September 08, 2004

• I, for one, welcome our new human.. oh. wait...
• but seriously, i was under the impression that we were closer to bonobos than the common chimpanzee. We certainly engage in.. er.. certain behaviours in a similar way. Of course, this leads to the question "What makes us human?" Is it our achievements (good and bad), or is it that 2% of our DNA? I'm not sure which I prefer... I know I'm rambling... very tired...
• A big black rectangle.
• Dummmmmm... Dummmmmm... Dummmmmm... DA DUM!
• "Humans and primates march to the rhythm of a drum that looks identical; the same size, shape and sound. But, the human drum beats faster." Monkeyfilter: the human drum beats faster. Also: "Night City was like a deranged experiment in social Darwinism, designed by a bored researcher who kept one thumb permanently on the fast-forward button."
• I think they were embarrassed to be seen with us. Chimp: Dude. You're ... hanging out ... you know, down there. Adam: What? Oh, yeah. Neat, huh? Chimp: Aw geez. No. Put it away, it's all pale and shriveled. No one wants to see that. Adam: But, look what I can ... Chimp: AAAGGGHHH! I'll never be able to look at a banana again, yew bastard. Adam: What? It's all natural ... Chimp: No. It's not. It's decidedly un-ape like. You wanna wave it around like one of those godforsaken little monkeys, you can go hang with the monkeys. They like doing that. Famous for it, even. Adam: But ... but ... Chimp: No 'buts'. Go chill with the monkeys. Adam: ... Chimp: I'm not kidding. I'm not walking around with you while your twig and berries is all hanging out right at nose level. Puts me right off my food, you know. It's gonna be years before I'll be able to look a banana in the eye again. Adam: (clears throat) Chimp: So to speak. Adam: No, look. It's a ... a ... well, like, me, but an innie. Chimp: What? Oh, no way. What good is that? You can't even reach ... well, you can ... does me no good, I can tell you that. Adam: Oh, man, she's kinda hot, you know? Chimp: Dude! She's only got 10% body hair! That's just not right! Adam: YOWZA! Chimp: Ay-yi-yi. No. Don't ... I said ... don't ... don't do the banana thing again ... Aw, geez, this just ain't right. Look, I'm gonna go hang out over here on the other side of this rock and ... Adam? ... Well, good. Geez, I'd hate for the guys from the poker game to see me with that idiot. Chimp 2: Hey, wassup!? I thought I heard you call ... Chimp: That wasn't me. It was Ol' Hairless and Eve over there ... Chimp 2: Oh, sweet mother of ... that's not right. What do you call that position? Chimp: Bloody unnatural's what I call it. Chimp 2: Let's get out of here. The guys are never gonna believe this.
• Later, at the Wednesday poker game ... C2: You guys are never gonna believe this. Tell 'em, Larry. C1: Aw crap! Did you have to bring that up? C3: What? C4: Yeah, Larry. C'mon spill the beans ... C1: Damn you, George. OK, fine. Let me grab a cigar ... on second thought, strike that (shudders). So anyway, Adam, you know him ... C4: Yeah. Where is he? He's usually here on Wednesday night. C1: Shuddup! I'm tryin to tell you! He wakes up this morning and he's got no hair. C3: You're kidding! No hair? Hows that happen? C1: Do I look like an MD? C2: Shoulda used the Rogaine ... I kept telling him ... C1: So, there he is, bare-assed naked, standing up ... C3: Upright? C1: Yeah, upright. Like I ain't gotta height complex to begin with, and then he (leans in close, starts whispering) C2 starts giggling. C3, C4: No way! That's not right! C1: Hand to God, guys. Like a tree limb. I coulda swung from the thing. C2: Aw, geez, I'm never gonna be able to look at a tree the same way again. C3: That's not right. C4: Oh, crap! Cram it, guys. Here he comes ... Chimps settle and look innocent. Adam (looking refreshed): Hey, guys, how's it hanging? Everyone falls out of their chairs laughing. Adam stands there confused.
• Next morning, Larry the Chimp ambles into the kitchen. Marsha, his wife is busy at the stove. Marsha: Good morning, dear! Larry (pouring some coffee): What smells so good? Marsha: I made you some fresh banana nut bread! Larry pours coffee in the sink and spends the rest of the day on the couch, pillows clamped to his head. Marsha: Larry? Larry?
• Tour de force! All hale drivingmenuts!
• i'm not much of a scientist, but it is common (and frustrating) for researchers to interpret research in the narrow idiom of their field, so i hesitate to be persuaded that there is some special mutation process responsible for the phenomenon. instead, i'd like to see more of the research in terms of other species--is the explosion of mutations they talk about unique to the human divergence from the chimp, or is it to be found in other lifeforms at their different stages? isn't it possible that--apart from natural selection--there are chemical forces outside of the organism which encourage it to continue in a particular direction, i.e., favorable conditions? in other words, that the environment "wanted" these characteristics? it's worth learning more about, so i hope someone else will pipe up. All HAIL science and reason.
• p.s., and not to send anyone careening off the information highway (who's still trying to steer), but what about the chimp vagina? humans say "blech."
