What is Digg?Sponsored by Travelzoo
All-time Low Fares for Thanksgiving, Christmas & New Year view!
travelzoo.com - Flights $52 and up. Nifty all-airline calendar identifies absolute cheapest dates to fly.
62 Comments
- Disgod, on 06/30/2009, -2/+17Ahh, the wonderful Institute for Creation Research. That bastion of creationist ignorance and lying. No matter how many times the ICR tries to make the claim that evolution is pseudo science they have never made a single valid claim against any of the biological or geologic evidence which perfectly demonstrates evolution. The ICR has never published a single peer reveiwed article in a respected journal. Their ideas have been shot down and disproved by all of biological sciences and even in the courts multiple times. Absolutely nothing the ICR has ever done has shown a single shred of scientific credence, but they have constantly been shown to distort and lie about the actual evidence.
The theory of evolution is one of the most well understood, well evidenced, and well studied theories in all of modern science. It is the foundation of modern biology and has every single shred of evidence EVER COLLECTED to back it up. it is used in every part of modern biology and medicine. Modern medicine and pharmacology are advancing by leaps and bounds due to the theory of evolution. The ICR has ZERO EVIDENCE to back up anything they say. I suggest you do some actual, non-creationist research because the ICR is about the worst source of information about biology, evolution, or.... reality, ever.
Denying the reality that evolution happens and is real is like denying the Earth is round, that it orbits the Sun, or that the Moon orbits the Earth. Evolution is as solid as those facts. - gbudavid, on 06/29/2009, -0/+14Well.... I like Bananas
- dsmith5237, on 06/30/2009, -2/+14The same reason the English didn't disappear when colonists came to America. Fast forward a few thousand or million years and each population will be healthy and viable unless external forces render them unable to survive.
Using the "apes still exist" argument is one of the flimsiest I've ever come across. A few hundred years ago you probably would have been shouting about the Sun revolving around the Earth. - eir574, on 06/30/2009, -0/+11"Science is manipulated to get the result that they want."
Or, you're manipulating/attacking science to get the results you want. Couldn't have science challenge your religious beliefs, could you? That darn sun rotates around the earth, I'm sure. Gallileo et al. merely manipulated their results to show otherwise, and godless, evil fools have fallen for it for centuries. - Janinco, on 06/29/2009, -2/+11 David, you are avoiding the question.
:-) - termerjur, on 06/30/2009, -0/+8Bonobos?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l0tAQcpLILQ&fea ... - Cartman86, on 06/30/2009, -0/+8Even if science finds out that one race is either smarter, stronger, or whatever it still doesn't mean we should really treat them any differently. Obviously there are people of every race that are smarter than the average intellegence of an entire race. Do we discriminate handicapped people? I mean we shouldn't, but yeah some people probably will :(
- Janinco, on 06/29/2009, -4/+12Neither. I'm more like a lion (lioness) ;-)
- himthatwas, on 06/30/2009, -0/+8What the hell kind of zoo you going to?
- ftc08, on 06/30/2009, -1/+8Looking like something doesn't mean that they're anywhere near related.
I've got what would be considered a "somewhat common" look (I get mistaken a lot for other people). None of them are even remotely related to me.
Same principle applies to this. Genes make you related, not looks. - praisethelard, on 06/30/2009, -0/+7That means you're most like a human as the banana was designed by God for us!
- FlashBazbo, on 06/30/2009, -0/+7If Science was manipulated to get the desired results then the experiments wouldn't be repeatable and would be demonstrated to be inaccurate by further research. This is how Science works. It isn't one person doing one experiment "proving" one thing.
If you want to know more about ***** and Pan relationships find the issue of Nature where they published the chimpanzee (Pan troglodytes) genome and see for yourself what goes into these claims. Schwartz and Grehan could use to revisit the literature as well. Their contention that "the human-chimp relationship, generated by molecular data, has been accepted without any scrutiny" is absolute rubbish. These data were loudly debated when they were generated. - fungie5, on 06/30/2009, -0/+6You like Bananas? So does my dog...proves nothing... :-)
Why don't we approach this from a different angle...let's put a chimp and an orangutan in front of a PC...the one that gets hooked on Digg is our real cousin :-) - fungie5, on 06/30/2009, -0/+5@Rogor - I gave skin pigmentation as just one example of how we have managed to define race by morphology, yet, when examined at the level of the basic fundamental building blocks of our species, the concept of race turns out to be meaningless.
