Naked Science Forum
On the Lighter Side => New Theories => Topic started by: aspagnito on 11/11/2022 09:49:50
-
(https://www.ripleys.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/GettyImages-515115024-620x1024.jpg)
(https://www.the-sun.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/6/2021/12/JG-COMP-HUMANZEE.jpg?w=660)
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/9/90/Oliver_chimpanzee.jpg/220px-Oliver_chimpanzee.jpg)
Seriously? A humanzee? Nowadays science says a definite "no" to such a mix. If it was even possible, the ethics forbids it and a country that will try that (possibly China) will be banished (nothing new to the PRC).
But how?
Some time ago there lived count Lehdorff. He crossed racing horses and found out, that the best genetical results one can achieve but mixing inbred-outbred-inbred by turns. So people asked - if we do the hybridisation and we know about the count Lehndorff's achievement, what will happen if we first use incest before hybridisation. Theoretically we can achieve fertile hybrids that spontanously don't hybridise (some animals do - a strawbery is a hybrid for example, and we live with some hybrids now on Earth). Those hybrids should have better genes and more- if we let them have incest once more - they will have even better genom. That's theoretically saying. If people tried that after count Lehndorff, and we achieved a humanzee and killed it - now it's explainable why scientists don't let such experiments in ethics.
We look at a guy and he's to straight. Secnondly he has strange feet and a face is a matter of discussion. But there is one thang - his body hair. Well, this stays out of discussion. He cannot be a chimpanzee, cause only humans have hair that don't resist in water as hair of chimpanzees. He must be a mix.
If you're here only to suggest a photoshop-give yourself a break.
-
Apart from the chromosomal mismatch, never mind how, ask why.
-
Parents of hybrids usually have that problem.
-
That humans are directly descended from chimpanzees is indicated by much evidence. We often find prehistoric bones of anthropoids, which we find difficult to qualify because, for example, as chimpanzees they would already have human-type feet. We don't observe something like this in either gorillas or orangutans, which are altogether our distant cousins. However, the most important clue about our direct descent from chimpanzees is that only chimpanzees wage wars in our, human, understanding of the phenomenon. In turn, this fact was one of several that gave human evolution a huge boost. To understand this, we need to explain something.
What makes humans different from chimpanzees is that chimpanzees are not, like human females, selective in choosing a mate. Hence, they pair up with anyone on any occasion, and it is rather the males who decide among themselves which, and if any, females they will pair up with. This fact, along with the fact that the mechanism of wars imposes on them complete nationalism and destruction of everything else was the reason why chimpanzees did not evolve for millions of years.
When someone else was born, sooner or later he was killed. Hence, surely the first human was a female who, for reasons not understood by males, was selective towards males and passed on such genes to her children. This trait was also the one that determined the huge acceleration. Females chose less aggressive males, males who were more handsome and intelligent, or those who stood out from the rest. This is why, by being selective in choosing a mate, genetically superior humans were born from generation to generation, and it was this mechanism that accelerated human evolution.
Another element that accelerated the even surprisingly rapid evolution of man was something that Count Lehndorff noticed.
Count Lehndorff crossed racehorses and noticed that the best genetic results are achieved by alternating inbred-outbred-inbred, that is, close-bred and distantly related crosses (ideally starting with the former). If inbred is something like incest, it makes recessive traits become dominant. So, the organism will highlight, thanks to inbreeding, some half of a talent, which, thanks to outbreeding, will combine with the other half to form the whole talent, i.e. some distinct and interesting trait. Outbreeding without prior inbreeding is not so effective.
Outbreeding alone makes the genes stronger, but also more compressed, and the individual relies more on automatic reactions, while inbreeding weakens the genes, but also loosens and activates the individual so that the individual naturally excuses more things. The ideal, then, is to manipulate one and the other in such a way as to maintain a kind of balance, but also to improve the genetic outcome. This theory, although of much greater importance to evolutionism than Darwinism, is not known and is kept secret. It is possible, in fact, to use alternate incest-hybridization-cascination and obtain fertile hybrids with better genes of organisms that do not hybridize. It is possible, unfortunately, that by this method it is possible to obtain and has already once obtained a hybrid of a human and a chimpanzee.
And hybridization, unfortunately, for the wrong reasons, is considered something unethical and a play on God, while GMOs, which should be considered just that, are supposedly safe and supported by ethicists, or scientists.
Why is this so relevant to human evolution? Well, humans in the past formed, like chimpanzees, small communities, even families, which sustained the continuity of the species from generation to generation. So then we had to deal with inbreeding and incest. Man, however, inherited the mechanism of wars from chimpanzees.
