the correct answer is changing:

http://io9.com/5794988/are-humans-more-like-chimps-or-bonobos-the-correct-answer-is-changing

Humans may not be as chimp-like as you think. There could be a much more peaceable ape relative who is closer to us. I speak, of course, of the matriarchal, bisexual, polyamorous bonobo.
Conventional evolutionary wisdom has human beings branching off from a common ancestor shared between humans, chimpanzees and bonobos about 6.5 million years ago. Chimps and bonobos split from their common ancestor about 1.5 million years ago. Which makes modern humans about equally related to both species. But that doesn't seem to be the popular narrative (...).
While chimps adapted to varied environments, bonobos stayed put in forests and remained in the same environment where they evolved. Their genetic codes have undergone fewer changes than those of chimps. This means that bonobos could be more closely related to humans than chimpanzees are - which might change the current cultural narrative a bit. Perhaps our heritage is not inventive and vicious violence, but cooperative groups working to ensure the survival of all.

Click to expand...

as far as we can see now, characters like Darwin, Hobbes and Maltus and many others had been picturing paleolithic humans according to their own "victorian" (literary and not) menthality and sorroundings instead of what it could have been really; of course famine, wars, sadness, sexual frustration at that period were sorrounding the researchers, how could they imagine and give peace a chance?

theories jumping out from our XIX century c.a were given "us" as certainties. 2012 is now and many things start changing we are not gorillas any more!

more more more and more here (and written with paleoanthropological intelligence and depth),
"Sex at Dawn" by C.Ryan and C.Jetà
http://sexatdawn.com/
(dear community, i've been away for a long time, hope i'm not making any double thread..
and sorry for the hundreds grammar mistakes i surely made )

I like saying the word bonobos

bonobosbonobosbonobosbonobosbonobosbonobosbonobosbonobosbonobosbonobosbonobosbonobosbonobos...

you can tell chingching is an Aquarian

the other thing I noticed Aquarians do is wear cool light clothes in winter and heavy warm clothes in summer. They all do it I swear.

I didn't evolve from a bonobo I evolved from a star man and woman or androgynous bi sexual extra terrestial being being who visited our planet , had sex with each other or themselves and left my ancestors here to get on with it as best they could .

perhaps they left us Yi to help us

thats my theory and i'm sticking to it

That's interesting Trojan .. When I look at this from lise's site, I think a similar thing:

http://www.yijing.nl/i_ching/origins/index.html
Click "Yi Jing (I Ching) - the meaning of Yi"
(A direct link will not work)

It is as if the Symbol itself is a picture of the tempering of new life onto earth. This is just my take!

Take care

neegula, yesterday you gave me a good laugh.

I was tired reading and though to open clarity to take a small break and read something else, to take a distance from what i was doing and I came across your thread.

the funny thing is that what I was reading had to do with evolution, chimbs, bonobos and all the ape family !!! I was trying to escape from them but the were after me here too !!!

well I'm an aquarius rising and uranus is strongly placed, I have to admit even I do end up wearing light clothes in winter and heavy in summer, it happen just this very day, something happens in the decision making process everything feels like logic and then all of a sudden its not. Fair Neptune is leaving me to delight all the water signs and prompt all the mutable signs to redemption. At least I may have a little more logic in my logic.

chingching said:

Fair Neptune is leaving me to delight all the water signs and prompt all the mutable signs to redemption.

Click to expand...

Is that good for the water sign ? or we should start worrying

trojan said:

I didn't evolve from a bonobo I evolved from a star man and woman

Click to expand...

dear trojan, when i was younger, new-ager and Gooddist i supported this very nice theory of yours, yes; then it happened that i saw that even before passing through millions of year as Primates, Energy (which seems not to be fire or wormth or electricity) had been passing even "through" stones. and before that....oooouuuffffff!!!!!!!
of course i respect your opinion -remaining with my new one; hope you'll feel at your ease in this thread anyway

anemos said:

neegula, yesterday you gave me a good laugh.

Click to expand...

LOL this is very sweet because it seems that the german origin of my family name means exactely that: the one who makes people laugh, the Joker!

anemos said:

I was trying to escape from them but the were after me here too !!!