- fungie5, on 06/30/2009, -2/+7Actually, DNA analysis has already shown that race is way more about perception than reality...in other words, it's not a scientific observation but, rather, a social one borne out of ignorance about each other.
Take skin pigmentation for example. Everyone has the same number of genes (four) for creating melanin, the main pigment responsible for skin color, eye color and hair color. Everyone's melanin genes are almost identical at the molecular level, but the tiny differences in the gene sequence occur at key points which result in some people being able to make melanin more efficiently than others...the overall efficiency being the sum of the efficiencies of the four melanin genes that one possesses. The whole point of having skin pigment is to protect the inner layer of the skin, the dermis, from UV radiation. That's the part of the skin that's actually white in appearance (due to the fibrous connective tissue that makes it up). The pigment accumulates in the outer layer of the skin, the epidermis and it's that which determines what the 'color' of the skin is. Without much pigment, the epidermis, which is a very thin layer of cells (mostly dead) is actually transparent, and the dermis then plays a bigger role in determining the color of the skin.
But why did we develop different skin tones? Because we needed to to survive. The skin's a vital organ that has a rich blood supply (in the dermis). That means our blood, while passing through the skin, can get exposed to UV radiation. And this can deplete certain critical compounds in the blood, the most important being folic acid (key component needed for creating new DNA for replacement cells, reproductive cells as well as for the growing fetus). We also make vitamin D in our skins through exposure to sunlight. So we need enough sunlight to make vitamin D, but we don't want to lose too much folic acid in the process.
The problem then becomes the environment...sunlight and UV exposure isn't evenly distributed around the globe. In places where UV exposure is intense, dark skin is needed to protect against the massive loss of folic acid. Without it, people in these environments will have chronically low folic acid levels and have low fertility and would die out over time. In places where UV exposure is lower, the risk of folic acid deficiency due to exposure is much less, but the skin needs to be lighter to generate Vitamin D...the lesser the sun exposure, the lighter the skin needs to be.
The bottom line is that we are far more similar at the genetic level than we might have imagined. Compared to chimps and orangutans, any two men of any race are practically twins at the DNA level. It only takes tiny differences in our DNA to make us appear different. - Disgod, on 06/30/2009, -1/+6Morphology does not trump genetics. Even by only looking at the 2-3 percent of the coding DNA it is easy to see that chimps and humans are more related than orangutans. If the chimp has DNA markers which they only share with humans and not orangutans they are more related, and vice versa.
If these guys want to show that orangutans are closer related to humans than chimps they should easily be able to prove it genetically, but using morphology isn't a very good indicator of relations, as the scientists in the article state. - Opiebreath, on 06/30/2009, -0/+4This reminds me of the aborigines who look similar to native Africans but are more closely related to native Europeans. As in a black guy from Australia that looks like a black guy from Africa but is more related to a white guy from Europe.
All large generalizations, but it seems to be a similar concept. Someone correct me if I'm wrong, I'm a bit fuzzy on it and it was just a high school anthropology class. - Disgod, on 06/30/2009, -1/+5Morphology doesn't trump genetics. Convergent evolution happens which makes species seem similar, but genetically much different.
- fungie5, on 06/30/2009, -0/+4@wr332 - or chimp pretending to be an orangutan? :-)
- mindule, on 06/30/2009, -1/+5DNA is not the whole story. Epigenetics is an important factor, turning genes on and off.
- MrChocolate, on 06/30/2009, -0/+4A GIRL ON DIGG?!?! Come here often?
- eir574, on 06/30/2009, -1/+4@Janinco
I see healthy debate in that article, not manipulation of results, and certainly there's nothing close to disproving evolution in there. That's what I meant when I said that you're manipulating science to get the result you want -- that evolution is false. The fact that we don't know everything there is to know about evolution and that our understanding of it changes is in no way a weakness, though I've certainly encountered plenty of Christians who see the ability to change one's mind as a weakness. They think that if evolution were true, our understanding of it would never change. That's absurd. - inactive, on 06/30/2009, -1/+4*you're
- jman583, on 06/30/2009, -0/+3Well, I am pretty hairy.
- spookyttws, on 06/30/2009, -1/+4Well, technically Chimps, Humans, and Orangutans all evolved from the same random ape-like ancestor a couple dozen million years back. But to each Ape his own.
- himthatwas, on 06/30/2009, -0/+2GORILLA!
- Rain12913, on 06/30/2009, -2/+4...are one of the two species of Chimpanzees.