Hence, he sometimes set out for distant conquests, and inbred or incestuous individuals enforced soldier rape by conceiving young, which, based on the principle of the aforementioned inbred-outbred-inbred genetic pump, showed better genetic performance and had traits that their parents did not possess. On a similar note, the human race has to thank the invention of the bicycle for such genetic acceleration.
Before the "bicycle revolution", couples were married among youngsters statistically 5-7 km apart (cousins - inbred), and thanks to the bicycle this distance increased to 30-50 km (unrelated people - outbred).
If the genetic progress of humans was so accelerated, and humans, as very often more hybrid, were largely invasive organisms and conquered more and more territories (they also took them back from the weaker ones by practicing soldier rape and creating even more advanced human forms), this means that human evolution went in many different directions in practically every, even the tiniest human population.
To some researchers, it seems impossible that humans have both an upright posture, a human-type foot, fine hair, or an amniotic membrane between the toes that chimpanzees do not have. In the case of fine hair, it is arranged on the human body in such a way as to create a streamlined shape in the water and not impede swimming. This is a legacy of a population from southern Africa that learned to fish in the water and spend a lot of time in that very water. This, in turn, meant that humans not only had poorer hair, more streamlined, but were more upright, as water served as a kind of prosthesis for these people for a very long time.
Now if we take into account what we said earlier, such a zinbred man, with the gently accentuated traits we mentioned, could have met another type of man in a skirmish of war, and the traits we mentioned would have become twice or even thrice accentuated in their children (after the soldier's rape). Subsequently, such a child, as a hybrid, would be fitter and more willing to be chosen as a kind of "spouse".
Hence, after outbreeding there would be re-inbreeding, and this would determine the next genetic advance. Such an individual would have everything come out more "automatically," so he would occupy the space for his family more unconflictedly. When a population had too much inbreeding, it would not be as able to function "automatically" and would have to force more. It would have to fight more wars, in other words.
There is no doubt that the outbreeding phenomenon is something much more positive than inbreeding. This is also the common public perception. In a way, as far as outbreeding is concerned, if a given individual of a population crosses with an individual of almost every other population, the genetic gain of their offspring is mostly potentially similar for every other population. However, a phenomenon called "synergy" determines that there are certain combinations that are preferred so that an individual of almost any population, when crossed with an individual of a particular matching population, has offspring with high genetic gain.
Thus, in the past of the human race, there may have been situations where, chased out of one territory, a population of people wandered for a very long time until they found people who willingly took them in. Hence, a future without wars is not necessarily a future without borders. Indeed, there was a Russian-Soviet biologist who had observations similar to Count Lehndorff. Namely, Mikhurin noted that better genetic results are applied by combining hybrids with "wild types," that is, with the most statistical individuals in the population.
Hence, one guess is that it makes sense to maintain conditions that are partially genetically hermetic for a given ethnic group, but for this particular group to select a matching group, for example, people with mixed blood, and allow only this group to migrate to a given region under preferential conditions so as to combine the forcing factor (inbred) with the automating factor (outbred).
However, it is not the case that outbreeding is the only solution and remedy for all evil. For it is the case that some people match and have matched by preferring a partner similar to themselves. It is even more common and popular, and such behavior consolidates traits tentatively constituted in the inbred-outbred-inbred genetic pump. Ethnically homogeneous communities are most often culturally homogeneous, and as such may exhibit traits of, for example, collective solidarity that communities with ethnic cultural salad do not.
Homogeneous communities are easier to govern. After a while, however, the policy of ethnic homogeneity becomes very disadvantageous. Not only do the young not want to conceive children, but there begins to be an increasingly pathological percentage of fetuses with genetic disorders.
So there are both positives and negatives of inbreeding and outbreeding.
Most generally, let's point this out again, the ratio of the forcing aspect (inbred) and the automaticity aspect (outbred) should be balanced. If there are tendencies for the excessive predominance of one of them in a given community, it is then necessary to find a synergistic, preferred combination and combine one community with the other. Contrary to appearances, even primitive man at the dawn of his history hybridized with earlier forms. First with chimpanzees, and later, as Homo sapiens with Neanderthals.
This raises the question of what distinguishes the human race from the chimpanzee and the animal world. It is a bit like the question of whether a slipper is a plant or an animal if it exhibits characteristics of both? There is an experiment in which a woman brings a colorful backpack into the jungle. A chimpanzee sees this backpack and wants it. So she comes down from the tree and occupies the woman with the game.
When the two play with the sticks so well that they both become distracted, the chimpanzee steals the backpack quickly and runs away with it to the tree. This experiment shows that chimpanzees think abstractly, have imagination and can plan. What they do not have is something that only humans have, namely fantasy. Fantasy as a reaction of the imagination to the emotional states of humans. It was fantasy that, after the cognitive revolution some 100,000 years ago, man created tools to make tools, created civilization, art, religion and the arc with which he eliminated everyone other than homo sapiens.
