DOCSLIB.ORG

Science Shows That People Are More Hereditarily Like Different Primates Than Recently Suspected

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Science Shows That People Are More Hereditarily Like Different Primates Than Recently Suspected Our interest in chimpanzees and different primates is the same old thing. Lord Kong, Tarzan, the multitude of primates in Planet of the Apes, the orangutans at the zoo – with regards to silly things, we people appear to be not able to get enough. What's more, perhaps it bodes well since they're our nearest transformative cousins. Truth be told, we may be unmistakably more firmly identified with different primates than was recently suspected. Homo sapiens are perplexing and interesting animal varieties – an animal group that, in this period of innovation and computerization, has never been more imperative to comprehend. This rundown clarifies a disclosure that has opened up new open doors for understanding human embodiment and human development – an understanding that has the two its excellent and its fierce side. Chapter 1 - Science shows that people are more hereditarily like different primates than recently suspected. The likenesses among people and different primates aren't difficult to spot. Yet, precisely how hereditarily comparable would we say we are to our wild cousins, and which ones are our nearest family members? Researchers are currently ready to take a gander at the human genome and compute precisely how similar people and gorillas are. The outcomes are striking. We share 96.4 percent of our qualities with orangutans, 97.7 percent with gorillas, and a fantastic 98.6 percent with chimpanzees. Viably, that implies that a simple 1.4 percent of our DNA recognizes us from chimpanzees. Of that rate, just a limited quantity contains the hereditary instruments that helped us build up those properties we think about extraordinarily human, for example, language, craftsmanship, and innovation. We're so hereditarily near chimps that a few researchers even think of us as a component of a similar family. In many reference books, you'll discover people and chimpanzees classed in a similar request, the Primates, and a similar superfamily, the Hominoidea, however in independent families: the Hominidae for people and Pongidae for chimpanzees. Notwithstanding, one school of scientific classification – known as the cladistics – organizes species dependent on relative hereditary separation. Utilizing this strategy, people and chimps are essential for a similar family as well as even similar sort. They imagine not one but rather three separate species inside the Homo class: Homo troglodytes, the regular chimpanzee; Homo paniscus, the bonobo; and us, Homo sapiens. Being in similar variety implies the species are firmly related, to such an extent that occasionally they may be discernable just to specialists. Take the willow songbirds and the chiffchaffs for instance. These European feathered creatures share 97.7 percent of a similar DNA and look practically indistinguishable. Yet, they're less firmly identified with one another than people are to chimps. So we're a great deal like our chimp cousins – however, it's our couple of various qualities, just as workmanship, innovation, and language, that truly mark our species out. Chapter 2 - People were continually developing, however, it was the capacity to talk that truly changed things. As indicated by numerous anthropologists, human advancement went through an "incredible jump forward" around 40,000 years prior in Europe. Yet, to truly comprehend human advancement, we must start significantly sooner than that – at the principal phase of human development. Around 3 million years back, two particular types of early people could be recognized, very isolated from primates. These were Australopithecus robustus, which vanished 1.2 million years back, and Australopithecus africanus. Australopithecus africanus later advanced into Homo habilis and Homo habilis developed into Homo erectus. Homo erectus had bigger minds and bodies and, soon enough, they started to extend their region from Africa into Asia and Europe. Homo erectus went through further anatomical changes and, around 500,000 years prior, developed into Homo sapiens. Anatomical changes could just get us up until this point, nonetheless. It was the improvement of language, one of a kind to people, that truly permitted us to make significant steps. To talk, you need the correct larynx, tongue, and related muscle structure. People utilize this to create a scope of sounds that, thus, can be controlled to deliver language. Chimpanzees, gorillas, and orangutans can't talk