Primate evolution overview

Primate evolution and the changes in the environment

Old World monkeys show evidence of ‘faunal turnover'

Old World monkeys show evidence of ‘faunal turnover' that closely matches the patterns predicted under the punctuated equilibrium model (Delson& Rosenberger 1984, Rosenberger 2002). Hodgson et al. (2009) used molecular data to construct phylogenetic trees and to estimate divergence dates for many New World monkey species to examine the hypothesis that they have been in stasis relative to other primates. They found that New World monkeys have experienced both successive radiations and stasis during their evolution. Specifically, they found that the earliest New World monkey fossils were much older than the divergence dates they estimated for the extant New World monkey species. Using this evidence, along with patterns observed on phylogenetic trees, these researchers suggested that there was an early radiation of New World monkey ancestors followed by a period of stasis and then the extinction of most of this group prior to the Miocene. Following this period, the survivors of the original radiation then experienced a burst of rapid diversification into what would become the extant New World monkey ‘crown lineages' (Hodgson et al. 2009).

Adaptive radiations and extinctions – the rise and fall of Miocene Apes

Phylogenetic trees based on genetic data cannot reveal much about what might have caused adaptive radiations or extinctions. Careful examination of fossils combined with an understanding about what Earth's environment was like when these fossils were living can be used to infer what might have precipitated different macroevolutionary events.

During the Miocene the ancestors of Old World monkeys and apes experienced both radiations and extinctions that have been linked to climate change

During the Miocene the ancestors of Old World monkeys and apes experienced both radiations and extinctions that have been linked to climate change (Harrison 2010). In the early Miocene, primates found in Africa and the Arabian Peninsula’s were a diverse group that occupied tropical forests and woodlands.

The family tree of extant hominoids includes only a small fraction of the diversity of apes that have lived on this planet. During the Miocene, up to 100 ape species once lived throughout much of Europe and Asia, but ultimately went extinct.

Primate evolution tree (one of many...)

Proconsul may have been the last common ancestor of extant hominoids.

Sivapithecus was probably an ancestor to orangutans. Ouranopithecus or Dryopithecus appeared in the fossil record later in the Miocene than Proconsul and Sivapithecus. Both have been proposed as ancestors shared by all living hominoids.

During the mid-Miocene, Africa reconnected with Eurasia and a major period of global warming caused the expansion of tropical habitats northward

These developments allowed the nascent hominoid lineage to branch off and colonize newly available Eurasian habitats, leading to a major proliferation of ape species across much of Eurasia.

Around 9.6 mya, a major shift to drier climates created more open habitats that led to a decline of hominoid taxa in Eurasia. 

By 5 mya, most ape species were extinct, except for a few that eventually led to modern-day orangutans and gibbons ( Moyà-Solà et al. 2009, Harrison 2010).


Once contentiously debated, the closest human relative of chimpanzee (Pan) within subfamily Homininae (Gorilla, Pan, Homo) is now generally undisputed. The branch forming the Homo and Pan lineage apart from Gorilla is relatively short (node 73, 27 steps MP, 0 indels) compared with that of the Pan genus (node 72, 91 steps MP, 2 indels) and suggests rapid speciation into the 3 genera occurred early in Homininae evolution. Based on 54 gene regions, Homo-Pan genetic distance range from 6.92 to 7.90×10−3 substitutions/site (P. paniscus and P. troglodytes, respectively), which is less than previous estimates based on large scale sequencing of specific regions such as chromosome 7. The highly endangered orangutan forms the single genus Pongo in subfamily Ponginae (nodes 75–76), the sister lineage to Homininae. Currently restricted to the islands of Borneo and Sumatra, orangutans once inhabited all of Southeast Asia during the Pleistocene. Differences in behavior, morphology, karyology, and genetic data between the two island populations support the taxonomic designation as two separate species of Bornean (P. pygmaeus) and Sumatran orangutans (P. abelii), and these designations are upheld by the data presented here.