- nailPuppy, on 06/30/2009, -0/+2Ook?
- mparker21311, on 06/30/2009, -0/+2ARANGATAAAANG
- Rain12913, on 06/30/2009, -0/+2Also, the original poster suggested that we are closer to Bonobos than we are to Chimpanzees or Orangutans, and the reason I responded by saying that Bonobos are one of the two species of Chimpanzees is because the Bonobo and Common Chimp line speciated long, long after our last common ancestor with either species (likely Nakalipithecus nakayamai). This means that while the random genetic mutations that have occurred since the speciation of the Bonobo and Common Chimp may have made one of the two species slightly (minutely) closer to us than the other, they are both closer to us than any other extant ape because the Gorilla and Orangutan lines separated significantly before the Bonobo/Chimp and Human lines separated. The Cladogram below better explains this:
http://www.steve.gb.com/images/science/hominid_cla ... - Rain12913, on 06/30/2009, -0/+2I think you're are am an monkey with an small brain.
- Rain12913, on 06/30/2009, -1/+3Wow, you're quite condescending for someone who has no idea what they're talking about, aren't you? As someone who's done research in Primate Sociobiology, I can assure you that both the Bonobo and the Common Chimpanzee are members of the genus 'Pan', to which the name Chimpanzee has been given. For a more complete explanation see below.
- FlashBazbo, on 06/30/2009, -0/+2Get back to the library!
- Rain12913, on 06/30/2009, -0/+2@iamsmooth: Re-read what I said. Yes, Bonobos and Common Chimps are two different species, but they both belong to the genus Chimpanzee (Pan). Throughout animal taxonomy there are other examples of animal groups that are referred to by their Genus name primarily and their species name more specifically. For example, when one refers to a 'Snake' they may be referring to any member of the Reptile suborder 'Serpentes'. Likewise, while it is much easier to simply use their species name since there are only two members of their genus, the Bonobo and Chimpanzee are both members of the genus Chimpanzee.
@temerjur: Good god man, you’re nuts! You're spouting this nonsense like you're some kind of authority on this matter, but all you're doing is searching Wikipedia and Youtube, both of which directly contradict you. For god's sake, the Wikipedia entry for Chimpanzee even takes you to the page for the 'Pan' genus, not to the Common Chimpanzee!
Like I said, I spent two years doing research in Primate Sociobiology after undergrad, and some of my research was on Common Chimpanzees. In addition to this I took a number of Primatology classes that included about three or four tests on primate taxonomy. I can assure you that there is no debate in the scientific community about the common name of the ‘Pan’ genus: it is Chimpanzee. You must either be denying that this is the name of the genus or denying that the Bonobo is a member of this genus and should be classified differently, which is it?
As Wikipedia explains, Chimpanzee refers to the genus ‘Pan’. The correct common name of ‘Pan trogolodytes’ is not ‘Chimpanzee’, but ‘Common Chimpanzee’. The word 'common' is added to distinguish it from the other species of Chimpanzee, the ‘Pan paniscus’ (Bonobo). This is to avoid confusion that resulted from the Bonobo being added to the Chimpanzee genus long after it was discovered. For quite some time, the Common Chimp was the only member of this genus and thus it was referred to by its genus name. However, when its close relative the Bonobo was discovered and added to the Chimpanzee genus, the word ‘common’ was added to its name in order to avoid confusion stemming from the fact that it had simply been referred to by its genus name in the past. - Rain12913, on 07/01/2009, -0/+2At this point you've proven that you have no understanding of evolution or taxonomy whatsoever, so I'm not sure why I continue to argue with you since it would probably be more effective to simply refer you to some good books on these topics. In order to better understand evolution, check out 'The Selfish Gene' by Richard Dawkins. There is a good selection of textbooks on primate taxonomy available on Amazon, but I’m sure you can do the research for free online. Spending an hour or so looking into these topics would help you understand what I’m saying.
I have no idea what you're even trying to say about my quote that humans are evolutionarily equidistant from Bonobos and Common Chimps because you're being very unclear. You've simply quoted me and then said nothing about what I've said except that I’m being evasive, providing no explanation as to why you think this is the case. Anyhow, the fact that Humans are evolutionarily equidistant from Bonobos and Common Chimps is true, and has no impact on the fact that Bonobos and Common Chimps are two distinct species of Chimpanzee; it has to do with when our ancestors speciated from their ancestors. The Common Chimps and Bonobos separated from their common ancestor long after their common ancestor separated from ours. Therefore, any genetic difference between the two species that might make one of them closer to us than the other is simply due to random genetic variation that has occurred since this speciation, and would be incredibly minute in nature as is evidenced by their own genetic similarity to each other. In other words, while Common Chimps and Bonobos are two distinct species, they are both equally related to us in the same way that the two sons of your nephew are equally related to your daughter despite having distinct DNA from one another.