Click to expand...

so maybe you feel in sharing some links or specifical info that stroke you the most?

from my side:
new infos coming out from these "young" researchers' studies have difficulties to pass (and stay!) most of all because it is socially embarassing accepting the evidence that as humans are very close to bonobos' physical traits, we also share the attitude of living polyloving relationships instead of the imposed monoloving one mythically passed to us by religions (with which science had to agree, see Darwin).
can we say that the greatest part of humanity is totally monogamic/loving and does not have any extramarital affairs?!

and: it has been much easier to sell scientific catastrophical news, info and certainities ("misery, famine and aggressions are the human's natural state" while that one is the gorilla's one) than to "let the idea pass" about a kind of being that can live as Hunter-Gatherer and can replace aggression with sex (made with their beloved, nothing about promiscuity and/or making sex with someone who is a perfect stranger) and joy in the freedom of Being.

trojan said:

I didn't evolve from a bonobo I evolved from a star man and woman or androgynous bi sexual extra terrestial being being who visited our planet , had sex with each other or themselves and left my ancestors here to get on with it as best they could .

perhaps they left us Yi to help us

thats my theory and i'm sticking to it

Click to expand...

neegula said:

dear trojan, when i was younger, new-ager and Gooddist i supported this very nice theory of yours, yes; then it happened that i saw that even before passing through millions of year as Primates, Energy (which seems not to be fire or wormth or electricity) had been passing even "through" stones. and before that....oooouuuffffff!!!!!!!
of course i respect your opinion -remaining with my new one; hope you'll feel at your ease in this thread anyway
.

Click to expand...

I was joking in my post about being evolved from star people. Obviously that didn't come across since I've been answered in earnest LOL...so it isn't a theory of mine though its a theory I've heard vaguely about and don't dismiss out of hand.


I was being flippant...I never even read anything scientific in open space...so no need to worry about my comfort i was just being silly....er in the spirit of chingchings 'bonobbonos' post

anemos said:

Is that good for the water sign ? or we should start worrying

Click to expand...

well in general yes, but it depends if there is a lot of unbalance (is that a word??...midnight brain) even a 'soft' transit can stir you at a deep soul level. But at some point during its transit through pisces it will trine your sign, if you sun is early degree of water you may already be enjoy feeling more spiritual, a softening of your character, your eyes twinkling in a nebulous way. You'd need a complete reading done for an exact personalised analysis, but generally it will bring something beauty ..or at the very least the illusion of something beautiful


dont worry...be happy now, doo do do do do doood od dood ooo, don't worry, do dood ododododoooo be happy

chingching said:

but generally it will bring something beauty ..or at the very least the illusion of something beautiful


dont worry...be happy now, doo do do do do doood od dood ooo, don't worry, do dood ododododoooo be happy

Click to expand...

not that bad !!!!

singing : dont worry...be happy now, doo do do do do doood od dood ooo, don't worry, do dood ododododoooo be happy

trojan said:

I was joking

Click to expand...

ooopppssss...
it was good anyway, so that the topic went on about polyloving

trojan said:

so it isn't a theory of mine though its a theory I've heard vaguely about and don't dismiss out of hand.

Click to expand...

when my kids were kids (!) i also passed them the Idea that we come from somewhere else than a "monkey" so that their souls could open up somehow "before" their physical/sexual characteristics and consiousness.

i'm still wondering if this idea of the polyloving parallel bonobos/humans is welcome and regarded here or not..

neegula said:

so maybe you feel in sharing some links or specifical info that stroke you the most?

.

Click to expand...

I missed your post...sorry

here is an interesting video. the one my Uni provided as had a part with chimps too but i couldn't find it online. Their human-like behavior is striking !!!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eubDSQrFako

This is an interesting book. I found it free on the web. perhaps you are already familiar.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Selfish_Gene

Evolutionary Psychology is a very interesting branch of Psy. Being empathetic or altruistic sounds nice yet it might serve the struggle to survive and reproduce. There is a "fight" there too, a competition... the fittest will survive. The scarcer the resources the stronger is the competition.

Mate choice follows those assumptions too.

Of course there are other opinions too against those concepts.

People aren't descended from any type of ape. They are their own distinct form of primate and always were -- always potentially human. If you look at this question from a genetic point of view there are significant genetic differences between humans and other primates. In fact, the closest genetic match of a mammal to a human is a pig. That's why pig heart valves and other tissues are used as replacements or grafts in human surgeries.

Also, if you are following a theory of evolution you will note that when a species evolves, the older version dies out. For instance, the pterodactyl [flying dinosaur] evolved into a bird and the pterodactyl has become extinct. This has happened in countless species. The saber toothed tiger became the tiger we now know and the mastodon became the modern elephant. Eohippus turned into a horse. None of the primitive versions of these animals exists any longer. It was replaced. Doesn't it follow that that if apes became human beings then apes would have gradually disappeared having fulfilled their genetic promise?