Hylobatidae (siamang, gibbons, hoolock) are noted for exceptional rates of chromosome re-arrangement 10–20 times faster than in most mammals 

Classification schemes of the 12 species range from two genera (Hylobates and Symphalangus) to four subgenera and/or genera (Hylobates, Nomascus, Symphalangus, Hoolock), defined by unique numbers of chromosomes. The eight species included in this study form three clades that coincide with genus designation (absent is Hoolock; nodes 64–69) that diverged rapidly 8.9 Mya. Moreover, Nomascus species appear more recent than Symphalangus and Hylobates, with node divergence dates estimated at less than 1 Mya. Thus, Hylobatidae exhibits episodes of rapid divergence perhaps related to excessive genome re-organization and warrants additional investigation.

New perspective on human evolution

The bullshit “homo” (Hominidae) naledi and a new perspective on human evolution

During my research, I was able to identify the evolutionary events and processes that had led to the emergence of certain attributes, which were responsible for multiple sets of cognitive traits in the early human evolution, these traits and the behaviors they represent were responsible for altering the “normal” evolutionary process that would have otherwise been expected from a somewhat intelligent and peaceful primate.

This change started sometime in our early evolutionary process around 14-7 million years ago, during the late Miocene, a time period in which the human and the chimpanzee lineages split, and according to latest evidences, has peaked around 2.5 million years ago in the homo naledi and such.

At the end of a period of ~4.5 million years a peaceful frugivore living in the forest canapé becomes an aggressive cannibal living in dry savannas with no significant changes in morphology and physiology

A tropical peaceful frugivore living in the safety of the forest canapé becomes a cannibal living in fear and terror in dry savannas and taking refuge underground (suggesting the first development of stone tools as means for digging which may explain the h. naledi’s strong opposing thumbs to support the thrust, and maybe the loss of hair), all of that, with no other significant changes in morphology and physiology, preserving the features of a tree climbing primate as it was 4.5 million years earlier:

This is quiet odd considering the immense differences between the multiple landscapes, weather conditions and resources constrains of each of the different habitats which they inhabited during that transition.

By comparing the cannibalistic chimpanzees social organization with that of modern human we can clearly observe that throughout our evolutionary process the homo lineage have preserved the unique social organization of a hierarchy of classes governed by a group of non-kin adult males (which started in a certain event which resulted in the split of the lineages).

If the hierarchy structure survived since the dawn of our lineage, than the reason for the original form of the hierarchy has also prevailed.

After the split of the lineages early Hominidae managed to become the first species that can live almost independently of its environment’s resources constrains.

Without natural constrains and unlike any other species in its habitat, the Hominidae were immune to the most crucial fitness factor: the need to adapt to changes in its habitat in order to feed.

The early Hominidae achieved the ability to support its nutritional needs regardless of environmental conditions by exploiting its own kin and this ability, I think was the most crucial element in the survival of our lineage.

These newly emerged cannibalistic traits were the true force driving our early evolution and the same traits are playing a crucial part in the more recent sociocultural evolution which created civilization. These attributes can explain the pathological delusional tendencies expressed in the irrational believes and denial which inhabits the majority of the population’s cognition.

And all of this I think should be considered as the real first leap forward (which I consider to be the big backward-flip)

Maybe one of the causes for the human condition of denial is not the fear of death itself but the fear of the terror before death: inflicted on them by their own kin. Just watch the victims (a member of neighboring chimpanzee group) of our closest living relatives, the chimpanzees as its being ripped apart, devoured and eaten by a mob while it still alive.

A new perspective on how to define a species in the human lineage

Considering the assumptions above I can suggest that in the human lineage a species is not determined by its physical and morphological features, but rather can be mainly identified by its mental traits and mindset (Just imagine someone in the future with no prior knowledge, digging out the remains of a 7 foot Viking in Scandinavia and another remain of 4.5 foot pygmy in Central Africa, and when comparing their physiology and considering the geographical distance concludes that they are two different species, even though they had both hunted and killed their brothers).