Why the cognitive revolution.
Man owes about 80% of his DNA to viruses, and similarly back then he infected himself with a virus that still has a positive effect on brain function and thinking today. It makes us think creatively.
It is said that after drinking two beers a person gets cute. This is also when, usually at a barbecue, we have the most interesting ideas. We debate both the political and economic situation of the world and super ideas for the national team and our patents for Kowalski's turbine or Łągiewka's bumper. This mischievous monkey, as the Buddhists call it, that jumps around in our heads distracting us with confabulation to me has nothing to do with a monkey. It is purely and solely a human trait.
Chimpanzees can be taught a computer game in which they will be much more proficient than humans. Numbers will appear on a black screen for a very short period of time - randomly placed in different places. Then they quickly disappear. The role of the player is to remember this arrangement very quickly and press the next positions where the numbers appeared - in order from smallest to largest. Chimpanzees have no problem with this game at all - what they solve flawlessly in a fraction of a second, brings us great difficulty. The problem is precisely that we get distracted and that by thinking.... We fantasize - chimpanzees don't do that.
We are not a species - we are the human kind, but taxonomically we differ from animals in that animals are divided into races, and distinguishing races in humans is a misunderstanding and a mistake. Humans are divided into "ethnic groups", which are often in a peculiar way zinbred, and geographically close ethnic groups can be similar (this is a division not only territorial, but mainly related to politics and determined by civilization). However, in animals, races have another factor that unites and separates them - it is territory. In humans, ethnic groups bind and separate political relations.
Finally, I will raise a very interesting problem.
A child will say that a mushroom is a plant. It is not.
-
We have the animal kingdom, the plant kingdom, the fungal kingdom, and bacteria and viruses. Viruses themselves are not even alive (they have no metabolism), although we often take them for such. We also often make the mistake that since animals are divided into races, so are humans. No, people are divided into ethnic groups. Considering all these exceptions, let's mention organisms that, on the one hand, eat other organisms, and on the other hand, nothing prevents them from synthesizing sugar through photosynthesis.
Taxonomy is not a branch of science in which everything can be strictly distinguished from each other - as we mentioned, natural sciences are not exact sciences. Thus, a doubt remains - whether man is an animal, or whether, thanks to fantasy, he has so distinguished himself from the animal world that, as the human race (which still belongs to the animal kingdom), he is no longer that animal. This may seem to defy logic, but that's what natural sciences are - they don't give a simple answer to the 2+2 operation.
I must add one last observation of mine to this ebook. Today we know that life most likely originated on Earth. If so, there is a problem, because the first protocells could not have simultaneously developed the mechanism of inheritance and metabolism in themselves. Nor could they have been "infected by a virus," since these did not exist before - this would not make sense, since viruses have no metabolism and are reproduced only in living organisms. Hence, the mechanism that constituted life and created the first protocell was hybridization - most likely, through water drifts, forms having metabolism joined with forms having some sort of simplified inheritance (most likely, it was RNA at the beginning, not DNA).
Thus, hybridization most likely gave rise to life.
Yes - someone may say that what I am describing is some kind of exceptional coincidence and a rare, even unnatural situation. It isn't. The mechanism according to which living organisms hybridize is written into our genome, and at certain times on Earth it appears en masse. Especially during mass extinctions of species.
Each species on Earth lives statistically about 10 million years.
When its heyday ends, the species slowly begins to die out, and a situation arises where a few hundred, a few dozen, or a few individuals of a species remain on Earth. Naturally, these animals are forced to incest in order to survive. As we know, this is the first condition of the genetic pump incest-hybridization-incest. Of course, the young after incest instinctively know that they cannot continue to give birth to incestuous animals, and so they begin a "great exodus" - they leave their territories in search of a mate. If they meet a post-incest individual with the same problem - and it will be of the same genus but a different species, for example - they will beget a hybrid with him. These hybrids will be more invasive, and fit, and will have greater vigor. Such hybrids can already commit incest to increase the size of the herd, and this does not harm them, but improves their genetic conditions all the more.
Now, if we have a new species that suddenly appeared out of nowhere (Darwin did not explain why we observe the sudden appearance of species and their extinction - and not a slow transformation from one species to another, as his theory would have it), such a new species, which is more invasive, will populate vast tracts of space efficiently and not only deplete the area (it more efficiently eats what earlier species fed on), but will also take food away from earlier species. Hence, by annihilating food (other species) and taking away such food from other species - the new hybrids will influence the effect of species extinction all the more.
Thus, there is an increasing likelihood in such a situation that more and more animals will behave in this way and more hybrids will be created. However, most animals will fall prey and fail to survive as hybrids. In a way, more hybrids capable of surviving under much more difficult conditions will emerge. Hence, the period of species extinction, in order to occur, must be preceded by a climate crisis (a period of cooling, for example), and the emergence of more and more hybrids accelerates and the extinction of more and more species and that more and more animals hybridize and new, genetically improved, species are created.
