, but a different genus, so the least related among the bunch.
  Also Canis Lupus and Canis latrans are able to produce viable offspring, but the viability decreases across generations. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canis_lupus_X_Canis_latrans
  
  --
  He effected a bored affect.
4. Re:Chimps? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-14 07:09 · Score: 0
  
  "they have never been observed to interbreed (which doesn't mean they can't)" this can also be said of humans and chimps....(although in this case they would probably be infertile) do you really think that they are the same species as us ? do you want to try? Also if they do not normally interbreed in the wild they are not the same species, even if they can, so you are wrong there too (and they would not be the same even if they did Chihuahua DOES NOT equal Alsatian)
5. Re:Chimps? by loufoque · 2012-06-14 07:51 · Score: 1
  
  You think no one tried that one before?
6. Re:Chimps? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-14 09:21 · Score: 1
  
  You think no one tried that one before?
  
  Well, chimp/bonobo hybrids exist, but even a passing familiarity with bonobo behavioral characteristics, hybridized with a passing familiarity with human behavioral characteristics (Rule 34), suggests that it would be unwise to google for anything related to bonobo/human hybridization experiments. :)
7. Re:Chimps? by __aaltlg1547 · 2012-06-14 17:52 · Score: 1
  
  Erm, Bonobos (Pan paniscus) are "chimps": they share the genus "Pan" (=chimpanzee") with the "common chimpanzee" (Pan troglodytes).
  Pan troglodytes has one of the stupidest scientific names imaginable. They don't live in caves. They live in the forest. Pan silvani?.
  My Latin's no good, so that's probably the wrong ending.
Re:uninteresting consequence of the decimal system by fiannaFailMan · 2012-06-14 06:37 · Score: 1

So what if they share 99% of our DNA? We perhaps share 50% with a banana. And we all share 100% of a few dozen chemical elements.
We're related to just about every living thing on this planet that has a face. I think that's pretty mind blowing.

--
Drill baby drill - on Mars
Comparison by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-14 06:38 · Score: 0

The bonobo has three times the intelligence of the "slashdotius anonymious cowardius" species.
1. Re:Comparison by Cosgrach · 2012-06-14 06:52 · Score: 2
  
  Since you posted as AC, I guess that this makes sense.
  
  --
  Why is it that most of the people that I encounter seem to have been shat from the Sphincter of Mediocrity?
2. Re:Comparison by PPH · 2012-06-14 16:44 · Score: 1
  
  You're just asking to have them fling their mod points at you.
  
  --
  Have gnu, will travel.
Nope... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-14 06:38 · Score: 0

I didn't come from no monkey's butthole
1. Re:Nope... by UnknownSoldier · 2012-06-14 06:42 · Score: 2
  
  That's OK you are still an ass :)
  I jest, I jest.
2. Re:Nope... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-14 06:46 · Score: 0
  
  The two of you owe me a new keyboard.
3. Re:Nope... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-14 06:50 · Score: 0
  
  I didn't come in no monkey's butthole
  TFTFY. And yes - yes, you did.
4. Re:Nope... by Grayhand · 2012-06-14 07:23 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  I didn't come from no monkey's butthole
  It's an honest mistake. Most people just assume there's a family resemblance.
5. Re:Nope... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-14 09:33 · Score: 0
  
  That's OK you are still an ass :)
  And now, a third Anonymous Chimp joins the fray by playing (human) DJ MC 900 Foot Jesus, and Born With Monkey Asses.
  "Because baboons have their own female species!"
6. Re:Nope... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-14 10:12 · Score: 0
  
  That's OK you are still an ass
  Or vagina.
  http://idle.slashdot.org/story/12/06/11/1141253/raunchy-dance-routine-a-pr-nightmare-for-microsoft
Two different closest living relatives? by Empiric · 2012-06-14 06:40 · Score: 0, Offtopic

Okay, I read this twice.
Two. Different. Species. Equally. Close.
On behalf of the Old Earth Creationists, let me request that this is presented such it doesn't practically beg Young Earth Creationists to scoff at science here.

--
~ Whence do you come, slayer of men, or where are you going, conqueror of space?
1. Re:Two different closest living relatives? by bmo · 2012-06-14 06:50 · Score: 2
  
  Young Earth Creationists scoff at any science related to genetics, no matter how it's presented.
  OECs, less so, but Creationism as an "ism" that takes Biblical allegory and perverts it into something else.
  --
  BMO
2. Re:Two different closest living relatives? by chispito · 2012-06-14 06:52 · Score: 1
  
  On behalf of the Old Earth Creationists, let me request that this is presented such it doesn't practically beg Young Earth Creationists to scoff at science here.
  I have no idea what you're saying here. Please clarify.
  
  --
  The Daddy casts sleep on the Baby. The Baby resists!
3. Re:Two different closest living relatives? by ShadowRangerRIT · 2012-06-14 06:58 · Score: 1
  
  What is wrong with this? Logically, if one species splits in two, and one of the resulting species splits again, you're going to have both of those secondary split species related to the other with fairly close similarity. Did you know that I'm equally closely related to all of my first cousins (to within a small margin of error)? That's not all that surprising is it?
  
  --
  $_ = "wftedskaebjgdpjgidbsmnjgcdwatb"; tr/a-z/oh, turtleneck Phrase Jar!/; print
4. Re:Two different closest living relatives? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-14 06:58 · Score: 1
  
  Look at the three branches of a Y. The ends can all be equally close, yet different.
  It ain't that hard.
5. Re:Two different closest living relatives? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-14 06:58 · Score: 1
  
  Perhaps it can easily be explained to those Creationists;
  Some moment in time, they genetically seperated from us, some time later they genetically seperated from each other.
6. Re:Two different closest living relatives? by Hatta · 2012-06-14 06:58 · Score: 1
  
  I am not able rightly to apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question. Do creationists really have a problem understanding that multiple objects could be equidistant? Hell, do they have a problem with multiple siblings all being equally closely related?
  If any of these concepts pose the slightest difficulty for you, please refrain from forming any opinions on anything scientific or technical. Your brain just isn't up to the job.
  