I also never said anything that suggests that I "don't want to distinguish between Bonobos and Chimps", as the distinction between the two species is very real and significant. All of this seems to be going over your head. Again, Bonobos and Common Chimps are two different species in the same genus. The common names of their species are ‘Bonobo’ and ‘Common Chimp’. The common name of their genus is ‘Chimpanzee’. The word 'Chimpanzee' refers to the genus 'Pan', to which both the Common Chimp and the Bonobo belong. The term 'Common Chimpanzee' refers to the species 'Pan trogolodytes’, and contains the word ‘Common’ in order to differentiate it from the name of its genus and from the other Chimpanzee (the Bonobo). I fear that even this simple explanation is above your understanding, but hopefully this will clear it up for other people who might be confused by your rambling. - Rain12913, on 06/30/2009, -1/+2You're incorrect.
Your confusion is stemming from the fact that, as you pointed out with your quote from Wikipedia, the term Chimpanzee is colloquially used to refer to the species 'Pan troglodytes' (the Common Chimpanzee). In actuality, the term Chimpanzee correctly refers to the genus 'Pan' to which both the Common Chimpanzee and the Bonobo belong. Since you seem to be fond of Wikipedia, try searching for "Chimpanzee" and you will see that you're linked to the page for the genus 'Pan', not to the page for the Common Chimpanzee. The first line of the 'Pan' (Chimpanzee) page is as follows:
"Chimpanzee, sometimes colloquially known as a chimp, is the common name for the two extant species of ape in the genus Pan...Common Chimpanzee and Bonobo" - termerjur, on 07/01/2009, -0/+1Congrats for another new and improved statement-
"The Common Chimps and Bonobos separated from their common ancestor long after their common ancestor separated from ours. Therefore, any genetic difference between the two species that might make one of them closer to us than the other is simply due to random genetic variation that has occurred since this speciation,..."
Though it is basically in the other thread as well:
"Also, the original poster suggested that we are closer to Bonobos than we are to Chimpanzees or Orangutans, and the reason I responded by saying that Bonobos are one of the two species of Chimpanzees is because the Bonobo and Common Chimp line speciated long, long after our last common ancestor with either species (likely Nakalipithecus nakayamai). This means that while the random genetic mutations that have occurred since the speciation of the Bonobo and Common Chimp may have made one of the two species slightly (minutely) closer to us than the other, they are both closer to us than any other extant ape because the Gorilla and Orangutan lines separated significantly before the Bonobo/Chimp and Human lines separated."
-the first excerpt is a bit more simplified address of a view that may be understood by anyone following this. Don't you think it's a pity that you had no impulse to offer this sort of articulation in response to my simple "Bonobos? + vid link" comment from the beginning rather then 8 flat words that not only obscured and shirked your apparently hard earned credentials but led to a tediously confused but comical (in my view) exchange. Yet I participated because I was curious to know if you had some deeper issue about Bonobos - which I probably would have found even more entertaining.
The idea that Bonobos could somehow evolve closer to humans after the separation from the common Chimpanzee I would think might be possible (due to more common types of genetic mutations resulting from common or particular environmental forces?) but perhaps this is unlikely and they may have evolved even further away from humans then Chimps? However Bonobo behavior suggests they could have a more direct similarity to humans ie. walking upright and their stronger aptitude for using tools as well as other behaviors. So though you insist any stronger commonality is slight at best their traits suggest that it may be otherwise?:
http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/susan_savage_ru ...
You might want to assert that you tried very hard to articulate your point, especially with what is in the other thread, but as far as I'm concerned the shorter excerpt that I copied fits the bill pretty well - even better then touting credentials. You used a simpler logic based argument here rather then oblique bluster. Us layfolk tend like that kind of thing. Well done.