Today, humans are responsible for the climate crisis, and because of our intervention in nature, and the fact that we have already occupied virtually the entire Earth - it is impossible to naturally reproduce this phenomenon. If we waited for nature to do its thing, we probably wouldn't get there. Civilization stands on progress, growth and development - without progress, growth and development there is no money, and without it we can't function as a civilization. When the human population reaches 9-9.5 billion people, we will face a collapse - despite the surplus, we will run out of raw materials and the Earth will be too small, so we will face an unimaginable crisis, and then probably a "Middle Ages." "Reality can't be turned off" - we can't just say that we pull the plug from the contact, close our eyes and it will be fine. Unfortunately, if we intervened and made wrong decisions, we have to fix it all, and here, unfortunately, bans will be ineffective.
Bans are all the more likely to be broken because they create an opportunity for the underground economy - if something is not quite legal, there is a greater demand for it, and so all the more reason for the emergence of groups that will specialize in breaking bans and profiting handsomely from it. With 9 billion people, looking for perpetrators is more difficult - even as civilization develops, a problem such as kidnapping young children for trafficking among pedophiles is a growing concern, let alone adhering to some prohibition about which almost everyone will have an attitude of constipation.
If we have intervened in nature, we must intervene further, but in much more nifty and niche ways.
Man has, for example, allowed cod to become massively infested (due to fishing and tourism). And yet hybrids of certain fish are already being developed (on a test basis), which are proving to be less demanding, eat less and grow bigger. So we should help nature with hybridization (which would have happened without us, and now there is no chance for it) and recreate part of the food chain in the seas, introducing hybrids of cod and hybrids of other fish from the food chain, because through the cod plague the whole food chain in the Baltic and other seas is dying and will soon die out completely.
Yes - there are accidents at work. One such accident is the hybridization of bees. An African bee was crossed with a European bee and accidentally escaped into the wild in a South American country. This bee, yes - it is very honey and has a very valuable crop, but it is also the most aggressive bee in the world and today there is no way to eliminate it. Perhaps further crossbreeding of this hybrid with the Indian bee would make the new bee even more honey-producing and safer for humans (while eliminating the old hybrid), but today no one will experiment that way anymore, because the effects we can't quite predict - we would have to test it under super-regulated conditions, and today there is simply no will for such experiments.
Of course, as I mentioned Count Lehndorff will not find mention on the Internet. This is dangerous knowledge, as it could lead to uncontrolled hybridization and to animal-human hybrids, for example. In the past, when the Internet did not exist, this knowledge was a staple at, for example, the Agricultural Academy, but this was deep communist Poland and times have changed - by the way, they change all the time and Wikipedia every now and then "blows away" something of value, or truncates certain knowledge to absurd proportions, even introducing a fair amount of misinformation. Well, it is what it is - even if someone created an alternative and much richer version of the electronic encyclopedia - this one would not be findable on Google, and everyone would, moreover, ask "why", when there is Wikipedia.
There are concrete conclusions behind all this. Neither inbreeding nor outbreeding is too beneficial among people in the long run, and without improving genes, a little probably harms everything. For example, if we are dealing with the first generation of Mulattoes, they have traits that are often outstanding and desirable. However, interbreeding Mulattoes with Mulattoes is over-amplifying genes (inbreeding weakens genes, outbreeding strengthens them) and this proves detrimental in the long run.
Similarly, the "bicycle revolution" (the invention and widespread use of the bicycle) reduced inbreeding - before this revolution marriages were made among people 5-15 km apart (high probability of inbreeding - weaker and weaker genes) to 30-50 km after this revolution (beneficial effect - more outbreeding after inbreeding). However, we are still dealing with people in Poland who are very close to each other genetically, and there is still a high probability of genetic disorders in the offspring due to this inbreeding.
So what is the solution? The solution is "simple," or at least it looks simple on paper. Our state should practice the most responsible policy towards immigration and plan the number of immigrants that our country will eventually accept, but so that the number is close to 1-3% of the total current population of Poland. For these people, we should simply have a specific policy, and not let them loose to succumb to isolation. Lacking such a policy, we will quickly become a multi-ethnic nation anyway, and that is not good either, as it will cause an excess of outbredu.
For the health of the population, the blood in that population should be periodically admixed. Let's remember that even people living on the verge of poverty and in inhumane conditions may have something that we really need, and it's not only genes, but also a point of view that is different from us and sometimes more interesting, which if we also add to the sum of our achievements - we will enrich it and become richer ourselves. Without this, the 21st century will turn out to be for us a soulless, technocratic, neurotic machine ... in which no one even wants to love.