  --
  Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
7. Re:Two different closest living relatives? by jofer · 2012-06-14 06:59 · Score: 1
  
  And what exactly is improbable with having two different species that are genetically equally similar to Homo sapiens sapiens? How in the world would that cause anyone to "scoff at science"?
8. Re:Two different closest living relatives? by Empiric · 2012-06-14 07:00 · Score: 2
  
  Well, no, "Creationism" as it's commonly-used is a deliberate invalid collapsing into one word two different and non-dependent notions, first that the universe was created, and second the entirely distinct notion that it is 6000 years old.
  
  Though commonly-used this way (particularly by atheists), to attempt to sneak a False Dichotomy Fallacy into the discussion by offering only one word implying both, and thus demanding the listener either accept or reject both premises together, this is invalid usage of any word, going all the way back to Aristotle...
  
  ...but that's a conversation for another day.
  
  --
  ~ Whence do you come, slayer of men, or where are you going, conqueror of space?
9. Re:Two different closest living relatives? by Hentes · 2012-06-14 07:01 · Score: 1
  
  Two. Different. Species. Equally. Close.
  No surprises here as distance is symmetric.
10. Re:Two different closest living relatives? by hondo77 · 2012-06-14 07:05 · Score: 1
  
  Creationists beg to scoff at science every chance they get.
  
  --
  I live ze unknown. I love ze unknown. I am ze unknown.
11. Re:Two different closest living relatives? by Empiric · 2012-06-14 07:05 · Score: 1
  
  "Fairly close" I'd have no problem with. "Equally close", in the context of genetics, doesn't make much literal sense. Also, we are -descendants- in the OP's case, not predecessors. There's a reproductive causality problem the other way around, I think.
  
  --
  ~ Whence do you come, slayer of men, or where are you going, conqueror of space?
12. Re:Two different closest living relatives? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-14 07:06 · Score: 0
  
  Between three objects??
  That would be a surprise.
13. Re:Two different closest living relatives? by berashith · 2012-06-14 07:11 · Score: 1
  
  so both of these concepts are equally close , and share 99% of their content with each other?
14. Re:Two different closest living relatives? by bmo · 2012-06-14 07:19 · Score: 1
  
  Well, no, "Creationism" as it's commonly-used is a deliberate invalid collapsing into one word two different and non-dependent notions, first that the universe was created, and second the entirely distinct notion that it is 6000 years old.
  No. Creationism is the conflating of the Creation Stories (two of them) as science, or trying to use them as a basis of a weird frankenstein-monster of bad logic posing as science. like Intelligent Design trotted out by the Discovery Institute.
  arguing semantics instead of the facts on the ground
  Aristotle
  See, the problem with Aristotle is that a bunch of his stuff was simply gedankenexperiments to explain the world. Many of them wildly false.
  I will not even address the semantics BS.
  >your username - empiric, as in empirical, as in science and testable hypotheses.
  I find that most ironic. Do you wear that appellation as a joke?
  Or do you wear it in the second sense of the word, a charlatan or quack?
  --
  BMO
15. Re:Two different closest living relatives? by Empiric · 2012-06-14 07:19 · Score: 1
  
  We'll use High School geometry to answer all questions in any epistemological domain! Brilliant! ;)
  A Ferrari is 99% close to a Ford Escort, then. Trade ya.
  
  --
  ~ Whence do you come, slayer of men, or where are you going, conqueror of space?
16. Re:Two different closest living relatives? by Empiric · 2012-06-14 07:24 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  Okay, I -accept- the universe was created, and -reject- that it is 6000 years old.
  Pick the word you want to use for that, as they're never mutually dependent.
  The rest is the standard boilerplate Ad Hominem and Genetic Fallacy, so I'll be skipping that. Code to do.
  And yes, I did test it. The test confirmed.
  
  --
  ~ Whence do you come, slayer of men, or where are you going, conqueror of space?
17. Re:Two different closest living relatives? by Mindcontrolled · 2012-06-14 07:33 · Score: 1
  
  I tend to be a bit confused by the old-earth creationists, though. In the particular flavor I tend to encounter them - i.e. Catholics - they will basically accept scientific facts. But, if you do that, how do you end up with anything else than either a "god of the gaps"-model or a completely deistic approach. Since most well-educated Catholics I talked to do not tend towards the god of the gaps, I have to wonder how you can arrange the image of a personal god with a basically deistic creation account within your mind.
  
  --
  Ubi solitudinem faciunt, pacem appellant.
18. Re:Two different closest living relatives? by Xtifr · 2012-06-14 07:33 · Score: 1
  
  Since there is (obviously) variation within a single species' genome, "equally close" can only refer to a statistical model in any case. And I'm not sure what your comment about "descendents" has to do with anything. Chimps and bobobos both come from a common ancestor that had already split from the human branch, so it's seems fairly obvious that they would be equally close within any reasonable approximation of closeness.
19. Re:Two different closest living relatives? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-14 07:35 · Score: 0
  
  Not in the usage I know, It tends to get used as a label for people who believe that god created things individually rather then creating and then than twisting or exploiting natural processes. The former eg the special creation( of each branch of life, or planet, etc.) is contradicted by the evidence the latter, eg theistic evolution is not.
20. Re:Two different closest living relatives? by bmo · 2012-06-14 07:37 · Score: 1
  
  But Creationism is not science. It's not testable. It doesn't even come close to the testability of abiogenesis hypotheses. It is based on a Biblical interpretation. It is NOT SCIENCE.
  With regards to your last sentence:
  That is the same "la la la" fingers-in-ears that I get from Bible literalists.
  And btw, I'm not the one who picked your name. You did.
  --
  BMO
21. Re:Two different closest living relatives? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-14 07:53 · Score: 0
  
  How are you your cousin's predecessor?
  OK, again. Your mother's sister had two children: your cousin Chimp and your cousin Bonobo. Chimp and Bonobo are very different in temper, and Bonobo moved across the river because she didn't like to be beaten up by Chimp all the time, but as far as genes go they're pretty close. You are related to both of them, but to a lesser extent than they are interrelated. You are related to both equally, because your branch split from theirs before they were born (one generation earlier). It makes perfect sense.
22. Re:Two different closest living relatives? by Empiric · 2012-06-14 08:10 · Score: 1
  
  No, not at all. It is not testable -per your preferred methodology-.
  Your preferred methodology is not the only one there is, because you say so by fiat.
  