I am absolutely certain that people were always people, even if they began in a monocellular form and evolved from that point. A human being is a creature like no other, and never was something else.

arabella said:

I am absolutely certain that people were always people, even if they began in a monocellular form and evolved from that point. A human being is a creature like no other, and never was something else.

Click to expand...

as there are still sooo many missing rings to get to know our whole history, it can be that your opinion is perfectly right.
yeah, and it seems that Africa's heart were spitting out a different kind of humans and other primates everywhile..
you reminded me also about Steiner's opinion about this subject in his "Occult science".

i feel also this being somehow "true":
evolutionary researchers and genetists' common point is that the humans and the other 5 families of primates had one common ancestor 30 millions years ago; Homo line emerged about 2 millions years ago to get to sapiens sapiens 40.000 years ago. the ancestral line leading to chimps and bonobos splits off from that leading to humans five to six milions y.ago. our DNA differs from that of the bonobos' by 1,6% "making us closer to them than a dog is to a fox".

maybe one day we'll know everything for "sure" and it will be for everyone the same conclusion, who knows?!

margaret power and jane goodall

anemos said:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Selfish_Gene

The scarcer the resources the stronger is the competition.

Click to expand...

i thank you vey much for the link, it's always good to have a direct check. until now i read about Dawkins through others' and i have to say i really don't share his opinion (nor Pinkers') for i see his job as part of that Flinstonization of Prehistory -as Levine named it- put up by Malthus and sad people like Hobbes ; actually i do agree with Ryan and Jetà (the authors i quoted above) saying that the "self-justfying myth" popping out from the selfish meme is in opposition to the logical abundance of food we had on our planet when we lived as HG. food WAS abundant and the most part of us was nomad.

Margaret Power and Jane Goodall works in Gombe tells that "as soon as humans start providing food, even in the jungle, the peace is quickly disturbed" (Franz de Waal commenting this is one of the major researcher about Paleo subjects).
http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog...chimps-and-humans-are-genetically-violent-not

With hindsight, it turned out that human feeding of the chimpanzees, with its restrictions and control, deeply affected the behavior and culture of the chimpanzees, such as keeping large groups of animals near the feeding site which promoted increased fighting among the males. Margaret Power in The Egalitarians, Humans and Chimpanzees: An Anthropological View of Social Organization, examines how human interference created the unusual aggressive behavior of the chimps. (...)
Humans and other apes evolved as mostly unaggressive and peaceful, although they can become violent under particular circumstances (i.e. social stress) (...)
our current cultures, societal practices and beliefs have created the violent humans we see around us. They are an aberration from our evolutionary heritage.

Click to expand...

it's important to distinguish between what is biological and what is cultural.
good references to the bottom of the linked page.

dear Anemos, i'm not here to sell or convince anyone , just if you want another idea of ...info that has been told us about perpetual war, google Chagnon Yanomami Kenneth Good.
briefly: Good says that Chagnon was going to Namowei people, made so that they made war to Patanowateri people so to prove to the world that he was right: humans are always in war time. after 10 years or so his publication, it came out that Chagnon (who's name is Napoleon..) was not menthally normal, ok?!! but in the beginning he had a great success and his "theories" were inserted in studying material and magazines, etc.

anemos said:

Mate choice follows those assumptions too.
Of course there are other opinions too against those concepts.

Click to expand...

i think that these last posts of ours are necessary to understand the main subject "mate choice" and the connected "war between the sexes": for this, a new page is needed.
thanks for the exchange :bows:

beyond war human potential

for now i'm posting other good references -concerning last post of mine
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/...kind-of-man-are-you-chimpanzee-or-bonobo.html

http://www.scientificamerican.com/b...d-fight-club-the-2010-06-29&posted=1#comments

i think i'm going to study soon this
http://www.amazon.com/Beyond-War-Hu...=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1277641682&sr=1-1