-
That humans are directly descended from chimpanzees is indicated by much evidence.
No, the evidence indicates that humans and chimpanzees had a common ancestor. Chimpanzees didn't evolve until millions of years after the split of Homo/Pan.
-
That's not a humanzee, it's obviously a chimpanman.
-
That humans are directly descended from chimpanzees is indicated by much evidence.
No, the evidence indicates that humans and chimpanzees had a common ancestor. Chimpanzees didn't evolve until millions of years after the split of Homo/Pan.
No, that's only pure Darwin's speculation, and it is not logical. Chimpanzee has about 99% genom of a human (correct me if I am wrong) and it had to be our ancestor. No-one will ever convince me otherwise, 'cause it is only political corectness that says humans cannot come from monkeys. Well? So the ancestor of humans and chimpanzees was a pig, donkey, or rather a daphnia? Of course it was a monkey, a chimpanzee. I wrote it further on - we find chimpanzees that have feet of human type and we do not find it amongst gorillas or orangutans. Human evolution had a great acceleration of:
- sellectiveness for a mate of women
- genetical pump of inbred-outbred-inbred
- inherited from chimpanzees war mechanism
Thanks to that humans evolved a lot faster, than we possibly "should" for an animal. Therefore human evolution had many-many vectors depending on localisation of the whole planet. People did hybridise with each other and we are who we are because of that. Even though we come from animals we no longer are an animal (even though humans are not a species, but a "kind" on a branch of animals) - just like a mushroom is not a plant, and a plant does not divide into races. Humans also do not divide into races, but ethnicities, as we created civilisation.
Why are we not animals? I wrote about it, but I will tell that once more. Chimpanzees can plan, have abstractive thinking and have imagination, but they do not have, and no animal has that - a FANTASY - as a reaction of imagination to human emotions. This way we can get pictures in our minds out of nothing and animals, or even apes cannot do that. Thanks to that we first created art, religion, bow (to destroy other humanoids) and tools to create tools. Basically all of our inventions come from FANTASY and animals do not have it. Sorry, but thanks to that FANTASY I can write on an Internet forum about apes and also thanks to that YOu can read this.
There is a question - if we know how to create enhanced hybrids - and there is a possibility that we might know (genetical pump of inbred-outbred-inbred or a hardcore version of incest-hybridisation-invest) we might solve some of our problems. Hybrids are much more invasive and they might replace the dying species keeping the animal geno for the next era. Also hybrids are more vital, also human-chimpanzee hybrid should be more vital and it might help us solve problems we're dealing with now - as more vital unit it should help us create medicines we need and that we think of them as impossible to create.
-
No, that's only pure Darwin's speculation, and it is not logical.
I have not heard that Darwin thought that humans evolved directly from chimpanzees but that is irrelevant anyway, who cares what Darwin thought about human evolution. We have come quite a long way since Darwin.
Chimpanzee has about 99% genom of a human (correct me if I am wrong
It is more like 96%. A banana has about 44% of their genome in common with humans.
and it had to be our ancestor.
Making the same claim over and over does not make it true. All you have to do is google the ape family tree and you can find that humans and chimpanzees have the same common ancestor, but we are not directly descended from chimpanzee.
No-one will ever convince me otherwise, 'cause it is only political corectness that says humans cannot come from monkeys.
If no one can 'convince you otherwise' regardless of any evidence then I guess we are done.
Political correctness??? First of all humans didn't 'come from monkeys'. Monkeys living today and humans did have a common ancestor though.
-
No-one will ever convince me otherwise
Not a very scientific mindset.
The current consensus is that we evolved from an ape that is now extinct (like some species of Australopithecus). They were more human-like than the chimpanzees are.
Why are we not animals?
We are. We are in the kingdom Animalia.
-
(https://zapodaj.net/images/ee509890b71f3.jpg)
So much for the science.
This is the "New theories" forum and all I have is a feeling you quote me old theories (with errors) without even reading my article. So once more. Briefly...
Chimp females have sex very often, but mostly with dominating males. Who is the dominating male? Chimps set that amongst themselves. Human females do that totally differently. They must be impressed by a man that he is somehow supreme. Small difference, but decides of the whOOOOle difference. It made possible coming out of the tree and make lots and lots of different evolution vectors all around the planet.
Why?
And why chimps did not change for millions of years of evolution? Because they gave us only their evolutionairy trait: THE MECHANISM OF WAR. Only chimps and only humans lead wars in the same meaning. Other animals don't. And chimps are total hardcore nationalists. They destroy everything that is different, than they are. If a chimp is born and it is genetically better or genetically worse - it gets killed. So for millions of years they practically did not change.