since they don't have that structure. Researchers accept that proto-people additionally did not have this structure and that even Homo sapiens weren't genuinely prepared for discourse for the initial 460,000 years of its reality. As Homo sapiens created language, the incredible jump forward started. An inconspicuous change in life systems implied we out of nowhere had the vocal control and range appropriate for communicating in a language. We could now convey pictures, thoughts, and directions all the more rapidly and viably. The language likewise empowered us to create craftsmanship and innovation. So what precisely was this early language like? Chapter 3 - Language improvement in people can be perceived through both chronicled and similar logical models. For a considerable length of time, refined human language and correspondence appeared to be completely not normal for the snorts and yells of the lower monsters. In any case, researchers have as of late broke down creature specialized strategies and have demonstrated that they're not all that inaccessible from human language. The creature that has likely come nearest to building up a "language" is the vervet, a little African monkey. Electronic investigation of vervets has indicated that they respond with various vocalizations to various natural upgrades. Assaults from panthers, birds, or snakes, for example, cause the vervets to deliver shifting sound-alerts. They additionally produce unmistakable sounds in different social settings and they can speak with snorts to show in the case of something is eatable or unappetizing. So it appears to be that an overall talking capacity isn't so extraordinary to people. There's even a way we can envision how people previously created dialects. In the fifteenth century, the principal wave of European colonization started, and, through the span of the following four centuries, incalculable general stores were built up. Be that as it may, from the start, at any rate, it was hard to complete any exchanging, because there was no chance to get for dealers from various terrains to impart and cooperate. Thus basic dialects known as pidgins developed. These contained components of the different dealers' diverse local dialects. Later ages talked either pidgin as a local language and advanced them with more jargon and more unpredictable syntax. These new dialects are called creoles. The captivating point is that although pidgins and creoles have been made everywhere on over the globe – and all free from one another at that – they despite everything shares highlights, as comparable language structures. The subject-action word object request is utilized for proclamations; relational words are normal; twofold negatives are successive, and monosyllabic words are regularly dull. These regular highlights demonstrate that human dialects may have created similarly that creoles created. We should get some distance from language now and inspect another part of human assorted variety: racial qualities. Chapter 4 - The regular and sexual choice offered to ascend to "racial qualities". As you've without a doubt seen, not all individuals appear to be identical. There are tall people and short people, people with lighter skin, and people with hazier skin. These are known as racial attributes, and two logical speculations set how they created: regular choice and sexual choice. Most scientists are advocates of common determination. This hypothesis guarantees that racial attributes rose to improve a populace's odds of endurance. For example, the enormous chests of Andean Indians empower them to ingest more oxygen from the slim air found at high heights. Be that as it may, the regular choice doesn't generally clarify different attributes, for example, skin shading. Backers of common choice recommend that more obscure skin rose in regions of the world that get the most daylight. Yet, that doesn't clarify why some local people groups have brown complexion in places like Tasmania or parts of central West Africa. Also, concerning contrasts in hair and eye shading, or genitalia, the regular choice has no logical clout. Notwithstanding normal choice, Charles Darwin proposed the hypothesis of sexual determination. This hypothesis can fill in a portion of the holes that regular choice leaves open. Sexual determination is straightforward enough in principle. State a female has a lot of physical qualities that guys find alluring. Since this current female's attributes are appealing to guys, she'll have a simpler time finding a mate and reproducing. Her posterity may then acquire a portion of her alluring qualities, accordingly raising their odds of finding a mate