> 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
---
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 5:56:19 AM