Why is Pleasure linked to Procreation?

[C1ay]

My point that you are responding to was that you did not stick to what I ACTUALLY said. And that's a fact, jack.

 

Well, I'm sorry you feel that way. I said bonobos are our closest relatives and you actually said, "Chimps are." IMO you implied that bonobos are not chimps. If I've misunderstood you then I'm sorry. I've always been told that bonobos are pygmy chimpanzees. If you want to believe that pygmy chimpanzees are not chimpanzees then I'm not going to argue with you and I'm not going to waste my time playing that word game with you. If you've found web sites that say they are different species then fine. I can probably find web sites that claim the moon missions never occured as well, that wouldn't make it so. In the future Just consider it my unsupported opinion if you wish.

 

BTW, I owe you rep for this one whenever it will let me give it to you.

[TeleMad]

TeleMad: My point that you are responding to was that you did not stick to what I ACTUALLY said. And that's a fact, jack.

 

C1ay: Well, I'm sorry you feel that way.

 

Well, I'm sorry that you DON'T feel that way.

 

Here are the facts. I offered 3 Google searches to support my statement that most of the material I've read says that chimps are our closest (living) relatives. In response, you said:

 

C1ay: Yep, google hits have got to be irrefutable, scientific proof that you're right if you say so.

 

TeleMad: Where did I state, or even imply, that the Google hits were in any way scientific?

 

What they did was support what I ACTUALLY said. …

 

Any rational, impartial, and honest person sees that you were being disingenous - a childish too - by trying to change my claim of what the Google searches did.

[TeleMad]

TeleMad: Because you have a claim to support.

 

...

 

So I'll ask again. Why don't you just support that and settle the matter?

 

C1ay: Why? Just change your google search to man's closest relative. It should be proportionately close to your other research.

 

LOL!! I thought you might have actually been trying to support your position. That you had done the search and the first hit was the scientific analysis that actually supported your numbers and claims. I should have known better!

 

The top hit using your search says:

 

The Chimpanzee (Pan troglodytes) is man's closest relative.

(http://www.peopleandplanet.net/doc.php?id=2144)

 

I guess I should once again thank you for supporting my position over yours! :-)

 

 

SO AT NO TIME DURING ANY OF THESE EXCHANGES DID YOU EVEN ONCE ATTEMPT TO SUPPORT YOUR PERCENTAGES, EVEN THOUGH I EXPLICILTY ASKED YOU TO DO SO AT LEAST TWICE, AND DOING SO WOULD HAVE SETTLED THE MATTER. INSTEAD, YOU CHOSE TO DRAG OUT THE EXCHANGES OVER AN EXTENDED PERIOD, FILLING YOUR SIDE WITH CHILDISH ANTICS INSTEAD OF SUPPORT.

 

IN ADDITION, YOU CLAIMED IT WAS MY JOB TO FIND YOUR NUMBERS.

 

You lost these exchanges, in more than one way, even though your original point was valid. You should have just listened to me and supported your position right off instead of stooping to the lowlife tactics you did as well failing to do you job of supporting your numbers.

[C1ay]

removed off topic discussion

[C1ay]

BTW, i said to just consider it my unsupported opinion. This discussion has been OFF TOPIC long enough.

[TeleMad]

TeleMad: Here are the facts. I offered 3 Google searches to support my statement that most of the material I've read says that chimps are our closest (living) relatives.

 

C1ay: So if I said most of the material I've read says man faked the moon missions and I searched google for "faked man moon missions" that would somehow support what I said?

 

It's sad that you choose to continue to be childish.

 

Let's try comparing apples to apples, shall we, instead of your twisted analogy.

 

If your position was that the moon landing was faked, and if you did non-biased Google searches that found 1644 hits indicating the moon landing was faked, and only 48 hits that indicated it wasn't, then yes, those Google hits would support your position. But of course Google searches won't show such an overwhelming majority of hits in support of the faking of the moon landing: but the vast majority of Google hits DID support my position on chimps - and not bonobos - being our closest living relatives.

[TeleMad]

How exactly does the google search engine know what I have read?

 

It doesn't have to. I'll explain at the end of this reply.

 

C1ay: You can make just about any kind of statement and google can find pages that may agree.

 

Again with the warped logic. Try starting to compare apples to apples.

 

C1ay: That in no way supports that your statement is true or false, only that some web authors agree with it.

 

Wrong.

 

1) The fact that 1644 hits indicated that CHIMPS are are closest living relatives, and only 48 hits indicates that BONOBOS are, supports the position that chimps - and not bonobos- are are closest living relative. Your attempts to counter this simple reasoning are pathetic, and you have to resort to changing apples into oranges.

