"Robert Karl Stonjek"  wrote in
message news:c6fg14$24b3$1{at}darwin.ediacara.org...
> > I could be mistaken but it seems to be your contention
Bonobos are more
> > genetically similar to Homo Sapiens than chimpanzees are
to us. I've
> > read this before and I don't know how much significance
should be
> > attached to it. In any event both chimpanzees and
bonobos are very
> > genetically similar to us. But then in the field of
molecular genetics
> > we've learned rats, mice, dolphins and many other
creatures share our
> > many of our same genes. I think this speaks to the
interdependency of
> > evolution and life on earth. No organism is an island on
to itself. From
> > the bacteria billions of years ago to the invertebrates,
etc. they all
> > played an extremely complicated interconnected web of
life which we can
> > only see in hindsight through the fossil record and more
recently
> > molecular genetics. I think molecular genetics has more
potential for
> > mapping out the genetic similarities and dissimilarities
between species
> > than the fossil record does. We've only accounted for a
tiny fraction of
> > known fossils and that by itself is amazing but with
molecular genetics
> > we can genetically compare species with each other.
> >
> RKS:
> Some have argued that bonobos, chimps and humans should be
in the same
> genus.  Chimps and Bonobos are more closely related to
Humans than the next
> nearest ape, the gorilla.
>
> Humans almost certainly branched from the common ancestor
of the human and
> chimp line, Bonobos branched off the chimp line some time
later than the
> earliest known human precursor (Australopithecine).
>
> > For example, we know a dolphin is a mammal and that its
ancestor once
> > was entirely in the water. Eventually it came upon land
and became a
> > land dwelling creature but ultimately returned to the
ocean again.
> > Figuring out the evolutionary relationship between
dolphins and humans
> > through the fossil record and all the intermediate
relations involved is
> > likely an impossible task but through molecular genetics
we can discover
> > how genetically similar a dolphin is to a human. It was
not through
> > fossils that chimpanzees became to be known as our
closest cousin but
> > through molecular genetics which showed they share
somewhere between
> > 94-99% of their DNA with us.
> >
> RKS:
> Before genetics, the baboon was thought to be our closest
relative.
> The Baboon, as it turns out, is a tailless monkey.
>
> > I think paleontology is very important and can help shed
light on the
> > evolutionary relationships between organisms but I think
molecular
> > genetics is more productive at discovering the genetic
similaries and
> > dissimilarities between species. The only "disadvantage"
is apparently
> > molecular genetics can't use fossilized bones to exact
the genetic
> > constitution of an animal. But I think focusing on
species alive today
> > through molecular genetics is more important to
discovering the dead
> > fossilized remains of animals hundreds of millions to
billions of years
> > ago. Admittedly, it would be grand to find the
fossilized evolutionary
> > showcase of who are ancestor was but as remarked before
only a fraction
> > of fossils have been uncovered. The soft invertebrates
were very
> > important in early evolution yet there is hardly any
record of them
> > because of their softness. My prediction is in the far
off future
> > paleontology will become a dead discipline..perhaps
absorbed into
> > astrobiology. A less egocentric perspective.
> >
> RKS:
> I can't see that happening anytime soon.  The trend has
been to further
> specialisation, not generalisation.
>
> > But back to the Bonobos and Homo Sapiens. I actually
think it is quite
> > clear chimpanzees are more similar in behavior to humans
than bonobos
> > are to humans. Mr Stonjek appears to have a "high" sex
drive so perhaps
> > the antics and sexual behaviors of the Bonobos resound
positively with
> > him. However, it was the chimpanzees on the left side of
the river (I
> > believe) who faced numerous predators and had to compete
and fight to
> > survive. In contrast, the Bonobos occupied a relatively
small area on
> > the right side of the river which was relatively free of
the predators
> > the chimpanzees faced.
> >
> > This raises an important question. Can the environment
have an impact on
> > the behavior of a species without signifigantly changing
its genetic
> > structure? Everybody knows Lamarck was wrong in his
theory of aquired
> > characteristics. Natural selection is what operates. But
in the case of
> > the Bonobos perhaps the lessening of natural selection
is what is
> > responsible for it unique society and perhaps its
genetic structure
> > hasn't changed precisely because it takes so long to
effect signifigant
> > changes in the genetic structure.
> >
> RKS:
> Environment does play a role in natural selection and so
in the genetic make
> up of the resultant animals.
> Bonobos are more human-like in a number of ways.  From
modern human culture,
> which, in its native form is neither as aggressive as the
chimpanzee or as
> passive as the Bonobo but ranges between those two
extremes, either
> antecedent form could have resulted in humans as we know
them today.
>
> But the emphasis has been on a more aggressive past, even
though the data is
> thin to say the least.  With human tool use, aggression is
amplified, for
> instance resulting in the deaths of others.
>
> Frans De Waal and Frans Lanting, in their book 'Bonobo:
The forgotten ape',
> describe the differences between the chimp and Bonobo and
the similarities
> between Bonobo and Human.  Their observations are
compelling.
>
> > I realize in some cases natural selection can lead to
rather drastic
> .
> >
> > If humans could be raised for innumerable generations in
a Bonobo like
> > environment its possible human females would "play" with
each other
> > more, males engage in cooperative circle jerks and both
sexes make love
> > and not war as a means of resolving conflict. Alas,
humans don't live in
> > a habitat without few predators. Indeed, humans are
predators against
> > each other and globalization has thrown all kinds of
different cultures
> > onto the world screen. If this happenned to our poor
Bonobo I think one
> > would see some changes in its behavior.
> >
> RKS:
> Humans could just as easily have evolved from the more
aggressive chimp-like
> animal, becoming less aggressive with time as from a
Bonobo-like precursor,
> becoming more aggressive with time.  We do not retain any
less Bonobo-like
> behaviours than chimp-like behaviours.  In fact, one can
probably find
> examples of behaviour that (say, in untouched tribal
settings) that range
> from Bonobo-like to chimp-like, perhaps driven by the
environment as Michael
> suggests.
>
> One thing that makes the Bonobo appear more human like is
their neotenous
> relationship to chimps.  Bonobos retain many juvenile
chimp characteristics
> such as white tail tufts, which the chimpanzee loses at
weaning, high shrill
> voices, playfulness, less hairy, frontally orientated
vulva and so on.
> Humans are also thought to retain juvenile characteristics
of our precursory
> species, a process known as neoteny.
>
> Bonobos also have red lips, walk upright like humans (but
not all the time),
> have relatively longer legs than the chimp and a straight
back when walking
> and so on.
>
> Kind Regards,
> Robert Karl Stonjek

Seems to me that when you start getting into things like
aggression and other forms of behavior (as opposed to
morphology/physical charistics) it is easy to confound
genetic evolution with concommitant cultural (or memetic)
evolutionary paths. Aggression particularly (all things
being the same as far as predators etc, go) strikes me as a
chaotic variable which may develop one way for one tribe,
and differently for others--the tribe having the behavior
better suited to the environment (over the long run) will
survive to denote the prototypical species behavior. But
cultural evolution can take many paths, even for tribes with
identical genomes, no? I would guess that H. sap., bonobos,
and chimps probably _should_ be in the same genus, and
possibly should both be considered our close cousins (is
that "kissing cousins" or the opposite; I never get that
straight? :)).       ...tonyC
---
þ RIMEGate(tm)/RGXPost V1.14 at BBSWORLD * Info{at}bbsworld.com

---
 * RIMEGate(tm)V10.2áÿ* RelayNet(tm) NNTP Gateway * MoonDog BBS
 * RgateImp.MoonDog.BBS at 4/25/04 5:40:32 PM