How to use this Page

Lauren, Publicity Assistant

Not a Chimp: The Hunt to Find the Genes that Make Us Human is an exploration of why chimps and humans are far less similar than we have been led to believe. Genome mapping has revealed that the human and chimpanzee genetic codes differ by a mere 1.6%, but author Jeremy Taylor explains that the effects of seemingly small genetic difference are still vast. In the post below, he discusses how the discovery of “Ardi” deals a fatal blow to the chimpanzee ancestor myth.

Jeremy Taylor has been a popular science television producer since 1973, and has made a number of programs informed by evolutionary theory, including two with Richard Dawkins.

When discussing differences between chimpanzees and humans, I enjoy telling the hoary old joke about the traveler, lost in the midst of the Irish landscape, who approaches a farmer in a nearby field for directions. “Well,” says the farmer, on hearing his request, “If I were going to Kilkenny I wouldn’t start from here!”

I share this to highlight the point that we have chosen the chimpanzee as the bench-mark comparison with humans to help us answer the big questions as to how we evolved into humans, and when, for the simple reason that it is our nearest relative in terms of living DNA and behavior. But that does not mean that chimpanzees are cheek by jowl with us or that chimpanzees represent the perfect starting point. Those myriad genome scientists need no reminding from me that necessity has forced comparison with a species that is actually separated from us by twelve million years of evolutionary time since the split from the common ancestor–six million years for the branch that led to us, plus six million for the branch that led to them. Although we know even less about chimpanzee evolution than the precious little we have learned about the genetic changes that led to modern humans, it is clearly reasonable to assume that chimpanzees have not remained evolutionarily inert these past six million years and may well have evolved as far and as fast as we have–though not in the same direction.

Nevertheless, a number of primatologists who should know better, many great ape conservationists, large swathes of the science media, and therefore much of the lay audience, have become bewitched by incessant talk over the last few years about the extraordinary genetic proximity between apes and humans–what I call the 1.6% mantra–and the many cognitive and behavioral similarities that appear to have eroded the old idea of human uniqueness: tool manufacture and use, empathy, altruism, linguistic and mathematical skills, and an intuitive grasp of the way others’ minds work. All this has led to claims that chimps should be re-located, taxonomically, within the genus Homo, that they are more our brothers than our distant relatives, and that they should be therefore be accorded human rights. It has also led to the assumption that the common ancestor of chimps and humans must have looked and behaved very much like chimpanzees today and that our deep human ancestors must have clawed their way to us via a knuckle-walking chimpanzee-like stage before coming down from the trees, developing bipedality and bounding off into the savannas that were rapidly replacing dense forests due to climate change.

This “chimps are us” cozy day-dream has been dealt a welcome (to me) wake-up call by the publication of the discovery and analysis of the fossilized remains of Ardipithecus ramidus–”Ardi.” At 4.4 million years of age, she is perilously close to the time of the split from the common ancestor–and, as one of the main researchers, Tim White, is repeatedly quoted, “Ardi is not a chimp. It’s not a human. It’s what we used to be.” Ardi was clearly bipedal–she had a pelvis with a low center of gravity and had a foot structure which acted like a plate, allowing her to launch herself forward as she walked. Her hands were more flexible than a chimp’s, would have allowed careful palmigrade movement when in the forest canopy which would have supported her weight, and, crucially, would have presented more recent human ancestors with less evolutionary distance to travel to achieve the highly dexterous human hand essential for sophisticated tool use. Plant and animal remains found with her point to an environment of mixed forest and grassland in which she foraged omnivorously for nuts, insects and small mammals.

Was our common ancestor much more like Ardi than a chimp? Is the chimp we see today the result of six million years of specialized evolution away from this extraordinary biped with its mixture of primitive and derived features? Ardi seems fated to join two other odd-ball ancestors we have dug up in recent years: Sahelanthropus tchadensis (Toumai), who dates to approximately seven million years ago, around or before the split from the common ancestor–and Orrorin tugenensis, which dates between 5.8 and 6.1 million years. It is claimed that both were bipedal, though so little of the total skeleton in each case has been retrieved that these claims are open to dispute. Orrorin seems somewhat more similar to modern humans than the famous Lucy, Australopithecus afarensis, is three million years older, and appears to have inhabited a similar mixed forest/grassland environment as Ardi. These misfits may have been very similar, or identical to, the common ancestor, and represent a much better approximation of the deep roots of the human tree than do chimpanzees.

Chimp-hugging conservationists have been over-playing their cards on chimpanzee-human proximity for years. Recent genomic research has unearthed a number of important structural and regulatory mechanisms at work in genomes that widen the gap between humans and chimps, and recent fascinating cognitive research with dogs and members of the corvid family of birds has shown that species that diverged hundreds of millions of years ago from both chimps and humans can out-perform chimpanzees on cognitive tests involving following human cues and in the making and use of tools, respectively.