  --
  ~ Whence do you come, slayer of men, or where are you going, conqueror of space?
23. Re:Two different closest living relatives? by Empiric · 2012-06-14 08:20 · Score: 1
  
  So then, how is the OP informative? By that standard, the number "equally close" would be arbitrary. For some reason, these particular two are noted. Why?
  The situation most resembling "optimally close" would be a chimpanzee and bonobo mating, which would obviously be... causally problematic.
  
  --
  ~ Whence do you come, slayer of men, or where are you going, conqueror of space?
24. Re:Two different closest living relatives? by Empiric · 2012-06-14 08:27 · Score: 1
  
  Mainly because "god of the gaps" is a notion made up by atheists to reference something nobody means by the term "god"--a being that would be able to design particular biological entities, but unable to design evolution.
  There is fallacious reasoning here, but it is introduced by the term referencing a meaningless definition, "god" as supposedly "of the gaps". The fallacious reasoning here is "owned" entirely by the person presenting the term.
  My position would be that everything is designed, we simply don't have complete information as to "special case" design (creating a particular organism via a distinct act), and "process design" (creating particular organisms as a determined function of an designed process--evolution). I have no "gaps" at all, regardless of the scientific resolution of the particular method(s) used.
  
  --
  ~ Whence do you come, slayer of men, or where are you going, conqueror of space?
25. Re:Two different closest living relatives? by Mindcontrolled · 2012-06-14 08:31 · Score: 1
  
  Yes, I do understand that, but doesn't that leave you at an essentially deistic position? God as the supreme engineer who set up the universe in such a way that we in our current form were inevitable? That's what I am wondering about.
  
  --
  Ubi solitudinem faciunt, pacem appellant.
26. Re:Two different closest living relatives? by Empiric · 2012-06-14 08:34 · Score: 1
  
  To add a bit to this, the "god of the gaps" argument depends on the notion that once we have a most-proximate cause, preceding causes cease to be valid possibilities.
  
  What "caused" the atomic bomb explosion in Nagasaki? A nuclear chain reaction as describable via physics, or the President of the United States, ordering that it be dropped? The answer is, naturally, both. Specifying the former cause does not supersede or invalidate the latter cause.
  
  --
  ~ Whence do you come, slayer of men, or where are you going, conqueror of space?
27. Re:Two different closest living relatives? by Xtifr · 2012-06-14 08:40 · Score: 1
  
  Um, you seem to be the "OP" in this thread. Do you mean TFA or TFS? And I'm not really sure what the point of your original post is, but that may be because I don't keep careful track of the distinctions between the delusions of science deniers. But I really have no idea what point you're trying to make now. When it comes to comparing how closely related species are, bonobos and chimps should be expected to be equally close to humans. If you had any understanding of science, you wouldn't find that controversial or confusing, so apparently you don't, but since I have no idea what sort of nonsense you actually believe, it's hard for me to address your specific points of confusion and misapprehension. This unsuprising study has confirmed an expected result, which is not exactly earth-shattering news (unless you somehow believe it threatens your pseudo-scientific views), but it's nice to know.
28. Re:Two different closest living relatives? by Empiric · 2012-06-14 08:43 · Score: 1
  
  We need to be careful not to introduce a False Dichotomy here... my stance is that God both created everything, and "intervenes" in an ongoing fashion.
  
  To tie it back to biology, we will ultimately determine that there are, or are not, "Irreducibly Complex" structures per Behe's et al notion. If there are, it would be a case of "intervention", if not, it would be from my stance a case of initial process design, of the Big-Bang/abiogenesis/evolution. Either are compatible with the notion of a "designing god".
  
  --
  ~ Whence do you come, slayer of men, or where are you going, conqueror of space?
29. Re:Two different closest living relatives? by bmo · 2012-06-14 08:46 · Score: 1
  
  If Creationism is not Religion, Capital R, where did it come from?
  Do I have to cut-and-paste the Dover PA School Board case here?
  --
  BMO
30. Re:Two different closest living relatives? by Empiric · 2012-06-14 08:49 · Score: 0
  
  Let me just say...
  Yawn.
  I understand a broad range of the sciences just fine. The question remains, even if you couldn't avoid such pedantic hair-splitting as "TFA" versus "OP".
  It is being noted that there are now a count of two "equally close" hominids. It remains my contention that this conceptually makes no sense on a literal level.
  
  --
  ~ Whence do you come, slayer of men, or where are you going, conqueror of space?
31. Re:Two different closest living relatives? by Mindcontrolled · 2012-06-14 08:50 · Score: 1
  
  Ok, thanks. That clarifies it. The first ones have not been found, though - if they continue not to be, you will end up with the cosmic engineer without interventions, though - just wanted to make clear if that would be a position you are compatible with.
  
  --
  Ubi solitudinem faciunt, pacem appellant.
32. Re:Two different closest living relatives? by rthille · 2012-06-14 08:54 · Score: 1
  
  Um, yeah, we share a common ancestor. You're equally closely related to all of your 1st cousins.
  
  --
  Awesome furniture, accessories and cabinetry in Santa Rosa, CA: http://humanity-home.com/
33. Re:Two different closest living relatives? by rthille · 2012-06-14 08:55 · Score: 1
  
  Okay, I -accept- the universe was created, and -reject- that it is 6000 years old.
  Pick the word you want to use for that
  Retarded?
  
  --
  Awesome furniture, accessories and cabinetry in Santa Rosa, CA: http://humanity-home.com/
34. Re:Two different closest living relatives? by Empiric · 2012-06-14 08:57 · Score: 2
  
  You already fully demonstrated your failure to understand what a Genetic Fallacy is, so no need to cut-and-paste regarding Dover.
  
  Other than that, I'm not sure why the topic-switch. I never contended that "Creationism" isn't "Religion", nor would that in any way be relevant to it being correct.
  
  I contended that usage of a single concept to indicate two distinct and independent premises, is invalid formation and/or use of a concept. This remains your issue, which, again, some introductory epistemology should cure you of.
  
