Why is Pleasure linked to Procreation?

[TeleMad]

TeleMad: I also found sites that speak of chimps and bonobos as being two separate species.

 

C1ay: Why would anyone think that pan paniscus and pan troglodytes are not different species.

 

You missed the point. Both of those sources said that CHIMPS and BONOBOS are two different species.

 

C1ay: Pan Paniscus, bonobos are pygmy chimpazees instead of common chimpazees but they are still chimpanzees.

 

Is it still correct to call bonobos pygmy chimpanzees? Maybe, but consider the following…

 

At first assumed to be a slightly smaller sub-species of chimpanzee, the bonobo was originally called a pygmy chimp. A few years after the Belgian discovery, however, the bonobo was accorded its place as a distinct species alongside the other great apes: gorilla, chimpanzee and orangutan.

(http://www.hydeparkmedia.com/bonobo.html)

 

That quote indicates the old common name pygmy chimpanzee is no longer correct. (PS: Don’t take it out on the messenger!)

 

C1ay: 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.

 

I must have missed it … exactly what evidence did you provide that shows bonobos are more closely related to humans than chimps are?

 

 

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, 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.

[C1ay]

Conclusion: Therefore, chimps are more closely related to us humans than bonobos are.

 

I not going to play silly word games with you or do your research for you. You give me the impression that you really don't care what's right or wrong anyhow, only what you've already concluded must be the right answer. Believe what you want. I seriously doubt you can find a credible analysis, which includes bonobos, that claims common chimps are more closely related to humans than they are.

[TeleMad]

I not going to play silly word games with you or do your research for you. You give me the impression that you really don't care what's right or wrong anyhow, only what you've already concluded must be the right answer. Believe what you want. I seriously doubt you can find a credible analysis, which includes bonobos, that claims common chimps are more closely related to humans than they are.

 

In other words...

 

C1ay: "I can't support my position" ... <stomps out>

 

 

Why don't you just support this statement of yours?

 

C1ay: Some studies report the commonality of pan paniscus as high as 99.6% with that of humans while that of pan troglodytes usually ranges from 98.5% to 99.4%.

 

If you did, that would settle the matter decisively.

[TeleMad]

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, 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.

 

Well, I've given support for premise 2: reason to believe that it might very well be scientifically, and certainly is "laymen-ifically", acceptable/correct to say that chimps and bonobos are separate species.

 

Here's support for premise 1: that chimps are our closest (living) relatives. Here are the results of simple Google searches:

 

1) “chimps are our closest”

941 hits

 

2) “chimpanzees are our closest”

703 hits

 

Those supports premise 1.

 

 

PS: For completeness, I also Googled “bonobos are our closest”, but that returned only 48 hits.

[C1ay]

BTW TM, since you're an expert you should go correct the Wikipedia article on Bonobos. It opens with,

 

"The Bonobo (Pan paniscus), sometimes called the Pygmy Chimpanzee, is one of the two species comprising the genus Pan; both members of that genus are technically "chimpanzees", though the term is frequently used to refer only to the other member of the genus, Pan troglodytes, the Common Chimpanzee...."

 

The open source community could use a chimpanzee expert such as yourself to contribute to the knowledge base.

[TeleMad]

BTW TM, since you're an expert you should go correct the Wikipedia article on Bonobos. It opens with,

 

...

 

The open source community could use a chimpanzee expert such as yourself to contribute to the knowledge base.

 

Damn you're being grumpy C1ay.

 

 

Forgive the hell out of me for drawing a logical conclusion based on what I've read.

 

Forgive the hell out of me for not blindly accepting your unsupported statement over what one would logically conclude from having read what I have.

 

Forgive the hell out of me for being able to support what I said I've read.

 

 

 

 

Now, when do you plan to support your position? Or will you just continue being a grump?

[C1ay]

Here are the results of simple Google searches:

 

1) “chimps are our closest”

941 hits

 

2) “chimpanzees are our closest”

703 hits

 

Those supports premise 1.

 

 

PS: For completeness, I also Googled “bonobos are our closest”, but that returned only 48 hits.

 

You got me there. That's scientific method like I've seen no where else before. I bow to your supreme science. You have a real revelation there. You should immediately submit your work to the scientific community. Did you discover how many markers they have in common with us in the genome?

[C1ay]

Damn you're grumpy C1ay. Forgive the hell out of me for drawing a logical conclusion based on what I've read. Forgive the hell out of me for not blindly accepting your unsupported statement over what one would logically conclude from having read what I have. Forgive the hell out of me for being able to support what I said I've read.

 

Now, when do you plan to support your position? Or will you just continue being a grump?

 

No, I'm not grumpy. You've made it clear that bonobos are not chimps. It would be a waste of time to try and prove you wrong. Why should I go out and look for answers when you've got them all right here.

[TeleMad]

TeleMad:

1) “chimps are our closest”

941 hits

 

2) “chimpanzees are our closest”

703 hits

 

Those supports premise 1.

 

PS: For completeness, I also Googled “bonobos are our closest”, but that returned only 48 hits.

 

 

You got me there.