The current branching in the human lineage and a new perspective on the big leap forward event

I think that the second most crucial event (the currently accepted hypothesis of the big leap forward) is connected to our encounter with the Neanderthals which somehow stimulated the evolutionary branching of modern humans in a way similar to the branching of the bonobo from the chimpanzees. I think that the Neanderthal may have been the “bonobo” of the human lineage and its genes presented in our genome holds many keys that will become handy when we will finally come to term and accept the true human origin.

The h. Berger and the first documented prove of repeatable cannibalistic attacks

But maybe now, with the new discoveries in South Africa of the homo naledi, and the unique place were the remains were found which I think is an evidence for repeated acts of cannibalism (see more below), some of us will come to term with our not so “PC” origin, and we will finally be able to do the same move that the bonobo did, when they branched out and left behind the fear and the abuse to the chimpanzees and their cannibalistic hierarchies, persisting by its rotating members, males who are not necessarily kin, which are promoted according to their level of aggression and abuse and their level of contribution to wealth/wellbeing of the leaders of the gang, the same gang of males that we can find at the top of every abusive hierarchy (government, military, police, any corporation, business, religion, and worst of all the education system with the rotten apple of the universities).

Homo naledi the cannibal – placing the evidence in the right context

I think the cave is a crime scene portraying repeated acts of hominid cannibalism utilizing members of their own species as livestock that resulted in the first evidence for refugees chased there by males of their own kind and preferred to die of thirst and hunger (but died from CO2 poisoning within few hours) then being eaten alive by the males lingering outside their chamber.

Contemplating the chain of events that could have brought these individuals in to that challenging location, the scenarios that seem the most compatible are that the chamber was either a shelter or a livestock pantry.

Firstly, we can assume rather confidently that the option of a burial site is highly unlikely regarding Homo naledi’s brain size and structure. And moreover, even if indeed they had had the sufficient mental complexity that would have enabled them to develop burial rituals, the immense challenges that this site imposed and principally the drastic size limitations, revokes almost any probability that this hasty theory might have had. It is just too far-fetched.

Another improbable speculation is that the Homo naledi was living in those caves. Even though there are no data supporting any significant use of tools, or fire.

Along these rather barren theories, we are left with the simple scenario of escape. Something must have caused them to crawl alive into that chamber, and it must have been scarier than the dark, which means something that was threatening their lives.

Now, we should speculate on, what was it that had caused them to flee so deep into the cave and through such a narrow gap? So narrow that it was mostly females, elders and children who were able to pass through, along with what seems to be some exceptionally slender male hominid. The animal chasing them must have had the ability to follow them for a substantial distance into the cave, and perhaps even through the first narrow passageway (that is about 25 centimeters wide) which would have caused them to move all the way down that second gap (about 20 centimeters high) and into the chamber.

The threat, must have also lingered for a long enough time to keep them in their hopeless sanctuary, which may suggest that these homo naledi were a primary food source of that predator. Of course, there is the chance that they have simply been unable to get out of the chamber, although the data imply that they were adaptable climbers. still, even if they were in fact trapped in that chamber, the amount of findings suggests that the hominids did not all enter the chamber on a sole incident, but rather one or few at a time, and that would mean that over more than one occasion a H. naledi was chased into that same cave, by something that perhaps could pass through the first 25 centimeters width passage and follow it into the first chamber, but could not have fit through the smaller 20 centimeters gap leading to the last chamber.

A new perspective on “Paleo Diet”

We should also consider this as a case of storing livestock. Utilizing members of their species as livestock, enabled them an easy transition when they migrated from the tropical forests to open savannas (having your nutrition resources migrating with you, increases your fitness dramatically), and the halt in physical evolution since the splitting from the chimpanzees until around 2-3Mya in the homo genus was in contrast to the obvious need to adapt physically in order to utilize the different types of available food sources and shelters, during the migration period. This may also hold the key for the frequent amount of reproduction cycles in the human genus when comparing them to other primates (similar to the use of chickens in recent history).