But then again the videos, links and my frequent statements that I was NOT challenging that Bonobos and Chimps share of the same genus should have prompted an earlier abandonment of the Chimpanzee = Bonobo + Common Chimpanzee merry-go-round which I wasn't interested in arguing about...because I was basically promoting the same view, though a bit more nuanced:
"...Although the name "chimpanzee" sometimes is used to refer to both species together, it is usually understood as referring to the Common Chimpanzee..." - wiki
Nevertheless you obviously felt the need to articulate your position further and better and you managed to do so. I now hope you are prepared to agree that we never really had anything to argue about other then the style of expression, since not once have I offered the slightest shred of contradictory evidence. I have only stood by the notion that Bonobos and Chimps are different species.
To be fair I did initially misread your first comment as suggesting that Bonobos and Chimps were the same species, but later I knew that the confusion was probably shared and unclear by others. (now please don't start claiming that they are the same species...please don't do that...I've laughed hard enough at this thread.) Unfortunately your original 8 words did not illuminate me to the point of recognizing you beyond the all too common Diggtard as you might have hoped, as my psychic skills are...oh nevermind - I apologize for even bringing up parapsychology at this delicate moment. My comment of "I'm sorry, you are fairly mistaken." was itself obscuring what I already understood but I didn't back track on it because it was working pretty well to extract information from a rather obtuse (unintentionally?) but interested "expert".
At any rate I guess I can now be accommodatingly contrite about my condescension and subsequent Digg sport. ;)
As far as being annoyed about the lay public interacting with and challenging experts and professionals - welcome to Digg. It's one of the reasons I enjoy it so much and kind of why it was created.
But again congrats anyway for a worthy effort and I hereby award you your hard earned Digg - please use it wisely. :) - termerjur, on 06/30/2009, -2/+3I'm sorry, you are fairly mistaken.
So I am not accused of spam please either examine the links I offer in reply to this within the subordinate thread (in other words the thread extending from my original comment) or consult Google - search "the differences between Bonobos and Chimpanzees" or something to that effect.
Good luck and I wish you much wonder, amazement and adventure in your new learning experience! Nature can indeed be fascinating.:D - termerjur, on 07/02/2009, -0/+1correction -
"To be fair I did initially misread your first comment as suggesting that Bonobos and Chimps [are] the same species..."
They were the same species, but they are now different species...same genus. - I never doubted it.
"...as the distinction between the two species is very real and significant." - Dr. Rain's words. - JRFanning007, on 06/30/2009, -0/+1Interesting claims.
- Janinco, on 06/30/2009, -2/+3LOL Why yes...you could say I'm addicted.
- wr332, on 06/30/2009, -0/+1it's the web. you never know whos on the other side. girl or boy acting a girl.
- Rudegar, on 06/30/2009, -0/+1let me guess you're a bouncer ?
- Xenon2434, on 06/30/2009, -0/+0This anti-molecular stance is just mind-boggling.
- termerjur, on 06/30/2009, -2/+2@ Rain12913 -
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/07/3/l_0 ...
FTaboveA:
"...Although they are close relatives, chimps and bonobos have strikingly different social dynamics: chimps society is prone to violence, and bonobos are relatively peaceful. Why? One theory suggests that a small change in the availability of food may have encouraged the evolution of today's chimp and bonobo societies. Researchers Richard Wrangham and Amy Parish comment on the group dynamics of the two species...."
http://brembs.net/bonobos.html
FTaboveA:
"...The bonobo is one of the last large mammals to be found by science. The creature was discovered in 1929 in a Belgian colonial museum, far from its lush African habitat. A German anatomist, Ernst Schwarz, was scrutinizing a skull that had been ascribed to a juvenile chimpanzee because of its small size, when he realized that it belonged to an adult. Schwarz declared that he had stumbled on a new subspecies of chimpanzee. But soon the animal was assigned the status of an entirely distinct species within the same genus as the chimpanzee, Pan..."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bonobo
FTaboveA:
"...Although the name "chimpanzee" sometimes is used to refer to both species together, it is usually understood as referring to the Common Chimpanzee..."
your welcome :) - termerjur, on 06/30/2009, -2/+2I would agree entirely with you Rain12913...but for the fact that you are basically now merely repeating what I offered in the text and links...highlighting only that to you the differences are not worthy of making much distinction between them - both Chimpanzees and Bonobos being within the Pan genus and little more of note? Or am I mistaking your tone for your science?