But thanks to the same trait (war mechanism) enforced with selectiveness of a mate by women and genetical pump of inbred-outbred-inbred humans say went to a 1000 different localisation ("pee times a tree") in each they lived in closed "families" that thanks to war mechanisms and nationalism cause lots of inbred or even incest. Inbred and incest is a "must vector" (outbred and hybridisation is an "automaticity vector"), so they were a lot more into having wars. So they attacked other localisations and with "military rape" caused outbred - making genetical pump work (inbred-outbred-inbred) and causing genetical advantage. It is not that obvious, so I recomend reading the article.
I said that I cannot be convinced otherwise, because I am convinced about the vallue of my theory. Very often people just quote me old scientifical "songs" and that became boring. Science is never about truth - it is about probability and science is even more about the nowadays dogma, than the religion is. The difference is that science changes dogma in about decade to ten decades. Religion does that ten times slower.
If you have any doubts about i watch this video.
This theory is open to doubt. The dominant chimpanzees are the only ones who have the right to have sex with females. The male, which is not dominant, but unique, and had sex with a female, would be killed.
Of course, this question is superficial and is dispelled by Hollywood films. Until today, when an extraordinary male has sex with a cool female, the dominant male gets angry and can beat or even kill the special guy. In most cases, however, it is retrospectively – the offspring belong to the exception males.
-
Those high percentage similarity figures quoted on a google search are now considered inaccurate. A figure of 95-96% is now considered more realistic. A google search will also tell me a pig has 98% similarity with humans. The reason for close genetic similarity is quite simple: most advanced life forms use identical biochemical processes .
-
Hi.
I've only skimmed through a little of this post. You (aspagnito) seem determined that humans are directly descended from chimpanzees rather than just from a common ancestor that both species had many years ago.
I know it can be unpleasant to have your ideas challenged and I can see that you have spent time doing some research and devloping a lot of ideas and information. A lot of it, I'm sure, is very good. However, it might be that some of the early assumptions you have made aren't as solid (likely to be true) as you might have hoped for.
One early comment was:
...However, the most important clue about our direct descent from chimpanzees is that only chimpanzees wage wars in our, human, understanding of the phenomenon...
OK - but this is very limited evidence. It is using information about behaviour now. You are making two assumptions:
1. You are assuming this behaviour was also exhibited a million or so years ago.
2. Even assuming the behaviour was there, it is quite possible for two distinct species to both display this behaviour through what is called "parallel evolution" or "convergent evolution".
Here's some details for those two points:
1. There weren't any animal behaviour experts a million years ago. No-one wrote this observation down or recorded it in any way. The information wasn't even passed on by something less reliable like storytelling or through pictures like cave paintings. So we don't know the extent of this behaviour in either the ancestor of the chimpanzee or the ancestor of the human (or their common ancestor, or whatever you want to describe the situation with).
2. Two quite distinct species can have similar traits which can include a recognizable behaviour. We have several modern day examples of this (see the Wikipedia reference later for some of these examples). The term "parallel evolution" (or possibly even what is called "convergent evolution" if the chimpanzee ancestor and human ancestor were very distant) is used to describe the development of similar traits in different species. There are then two time frames where this sort of parallel evolution could have occurred. The ancestor of the chimpanzee might have just have had similar behaviour to the human ancestor but they were already significantly different species, or, the ancestor was common but there has been parallel evolution in both the chimpanzee and the human since then.
Reference / further info: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parallel_evolution
- - - - - - - - -
The more reliable evidence we have for the actual evolution is based on fossil records and not on modern day behaviours of any two species. Looking at responses from others, you'd get little opposition to the idea that chimpanzees and homo sapiens had a common ancestor. However, it seems extremely unlikely that evolution of the modern day chimpanzee would have stopped there. As such, that "common ancestor" would not have the same genome (or is not the exactly the same species) as the modern day chimpanzee.
Best Wishes.
-
I'm even more closely related to my brother than I am to a chimpanzee. That doesn't mean that I'm descended from my brother.
-
Hi.
I've only skimmed through a little of this post. You (aspagnito) seem determined that humans are directly descended from chimpanzees rather than just from a common ancestor that both species had many years ago.
I know it can be unpleasant to have your ideas challenged and I can see that you have spent time doing some research and devloping a lot of ideas and information. A lot of it, I'm sure, is very good. However, it might be that some of the early assumptions you have made aren't as solid (likely to be true) as you might have hoped for.
I was about to finish writing on this topic. Sometimes I write on this forum and, for example, I managed to predict well in advance the appearance of something like Omikron, which took care of the COVID-19 issue to some extent. At that time I was also called out as a charlatan, especially since I am no expert and my models are fully intuitive.
In a way, you showed up - the only person who has anything in his head figured out. There may be a slight whiff of sarcasm from your statement, or at least irony, but I'm happy to address the most important thing you're talking about.