We are not “the third chimpanzee”–chimps with a tweak. The difference between human and chimp cognition, in the words of American psychologist Marc Hauser, is of the order of the difference in cognition between chimps and earthworms. Chimpanzees–and the other great apes–are the only species for which we erect the idea of near-identity as the motivating force for conservation. We don’t beseech the general public to save the white rhino because we share over 80% of our genes with it, or the tropical rain-forest because we share over 50% of our genes with the banana. Although I would be first into the firing line in the battle to save chimpanzees and their natural environments from extinction I believe this resort to chimp-human proximity is a distraction and the wrong way to go about it. As Ardi is showing us, it is high time we stopped ourselves falling prey to this narcissistic anthropomorphism that brands chimpanzees as the “nearly man.” Chimps are not us!

Add a Comment

10. Coconut crabs will climb coconut trees to eat

9. An Octopus has 4 different hearts.

8. There are more stars in the universe then grains of sand on earth. (O.o)

7. It takes an oysters take about 5 years to make a pearl

6. The first cell phone ever made weighted 1 kg.

5.  No words rhyme with purple or orange.

4. Dogs can smell cancer, and low blood sugar levels.

3. Animals can rain the sky.

2. It’s possible to have an erection after death.

1. Your heart beats 10,00 times a day.

If you want you can post some of your interesting facts in the comments.

Add a Comment

Today I am excited to introduce Michelle Rafferty who has been a Publicity Assistant at Oxford University Press since September 2008. Prior to Oxford she interned at Norton Publishing for a summer and taught 9th & 10th grade Literature. She will be chronicling her adventures in publishing on this site so be sure to check on Friday’s to hear more about what she is learning.

It began when I was sifting through what I like to think of as the “want ads” for journalism. Everyday reporters across America are looking for experts to quote in their stories. These queries pile up in my inbox daily, and I sort through them like a scavenger in hopes that an Oxford author can provide their insight and subsequently garner some free publicity. Earlier this week one reporter inquired: Is romance back? And I began to think, when was it gone? And for how long? And if it’s back, can it stimulate the economy? The more I wondered, the more perplexed I became, and I soon realized that it is because it is virtually impossible to logically sort through the deluge of findings and instructions I receive daily on matters of love. I fear that unless I abstain from books, film and the internet, I am forever doomed to remain utterly confused on the present state of romance. Let me explain.

According to an article I recently read in the New York Times, science has brought us ostensibly close to developing an actual love potion. Dr. Larry Young believes that a “cocktail of ancient neuropeptides” could actually increase our urge to fall in love or booster a dwindling romance. But, what if these drugs have disastrous side effects? According to In the Name of Love: Romantic Ideology and Its Victims, a book I came across this week at work, some of the most sinister acts in history have been done in the name of love. Even more disturbing is that 30% of all female murder victims have died at the hands of a former or present spouse or boyfriend. Couple these statistics with a love potion, and we could have murders of mass proportions on our hands.

The film He’s Just Not Into You [Spoiler alert!]begins to touch on these love hinged neurosis, but then opts for the happy ending route—I assume that producers felt Scarlett Johansson’s character was better off absconding to India, rather than hacking her new lover to bits after he makes love to his wife as she sits in the closet nearby. Test audiences might disagree, but I think this could have worked. The majority of the film spends its time offering both men and women those much needed cold doses of reality (If he doesn’t call you, it’s because he doesn’t want to call), so I think a murder would suit the film’s depressing appeal. But instead, in the last 15 minutes viewers are told to discard all the previous advice given and believe that there are in fact exceptions to the rules of dating and that women can change men.

Are all the complications and twists and turns necessary to get a happy ending? In film yes, because catharsis doesn’t only apply to Greek tragedy. But perhaps in real life we can get a happy ending without all the drama. According to a recent article in Newsweek, the key to happiness can be narrowed down to one thing: an irrevocable decision. Psychologists once believed that people are happier when they can change their minds, but in 2002 Daniel Gilbert found that people are happier when they are locked into a decision because it leaves no room for doubt. For example, if you are stuck in a marriage, you might as well focus on the positive. That is why according to Gilbert, “I love my wife more than I loved my girlfriend.”

But in terms of love, why does marriage have to define the “irrevocable decision”? Why not a six figure contract for a hit reality show? When Jay Lyon signed onto MTV’s new reality show The City as protagonist Whitney Port’s love interest, he surely considered the consequences of high ratings—he and Whitney could be together as long as the show remains popular. Thus viewers are perfectly poised to perpetually compare their own fated toils with his, which are equally fated but in a more artistically appealing, seamlessly stop-motion sense. The longer contracts keep these reality stars together, the longer we feel bad about our own comparatively humdrum relationships.

So is romance back? At a time when we are on the verge of reducing love to a “magic” pill, it seems the answer would be no. But when Ben Affleck’s character in He’s Just Not That Into You makes the requisite romantic gesture (hiding the engagement ring in the pockets of the pants Jennifer Aniston’s character once told him to throw out), and 300 giddy movie goers “ooo” and “aww,” I lean towards yes. This is the problem.