  --
  ~ Whence do you come, slayer of men, or where are you going, conqueror of space?
35. Re:Two different closest living relatives? by Empiric · 2012-06-14 09:02 · Score: 1
  
  Without proven interventions of the nature of direct genetic manipulation, anyway. The issues of causality around the "selection" part of Natural Selection would be quite a broader question...
  
  --
  ~ Whence do you come, slayer of men, or where are you going, conqueror of space?
36. Re:Two different closest living relatives? by Xtifr · 2012-06-14 09:04 · Score: 1
  
  It is being noted that there are now a count of two "equally close" hominids. It remains my contention that this conceptually makes no sense on a literal level.
  And I don't understand how you can possibly contend something so ridiculous if you actually, as you claim, "understand a broad range of sciences just fine". Would you care to elaborate? I thought the earlier example of two cousins who are equally closely related to the poster illustrated it perfectly.
  Bonobos and Chimps are equally closely related to humans because they both spring from a small branch that is all equally closely related to humans. In fact, together, they constitute all existing members of that branch. (Some might even claim that they're more-or-less the same species.)
37. Re:Two different closest living relatives? by Empiric · 2012-06-14 09:12 · Score: 1
  
  Heh. Cute.
  In my defense, though, I do see your sig's point on how you just accept one less political stance than I do. Glad your reasoning showed you why you shouldn't vote.
  
  --
  ~ Whence do you come, slayer of men, or where are you going, conqueror of space?
38. Re:Two different closest living relatives? by Empiric · 2012-06-14 09:30 · Score: 1
  
  Right, so precisely back to my previous objection--it isn't notable that there are now "two" (rather than the previous "one", presumably), if by definition according to the model "all" descendants of that branch are "equally related".
  How is TFA even marginally notable in that case?
  
  --
  ~ Whence do you come, slayer of men, or where are you going, conqueror of space?
39. Re:Two different closest living relatives? by bmo · 2012-06-14 10:30 · Score: 1
  
  I am deliberately ignoring your "Genetic Fallacy" argument because you keep glossing over the fact that OEC and YEC come from the exact same place, just that one group disagrees over the time span.
  They are grouped together because when you get down to it, they are the same thing - an interpretation of a few lines of the Bible.
  Now put up or shut up. Show me where OEC comes from if not the Bible.
  --
  BMO
40. Re:Two different closest living relatives? by Sentrion · 2012-06-14 10:39 · Score: 1
  
  I believe that the Flying Spaghetti Monster created the earth and all that is in it. This is supported by literature and historical records that I have researched. The Flying Spaghetti Monster theory has been espoused upon by some of the finest, most educated, most credentialed minds in academia. I do not worship the Flying Spaghetti Monster, nor do I even revere him. I do not know anyone who does. I have never seen a structure erected for his worship, nor tax-deductible tithes paid to advance his kingdom. While I've observed some pray to their god(s) before a bowl of Spaghetti, I've never known anyone to pray to Spaghetti. Ergo, Creationism Religion.
  OK. I'm full of crap. Creationism is Religion.
41. Re:Two different closest living relatives? by swillden · 2012-06-14 10:44 · Score: 1
  
  Given that we haven't yet found any evidence of God's hand that would stand up to skeptical scrutiny, I posit that God does not want us to find scientific proof of His creation or intervention. There's even a clear and simple reason: presence of scientific proof would remove the requirement to first have faith before knowledge can be obtained. If God has a reason not to provide us with proof, we won't find proof. If God does not have such a reason, I think we'd have found something by now. Also, for theological reasons I believe that faith as a pre-requisite for knowledge is an essential, fundamental part of God's plan. Therefore, I expect that no compelling examples of irreducible complexity will be discovered.
  
  --
  Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
42. Re:Two different closest living relatives? by Xtifr · 2012-06-14 11:37 · Score: 1
  
  It's not by definition--one species could have experienced an unexpected level of genetic drift. It is, however, the expected result, barring something weird going on. As for why TFA is notable, I have no idea. Doesn't seem particularly notable to me. Still, it's nice to have experiment confirm theory.
43. Re:Two different closest living relatives? by Empiric · 2012-06-14 12:24 · Score: 1
  
  What's to "gloss over"? They come from "the exact same place"... well, so what? So does everything, in some sense, regardless of topic. Is that supposed to speak to what's true in some way?
  "Put up or shut up"? Nice bluster, but maybe you should manage to come up with the merest beginning of a rational argument, first.
  OEC "comes from" God. One particular effect of the existence of that God is the bible, which may also be referenced. Aquinas, among many others, has a laundry list of other sources of inferential support, and there are a number of approaches to seeking direct experience of God. Is the fact you personally haven't considered them or experienced them supposed to be in some way other than your personal subjective experience, and a remarkably narrow one?
  
  --
  ~ Whence do you come, slayer of men, or where are you going, conqueror of space?
44. Re:Two different closest living relatives? by bmo · 2012-06-14 12:31 · Score: 1
  
  >OEC "comes from" God.
  No, no it doesn't. It comes from Man.
  Logic, you fail it. I'm done here.
  --
  BMO
45. Re:Two different closest living relatives? by Empiric · 2012-06-14 12:34 · Score: 0
  
  ...and man comes from God. I didn't think you could both commit a False Dichotomy Fallacy and fail to understand proximate and ultimate causation in a couple brief sentences, but you managed.
  And yes, you are quite done here, objectively, whether you choose to be or not.
  
  --
  ~ Whence do you come, slayer of men, or where are you going, conqueror of space?
46. Re:Two different closest living relatives? by dudpixel · 2012-06-14 16:11 · Score: 1
  
  You misunderstand, as do almost all non-creationists today.
  Creationism, true, is not science. But it can be supported by evidence through scientific processes.
  Science is not just one single pile of experiments and results that all agree with each other. science represents many things.
  So you can divide science into many different areas, and many of those areas wouldn't agree with each other. Science moves forwards through new discoveries invalidating old theories, and new theories being formed.
  Traditional science, which I believe is what you're referring to, which has what we might call "the standard model" etc. is built on some fundamental assumptions, including:
  * the conditions in the world today have existed forever, right back until the big bang, before which nothing existed.
  * the present can be used to understand the past.
  Creation science is just an alternative worldview, with different assumptions. It doesn't seek the same goal, but that doesn't mean it cannot be science. Traditional science uses the above assumptions to try to find details of the world(s) around us. Creation science looks at the world around us and tries to find evidence in support of the worldview assuming the assumptions of that worldview.
  The two fields are not really competing, because they don't have the same goal, and they don't always operate in the same fields.
  