And here enters a crucial subject that has not been addressed yet, one of the first matters that should be approached when reading the data, “what were they eating?” or to be more to the point, what was available to them that could support their nutritional needs? Without considering this issue you cannot complete the puzzle.

Without going into considerable details signifying this matter, we would merely suffice in noting that according to the dental specimens and jaw structure, it appears as though the H. naledi were not adaptable carnivores, although their morphology and its resemblance to that of modern humans seems like one that would require a rich diet.

The plausible answer is cannibalism: Once you factor our ancestors’ cannibalistic and abusive behavior into the human domain, a lot of blind spots will unravel.

The so-called "Homo" Naledi charade

Just look at the charade (press release celebrations) of the latest discoveries in South Africa producing a show that have everything for everyone (complied with the ISO 9000 of the retard code) like cable TV and other abnormality shows it got x factor for females when the factor is being skinny and attractive enough to crawl into a hole in front of the drooling male judges (scientists).

It’s got its spirituality channel were the preachers/shamans/yogis of the excavation preach the “beautiful ape” narrative and how it went on several occasions into a cave through two dark chambers to buried its slender dead’s and mourn them as we are the modern “compassionate” ape do while we slaughter our brothers by the thousand every day, as we did from the down of our lineage: If you start a cannibal and you still a cannibal 7 million years later how in the world can you think that a small brain ancestor was Gandhi????.

A picture of a dark skin leader previously oppressed by light skin homo, kissing the skull of a prehistoric victim of cannibalism is all over the place and symbolizing this charade! try to make this Kosher, and reverse the conclusion after such contribution to the foundation of the PC madness, try to rewind the narrative of the “kind” ape and replace it with the dark truth of a vicious cannibal after that image.

And since when important evidence belongs to the whole humanity is being held from the public for two years, finds its way to someone’s lips and held by bare hands. I know more about these new celebrities than I knew about their finds, but as soon as I saw that women crawled through a hole where adult males couldn’t pass, it was already out.

The main event in our evolution

We start with an animal resembling the Siamang living in a shrinking forest environment due to global conditions. With large population and fast depleting resources and habitat; not enough for maintaining foraging.

Worsening and limiting the resources started a rapid dimorphism until the shrinking environment put to many single-family's males together and a new type of fitness strategy came to life:

Alliance between two males that are not kin based on a very basic rule: the physical size and strength of an individual is null once it face the combined force of two even slightly smaller or less capable males – the birth of the alliance of non-kin males.

This basic concept is the base for the very different social organization of most of the members of and the advantage of the strongest male in the group is completely null maintained and evolved by a persistent culture of unique governing system based on an internal reorganization of your own species and the shared perception that can persevere until the end of times because it shared by all the members of the social organization and depending on the opportunity each male is a potential protégé of the key evolutionary players a gang of males and each female can be designed to function as the supporting system for this madness.

New type of primary fitness strategies that are based entirely on an interspecies functions that control the cognitive evolution to produce certain benefit for few, where all the stacks of the few to win in the genetic race are being placed on harboring random mutations and traits and preciously adopted and nourished them as long as they are serving the interest of the few, all males that like breeders controlling the sexual selection of their livestock and creating an association for preserving and teaching the methods and practices to non-kin protégés from their close circle.

That was the begining of the chimpanzee–human last common ancestor (CHLCA):

In a swipe of a fist our evolution diverted from the smooth ride that we had with the Hominoidea up to then: since the first Siamang/Gibbon-like ancestor of us developed a unique supper power – A unique brain with unique abilities and the source of a new type of intelligent that is based on a collateral TOM that is shared with the member of the group and with the ecosystem, Up to that specific event our Siamang like ancestor (as can be observed in the Siamang and Gibbons) has been the masters of equilibrium of a climax community:
An apex animal that is so agile and intelligent that unlike any other animal on earth before and after it had the ability to use its body as the most advanced technology in the animal kingdom.

