It seems to be a compelling fact that chimps and bonobos
evolved from a common ancestor -- probably in the Congo
River Basin -- fairly recently, geologically speaking.

We branched off from this line of hairy cousins at an earlier
date, but all three species had a common ancestor -- which
looked and acted more like the apes than anything human.

I understand why Christian creationists will never accept
our close relationship to these apes -- tho' we all share
practically the same DNA. Chimps and bonobos are probably
closely enough related to even produce hybrid offspring.

But I do not comprehend what possible argument creationists
could come up with, to deny that these two species of apes
did not descend from a common ancestor.

Except, maybe... "Six thousand years ago God created these
two species of animals separately, and that's that!"

Any ideas about how the biblical literalists you know would
respond to scientific findings in this intriguing area?

UD

Be careful, Unc, there's fossil evidence that chimpanzees existed in the Rift Valley along with ancient humans, ~2.8 million years ago... And the fact that chimps exist in both East and West Africa is probably significant...

The split between bonobos and chimpanzees is suggested as occurring about two million years ago (Wiki gives a figure of only one million, but I'm sure there's disagreement), but there's doubtless lively debate on that one...

I haven't read Jared Diamond's "The Third Chimpanzee" yet, but it's on my reading list....

As for what "bible literalists" would say about this one, well, elsewhere here somebody brought up the subject of a "talking snake."

Considering what the literalists would say about that subject, I can't imagine they would have anything useful to contribute to the subject of primate evolution.

SL Cabbie Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Be careful, Unc, there's fossil evidence that
> chimpanzees existed in the Rift Valley along with
> ancient humans, ~2.8 million years ago... And the
> fact that chimps exist in both East and West
> Africa is probably significant...
>

As best I can understand it was a proto-chimp that left
its bones in the east and the ones we now find north of
the Congo are its descendants. Haven't seen any evidence
of bonobos north of the Congo -- so, I'd still guess that
the split-up occurred there.

> The split between bonobos and chimpanzees is
> suggested as occurring about two million years ago
> (Wiki gives a figure of only one million, but I'm
> sure there's disagreement), but there's doubtless
> lively debate on that one...

I think maybe the 1 million years date would work better
in the scenario that's playing out in my mind. If so,
then the ancestors of the bonobos escaped both chimps
and gorillas by somehow getting across the wide river
in sufficient numbers to establish a sustainable population.

>
> I haven't read Jared Diamond's "The Third
> Chimpanzee" yet, but it's on my reading list....
>
> As for what "bible literalists" would say about
> this one, well, elsewhere here somebody brought up
> the subject of a "talking snake."
>
> Considering what the literalists would say about
> that subject, I can't imagine they would have
> anything useful to contribute to the subject of
> primate evolution.

They may not have anything useful to contribute, but I'm
intrigued that they manage to rope an occasional PhD or
scientist (or both) into their ranks. If they are going
to print pretend science in kids' textbooks outside of
Texas, I'm curious to see what will be taught. Maybe only
a sentence or two, if that.

UD

The good news is that even Texas just recently rejected them. When Biblical literalist can't even win in the Lonestar State, then their battle is just about done.

The Creationists have created quite a pseudo-science out of trying to discredit the Theory of Evolution.

Have you heard of talkorigins.org. It may be one of the best websites for dealing with Creationists' arguments. Here's a link to an index on their site:

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html#CD


The above page in turn links to claims by Creationists in given areas (Geochronology in this case) with a summary of the rebuttals given by mainstream science.

The Creationist pseudo-science in question is the equivalent of Hitler's Stalingrad campaign. They have invested far too much into it, their ground is defenseless, their gains minimal, and they have opened their credibility up to a counter-attack that it holds no hope of surviving.

I think a huge problem is Creationists do not even grasp how evolution is taught and how it works. At least their arguments indicate they do not understand it. Hopefully the general public will begin to realize ID has nothing to offer scientifically as an alternative to evolution. Hopefully the general public will come to the realization ID has no fidelity to the scientific method, only to teach that God did everything, look no further for any kind of explanation. Hopefully the general public will realize evolution is a fact, not something that can be decided on by a democratic vote.

I can understand why Creationists would want to dismiss evolution. It renders moot the need for a god. But I don't know that anyone goes into their churches to teach science, so they should realize they cannot come into a school's science class to teach religion. They need to accept that religious instruction is for church and/or home.