What you write about is the so-called "convergence." Yes there is such a phenomenon, and in biology the most obvious convergence is the almost identical structure of the eye of octopus and mammals. As you can immediately see the suggestion from this example - mammals and octopuses are very far apart on the evolutionary tree. Humans and chimpanzees are not. Chimpanzees and humans are closest "cousins" (even if humans are descended from earlier chimpanzees, we are bound to current chimpanzees by the bond of cousinhood). So you probably don't want to tell me that it's pure coincidence that such close cousins have from such a time created in parallel something as complex as the mechanism of wars - by the way, you're actually suggesting that it's blind luck. I am suggesting that this just-invented mechanism of wars was one of the reasons that provided humans with evolutionary multi-vectors, and thus determined the great acceleration of our evolution as homo sapiens, since it was according to some researchers that we evolved a little too fast as humans.
Other than that, I'm not worried. Many times I have come up with something interesting, and people have laughed at it. I read a bit about just such people. It's a bad attitude that when a person discovers or invents something, he expects the whole world to fall at his feet. Unfortunately, 99.99% of the reactions look exactly like the one in this forum, and the trick is not to worry about it and do your own thang.
Well, I know my theory might lack the bibliography and hard research - or it is too sillylike/intuitive, yet it is totally valid.
-
Hi.
My comments weren't meant to cause offence. The forum is nominally a place to discuss something and it can be helpful to have others check the work even though sometimes that might identify a problem. You (aspagnito) are looking on the negative side of things. Some people have looked at your work and some of the replies have mentioned some problems or concerns, you see that as negative thing. It's not all negative. Someone has actually looked at your work (they didn't have to), that is a positive thing. You've had several replies from different people and this is only a small forum with about two dozen regular users. It's an interesting topic to most people (we are all human and interested in humans) and you present it well (starting with an interesting photo might have been quite a good attention grabber, for example). There's a lot about the post that you are doing right and well.
You may find a lot of other posts in the new theories section and it might look as if no-one is finding problems but it is usually just that very few are reading those posts any longer.
Unfortunately, 99.99% of the reactions look exactly like the one in this forum, and the trick is not to worry about it and do your own thang.
That's probably a very good attitude for many things in life, including coming up with new theories, it's certainly very heroic. However, it's not always the most efficient way of working. You can solve a problem with grit and determination but it's also possible to study the existing knowledge and experience of human society. A combination of determination and studying the existing field of knowledge usually gets to the solution faster.
Best Wishes.
-
So you probably don't want to tell me that it's pure coincidence that such close cousins have from such a time created in parallel something as complex as the mechanism of wars
Unless humans and chimpanzees both inherited it from their common ancestor. Then it wouldn't be a coincidence.
-
Hi.
My comments weren't meant to cause offence. The forum is nominally a place to discuss something and it can be helpful to have others check the work even though sometimes that might identify a problem. You (aspagnito) are looking on the negative side of things. Some people have looked at your work and some of the replies have mentioned some problems or concerns, you see that as negative thing. It's not all negative. Someone has actually looked at your work (they didn't have to), that is a positive thing. You've had several replies from different people and this is only a small forum with about two dozen regular users. It's an interesting topic to most people (we are all human and interested in humans) and you present it well (starting with an interesting photo might have been quite a good attention grabber, for example). There's a lot about the post that you are doing right and well.
You may find a lot of other posts in the new theories section and it might look as if no-one is finding problems but it is usually just that very few are reading those posts any longer.
Unfortunately, 99.99% of the reactions look exactly like the one in this forum, and the trick is not to worry about it and do your own thang.
That's probably a very good attitude for many things in life, including coming up with new theories, it's certainly very heroic. However, it's not always the most efficient way of working. You can solve a problem with grit and determination but it's also possible to study the existing knowledge and experience of human society. A combination of determination and studying the existing field of knowledge usually gets to the solution faster.
Best Wishes.
I'm sorry, I am Polish and this is my English. I was not up to offend anyone and I do not feel offended in any way. All I'm saying is that I should not be easily offended by anyone because that would get me nowhere. I am sorry if someone feels offended. By the way - if YOu got some spare time, please read the whole article I wrote. It's quite interesting. YOu seem to be the only one to really understand it. Perhaps YOu'd be the first fan of it, if YOu gave it a chance.
-
Well. Why do I persist. After all, a little political correctness can't hurt anyone, and I may bury a great theory through my stubbornness.
So okay - humans and chimpanzees, who, like bonobos, are each other's closest cousins HAVE A COMMON ancestor.
Just put it quite efficiently, and I shouldn't have to insist otherwise.
In a way - the common ancestor of chimpanzees and humans developed a mechanism of wars, which we - we humans and chimpanzees - inherited from that common ancestor.