The main event in our early evolution time frame

Bonobo Social Organization and Behavior

I highlighted the relevant points from this article and deleted some side remarks and comments, this paper was originally published under the name “The behavior of a close relative challenges assumptions about male supremacy in human evolution”, originally published in the March 1995 issue of SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN, pp. 82-88.

At a juncture in history during which women are seeking equality with men, science arrives with a belated gift to the feminist movement. Male-biased evolutionary scenarios; Man the Hunter, Man the Toolmaker and so on, are being challenged by the discovery that females play a central, perhaps even dominant, role in the social life of one of our nearest relatives. In the past few years many strands of knowledge have come together concerning a relatively unknown ape with an unorthodox repertoire of behavior: the bonobo.

The bonobo is one of the last large mammals to be found by science. The creature was discovered in 1929 in a Belgian colonial museum, far from its lush African habitat. A German anatomist, Ernst Schwarz, was scrutinizing a skull that had been ascribed to a juvenile chimpanzee because of its small size, when he realized that it belonged to an adult. Schwarz declared that he had stumbled on a new subspecies of chimpanzee. But soon the animal was assigned the status of an entirely distinct species within the same genus as the chimpanzee, Pan.

The bonobo was officially classified as Pan Paniscus, or the diminutive Pan. But I believe a different label might have been selected had the discoverers known then what we know now. The old taxonomic name of the chimpanzee, P. satyrus, which refers to the myth of apes as “lustful satyrs” would have been perfect for the bonobo.

The species is best characterized as female-centered and egalitarian and as one that substitute’s sex for aggression.

Whereas in most other species sexual behavior is a fairly distinct category, in the bonobo it is part and parcel of social relations and not just between males and females. Bonobos engage in sex in virtually every partner combination (although such contact among close family members may be suppressed). And sexual interactions occur more often among bonobos than among other primates.

Despite the frequency of sex, the bonobo's rate of reproduction in the wild is about the same as that of the chimpanzee. A female gives birth to a single infant at intervals of between five and six years. So bonobos share at least one very important characteristic with our own species, namely, a partial separation between sex and reproduction.

A Near Relative

This finding commands attention because the bonobo shares more than 98 percent of our genetic profile, making it as close to a human as, say, a fox is to a dog. The split between the human line of ancestry and the line of the chimpanzee and the bonobo is believed to have occurred a mere eight million years ago.

The subsequent divergence of the chimpanzee and the bonobo lines came much later, perhaps prompted by the chimpanzee's need to adapt to relatively open, dry habitats.

In contrast, bonobos probably never left the protection of the trees.

Their present range lies in humid forests south of the Zaire River:

Where perhaps fewer than 10,000 bonobos survive [Ram: in contrast to the common chimpanzee (all subspecies) population which range from 150,000 to 250,000 individuals) the bonobo makes 4% to 6.7% of the total current Pan population].

If this evolutionary scenario of ecological continuity is true, the bonobo may have undergone less transformation than either humans or chimpanzees. It could most closely resemble the common ancestor of all three modern species. Indeed, in the 1930s Harold J. Coolidge the American anatomist who gave the bonobo its eventual taxonomic status suggested that:

The animal might be most similar to the primogenitor, since its anatomy is less specialized than is the chimpanzee's. [Ram: the resemblance of the bonobo to the Siamang shows a return to ancient equilibrium with climax community with adaptation for different conditions such as the need to maintain fission-fusion social group

(a social grouping pattern in which individuals form temporary small parties rang of variable size and composition. These "unit-groups" range from lone individuals to groups of 20 or more bonobo (also called subgroups) whose members belong to a larger community (or unit-group) of stable membership; there can be fluid movement between subgroups and unit-groups such that group composition and size changes frequently).

[Ram: This “supper group” social structure is either a result of inherit chimpanzee group size with modified social structure or as I suspect as a mean protect the group from the attacks of the chimpanzee (which surrounding them), which can explain the persistent sexual dimorphism in the bonobo. The Siamang in contrast (with almost no sexual dimorphism), live in monogamous pairs accompanied by up to 6 immature individuals, with usual group membership between 2 and 6 individuals].Bonobo body proportions have been compared with those of the australopithecines, a form of prehumen. When the apes stand or walk upright, they look as if they stepped straight out of an artist's impression of early hominids.