What are we to do when we are told to simultaneously denounce and clamor for romance daily? What if you, despite all logic, have welcomed romance back into your life and are using all restraint possible to avoid a moment very much like the one that marked the beginning of the end of Tom Cruise? Perhaps I can provide one ounce of solace. As Milan Kundera writes in The Unbearable Lightness of Being, “No matter how we scorn it, kitsch is an integral part of the human condition.” What this means is that the author of perhaps the most pragmatic fictional expose on love that has ever been, has granted you permission to indulge. If this isn’t enough justification, perhaps a certain upcoming Hallmark Holiday is.

Display Comments Add a Comment

It's been a while since I put together a new zombie shirt (because I've been so busy) so I started on another design last night. I haven't even finished drawing it yet, but if you can guess what it is, I'll give you a gold star. (Which will actually just be me typing the words "GOLD STAR" in the comments...I know that's a bit of a let down).

Here's a hint: B.A.

Oh, and I've also (very slowly) been moving some of my designs over to zazzle as well, but that's taking a long time (you know, because of the whole "busy" thing again) I've included a link to the zazzle stuff in the sidebar.


make custom gifts at Zazzle

Steve!

Display Comments Add a Comment

I wasn't able to get a whole heck of a lot done on this illustration over the past week. Too much other stuff to do. I did manage to find some time to throw down a couple really basic colors though. I'm thinking it's going to look decent when finished. I'm going with some nice cool grays for the train which should look good.

That's about it.

As the kids would say, I'm outy.

Steve~

Add a Comment

I think the late Steve Irwin and now his daughter Bindi Sue have turned a lot of kids (and adults) onto Australia and its wildlife, so Kersplatypus will appeal to many young children, and they’ll be into learning even more about Australia.

The folks at Sylvan Dell have developed a wealth of learning activities in a variety of subject areas (math, science, language arts, etc.) and more to help you expand upon Kersplatypus. In fact, they have this with every book, which I think is wonderful.

First, in the back of Kersplatypus, they have a “For Creative Minds Section,” that offers expansion activities such as platypus facts, and discussion questions about bullies. This section is even available in pdf format online that you can print out and duplicate.

Second, they offer a comprehensive guide chock full of teaching activities that can help you discuss the book and teach more about Australia. There are language arts, science, math, research and geography, and character activities.

Third, they offer a wealth of learning links where you and your child can go online to learn more about Australia and its animals.

Next, you can go online and listen to each published book in audio format. Kersplatypus is not available yet.

Sylvan Dell also offers online comprehension quizzes teachers can use to test reading comprehension.

Finally, Sylvan Dell offers a variety of ideas for craft activities for your budding artists.

Finally,

In an effort to continue developing our Teaching Activities section we encourage teachers, parents and librarians to submit additional activities to go with any Sylvan Dell title. Please e-mail [email protected] for further information and/or submissions. If accepted, we will send you two free books as a "thank you."

Add a Comment

Kersplatypus by Susan K. Mitchell, illustrated by Sherry Rogers

• Reading level: Ages 4-8
  
• Hardcover: 32 pages
• Publisher: Sylvan Dell Publishing (February 10, 2008)

On February 10th, Sylvan Dell is bringing us Kersplatypus, the story of a creature who appears in the Australian Outback after the big rains. The other animals, including Kookaburra, Wallaby, and Blue-Tongued Skink among many other animals indigenous to the Outback, have never seen a creature this before and have no idea what he is. Even the poor creature himself doesn't know, so they all set upon a mission to help him discover where he belongs. They first lead him to a tree, which he attempts to climb but falls down with a KERSPLAT! Determined to help him find his place, the animals go through a number of similar scenarios until, with the help of wise, old Bandicoot, he finally figures it out.

Susan K. Mitchell does an excellent job with characterization. Brushtail Possum is the nurturer of the group as she is the first to help the creature, and mischievous Blue-Tongued Skink reminds me of my little brother. We get a clear picture of his personality early on in the story when he first sees the creature, " 'You're the craziest looking thing I've ever seen,'… 'What are you supposed to be?'" Mitchell also does a great job of giving young readers interesting facts about Australian wildlife through her story without making it seem like they're being taught a lesson. Through the creature's attempts to find where he belongs, readers learn that possums live in trees, kookaburras fly, wallabies bounce high in the air, and much more.

Sherry Rogers' vivid and detailed illustrations perfectly complement the story and bring the characters to life. One of my favorite illustrations is the scene where Wallaby is bouncing in the air. Blue-Tongued Skink is lying on a rock, hands under his chin, with a grin on his face just waiting to see the creature go KERSPLAT!

Children, teachers, and parents will also enjoy the "For Creative Minds" section in the back of the book where there are a number of activities including more fun facts about the platypus and much more. Also, be sure to visit Sylvan Dell's website where you can find a multitude of learning links to learn even more about Australia and its creatures.

Add a Comment

This guy definitely has the blues!

From Kersplatypus written by Susan K. Mitchell
Published by Sylvan Dell Publishing
Illustrated by Sherry L Rogers

Display Comments Add a Comment