In the case of chimpanzees - the mechanism of wars meant that chimpanzees were also terrible nationalists - killing anything that seemed different from them. Both genetically weaker and genetically stronger. Only the genetically "normal" had a chance to be dominant in a group. Hence, the evolutionary branch on which chimpanzees are on looks like this: from the common ancestor of chimpanzees and humans to today's chimpanzees, not much has changed. Probably if a person who has little idea about chimpanzees looked at the common descendant of humans and chimpanzees he would simply see a chimpanzee. He would simply be mistaken.
In the case of humans, the case was a little different. From our common ancestor we also inherited the mechanism of wars, but the moment our first human ancestor-which was certainly a female-she acquired selectivity with regard to her partner, she began to choose partners who impressed her, rather than the dominant ones (although some females still choose the dominant ones, this is hardly a common practice-which male is dominant, the males determine among themselves). This fact (selectivity), along with the aforementioned mechanism of wars and the genetic pump of inbreeding-outbreeding-inbreeding gave human evolution a gigantic acceleration and decided on multi-vector evolution, where the superposition of different evolutionary vectors decided on a gigantic outright acceleration of human evolution.
In other words, the mechanism of wars alone in the case of today's chimpanzees meant their terribly slow evolution, it is in the case of humans that the mechanism of wars, the genetic pump of inbreeding-outbreeding-inbreeding and the selectivity of females to mates - that is, the mechanism of wars enriched by this - decided such a gigantic acceleration of evolution that opponents of any evolutionism suggest that humans evolved too fast, and therefore could not have evolved from an organism very similar to a chimpanzee. How do we know that the common ancestor of the chimpanzee and man was very similar to the chimpanzee - by the mechanism of wars, which stagnated the evolution of chimpanzees, and, along with other features, dramatically accelerated the evolution of a human.
-
First of all, I would like to mention that I hope I have not burned any bridges behind me by my sometimes arrogant tone.
Throughout my theory, which is a bit complicated, but very aesthetically pleasing and captures the complexity of the behavior of living organisms.... there was something wrong in the whole theory. It is about bonobo chimpanzees. It all looks like the bonobo dwarf chimpanzees, which appeared some 1.7 million years ago, are younger than the first Homo habilis, which arose 2.5 million years ago. In addition, bonobos do not know the mechanism of wars, are pacifists, and are partially selective about their mate. Simply put, mothers chase away uninvited daughter-in-laws, and if these mothers like a female, they sometimes even forcibly lead their sons to copulate with such a female. And this is already a problem for my theory.
The problem is that bonobos are almost as distant from us as common chimpanzees. Their pacifist nature and what I wrote earlier about hybridization would suggest that the first humans were some kind of hybrid of the common chimpanzee and bonobo. We seemingly inherited the mechanism of wars from one, and partner selectivity and pacifism from the other. That was my original thinking. However, the dates don't match, and the fact that bonobos, like the common chimpanzee for those 1.7 million according to my theory, hardly evolved - or evolved very poorly. Why? Nothing seemed to fit here for me.
I was reading a bit about bonobos and something clicked for me when reading that bonobos do not form families. My intuition told me that this was the most important detail, but for a very long time I didn't know why it was so important. It wasn't until today that I figured it out! If bonobos do not form families (they are very fond of sex - they have sex at every opportunity with everyone, mostly homosexually), then there is no question of deepening inbreeding or outbreeding. The entire swath of the African continent, where bonobos are found, is filled with bonobos that are genetically very similar, though subtly different. Humans, who inherited the mechanism of wars from chimpanzees deepened their inbreeding in the family, and by going to war deepened their outbreeding - hence humans experienced multivector evolution - this multivector evolution experienced new superpositions from time to time and new invasive human hybrids appeared (hybrids are very invasive).
The bonobo does not have a family - so it does not create inbreeding - it releases its genes across the entire tract of the bonobo species. The inbreed-outbreed-inbreed genetic pump for bonobos does not work, and so bonobos, like the common chimpanzee, have evolved very poorly for 1.7 million years. Still, it is not possible for a bonobo to evolve from common chimpanzee war mechanisms to a pacifist. Well, unless...
Well, unless one important detail is taken into account. Just as Homo sapiens hybridized with Neanderthal (the typical Europeid Caucasian has some 4% of Neanderthal genes), so the first representatives of the human race hybridized with chimpanzees. Hence, it is most likely that the protoplast bonobo (bonobo means "ancestor" in one of the African languages) was a hybrid of an ancestor of common chimpanzees with an ancestor of humans. This ancestor hybridized further with the ancestors of today's common chimpanzees, and after inbreeding and outbreeding there was such a large population that further inbreeding no longer interfered. A new species was created. Most likely, there were many such species. Hence the bonobo in a sense proves my theory, rather than contradicts it - the bonobo shows in what evolutionary direction the first ancestors of humans went.