In the late 1970s, chimpanzees, which are much more closely related to humans, became the model of choice. Traits that are observed in chimpanzees including cooperative hunting, food sharing, tool use, power politics and primitive warfare were absent or not as developed as in baboons for example [Ram: not in any other species of mammals]. In the laboratory the apes have been able to learn sign language and to recognize themselves in a mirror, a sign of self-awareness not yet demonstrated in monkeys.

Although selecting the chimpanzee as the touchstone of hominid evolution represented a great improvement, at least one aspect of the former model did not need to be revised: male superiority remained the natural state of affairs. In chimpanzees, males are conspicuously dominant over females; they reign supremely and often brutally. It is highly unusual for a fully grown male chimpanzee to be dominated by any female.

Enter the bonobo. Despite their common name “the pygmy chimpanzee” bonobos cannot be distinguished from the chimpanzee by size. Adult males of the smallest subspecies of chimpanzee weigh some 43 kilograms (95 pounds) and females 33 kilograms (73 pounds), about the same as bonobos.

Although female bonobos are much smaller than the males, they seem to rule.

Graceful Apes

In physique, a bonobo is as different from a chimpanzee as a Concorde is from a Boeing 747. I do not wish to offend any chimpanzees, but bonobos have more style. [Ram: similar morphology to the Siamang]The bonobo, with its long legs and small head atop narrow shoulders, has a more gracile build than does a chimpanzee. Bonobo lips are reddish in a black face, the ears small and the nostrils almost as wide as a gorilla's.

These primates also have a flatter, more open face with a higher forehead than the chimpanzee's and, to top it all off, an attractive coiffure with long, fine, black hair neatly parted in the middle.

Like chimpanzees, female bonobos nurse and carry around their young for up to five years. By the age of seven the offspring reach adolescence. Wild females give birth for the first time at 13 or 14 years of age, becoming full grown by about 15. A bonobo's longevity is unknown, but judging by the chimpanzee it may be older than 40 in the wild and close to 60 in captivity.

Fruit is central to the diets of both wild bonobos and chimpanzees. The former supplement with more pith from herbaceous plants, and the latter add meat.

Although bonobos do eat invertebrates and occasionally capture and eat small vertebrates, including mammals, their diet seems to contain relatively little animal protein.

Unlike chimpanzees, they have not been observed to hunt monkeys [Ram: unlike the chimpanzee, no acts of cannibalism observed in bonobos].

Whereas chimpanzees use a rich array of strategies to obtain foods: from cracking nuts with stone tools to fishing for ants and termites with sticks-tool use in wild bonobos seems undeveloped. (Captive bonobos use tools skillfully.) Apparently as intelligent as chimpanzees, bonobos have, however, a far more sensitive temperament. During World War II bombing of Hellabrun, Germany, the bonobos in a nearby zoo all died of fright from the noise; the chimpanzees were unaffected.

Bonobos are also imaginative in play. I have watched captive bonobos engage in "blindman's buff." A bonobo covers her eyes with a banana leaf or an arm or by sticking two fingers in her eyes. Thus handicapped, she stumbles around on a climbing frame, bumping into others or almost falling. She seems to be imposing a rule on herself: "I cannot look until I lose my balance." Other apes and monkeys also indulge in this game, but I have never seen it performed with such dedication and concentration as by bonobos.

Juvenile bonobos are incurably playful and like to make funny faces, sometimes in long solitary pantomimes and at other times while tickling one another.

Bonobos are, however, more controlled in expressing their emotions: whether it be joy, sorrow, excitement or anger than are the extroverted chimpanzees. Male chimpanzees often engage in spectacular charging displays in which they show off their strength: throwing rocks, breaking branches and uprooting small trees in the process. They keep up these noisy performances for many minutes, during which most other members of the group wisely stay out of their way. Male bonobos, on the other hand, usually limit displays to a brief run while dragging a few branches behind them.