BUT i guess Franz de Waal is the most important reasearcher at the moment for this subject.
here free on line (i haven't visioned it yet, but..)
http://www.sciencemag.org/site/feature/misc/webfeat/ardipithecus/

write you soon again

promiscuity in mating

the theory that Homo Sapiens Sapiens lived in Clans based on co-operation and in which priority was given to women and kids, supports also the theory concerning promiscuous mating among the components of each group. (it has been already said that the word "promiscuous" is used by scientists in a different sense from what it is "normally" intended: we could dare to use the word Polyamorism, instead, which follows very clear social canons.) this may be said looking after many kind of studies that have been done.
here what i put together from S@D and some parallel reaserch.
(i underlined words for Search):

body-size dimorphism is the average difference in size between adult males and females in a given species. among apes for example, male gorillas and orangutans average about twice the size of females, while male chimps, bonobos and humans are from 10 to 20 percent bigger and heavier than the females. male and female gibbons are of equal stature. among mammals generally and particularly among primates, body-size dimorphism is correlated with male competion over mating (Lawler 2000).


through generations, male gorillas eveolved impressive muscles for their reproductive struggle, while their relatively unimportant genitals dwindled down to the bare minimuum needed for uncontested fertilization. conversely, male chimps, bonobos and humans had less need for oversized muscles for fighting but eveolved larger, more powerful testicles and, in case of humans, a much more interesting penis.

gorilla: penis and scrotum are small and inside the body so that these organs are protected while fighting on the external field.
bonobos, chimps and humans have vulnerable external scrotum (associated with promiscuous mating) which keeps testicles few degrees cooler than they would be inside the body, allowing spermatozoa to accumulate and remain viable longer, available if needed.

J.Diamond (1991) considers the theory of testis size to be "one of the triumphs of modern physical anthropology" . like most great ideas, the theory of testis size is simple: species that copulate more often need larger testes, and species in which several males routinely copulate with one ovulating female need even bigger testes.

a one-man/one-woman system reduces competion among males, as the pool of available females isn't being dominated by just few men, leaving more women available for less desired men. but a mating system in which both males and females tipically have multiple sexual relationships running in parallel reduce male mating competion just as effecively, if not more so. and given that both of the species closest to us practice multimale-multifemale mating, this seems by far the more likely scenario.

Click to expand...

dear OLC community, there's still at least one scientifical shot about the...aehm.. theory of multiple mating system among our Ancestors in Paleo time as a social foundation.
let's do this: whenever the community here feels in reading a bit more aobut this subject, please click Thanks here; on the contrary, if no thanks will appear, we'll simply let this thread be..
?!!

I don't understand

if the origin of our nuclear family/sexually is monogamous mating system, why aren't men and women the same size, like gibbons?
if humans are naturally polygynous, why aren't men twice the size of women like gorillas?

Winge coined the word sperm competition; G.Parker later defined the concept. if the sperm of more than one male are present in the reproductive tract of an ovulating female, the spermatozoa them-selves compete to fertilize the ovum. females of species that engage in sperm competition typically have various tricks to advertize thei fertility, thereby inviting more competitors. their provocations range from sexy vocalizations or scents to genital swelling that turn every shade of lipstick red from Berry Sexy to Rouge Soleil.


NOTE: as we'll discuss in the next chapter, the genital echo theory posits that women developed pendulous breasts so that the cleavage would mimic the (is there a scientific term for this?) butt-crack that so enticed our primate ancestors. following that line of reasoning, some argue that fancily named lipstick serves to re-create the bright red "hinder ends" that so perplexed poor Darwin.

male apes living in multiple social groups (such as chimps, bonobos and humans) have larger testes, housed in an external scrotum, mature later than females, and prduce large volumes of ejaculate containing greater concentrations of sperm cells than primates in which females normally mate with only one male per cycle (such as gorillas, gibbons and orangutans).

even if Darwin suspected something like sperm competition had palyed a role in human evolution, he could hardly be expectes to drag the angelic Victorian woman down from her pedestal.
humans, chimps, and bonobos -but not gorillas- show "accelerated evolution of genes involved in sperm and seminal fluid production" associated with "multiple insemination".

Margulis and Sagan: men's "souped-up genitals" backed by "a lot of spermatic firepower" would be worthwhile only if there were "some sorts of race or contest. otherwise," they write "they seem to be excessive" (1991)


Souped-up genitals. Spermatic firepower. now we are talking!
indication of spermatic firepower are evident in the differences between a man's first sprout and his last.
the first sprout contain chemical that protect against various kind of chemical attack. what sort of chemical attack? aside from leucocytes and antigens present in a woman's reproductive tract (more on that later) , they protect the sperm from the chemical in the latter spurts of other men's ejaculate. these final spurts contain a spermicidal substance that slows the advance of any latecomers. in other words, competing sperm from other men seems to be anticipated in the chemistry of men's semen, both in the early spruts (protective) and in the later spurts (attacking). (Lindholmer 1973)


flared glans of the human pensis forming the coronal ridge, combined with the repeated thrusting action characteristic of human intercourse creates a vacuum in the female's reproductive tract. this vacum pulls any previously deposited semen away from the ovum, thus aiding the sperm about to be sent into action. but wouldn't this vacuum action also draw away a man's own sperm? no, because upon ejaculation, the head of the penis shrinks in size before any loss of tumescence (stifness) in the shaft, thus neutralizing the suction that might have pulled his own boys back. very clever.