  --
  This seemed like a reasonable sig at the time.
47. Re:Two different closest living relatives? by dudpixel · 2012-06-14 16:23 · Score: 1
  
  Just to clarify the creationist stance.
  Creationists do not (and should not) scoff at all science.
  They may however scoff at the assumptions made by science. To be fair, they should not scoff at all, but just recognise that there are two alternative worldviews (probably more) with different assumptions.
  One assumes that the present gives us everything we need to know to explain the past, ie. that the present conditions have always existed. The other assumes that The Biblical record is accurate, along with all the assumptions that arise out of that (creation, flood etc).
  The first uses evidence of a few hundred (or is that thousand?) years of scientific records, to back up the assumption that the present conditions have existed forever, and the rest is a model to show that it COULD work, without full evidence to show that it does. Any evidence shown is interpreted using the aforementioned assumption.
  The biblical worldview uses fulfilled prophecy, historical accuracy, and textual consistency as evidence for its other claims. ie. if A is true, and A says that B is true, then we assume B is true because we can verify that A is true. From there, creation scientists observe our current world(s) to look for direct evidence of B.
  Another often overlooked point is that evidence is agnostic. All evidence requires interpretation, and all interpretation has to fit into some worldview, and interpretations are often based on other interpretations, and other assumptions. If any one of those assumptions is wrong, the interpretation is bogus.
  At the same time, a single piece of evidence could be interpreted to support either worldview, depending on which assumptions are made.
  All I'm saying is that science has gone off on its own tangent, and really we should just accept that we could all be wrong and mind our own business.
  
  --
  This seemed like a reasonable sig at the time.
48. Re:Two different closest living relatives? by bmo · 2012-06-14 19:54 · Score: 1
  
  >But it can be supported by evidence through scientific processes.
  No, no it can't. Because "God Did it" is not a testable hypothesis.
  --
  BMO
49. Re:Two different closest living relatives? by sFurbo · 2012-06-15 01:24 · Score: 1
  
  Traditional science, which I believe is what you're referring to, which has what we might call "the standard model" etc. is built on some fundamental assumptions, including: * the conditions in the world today have existed forever, right back until the big bang, before which nothing existed.[...]
  No it isn't. If it was, testing for temporal variation in the fundamental constants would not be science, which it is. The only thing that can be kind of described as a basic assumption in science is that the world makes sense, i.e. that we can find laws of nature (I guess that is close to the second assumption you mentioned), but as every scientific experimatn is a test of this, it isn't even really a assumption.
  
  As for creationism, it's main assumption is "goddidit is a valid explanation for anything we don't currently understand or want to understand" and, perhaps "If it is written in this one book is must be correct. This only goes for this one book, and we ignore the many parts where it contraditcts itself".
  
  Traditional science uses the above assumptions to try to find details of the world(s) around us.
  No need for the "traditional" here, science is using observation to tell us things about the world around us.
  
  Creation science looks at the world around us and tries to find evidence in support of the worldview assuming the assumptions of that worldview.
  Trying to make your observations fit your preconceptions is not science. It is about as far from sceince as anything comes.
50. Re:Two different closest living relatives? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-15 08:02 · Score: 0
  
  hahahah +1
51. Re:Two different closest living relatives? by dudpixel · 2012-06-18 16:16 · Score: 1
  
  >But it can be supported by evidence through scientific processes.
  No, no it can't. Because "God Did it" is not a testable hypothesis.
  --
  BMO
  huh?
  So the BIble contains a lot of history, most of which we can verify through archeology, and other means. That is absolutely testable.
  It also contains records of events that happened. We know the date of the manuscripts, we also know the time periods that different parts were written in, since they have been independently verified against other historic records of each time period. And when things such as the destruction of Tyre were prophesied, and eventually happened, that is real evidence. Same for the destruction of the temple in Jerusalem.
  You can also test whether the Bible agrees with itself. Sure many people will claim inconsistencies, but all of these are based on a simplistic interpretation often by people who are looking for inconsistencies, and therefore not willing to put in the effort it takes to work it all out.
  There are bits of information and claims made all through the Bible, a lot of which can be tested against things we know now.
  So how much faith do you have in the big bang? where is the evidence-based science behind the origins of life?
  The Bible isn't the only thing that requires faith. There are more pieces that science doesn't know, than those it does know. Most origins science is not testable, which is why assumptions are made. The assumption that all radioactive decay rates have always been constant, is not testable. Many fields of science are based on that assumption.
  
  --
  This seemed like a reasonable sig at the time.
52. Re:Two different closest living relatives? by dudpixel · 2012-06-18 16:25 · Score: 1
  
  the 2 assumptions were one and the same thing. If you cannot use the present to determine the past, then how could you know what the decay rates of radioactive isotopes were 4 billion years ago? The fact is, no one knows, and so we just assume that because our measurements over the past couple hundred years show very little variation, it must have never varied.
  You can apply this to many areas of origins science. When we don't know something, we assume our model is true, and look for ways to explain what we can see based on the current model.
  Isn't this what you just said WASN'T science?
  How many times do you read of some new finding that seems to contradict our current model, and then some scientist comes up with a plausible explanation for how it could fit into the current model, and then everyone accepts it as true and moves on.
  
  --
  This seemed like a reasonable sig at the time.
53. Re:Two different closest living relatives? by sFurbo · 2012-06-19 06:30 · Score: 1
  
  If you cannot use the present to determine the past, then how could you know what the decay rates of radioactive isotopes were 4 billion years ago? The fact is, no one knows, and so we just assume that because our measurements over the past couple hundred years show very little variation, it must have never varied.
  If you cannot use the present to determine the past, how do you know that our measurements over the past couple of hundred years have shown very little variation? Because it is written down? But the text is in the present, and so cannot be used to determine the past. If you cannot use the present to determine the past, how do you know that yesterday existed? You have memories, but they are in in the present, and so cannot be used to determine the past. Assuming that we can use the present to determine the past is assuming that the world makes sense, which isn't even really an assumption of science (it is tested by every experiment, and even by everybody all the time).
  