and reproducing. Throughout ages, the physical qualities –, for example, hair shading, eye shading, and the size or state of genitalia – that improve the probability of finding a mate inside a given locale are propagated, and those that lessen it are removed. This implies sexual determination spreads attributes that don't build endurance rates all by themselves however bring about the relative increment of these sexual qualities in a given populace. Doubtlessly it's a blend of these two hypotheses that have prompted the steady advancement of unmistakable racial attributes. Chapter 5 - Your opinion of agribusiness' advantages is most presumably off-base. Most antiquarians and anthropologists accept that mankind's grasping of farming expanded personal satisfaction and gave us an available chance to create workmanship and innovations. These days, in any case, that rationale is being flipped completely around. Tracker finders had a higher caliber of life than later ranchers. Investigations of the couple of residual agrarian populaces show that they had a lot of relaxation time and worked no harder than ranchers.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Evolutionary Analysis of Gorilla, Chimps and Humans Using Sequence Divergence
    Journal of Bioinformatics and Sequence Analysis Vol. 3(1), pp. 1-5, January 2011 Available online at http://www.academicjournals.org/JBSA ISSN 2141-2464 ©2011 Academic Journals Full length Research Paper Evolutionary analysis of gorilla, chimps and humans using sequence divergence Vibhu Ranjan Prasad, Soumya Chaurasia and Rao Sethumadhavan* School of Bioscience and Technology, Vellore Institute of Technology, Vellore, Tamil Nadu – 632014, India. Accepted 30 September, 2010 We have analyzed the sequence divergence amongst the three species that is, gorilla, chimpanzee and human varying from Hominidae and Pongidae. Apart from the genomic phylogeny, we compared the protein and rRNA phylogenies to increase the importance of phylogenetic analysis. The proteins selected are from the mitochondrial origin as mtDNA which codes for mitochondrial proteins, mutate at a higher rate compared to nuclear DNA, so as to give a more useful, magnified view of the diversity present in a population, and its history. The phylogenetic analysis of the mitochondrial genome, rRNA and proteins are done using parsimony, BIONJ and PHYML methods which $resulted into variable results. The proteins that were able to infer the already stated phylogeny between these members were ATP synthase subunit 6 and 8, cytochrome b, cytochrome oxidase subunit 1 and 3 and NADH dehydrogenase subunit 2, 3 and 5. Although BIONJ and PHYML methods predicted similar results most often parsimony was found to be predicting contradictory phylogeny with respect to above two methods. To verify the results as obtained from various methods and to further analyze the evolutionary relationship between these members, we applied the method of calculating sequence divergence using bioinformatics tools.
    [Show full text]
  • Could a Chimpanzee Or Bonobo Take the Stand?
    \\Server03\productn\L\LCA\8-1\LCA109.txt unknown Seq: 1 25-APR-02 15:25 COULD A CHIMPANZEE OR BONOBO TAKE THE STAND? By Angela Campbell* The federal competency standards for witnesses testifying on the stand are fairly liberal. Witnesses must be able to distinguish right from wrong, un- derstand the concept of punishment, perceive events, and remember those events to communicate them in the future. Chimpanzees and bonobos are able to do all of these things to some degree, and therefore, arguably satisfy the federal competency standards. In some situations, this indicates that these nonhuman apes should be allowed to testify in court, subject to the federal competency and interpreter rules. I. INTRODUCTION Chimpanzees and bonobos resemble human beings more than any other living nonhuman animals.1 Chimpanzee and bonobo DNA is more closely related to human DNA than to the DNA of other apes.2 In fact, at least one scientist has proposed that humans are, for all in- tents and purposes, a third species of chimpanzee.3 One of the high- lighted differences between humans and their closest ape relatives is the lack of proof that nonhuman apes can produce complex tools, calen- dars or religions.4 These factors, however, are abstract skills which are not required to establish legal personhood or legal standing. Young * Ms. Campbell will receive her J.D. from Boston College Law School in May 2002. She received her B.A. from Yale University, and in August of 2002 she will begin clerk- ing for the Honorable C. Arlen Beam in the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals.