I said you are *fairly* mistaken. Though I will not claim to be a master of grammar (and especially your field of study as it were) I chose that word on purpose. I do indeed assert that it is fair to point out that your initial statement, though perhaps made to illuminate us lesser bewildered folk, is actually short changed and misleading. I have no argument against Bonobos and Chimpanzees belonging to the same genus - Pan, but rather that there is in fact a history of recognized divergences between the two species that is worthwhile and interesting to evaluate (even for the lowly layperson?). To be clear I do not regard Wikipedia as a resource for hard science and only cited it as an afterthought, but to follow your generous offer of a search topic we do indeed find what you paraphrased from:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chimpanzee
"Chimpanzee, sometimes colloquially known as a chimp, is the common name for the two extant species of ape in the genus Pan where the Congo River forms the boundary between the native habitat of the two species:
* Common Chimpanzee, Pan troglodytes: the better known chimpanzee lives primarily in West and Central Africa.
* Bonobo, Pan paniscus: also known as the "Pygmy Chimpanzee", this species is found in the forests of the Democratic Republic of the Congo.
Chimpanzees are members of the Hominidae family, along with gorillas, humans, and orangutans. Chimpanzee are thought to have split from human evolution about 6 million years ago and thus the two chimpanzee species are the closest living relatives to humans; all being members of the Hominini tribe (along with extinct species of Hominina subtribe). Chimpanzees are the only known members of the Panina subtribe. The two Pan species split only about one million years ago."
So perhaps you think it is fair to neither challenge or add to your initial 8 words of eloquence but I will go ahead and do so and hope you survive the apparent humiliation. Frankly I don't see how it could be so offensive really - as you must still have some enthusiasm for this field, correct? A little more information on Digg may be helpful to us groping masses? As to the confusion regarding the differences between the two species in the Pan genus I am aware of its history of controversy - though most scientists who are public in this research claim that this controversy is now basically resolved (as the Digger "iamsmooth" suggests - which as far as I know is the widely held opinion.) Now if you want to suggest that indeed the controversy is not over at all that's all well and good but it may be more interesting to offer deeper links to this effect rather then simply restating what I have already offered in the cited text?
Again - I hope this inspires some further thought and adventures in science but really if this is your field try not to take condescension too much to heart and try to look at it as an opportunity (which you did...basically - so kudos to you). :D
In conclusion I suggest that so far we have really nothing to argue about.
But I guess could be fairly mistaken? :/
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rG84FuIjMqA&fea ... - Rain12913, on 07/01/2009, -1/+1How you inferred that I was using a dismissive and unfruitful tone in my original post I do not know. I simply said "...are one of the two species of Chimpanzees.", with the "..." referring to Bonobos. I think you're projecting your own condescending and rude tone onto other people's posts.
If you truly do simply wish to appreciate the differences between Pan troglodytes and Pan paniscus than I hope you enjoy yourself. You might have done this before you came here and rudely suggested that you know more about them than me. Yes, it can be confusing to the layperson because the vast majority of references to the Common Chimpanzee leave out the 'Common' part since it is such a well-known animal, but that does not change the reality that Bonobos, and Common Chimpanzees, are in fact Chimpanzees. I'll say it again just to be sure you get it: Bonobos are Chimpanzees. Now you know.
The Cladogram link no longer works for me either, but basically it showed how Bonobos and Common Chimps are equidistant in the evolutionary tree from Hominids, thus rendering the question "are we closer to Common Chimps or Bonobos?" meaningless. We are evolutionarily closer to both Bonobos and Common Chimps than we are to Orangutans and Gorillas; there is little debate about this within the scientific community. - kinerry, on 06/30/2009, -1/+1We are much closer to bobonos
Try telling the difference between a bobono and a human skeleton next time you are at the zoo - termerjur, on 07/01/2009, -1/+1nah - your being evasive as well:
"...thus rendering the question "are we closer to Common Chimps or Bonobos?" meaningless."
Other statements that you made throughout your lecture echo this completely.
Which fully supports the notion that the original "...are one of the two species of Chimpanzees." was actually intended to be condescending and dismissive itself.
I think the psychological word for this behavior is "compartmentalization"?:
"Compartmentalizing is the act of splitting an idea or concept up into (sometimes more or less arbitrary) parts, and trying to enforce thought processes which are inhibiting attempts to allow these parts to mix together again in an attempt to simplify things." - our old friend wiki
In my view this is no great crime, just disingenuous. Why don't you just face it - you don't want to distinguish between Bonobos and Chimps. You can shout it from the mountain tops but I got the message from the beginning. XD
For your parting gift:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4oe8E8K14mU -
Show 51 - 64 of 64 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is 