  When we don't know something, we assume our model is true, and look for ways to explain what we can see based on the current model.
  You are conflating two quite different kinds of assumptions here: The kind you talked about in GGPP (and thus the kind I talked about in GPP) is a priori assumptions, which cannot be tested in the framework. It simply doesn't make any sense to test them, as the framework is based upon them. Creationism has them, science doesn't really. The kind you mention in PP is closer to the assumptions made in proof by contradiction, i.e., let's see what would happen if X was true. They are needed for any prediction, so science is full of them.
  
  Making assumptions you never test (a priori assumptions) is not science, making predictions (the second kind of assumptions) is.
54. Re:Two different closest living relatives? by dudpixel · 2012-06-19 16:36 · Score: 1
  
  I think you misinterpreted what I said, but who cares?
  Using writings from the past is a great example, because this is exactly what creationists use - but I don't think that was what you wanted to demonstrate.
  However, I still think that "writings from the past", provided they can be age-verified, are still "the past" and not what I was referring to when I said "the present".
  I'm talking about measurements from nature. We can measure things over time, and we only really have limited results, so any conclusions we make from the data we have now, might be included in what I term "assumptions".
  But regarding assumptions, maybe we're just using different definitions....for example:
  How do we know that radioactive decay has always been constant?
  So you could claim that your "let's see what would happen if X was true" covers this one. So that if the decay rates weren't constant, then many areas of science would disagree, and since there are so many things that fit together nicely given constant decay rates, then it is likely that they were constant. This seems to be how it all works now. So long as the hypothesis seems to fit all the known data, it is accepted as true. Then other theories are built on top of it, and we are now at a point where we cannot challenge any fundamental theories because the cost is too high - there is too much riding on it.
  How do we know the "laws of nature" have always been there? Where did they come from? To say "they just are" sounds a bit like the "goddidit" argument...yet science must draw the line somewhere. And so we make assumptions, because not everything is testable, and not everything is falsifiable.
  How can we use calculations over the past 100 years to extrapolate details from millions of years ago?
  What is the point of using the assumptions of one worldview to try to disprove another? This doesn't make any sense.
  What I mean by this is that current scientific theory/interpretations cannot be used to disprove creation, and vice versa. One can use pieces of evidence to cast doubt on a theory, but that doesn't make any other theory true. People should just accept that neither side will agree and just move on. We share the same data - we just interpret it differently.
  I think I can guess what your answers will be, and I don't think I will find them satisfactory. I'm happy to call it a day here :-)
  
  --
  This seemed like a reasonable sig at the time.
Left out importance facts! by Quiet_Desperation · 2012-06-14 06:42 · Score: 1

Are they single?
not surprised... by lothie · 2012-06-14 06:42 · Score: 1

Since bonobos are the same genus, I'm not really surprised that they would be as close to us, genetically, as the other members of that genus (there are only two species in the genus Pan). But maybe there's just something I'm missing about how biology works (which wouldn't be surprising either since I'm not a biologist).
What next? by ackthpt · 2012-06-14 06:43 · Score: 1

What next? Donald Trump?

--

A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
1. Re:What next? by NoNonAlphaCharsHere · 2012-06-14 06:49 · Score: 2
  
  What species is that thing on his head?
2. Re:What next? by Kupfernigk · 2012-06-14 07:19 · Score: 1
  
  Mephitis mephitis.
  
  --
  From scarped cliff or quarried stone she cries "A thousand types are gone, I care for nothing, no not one."
3. Re:What next? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-14 07:21 · Score: 0
  
  What species is that thing on his head?
  Rod Blagojevich.
Or vagina by drainbramage · 2012-06-14 07:02 · Score: 1

Sorry.

--
No brain, no pain.
Re:uninteresting consequence of the decimal system by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-14 07:05 · Score: 0

And about 90% of what makes you "You", isn't even human. It's bacteria on your skin, in your gut, etc.
Re:uninteresting consequence of the decimal system by oldmac31310 · 2012-06-14 07:05 · Score: 1

But not to someone whose face was torn off by a chimpanzee, right?

--
http://www.acetonestudio.com
No... by Kupfernigk · 2012-06-14 07:06 · Score: 3, Interesting

Foxes are members of the genus vulpes (the ones we see around are vulpus vulpus). The wolf is canis lupus and the domestic dog is considered to be a subspecies, canis lupus familiaris. Coyotes are a different genus again. Jackal is not a taxonomic description. The dingo is a subspecies of canis lupus and is derived from domestic dogs run wild.
So the GP is right, and you are creating a complete straw man. Wolf, dog and dingo are all part of the same genus but for historic reasons dogs and dingos are only formally called wolves, not in colloquial speech. Foxes and coyotes are from different genera and are not dogs. "Jackal" is a colloquialism. Because pan paniscus and pan troglodytes are in the genus pan, they can both quite properly be called chimpanzees, just as we refer to members of the genus homo as "men", though we are no more like h. afarensis than bonobos are like p. troglodytes. When I tell my dog not to behave like a little wolf, he can reasonably argue that he is one, just one adapted for a specific ecological niche.

--
From scarped cliff or quarried stone she cries "A thousand types are gone, I care for nothing, no not one."
1. Re:No... by Tyler+Durden · 2012-06-14 08:22 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  When I tell my dog not to behave like a little wolf, he can reasonably argue that he is one, just one adapted for a specific ecological niche.
  If your dog's making reasonable arguments then he's filling a rare ecological niche indeed. Impressive!
  
  --
  Happy people make bad consumers.
2. Re:No... by niado · 2012-06-14 08:45 · Score: 1
  
  Not to detract from the good explanation of the situation in your post, but some corrections, and additional explanation:
  
  Coyotes are in the wolf genus (though currently still considered a different species) - Canis latrans. Coyotes and wolves can actually interbreed and produce viable offspring, and have been shown to do so in the wild. Domestic dogs are considered a subspecies of wolf.
  