    [Show full text]
  • And Concealed Ovulation in Human Evolution: a Reevaluation
    Illinois Wesleyan University Digital Commons @ IWU Honors Projects Sociology and Anthropology 4-19-2006 "Loss of Estrus" and Concealed Ovulation in Human Evolution: A Reevaluation. Joshua S. Wagener '06 Illinois Wesleyan University Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.iwu.edu/socanth_honproj Part of the Anthropology Commons Recommended Citation Wagener '06, Joshua S., ""Loss of Estrus" and Concealed Ovulation in Human Evolution: A Reevaluation." (2006). Honors Projects. 17. https://digitalcommons.iwu.edu/socanth_honproj/17 This Article is protected by copyright and/or related rights. It has been brought to you by Digital Commons @ IWU with permission from the rights-holder(s). You are free to use this material in any way that is permitted by the copyright and related rights legislation that applies to your use. For other uses you need to obtain permission from the rights-holder(s) directly, unless additional rights are indicated by a Creative Commons license in the record and/ or on the work itself. This material has been accepted for inclusion by Faculty at Illinois Wesleyan University. For more information, please contact [email protected]. ©Copyright is owned by the author of this document. • "Loss ofEstrus" and Concealed Ovulation in Human Evolution: A Reevaluation. Joshua S. Wagener th April 19 , 2006 - For Stephen (Esteban) 1. Lopez de Gallegos, my loving grandfather, for never giving up a fight and having the determination to reach your goals up until your last breath. • "Loss of Estrus" and Concealed Ovulation in Human Evolution: A Reevaluation. Joshua S. Wagener Accounts ofhuman evolution tend to highlight a number ofsignificant characteristics as critical in defining humanity including bipedalism (Jolly 1970, Lovejoy 1981, Wheeler 1984), enlarged brains (Falk 1990, Foley 1996), hairlessness (Morris 1963, Schwartz and Rosenblum 1980), and language (pinker and Bloom 1990, Dunbar 1996).
    [Show full text]
  • What Is the Viewpoint of Hemoglobin, and Does It Matter?
    Hist. Phil. Life Sci., 31 (2009), 241-262 What is the Viewpoint of Hemoglobin, and Does It Matter? Jonathan Marks University of North Carolina at Charlotte Department of Anthropology Charlotte, NC 28223, USA ABSTRACT - In this paper I discuss reductive trends in evolutionary anthropology. The first involved the reduction of human ancestry to genetic relationships (in the 1960s) and the second involved a parallel reduction of classification to phylogenetic retrieval (in the 1980s). Neither of these affords greater accuracy than their alternatives; that is to say, their novelty is epistemic, not empirical. As a result, there has been a revolution in classification in evolutionary anthropology, which arguably clouds the biological relationships of the relevant species, rather than clarifying them. Just below the species level, another taxonomic issue is raised by the reinscription of race as a natural category of the human species. This, too, is driven by the convergent interests of cultural forces including conservative political ideologies, the creation of pharmaceutical niche markets, free-market genomics, and old- fashioned scientific racism. KEYWORDS – Molecular anthropology, Systematics, Classification, Human evolution Introduction In this paper I explore the intersection of genetics, taxonomy, and evolutionary anthropology. All three fields are scientific areas saturated with cultural meanings and associations. First, genetics is the scientific study of heredity, but has historically capitalized on non-scientific prejudices about heredity to curry support: hence James Watson’s epigrammatic proclamation in support of the Human Genome Project, “We used to think our fate was in the stars. Now we know, in large measure, our fate is in our genes” (Jaroff 1989; Duster 1990; Nelkin and Lindee 1995).
    [Show full text]
  • Book of the Century Jared Diamond (1992). the Third Chimpanzee. The
    Book of The Century Jared Diamond (1992). The Third Chimpanzee. The Evolution and Future of the Human Animal. Harper Perennial New York.407 pp Though we share 98 percent of our genes with the chimpanzee, our species evolved into something quitextraordinary. Jared Diamond explores the fascinating question of what in less than 2 percent of ourgenes has enabled us to found civilizations and religions, develop intricate languages, create art, learnscience--and acquire the capacity to destroy all our achievement overnight. The Third Chimpanzee is atour de force, an iconoclastic, entertaining, sometime alarming book at the unique and marvelouscreature that is the human animal. Additional Commentary "A sociologist from Outer Space would immediately classify us as just a third species of chimpanzee,along with the pygmy chimp of Zaire and the common chimp of the rest of tropical Africa" (p.2). "Yet the discoveries of many missing links have only made the problem more fascinating, without fullysolving it. The few bits of new baggage we acquired--the 2 percent difference between our genes andthose of chimps--must have been responsible for all of our seemingly unique properties" (p.2). "What were those few key ingredients that made us human? Since our unique properties appeared so recently and involved so few changes, those properties or at least their precursors must already be present in animals. What are those animal precursors of art and language, of genocide and drug abuse? (p.3) "Bust among our unique qualities are two that now jeopardize our existence: our propensities to kill each other and to destroy our environment" (p.3).