Both primates signal emotions and intentions through facial expressions and hand gestures, many of which are also present in the nonverbal communication of humans. For example, bonobos will beg by stretching out an open hand (or, sometimes, a foot) to a possessor of food and will pout their lips and make whimpering sounds if the effort is unsuccessful.

But bonobos
make different sounds than chimpanzees do. The renowned low-pitched, extended "huuu- huuu" pant-hooting of the latter contrasts with the rather sharp, high-pitched barking sounds of the bonobo.

Love, Not War

My own interest in bonobos came not from an inherent fascination with their charms but from research on aggressive behavior in primates. I was particularly intrigued with the aftermath of conflict. After two chimpanzees have fought, for instance, they may come together for a hug and mouth-to-mouth kiss. Assuming that such reunions serve to restore peace and harmony, I labeled them reconciliations.

Any species that combines close bonds with a potential for conflict needs such conciliatory mechanisms. Thinking how much faster marriages would break up if people had no way of compensating for hurting each other; I set out to investigate such mechanisms in several primates, including bonobos. Although I expected to see peacemaking in these apes, too, I was little prepared for the form it would take.

For my study, which began in 1983, I chose the San Diego Zoo. At the time, it housed the world's largest captive bonobo colony – 10 members divided into three groups. I spent entire days in front of the enclosure with a video camera, which was switched on at feeding time. As soon as a caretaker approached the enclosure with food, the males would develop erections. Even before the food was thrown into the area, the bonobos would be inviting each other for sex: males would invite females, and females would invite males and other females.

Sex, it turned out, is the key to the social life of the bonobo. The first suggestion that the sexual behavior of bonobos is different had come from observations at European zoos [Ram: type of denial mechanism? or a way to deal with living in large groups without dominance hierarchy, to diffuse tension and aggression for better communal life].

Wrapping their findings in Latin, primatologists Eduard Tratz and Heinz Heck reported in 1954 that the chimpanzees at Hellabrun mated more canum (like dogs) and bonobos more hominum (like people). In those days, face-to- face copulation was considered uniquely human, a cultural innovation that needed to be taught to preliterate people (hence the term "missionary position"). These early studies, written in German, were ignored by the international scientific establishment. The bonobo's humanlike sexuality needed to be rediscovered in the 1970s before it became accepted as characteristic of the species.

Bonobos become sexually aroused remarkably easily, and they express this excitement in a variety of mounting positions and genital contacts. Although chimpanzees virtually never adopt face-to-face positions, bonobos do so in one out of three copulations in the wild. Furthermore, the frontal orientation of the bonobo vulva and clitoris strongly suggest that the female genitalia are adapted for this position.

Another similarity with humans is increased female sexual receptivity. The tumescent phase of the female's genitals, resulting in a pink swelling that signals willingness to mate, covers a much longer part of estrus in bonobos than in chimpanzees. Instead of a few days out of her cycle, the female bonobo is almost continuously sexually attractive and active.

Perhaps the bonobo's most typical sexual pattern, undocumented in any other primate, is genito-genital rubbing (or GG rubbing) between adult females [Ram: an example of “lesbian” activities as normal in a non-patriarchic society (sounds like pc culture crap)]

. One female facing another clings with arms and legs to a partner that, standing on both hands and feet, lifts her off the ground. The two females then rub their genital swellings laterally together, emitting grins and squeals that probably reflect orgasmic experiences. (Laboratory experiments on stump- tailed macaques have demonstrated that women are not the only female primates capable of physiological orgasm.)

Male bonobos, too, may engage in pseudocopulation but generally perform a variation. Standing back to back, one male briefly rubs his scrotum against the buttocks of another. They also practice so-called penis-fencing, in which two males hang face to face from a branch while rubbing their erect penises together [Ram: Mmmm].