  "Jackal" is, as you say, a colloquialism, and includes the species Canis mesomelas, Canis adustus, and Canis aureus. The two former seem unable to produce viable offspring with any of the other members of the genus Canis. Canis aureus is actually more closely genetically related to wolves and coyotes than it is to the other two "Jackals". They can breed with wolves though it is unknown if they have done so in the wild.
  
  There are 7 genus of foxes (vulpes designating the "true foxes"). There have been no confirmed instances of foxes interbreeding with members of Canis.
  
  There are also a number of other members of the "dog family" (canids) that have varying genetic differences.
  
  As the canids illustrate, species and other taxonomic divisions are artificial constructs that scientists find useful. There is no hard-line method of determining what is classified as a distinct species. See: the species problem.
3. Re:No... by bitt3n · 2012-06-14 10:50 · Score: 1
  
  When I tell my dog not to behave like a little wolf, he can reasonably argue that he is one, just one adapted for a specific ecological niche.
  vulpus quibbilificus
  
  --
  how many pairs of boxer shorts should you own?
4. Re:No... by Disfnord · 2012-06-15 01:47 · Score: 1
  
  Also, there is no such thing (currently) as homo afarensis. Perhaps he means Australopithecus afarensis? But that is a different genus, and as such is not referred to as "human".
5. Re:No... by RivenAleem · 2012-06-15 03:49 · Score: 1
  
  I wonder if I can get his dog to train my wife.
6. Re:No... by Joey+Vegetables · 2012-06-15 04:36 · Score: 1
  
  Yep. One for which the majority of humans seem spectacularly unsuited.
  
  --
  
  Nonaggression works!
Re:uninteresting consequence of the decimal system by eternaldoctorwho · 2012-06-14 07:20 · Score: 1

Or eaten off by another human. ...Oh, what? Too soon?
Re:uninteresting consequence of the decimal system by SpeZek · 2012-06-14 07:21 · Score: 5, Insightful

We're related to just about every living thing on this planet that has a face. I think that's pretty mind blowing.
Nope. We're related to every living thing on this planet full stop .
After all, we all share the same ancestor if you go back far enough.
I fail to see how this is surprising by Xtifr · 2012-06-14 07:25 · Score: 4, Insightful

Doesn't the evidence show that bonobos and chimps split from their common ancestor long after protohumans split from the common ancestor of all three? In which case, isn't this more-or-less exactly what you'd expect?
1. Re:I fail to see how this is surprising by Michael+Woodhams · 2012-06-14 11:31 · Score: 2
  
  Yes, but in science we still test what we expect to be true. Also, I'm sure that the '% difference from humans' number was not the primary goal of this research, just an easy and interesting number to calculate once you have the data for other purposes.
  Rates of genetic evolution can vary along different lineages, so it is possible that since the Bonobo/Chimp split, one had evolved faster than the other. It would have been surprising, however, for the rates to be substantially different after such a short time.
  
  --
  Quattuor res in hoc mundo sanctae sunt: libri, liberi, libertas et liberalitas.
2. Re:I fail to see how this is surprising by Xtifr · 2012-06-14 12:06 · Score: 1
  
  Yes, but in science we still test what we expect to be true.
  Yeah, I've got absolutely no problem with that. Glad to see it done, in fact. I'm just a little puzzled why a seemingle mundane confirmation of an expected result made slashdot's front page.
My closest human relatives? by Virtucon · 2012-06-14 07:28 · Score: 0

My closest human relatives live in Louisiana and they're not Bonabos or Chimps from what I can tell.

--
Harrison's Postulate - "For every action there is an equal and opposite criticism"
1. Re:My closest human relatives? by Sentrion · 2012-06-14 10:27 · Score: 1
  
  You should hose them down to make sure.
Ugh? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-14 07:34 · Score: 0

They both had the same common ancestor, so they're both equally as far away from us as each other. Now I suppose if they're counting mutations... differences only, it's possible there have been more in one than the other..
1. Re:Ugh? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-14 13:23 · Score: 0
  
  That was the whole point of TFA, their genome was sequenced, ie. they counted the mutations and they had an equal number of non-equivalent mutations.
Day-age creationism by tepples · 2012-06-14 07:36 · Score: 1

Okay, I -accept- the universe was created, and -reject- that it is 6000 years old.
Pick the word you want to use for that
I have a few words for that: "day-age creationism", and "sensible".
Bonobos? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-14 07:49 · Score: 0

That's gay.
Bonobos are the closest. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-14 07:53 · Score: 0

Old news, bonobos are the closest.
I read that as Balmer Joins Chimps As Closest .... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-14 08:28 · Score: 0

No doubt his place in the evolutionary pile.
Re:uninteresting consequence of the decimal system by oldmac31310 · 2012-06-14 08:29 · Score: 1

No, not all! Not soon enough! Keep the gut wrenching horror alive! Actually, this is the first I heard of it.

--
http://www.acetonestudio.com
Re:uninteresting consequence of the decimal system by cp.tar · 2012-06-14 08:34 · Score: 1

We are legion.

--
Ignore this signature. By order.
Re:uninteresting consequence of the decimal system by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-14 09:10 · Score: 0

Nope. We're related to every living thing on this planet full stop .
After all, we all share the same ancestor if you go back far enough.
Only if you're an evolutionist. Creationists, on the other hand, are related to nothing...
Not that similar by fm6 · 2012-06-14 09:36 · Score: 1

As I understand it, a typical Bonobo makes the horniest human look like a monk. They fuck practically their entire waking lives. They have almost no sexual taboos -- a female won't have sex with her offspring, but that's about it. A human who wanders into their camps will be propositioned immediately and often..
I often wonder if the lack of knowledge about them (it's not so long since researchers stopped calling them "pygmy chimps" and started regarding them as a separate species) comes from sheer embarassment.
1. Re:Not that similar by doston · 2012-06-14 14:22 · Score: 1
  