    [Show full text]
  • Jonathan M. (Jon) Marks
    JONATHAN M. (JON) MARKS 1 September 2018 Office: Home: Department of Anthropology University of North Carolina at Charlotte 6842 Charette Ct Charlotte, NC 28223-0001 Charlotte, NC 28215 Phone (704) 687-5097 Phone (704) 537-7903 Fax: (704) 687-1678 E-mail: [email protected] Home page – http://webpages.uncc.edu/~jmarks RESEARCH INTERESTS: Human evolution; critical, historical, and social studies of human genetics, genomics, evolution, and variation; anthropology of science; general biological anthropology; general anthropology. EDUCATIONAL BACKGROUND: Ph. D., Anthropology. The University of Arizona, Tucson (1984). M. A., Anthropology. The University of Arizona, Tucson (1979). M. S., Genetics. The University of Arizona, Tucson (1977). B. A., Natural Sciences. The Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore (1975). ACADEMIC POSITIONS: Assistant/Associate/Full Professor, UNC-Charlotte (2000-present) [Visiting Affiliate Faculty, UCB/UCSF Medical Anthropology Program (1999-2000)] Visiting Associate Professor, Dept. of Anthropology, University of California at Berkeley (1997-2000) [Assistant Professor (joint), Dept. of Biology, Yale University (1988-1992)] Assistant/Associate Professor, Dept. of Anthropology, Yale University (1987-1997) Post-Doctoral Research Associate, Dept. of Genetics, UC-Davis, Laboratory of Dr. Che-Kun James Shen (1984-1987) Instructor, Pima Community College, Fall, 1983. Instructor, Dept. of Anthropology, University of Arizona, summers 1980-82. PROFESSIONAL SERVICE: Editorial Board, Anthropological Theory (2014- ). Nominations Committee, American Anthropological Association (2011-2014). Editorial Board, Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute, UK (2010-2013). Executive Program Committee, American Anthropological Association (2009, 2011). Editorial Board, Yearbook of Physical Anthropology (2008-2013). Long-Range Planning Committee, American Anthropological Association (2004-2006). Editorial Board, Histories of Anthropology Annual (2004- ). President, General Anthropology Division, AAA (2000-2002).
    [Show full text]
  • The Biological Myth of Human Evolution
    This article was downloaded by: [Jonathan Marks] On: 27 June 2012, At: 04:29 Publisher: Routledge Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK Contemporary Social Science: Journal of the Academy of Social Sciences Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rsoc21 The biological myth of human evolution Jonathan Marks a a Department of Anthropology, University of North Carolina at Charlotte, Charlotte, NC, USA Available online: 27 Jun 2012 To cite this article: Jonathan Marks (2012): The biological myth of human evolution, Contemporary Social Science: Journal of the Academy of Social Sciences, 7:2, 139-157 To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/21582041.2012.691989 PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and- conditions This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contents will be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae, and drug doses should be independently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss, actions, claims, proceedings, demand, or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.