 

2) The fact that the ratio of chimps-to-bonobos hits for being our closest living relative is about 1644/48, from sites not hand selected to produce this result but rather done using an unbiased selection method, indicates that the majority of sources indicate that chimps - and not bonobos - are our closest living relative. Simple reasoning indicates that what the average person would have read most of would be that chimps - and not bonobos - are our closest living relatives. That's perfectly consistent with what I said. Inconsistent with the 1644/48 ratio would be someone who claimed that the majority of what they had read was that bonobos are our closest living relative: as you claimed. The Google hits numbers support what I said about most of what I've read (they don't support yours, though).

[C1ay]

It's sad that you choose to continue to be childish.

 

It's time for IrishEyes to step in here. Derogatory posts are clearly forbidden in the FAQ.

[Queso]

*steps in the middle of the argument*

guys, come on.

telemad seems to be right, from what i have read.

also, calling someones actions childish is only derogatory if you want it to be.

some people might take great pride in being called childish.

or maybe i'm just too optimistic.

[C1ay]

telemad seems to be right, from what i have read.

 

Yep, right here he said, "Looks like the bonobos win, but only by a small 0.5% discrepancy at the lower bound: it’s a tie at the upper bound.

 

Anyway, I accept that bonobos are closer relatives to humans than chimps are (by a smidgen)."

 

also, calling someones actions childish is only derogatory if you want it to be.

 

 

We'll have to agree to disagree on that one...

[TeleMad]

Let’s go back to my original disagreement with C1ay. He said bonobos where humans closest cousins and I said chimps were. WHY did I say chimps – and not bonobos – were? Just so happens I already laid out the logic, many posts ago (to make it more formally correct I have changed the conclusion slightly by adding [i conclude that]).

 

TeleMad: As far as my “implied claim that [your sources] are wrong”, it’s not a definitive claim and it's not something I hold with conviction. It’s simply based on the following logic, based on what I've personally been exposed to:

 

Premise 1: The majority of sources I’ve seen say that chimps are our closest relatives.

 

Premise 2: The majority of sources I’ve seen say that bonobos and chimps are not the same thing.

 

Conclusion: Therefore, [i conclude that] chimps are more closely related to us humans than bonobos are.

 

If the premises hold, then the conclusion necessarily follows. I haven’t seen you actually refute either of the premises. If you can, then the logic falls apart. I won’t be upset or stunned if you do: as I said, I don’t hold my conclusion with much conviction and would easily give it up if the right evidence is supplied.

 

I supported both premises. Look through the exchanges and see who was supporting and who wasn't. Because I supported both of my premises, I showed that it was correct for me to draw the conclusion I did based on what I have read.

 

But throughout, what C1ay wanted - hell, more like demanded - for me to do was to blindly accept his unsupported statement … just because he said it.

 

C1ay gave no support for his position: just the fact that he said something made it so. Well, as any rational person would do, I didn’t blindly accept what he said because he didn't support it and I also had logic that indicated he was wrong.

 

So how did C1ay respond? Instead of his (1) supporting his position – which he never did, or (2) showing either or both my premises to be wrong – which he never did, or (3) showing my conclusion to be wrong – which he never did --- instead of any or all of those correct ways to handle the situation, C1ay instead chose to drag out the exchanges and chose to be disingenuous and abrasive in doing so.

 

Okay, I'm done with this matter ... unless someone keeps it going.

[paultrr]

Why would anyone think that pan paniscus and pan troglodytes are not different species. Pan Paniscus, bonobos are pygmy chimpazees instead of common chimpazees but they are still chimpanzees. The majority of sources I've seen still say that bonobos are slightly more related to humans than the common chimp. Until you can prove otherwise I choose to trust those sources more than your implied claim that they are wrong.

 

 

SEE: http://www.britannica.com/ebi/article?tocId=9310674, "the chimpanzee is considered by most authorities to be the closest living relative to humans. Although the degree of the relationships between humans and each of the great ape genera has long been debated, molecular analysis has verified that humans and chimpanzees share more than 98 percent of…"

 

pcb4674-01.fa03.fsu.edu/Lectures/Lecture_34_Human_Evolution.pdf , "Steppan. Lecture 34: Human Evolution. Core concepts: 1: Humans are apes, and extensive systematic efforts indicate our closest relatives to be. the chimp clade. ... closest relative of humans? The preponderance of evidence demonstrates that the chimps are our closest relative, ..."

 

http://www.mrscox.net/Chapter%2021.htm , "Chimpanzees are more closely related to humans than are the apes, with humans and chimps sharing 98.4% of the same nuclear DNA."

 

http://www.osti.gov/energycitations/product.biblio.jsp?osti_id=6971093 , "Phylogenetic analysis of these nucleotide sequences by the parsimony method indicated (i) that human and chimpanzee are more closely related to each other than either is to gorilla and (ii) that the slowdown in the rate of sequence evolution evident in higher primates is especially pronounced in humans..."