  As I understand it, a typical Bonobo makes the horniest human look like a monk. They fuck practically their entire waking lives. They have almost no sexual taboos -- a female won't have sex with her offspring, but that's about it. A human who wanders into their camps will be propositioned immediately and often..
  I often wonder if the lack of knowledge about them (it's not so long since researchers stopped calling them "pygmy chimps" and started regarding them as a separate species) comes from sheer embarrassment.
  Jane Goodall enjoys a good visit weekends.
Re:uninteresting consequence of the decimal system by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-14 09:43 · Score: 0

We're related to just about every living thing on this planet that has a face. I think that's pretty mind blowing.
Nope.
Are you saying that we're not related to just about every living thing on this planet that has a face?
Re:uninteresting consequence of the decimal system by Monkey-Man2000 · 2012-06-14 10:28 · Score: 1

We're related to just about every living thing on this planet that has a face. I think that's pretty mind blowing.
Nope. We're related to every living thing on this planet full stop .
After all, we all share the same ancestor if you go back far enough.
I'm not sure if we really know this for sure. I could image if the early earth had good conditions for making primordial soup worldwide that the first self-organizing "organisms" could arise independently in different puddles. They might conserve some similarities simply because the conditions were correct worldwide for some kind of self-organization through organic chemistry, but that doesn't necessarily mean everything has a common ancestor (i.e., the same great-great....great-great grandfather). One puddle may have ultimately resulted in humans while another one could have conserved some sub-category of bacteria that happens to have similar biology. This type of thing has happened many times since then (see Dawkins, etc.)

In fact, your suggestion seems to imply that the possibility of life arising under suitable conditions (i.e., other worlds) is even more highly improbable than I hope/think. Kind of scary actually...

--
This post was generated by a Cadre of Uber Monkeys for Monkey-Man2000 (603495).
bonobos + chimpanzees by danielpauldavis · 2012-06-14 12:11 · Score: 0

So what? Chimpanzees have at most 80% DNA similarity with humans. Or have you believed the hype? What a rube. Folks checking THE REST OF THE DNA have noticed that certain deceptive researchers cherry[picked which parts of the genetic code they'd sequence. Check all of it and one gets a very different story; obviously, as they wanted similarity, they only checked where they figured similarity would be, the cheaters.

--
Cranky educator.
Re:uninteresting consequence of the decimal system by Coren22 · 2012-06-14 12:34 · Score: 1

Seriously? Google for Bath Salt attacks, pretty crazy stuff.

--
APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
Re:uninteresting consequence of the decimal system by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-14 13:14 · Score: 0

Actually it's 98.7%
If you're going to talk about decimals at least use them.
Not news by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-14 13:29 · Score: 0

We've known this for a long, long time... I learned this in college 10 years ago. =|
I'm guessing the summary is just misrepresenting the discovery as a more complete sequencing showing, in pure statistical terms, what we've known without the full sequence?
Re:uninteresting consequence of the decimal system by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-14 14:08 · Score: 0

You sure about that? no chance of a seperate start to life at the bottom of the ocean?
Closest relative? by PPH · 2012-06-14 16:33 · Score: 1

Well, I'm sitting here, watching my kid. And it looks like a toss-up.

--
Have gnu, will travel.
Re:uninteresting consequence of the decimal system by __aaltlg1547 · 2012-06-14 17:32 · Score: 1

What number you get depends on the method of comparison. I've read every number between 94% and 99% for the fraction of DNA that humans share with chimpanzees. Since the bonobo is almost but not exactly a chimp, there's no surprise in this article. It's confirmation of what we thought we knew based on morphology. Yep! Bonobos are ALSO closely related to humans and chimps. Here's a site that states different numbers and discusses a number of other species: http://genetics.thetech.org/online-exhibits/genes-common And different numbers here: http://anthro.palomar.edu/primate/prim_8.htm To look at relatedness, there are more subtle measures. We have genetic tests now that can be used to establish probable paternity and measure genetic relatedness of individuals within the same species. These tests focus on differences in detail rather tnan overall similarity. Another thing to look at is chromosomes. People normally have 46 chromosomes. Chimps and bonobos normally have 48. Our chromosome 2 is divided into 2 chromosomes in chimps and I'm guessing also in bonobos.
Nope. You're related to mud. by Tatarize · 2012-06-14 21:39 · Score: 1

But are you mud on your mother's side or your father's side?

--

It is no longer uncommon to be uncommon.
Re:uninteresting consequence of the decimal system by sFurbo · 2012-06-14 23:43 · Score: 1

There are many pieces of evidence pointing to the fact that all known life share a common descent. For example, the basic biochemistry of all known life is similar, and the proteins that support the biochemistry is similar. Furthermore, the differences in the protein structure of the same protein follow the phylogenetic tree (based on how similar the species are). The first could be the only way to do it, the second is pretty damning, the third is outrageosly implausible if not caused by common descent.

That does not mean that all terran life shares a common descent (life with a completely different biochemistry would be hard to detect, or even recognize as life), or, if that is the case today, that that have always been the case. Life might have started several times, with one of the strains eventually outcompeting all of the others. This means that common descent is not necessarily a death stroke for alien life.
Re:uninteresting consequence of the decimal system by RivenAleem · 2012-06-15 03:46 · Score: 1

I saw a documentary on that recently. Turns out that the 'Engineers' of all life on Earth, tried to wipe us out. The most likely theory for why is that they intercepted a transmission of Jersey Shore.
charming by perles · 2012-06-15 06:11 · Score: 1

I always thought that female bonobos are quite chraming.
Charlie (Crazy) Darwin by Nobby21 · 2012-06-17 03:58 · Score: 1

Yes, Chimpanzees are a close relation to humans, as are Elephants, Snails, Ants, Whales, Dolphins ETC, ETC, ETC. Monkeys look similar, But are far, far removed from even coming close to being related any more than an elephant. I am constantly amazed at so called scientists contemplating such connection with no concrete evidence what so ever, Crazy people! Even Crazy Charlie Darwin admitted there is no connection, and yet to many he is god. As I say, Crazy!

--
Can't think of anything clever or funny.
Re:uninteresting consequence of the decimal system by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-17 11:28 · Score: 0

We’re related to everything since LUCA (Lowest Common Universal Ancestor), between 3.5 & 3.8 billion years agohttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Last_universal_ancestor. Faces have nothing to do with it, but it’s easier to greet a relative if you know which part to speak to.