    [Show full text]
  • Pan Africa News 9(2)
    Pan Africa News The Newsletter of the Committee for the Care and Conservation of Chimpanzees, and the Mahale Wildlife Conservation Society DECEMBER 2002 VOL. 9, NO. 2 P. A . N . EDITORIAL STAFF Contents Chief Editor: Toshisada Nishida, Kyoto University, Japan <FORUM> Establishing a long-term veterinary project Associate Editors: for free-ranging chimpanzees in Tanzania Christophe Boesch, Max-Planck Institute, Germany By Magdalena Lukasik 13 Jane Goodall, Jane Goodall Institute, USA <FORUM> Takayoshi Kano, Kyoto Sangyo University, Japan Chimpanzee viewing and regulation: Mahale Tetsuro Matsuzawa, Kyoto University, Japan Mountains National Park William C. McGrew, Miami University, USA Vernon Reynolds, Oxford University, UK By Zoe Purcell 17 Yukimaru Sugiyama, Tokai-Gakuen University, Japan <NOTE> Shigeo Uehara, Kyoto University, Japan New record of algae feeding and scooping by Richard W. Wrangham, Harvard University, USA Pan t. troglodytes at Lokoué Bai in Odzala National Park, Republic of Congo. Editorial Secretaries: By C. Devos, S. Gatti, & F. Levréro 19 Koichiro Zamma, Kyoto University, Japan Michio Nakamura, Japan Monkey Centre, Japan <NOTE> Kazuhiko Hosaka, Kamakura Women’s University, Japan Social scratch among chimpanzees in Gombe Michael A. Huffman, Kyoto University, Japan By Masaki Shimada 21 <NOTE> Competition between baboons and chimpanzees Instructions to Authors: at Mahale Pan Africa News welcomes your contributions. It By Toshisada Nishida 23 publishes news, forums, reviewed articles and notes, book reviews, letters to editor, and classified ads <NEWS> (restricted to non-profit organizations) on any aspect Human baby killed by Gombe chimpanzee of conservation and research regarding chimpanzees By Shadrack Kamenya 26 and bilias. Contributors are requested to write in <EDITORIAL> English and the papers except forum should usually be A request for conservation NGO/NPOs: 1,000 words or less.
    [Show full text]
  • Evolution of Life History and Behavior in Hominidae: Towards Phylogenetic Reconstruction of the Chimpanzee- Human Last Common Ancestor
    University of South Bohemia in České Budějovice Faculty of Science Evolution of life history and behavior in Hominidae: Towards phylogenetic reconstruction of the chimpanzee- human last common ancestor RNDr. Thesis Mgr. Pavel Duda České Budějovice 2017 This thesis should be cited as: Duda, P., 2017: Evolution of life history and behavior in Hominidae: Towards phylogenetic reconstruction of the chimpanzee-human last common ancestor. RNDr. Thesis, 23 pp. Faculty of Science, University of South Bohemia, České Budějovice, Czech Republic. Annotation The origin of the fundamental behavioral differences between humans and our closest living relatives is one of the central issues of evolutionary anthropology. In this study we performed a series of phylogenetic comparative analyses using 65 selected life-history and behavioral characters for all extant hominid species to reconstruct the ancestral character states of the last common ancestors of Hominidae, Homininae and Hominini (the chimpanzee-human last common ancestor). These analyses show that many fundamental behavioral and life-history attributes of hominids (including humans) are evidently ancient and likely inherited from the common ancestor of all hominids. On the other hand, numerous behaviors present in extant great apes represent their own terminal autapomorphies (both uniquely derived and homoplastic). We demonstrate that phylogenetic reconstruction of ancestral states is able to provide a detailed suite of behavioral, ecological and life-history characters for each hypothetical ancestor. The living great apes therefore play an important role for the identification of the traits found in the chimpanzee-human last common ancestor, some of which are likely to represent behaviors of the fossil hominins. Declaration [in Czech] Prohlašuji, že v souladu s § 47b zákona č.