• Hey gorgorbalabala - as far as natural selection is concerned outside forces only matter if they let a certain type of individual leave more offspring. I'm not entirely sure what you mean by the environment "wanting" something, but the general problem with that type of thinking is that "someone" would have to be controlling that kind of selection. In short natural selection selects for traits that allow an individual to leave more offspring. Those traits aren't necessarily good for the individual. Take male birds - in most species they are very colorful and conspicious. Being collorful helps them get the girls but you better bet it also helps predators find them easier. The simple fact that the more colorful males leave more offspring has fixed that trait in many bird species even though the individual may not live as long. Natural selection is purely about leaving more of your genes in the genepool when all is said and done. As far as research in other species, there is plenty going on - it just doesn't make the ap newswire because most people don't find the evolution of ciliates newsworthy. The other problem is that the process of evolution of one type of species can be radically different than another. The speciation of marine iguanas on the galapagos from land iguanas was surely different than the evolution of bateria species, which I assure you are both radically different from the divergence of the human and chimpanzee lineage from their last common ancestor.
• gorgorbalabala - i've heard theories about the chimp pooter. most primates have flashy buns and genitals to advertise fertility. people, standing upright as we do, keep the girly bits hidden between the legs, so a flashy vagina wouldn't show up so well. theory is that's why we humans have such nice boobies. not as strong a signal of fertility - doesn't change size or color with the menstrual cycle - but we are the only species with big protruding breasts. there are bugs in the theory though. one species of baboon - the gelada - spends a lot of time sitting down, which hides the genetalia; they have flashy breast patches but not big boobies. the chest patches change color, AFAIK, i know for sure in males to advertise status but not sure if the girly geladas end up with rosy bosoms to say "i'm in the mood for love". (sorry to be so technical with all the terminology. you can probably look up "pooter" in the wikipedia if you want.)
• Search results From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. The query is "pooter" No page with this exact title exists; trying to find similar titles. Do you want to create an article with this title? Or put up a request for it? For more information about searching Wikipedia, see Searching Wikipedia.
• a22lamia: no, no, (i mean, yes, that's how natural selection works, but) i was responding to the article, wherein the quoted biochemist states that there's some kind of chemical process unique to the human organism which is responsible for the large genetic departure from chimps. i meant that i am skeptical of his biochemical-centric explanation. i'm sure others in a different discipline will offer other interpretations. and i was not proposing the dreaded you-know-what argument when i hypothesi2ed about environmental chemical factors. breathe. i was simply using my imagination--that when we are discussing the survival of a phenotype, we might start looking (as the article suggests) outside the framework of natural selection. where do we look? well, genetic traits do not, or at least have not heretofore occured, in a vacuum. there might in some cases be an environmental mechanism of chemical interaction working in tandem with that of reproduction. there is no reason not to look outside the individual organism and into its surroundings and their particular favorability to further (seemingly random) variation. an extreme example of this in modern times might be ye nuclear power plant...but it might have been far more innocent (and complex) than radiation dosages. possibly a unique confluence of multiple factors / events (probably of the long-term variety)? and i don't know jack, so i'd bet someone has developed this idea before, if it ain't canon. anyone ever heard of such a thing? caution live frogs: i dunno, i guess human female organs coulda come full-frontal. some of 'em sure did, if you do some research (heehee)...but yeah, over millions of years you get those kinds of gaping plot holes (no double entendre intended).
• monkeyfilter: flashy breast patches but not big boobies
• path: Thank you. I have my moments, rare as they are, unfortunately.
• Sorry gorgorbalabala, when I read your post this morning I was a bit groggy and jumped on the environment "wanting" some type of evolution. I see where you are coming from - like extremophiles that have evolved to deal with environments such as deep sea vents etc. And you are right, we should look outside natural selection - obviously it is important, but not likely the only thing going on. As far as the article goes, it is pretty common for a scientist to make grandious statements about the value of their research - that way if it turns out they found something useful it appears they new it all along.
• well, since NO ONE took this link AT ALL seriously, i will now (in the archive) state in no uncertain terms: LAME, LAME, LAME. you are NOT funny. you are tired and tedious. get over yourself. blah.
• Umm...everyone sees when you post in the archive. It's on of the good sidebar features. And it was very funny. There seemed to be a bit of a good discussion developing. I have lots of questions about human evolution, but since I've been extremely stressed lately, I didn't have time to read the article. Perhaps one of the biologists could explain to me the current status of the aquatic ape theory (really sea-shore dwelling, not aquatic)? I had read that it was originally been suggested by a respected scientist, but was very controversial, which wasn't helped by the fact that most of what has been written on it was by a journalist/feminist (this is where I first came across it). At the same time, to my uneducated head, it is the only theory that I've heard that makes sense, on a number of grounds. About the brest thing - I don't know if you have personal experience, but very very few women have buttock shaped breasts without a bra. Cleavage just isn't natural - no matter what shape you are, they tend to fall away from each other when not supported, and, especially when a woman has never worn a bra, are much more bottle shaped than buttock shaped. (Which kind of makes sense, considering the main use.) So the association with the buttocks would not really explain breasts per se, but only push-up bras.
• Mrs Darwin 7 April, 1872 Went to the Zoo. I said to Him -- Something about that Chimpanzee over there reminds me of you. -- Carol Ann Duffy