 

You're right, I do. That fully supports what I said:

 

 

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

[TeleMad]

[ridiculous and childish comments omitted]Why should I go out and look for answers when you've got them all right here.

 

Because you have a claim to support.

 

C1ay: Some studies report the commonality of pan paniscus as high as 99.6% with that of humans while that of pan troglodytes usually ranges from 98.5% to 99.4%.

 

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

[C1ay]

off topic discussion

[TeleMad]

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

 

 

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. Here, let me explain it to you again.

 

TeleMad:

1) “chimps are our closest”

941 hits

 

2) “chimpanzees are our closest”

703 hits

 

Those supports premise 1.

 

PS: For completeness, I also Googled “bonobos are our closest”, but that returned only 48 hits.

 

 

 

C1ay: You got me there.

 

TeleMad: You're right, I do. That fully supports what I said:

 

***********************************

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

***********************************

[C1ay]

off topic

[C1ay]

deleted off topic contribution

[TeleMad]

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

 

Too late, I already tried to do your leg work and found some interesting stuff.

 

First, here's your claim.

 

C1ay: Some studies report the commonality of pan paniscus as high as 99.6% with that of humans while that of pan troglodytes usually ranges from 98.5% to 99.4%.

 

Problem #1 is your "some studies". I quickly found this...

 

… [bonobos] share between 99.0% and 99.6% of their genetic code with humans, has made some people believe that they are "closer", phylogenetically, to us -- sort of "between" us and common chimps. This is not necessarily true. Another possibility is that bonobos and common chimps evolved from a common ancestor, who in turn evolved from another common ancestor of both theirs and humans.

(http://www.cogsci.indiana.edu/farg/harry/bio/zoo/bonobo.htm)

 

So we should change your statement to:

 

Studies report the commonality of pan paniscus as being between 99.0% and 99.6% with that of humans while that of pan troglodytes usually ranges from 98.5% to 99.4%.

 

Problem #2 is that some studies have found 99.6% identity between chimp – not bonobo – and human genes….

 

In summary, CD94 is encoded by a nonpolymorphic gene that is highly conserved in human and chimpanzee, having a nucleotide sequence similarity of 99.6%. (Conservation and Variation in Human and Common Chimpanzee CD94 and NKG2 Genes)

 

And here’s another one with the same 99.6% identity between chimp – not bonobo – and human.

 

The immunoglobulin kappa locus of primates.

 

The immunoglobulin kappa genes of nonhuman primates were studied by using sequence information and hybridization probes derived from the human kappa gene regions. The following results were obtained: (1) V kappa gene probes of the three major human kappa subgroups hybridized to restriction nuclease digests of DNA from the chimpanzees Pan troglodytes (PTR) and Pan paniscus (PPA), the gorilla Gorilla gorilla (GGO), the orangutan Pongo pygmaeus (PPY), the macaque Macaca mulatta (MMU), the marmoset Callithrix geoffrei (CGE), and the bushbaby Galago demidovii (GDE), yielding patterns of decreasing similarity to the patterns of the human V kappa multigene family. (2) The C kappa gene segments of PTR, GGO, and PPY were 99.6, 97, and 93%, respectively, identical in sequence to the human C kappa gene.

 

The similarity between human and chimp – not bonobo - C kappa gene is 99.6%.

 

(And the chimp (PTR) was more similar to human for V kappa genes than were bonobo’s (PPA) were)

 

So we should change your statement to:

 

Studies report the commonality of pan paniscus as being between 99.0% and 99.6% with that of humans while that of pan troglodytes ranges from 98.5% to 99.6%.

 

So the story has changed, from your:

 

99.6% vs 98.5 to 99.4%

 

to the updated

 

99.0 to 99.6% vs. 98.5% to 99.6%.

 

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).

[TeleMad]

TeleMad: What they did was support what I ACTUALLY said. Here, let me explain it to you again.

 

C1ay: No, they agree with what you said.

 

And they support what I said.

 

By the way, you're being disingenous here...again. 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: Support of what you've said would require proof that bonobos are not chimps ...

 

Wrong. Support doesn't require proof. Support for what I said required only that I provide sufficient unbiased material that agrees with what I said, and disagrees with the opposing position, and I did that: even using some of your own sources!

[lindagarrette]

As far as I know, Bonobos are the only other species that have been determined to have sex simply for pleasure like humans. Even their chimpanzee cousins only have reproductive sex. Sexually speaking, the genitals of bonobo females are rotated forward like those of human females, so that they can have face-to-face sex like humans. Bonobos share all kinds of the same sexual pleasures as humans, including cunnilingus, fellatio, masturbation, massage, bisexuality, incest, body-licking, sex in different positions and group sex. They are also our closest cousins in the primate world.

Most of those activities are for social purposes. Many species have some form of intimate contact within their group that promotes bonding. Those actions increase endorphin levels of the participants. I believe in the case of humans, a lot of sexual behavior is acting out of fantasy, and doubt that other animals have capabilities at that level. Some humans also have imposed tribal rules (prohibition) which only make sense in historical (relgious or traditional) context.