    [Show full text]
  • Great Leap Forward
    aAntng puv uortn~on~~ayJ A hardcover edition of this book was published in 1992 by HarperCollins PublLhers. THE TEWD CHIMPANZEX. Copyright O IW by Jared Diamond. All rights reserved. Printed in the United States of America. No part of this book may be used or reproduced in any manner whauo&e; without written permission except in the case of brief cpota&ns embodied in critical articles and reviews. For information address HarperCo1h.s Publishers, Inc., 10 East nrd Street, New York, NY 10022. HarperCollins books may be purchased for educational, business, or sales promotional use. For information please write: Special Markets Department, HarperCollins Publishers, Inc., 10 East grd Street, New York, NY 10022. First Harperperennial edition published 1993. Designed by Ruth KoIbert The Library of Congress has catalogued the hardcover edition as follows: Diamopd, ~aredM. The third chimpaniee : the evolution and future of the human animal / Jared Diamond. - sted. p. cm. Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN 0-06-018307-1(cloth) I. Human evolution. 2. Socia evolution. 3. Man-Influence on nature. I. Title. GN2&,Ds 199 . ' m.2---dc20 91-50455 ISBN o-06-098403-I (~bk.) CHAPTER 2 Tbe Great Leap Forward I ! , 'FOR MOST OF THE MANY MILLIONS OF YEARS SINCE OUR LINEAGE ? diverged from that of apes, we remained little more than glorified I chimpanzees in how we made our living. As recently as forty thou- i sand years ago, western Europe was still occupied by Neanderthals, I I primitive beings for whom art and progress scarcely existed. Then i there came an abrupt change, as anatomically modern people ap- ! peared in Europe,.
    [Show full text]
  • {DOWNLOAD} the Third Chimpanzee: the Evolution and Future Of
    THE THIRD CHIMPANZEE: THE EVOLUTION AND FUTURE OF THE HUMAN ANIMAL PDF, EPUB, EBOOK Jared M Diamond | 407 pages | 03 Feb 2007 | HarperCollins Publishers Inc | 9780060845506 | English | New York, NY, United States The Third Chimpanzee - Wikipedia Trivers , Wilson , , and especially Weinrich have considered various versions of the possibility that homosexuals may, at some time in history, have been functionally equivalent to sterile workers, foregoing personal reproduction the better to care for other relatives. According to this latter idea, homosexuality represents an 'alternative male tactic' for obtaining matings with females. In a society with harem defence by dominant males, a male who is known to be homosexual is more likely to be tolerated by a dominant male than a known heterosexual male, and an otherwise subordinate male may be able, by virtue of this, to obtain clandestine copulations with females. But I raise the 'sneaky male' hypothesis not as a plausible possibility so much as a way of dramatizing how easy and inconclusive it is to dream up explanations of this kind Lewontin, , used the same didactic trick in discussing apparent homosexuality in Drosophila. The main point I wish to make is quite different and much more important. It is again the point about how we characterize the phenotypic feature that we are trying to explain. Homosexuality is, of course, a problem for Darwinians only if there is a genetic component to the difference between homosexual and heterosexual individuals. While the evidence is controversial Weinrich , let us assume for the sake of argument that this is the case. Now the question arises, what does it mean to say there is a genetic component to the difference, in common parlance that there is a gene or genes 'for' homosexuality? It is a fundamental truism, of logic more than of genetics, that the phenotypic 'effect' of a gene is a concept that has meaning only if the context of environmental influences is specified, environment being understood to include all the other genes in the genome.
    [Show full text]
  • The Third Chimpanzee*
    The Third Chimpanzee* JARED DIAMOND The next time that you visit a zoo, make a point of walking past the ape cages. Imagine that the apes had lost most of their hair, and imagine a cage nearby holding some unfortunate people who had no clothes and couldn't speak but were otherwise normal. Now try guessing how similar those apes are to ourselves genetically. For instance, would you guess that a chimpanzee shares 10, 50 or 99 per cent of its genes with humans? Then ask yourself why those apes are on exhibition in cages, and why other apes are being used for medical experiments, while it is not permissible to do either of those things to humans. Suppose it turned out that chimps shared 99.9 per cent of their genes with us, and that the important differences between humans and chimps were due to just a few genes. Would you still think it is okay to put chimps in cages and to experiment on them? Consider those unfortunate mentally impaired people who have much less capacity to solve problems, to care for themselves, to communicate, to engage in social relationships and to feel pain, than do apes. What is the logic that forbids medical experiments on those people, but not on apes? You might answer that apes are 'animals', while humans are humans, and that is enough. An ethical code for treating humans should not be extended to an 'animal', no matter what percentage of its genes it shares with us, and no matter what its capacity for social relationships or for feeling pain.
    [Show full text]