"We theorize that as a consequence of competition for paternity, human males evolved uniquely configured penises that function to displace semen from the female vagina left by other males.
reference:
http://sexatdawn.com/
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/3128753.stm

Hi, Stef:

Most interesting although a sort of phallic positivism, reconstructive anatomo-phisiology, but what about FEELINGS?

Of course I must read it with more attention.


From: http://www.focus-in.info/Sommario-delle-vignette-di-Altan?id_document=366

All the best,

Charly

thanks, charly, i was arriving there, to the point -sorry i've been away so long
(thanks for the nice image, it's really sweet and, you see, when someone Calls, God or Who-ever-Loving, or the Divine Wow, answers!):

Reasearchers are giving us different lessons than those that were given us in studying 20 or 40 years ago.
the message that the New Research (and new literature even for kids, i see) is passing on is that:
it is allowed to fall in love with more than one person in the same period, it is allowed!* (as to go bare-foot, to eat meat, walk a little every day, so on..)

it is evident now that from 100 and 40 thousands y.a., and of course during our Mesolithic, we were actually humans as we "are" now: we got involved into passions and love of every sort, like nowdays. BUT:
we accepted and then lived fully the Sacrality of every Act we made correlated to Anything sourrounding us and substaining us in life: the clan, the Mother, animals, plants, Elements..
"you are god, i am god". this is not "superstition", d'u agree?! do we want to lebel it as totemism? ok!
once that "we", in the pathriarchical neolithic age, started to get control on this Anything (sex included, and single women living in separated, competitive houses included for paternity certainity), sacrality was quickly gone (in more than in the average, within a global System), but not the biological push -that still jumps out, where completely frustated, in femminicide, for instance.

Darwin gave us the possibility of detaching Knowledge from religious domination as he opened for us a way out, BUT he, as an eminent scholar and professor, gave strength to the mythical savage, brutish man that thinkers and writers like Hobbes liked so much in addition to story-tells concerning mono-relationships' PROPAGANDA for making pathriarchical, agricultural society grow and...invent war, amongs many other things. we defeated infections and we invented thousands of other deseases.

the message, here, it is not "wrong way, let's go back!" up to Trees,
but it wants to
move sensitivity towards a new Sincerity and Clarity and Respect one for another as humans in sweet, sparkling balance while confrontating us with our own marevellous imperfection that can flow through Truth and Love with our Companions .

*Cont.:"we" don't need to cheat each other, nobody needs to get paranoic if their partners has an NRE for a Friend, nobody needs to go to a prostitute when their sexual life is in Order -which is opposite to frustrated and hybernated, and even if it may appears to many a great disorder.. it isn't!
no husband/wife needs anymore to be thrown out from their house for a "betrayal" and become an ogre to his kids' eyes. no kids are allowed to suffer about ..about something that it is not even in our.. anathomy..! ..if not in a ego-tea-spoon compared to our Eternity and Life and Love for life.
"confronting the sky together".
let's talk about it above the Planet..

:bows:



hey, pass those pop-corn on, this movie is going to end soon..

AND
Standard narrative through novels and scientific documents have build up branches of history and characters which don't "depend" on our biological, natural baggage.
can you recall how were African people treated in literature -"oh, they were sick, yes, and inferior" and pratical jobs and living?!:
the FIRST, true Human was black : Homo Sapiens Arcaico female falling in love with many different loving, vigourous, spontaneous, capable of loving Neanderthal male. nowdays you may hear scientists saying: "there are no different races", because they may be too sensitive to let you know that.. we are all..hybrids in our Sisterhood and Brotherhood -as our cousins (H.S.Arcaico male + Neanderthal female) didn't survive as we did..
did we survive as Homo to keep war on earth?!

ok, ok, i stop this now , but please swear that you'll read at least "Sex at Dawn"!
thank you for sharing

I LOVED this thread.
Grazie neegula.