 

Basically, the majority opinion out there is that the chimpanzee, not the Baboon is the closest relative to humans. However, that does not diminish the fact that their sexual activities relate somewhat to humans either.

[C1ay]

Basically, the majority opinion out there is that the chimpanzee, not the Baboon is the closest relative to humans. However, that does not diminish the fact that their sexual activities relate somewhat to humans either.

 

I said bonobo. Bonobos, (pan paniscus) pygmy chimpanzees, are a species of chimpanzee. TM wants to argue that point because one reference he found says that may not be technically correct anymore. Taxonomy places both of them in the suborder pan. I have seen literature that claims that the bonobo's DNA is approximately 0.2% closer to ours than the common chimpanzee (pan troglodyte). Compounding the problem is the quantity of people that simply refer to the bonobo as a chimp like all of the other chimpanzee species. To say chimps are our closest relatives is correct. I only said one particular species was closer than the others. I don't see any conclusive way with information available on the web to prove it one way or the other.

[MortenS]

Sorry to continue on the off-topic topic.Just for fun, I did a quick and dirty phylogenetic analysis of the complete mitochondrial genomes of the great apes (using complete mitochondrial sequences from NCBI Nucleotides, ClustalX and Phylip), with Lemur catta as the outgroup.

 

Here is the outcome:

 

Nucleic acid sequence
  Maximum Likelihood method with molecular clock, version 3.63


Empirical Base Frequencies:

  A       0.31326
  C       0.30254
  G       0.12947
 T(U)     0.25474

Transition/transversion ratio =   2.000000





 +--------------------L_catta   
--5  
 !            +----------P_pygmaeus
 +---------4  
           !    +------G_gorilla 
           +---3  
               ! +----H_sapiens 
               +--2  
                  !   +-P_troglody
                  +--1  
                       +-P_paniscus

 

Accession numbers:

L_catta: Lemur catta (NC_004025.1)

P_pygmaeus: Pongo pygmaeus (NC_002083.1)

G_gorilla: Gorilla gorilla (NC_001645.1)

H_sapiens: Homo sapiens (AC_000021.1)

P_troglodytes: Pan troglodytes (NC_001643.1)

P_paniscus: Pan paniscus (NC_001644.1)

 

From this tree, there is support for the common ancestor of Pan troglodytes and Pan paniscus splitting of from the human lineage.

 

 

I hope this tree displays somewhat correctly, I have also attached a png figure.

 

 

I also constructed a distance matrice (using the F84 algorithm) between the same species:

 

6

P_paniscus 0.000000 0.042044 0.090402 0.114309 0.169665 0.357334

P_troglody 0.042044 0.000000 0.091342 0.116283 0.170646 0.357523

H_sapiens 0.090402 0.091342 0.000000 0.113706 0.160241 0.337246

G_gorilla 0.114309 0.116283 0.113706 0.000000 0.171918 0.354115

P_pygmaeus 0.169665 0.170646 0.160241 0.171918 0.000000 0.360006

L_catta 0.357334 0.357523 0.337246 0.354115 0.360006 0.000000

 

You can see that the similarity between P.paniscus and P.troglodytes is 0.042, while the distance between P. paniscus and H. sapiens are 0.090. The distance between P. troglodytes and H. sapiens is 0.0913. These data support a monophyletic clade for Pan paniscus and Pan paniscus, and in this case, the question "which of the species p. paniscus and p. troglodytes is our closest living relative" is quite meaningless, as they both have a common ancestor that is related to the common ancestor of the human lineage.

[C1ay]

... as they both have a common ancestor that is related to the common ancestor of the human lineage.

 

I have seen it suggested somewhere that they should both be grouped with humans in the taxonomy instead of gorillas. I think most sources claim they are more closely related to us than gorillas.

[MortenS]

That I agree with. In a cladistic sense, Homo sapiens, Pan paniscus and Pan troglodytes form a monophyletic clade.

 

Grouping gorillas with the chimps, and leaving humans as a separate group would make the gorilla + chimps group paraphyletic (which means it contains some, but not all of the species in the monophyletic group).

 

Sometimes, it may be useful to use a paraphyletic classification. We use it all the time when we speak about reptiles. People usually do not include birds when speaking about reptiles, but to be cladistically correct, a monophyletic group of present reptiles would have to include birds.

[C1ay]

That I agree with. In a cladistic sense, Homo sapiens, Pan paniscus and Pan troglodytes form a monophyletic clade.

 

Grouping gorillas with the chimps, and leaving humans as a separate group would make the gorilla + chimps group paraphyletic (which means it contains some, but not all of the species in the monophyletic group).

 

Sometimes, it may be useful to use a paraphyletic classification. We use it all the time when we speak about reptiles. People usually do not include birds when speaking about reptiles, but to be cladistically correct, a monophyletic group of present reptiles would have to include birds.

 

Unfortunately there are probably many that would be offended if this happened. They would regard it as being related to chimps.