Clarity,
Office 17622,
PO Box 6945,
London.
W1A 6US
United Kingdom
Phone/ Voicemail:
+44 (0)20 3287 3053 (UK)
+1 (561) 459-4758 (US).
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.
Fair Neptune is leaving me to delight all the water signs and prompt all the mutable signs to redemption.
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!!!!!!!I didn't evolve from a bonobo I evolved from a star man and woman
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!neegula, yesterday you gave me a good laugh.
I was trying to escape from them but the were after me here too !!!
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
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
.
Is that good for the water sign ? or we should start worrying
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
ooopppssss...I was joking
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.so it isn't a theory of mine though its a theory I've heard vaguely about and don't dismiss out of hand.
so maybe you feel in sharing some links or specifical info that stroke you the most?
.
as there are still sooo many missing rings to get to know our whole history, it can be that your opinion is perfectly right.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.
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.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Selfish_Gene
The scarcer the resources the stronger is the competition.
it's important to distinguish between what is biological and what is cultural.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.
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.Mate choice follows those assumptions too.
Of course there are other opinions too against those concepts.
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.
Clarity,
Office 17622,
PO Box 6945,
London.
W1A 6US
United Kingdom
Phone/ Voicemail:
+44 (0)20 3287 3053 (UK)
+1 (561) 459-4758 (US).