The diversity of erotic contacts in bonobos includes sporadic oral sex, massage of another individual's genitals and intense tongue-kissing. Lest this leave the impression of a pathologically oversexed species, I must add, based on hundreds of hours of watching bonobos, that their sexual activity is rather casual and relaxed. It appears to be a completely natural part of their group life. Like people, bonobos engage in sex only occasionally, not continuously. Furthermore, with the average copulation lasting 13 seconds, sexual contact in bonobos is rather quick by human standards.

That sex is connected to feeding, and even appears to make food sharing possible, has been observed not only in zoos but also in the wild. Nancy Thompson-Handler, then at the State University of New York at Stony Brook, saw bonobos in Zaire's Lomako Forest engage in sex after they had entered trees loaded with ripe figs or when one among them had captured a prey animal, such as a small forest duiker. The flurry of sexual contacts would last for five to 10 minutes, after which the apes would settle down to consume the food.

One explanation for the sexual activity at feeding time could be that excitement over food translates into sexual arousal. This idea may be partly true. Yet another motivation is probably the real cause: competition. There are two reasons to believe sexual activity is the bonobo's
answer to avoiding conflict.

First, anything, not just food, that arouses the interest of more than one bonobo at a time tends to result in sexual contact.

If two bonobos approach a cardboard box thrown into their enclosure, they will briefly mount each other before playing with the box. Such situations lead to squabbles in most other species. But bonobos are quite tolerant, perhaps because they use sex to divert attention and to diffuse tension.

Second, bonobo sex often occurs in aggressive contexts totally unrelated to food. A jealous male might chase another away from a female, after which the two males reunite and engage in scrotal rubbing. Or after a female hit a juvenile, the latter's mother may lunge at the aggressor, an action that is immediately followed by genital rubbing between the two adults.

I once observed a young male, Kako, inadvertently blocking an older, female juvenile, Leslie, from moving along a branch. First, Leslie pushed him; Kako, who was not very confident in trees, tightened his grip, grinning nervously. Next Leslie gnawed on one of his hands, presumably to loosen his grasp. Kako uttered a sharp peep and stayed put. Then Leslie rubbed her vulva against his shoulder. This gesture calmed Kako, and he moved along the branch. It seemed that Leslie had been very close to using force but instead had reassured both herself and Kako with sexual contact.

During reconciliations, bonobos use the same sexual repertoire as they do during feeding time. Based on an analysis of many such incidents, my study yielded the first solid evidence for sexual behavior as a mechanism to overcome aggression.

Not that this function is absent in other animals or in humans, for that matter, but the art of sexual reconciliation may well have reached its evolutionary peak in the bonobo. For these animals, sexual behavior is indistinguishable from social behavior [Ram: Preventing the formation of hierarchy].

Given its peacemaking and appeasement functions, it is not surprising that sex among bonobos occurs in so many different partner combinations, including between juveniles and adults. The need for peaceful coexistence is obviously not restricted to adult heterosexual pairs.

Female Alliance

Apart from maintaining harmony, sex is also involved in creating the singular social structure of the bonobo. This use of sex becomes clear when studying bonobos in the wild. Field research on bonobos started only in the mid-1970s, more than a decade after the most important studies on wild chimpanzees had been initiated. In terms of continuity and invested (wo)manpower, the chimpanzee projects of Jane Goodall and Toshisada Nishida, both in Tanzania, are unparalleled. But bonobo research by Takayoshi Kano and others of Kyoto University is now two decades under way at Wamba in Zaire and is beginning to show the same payoffs.

Both bonobos and chimpanzees live in so-called fission- fusion societies. The apes move alone or in small parties of a few individuals at a time, the composition of which changes constantly. Several bonobos traveling together in the morning might meet another group in the forest, whereupon one individual from the first group wanders off with others from the second group, while those left behind forage together. All associations, except the one between mother and dependent offspring, are of a temporary character.

Initially this flexibility baffled investigators, making them wonder if these apes formed any social groups with stable membership. After years of documenting the travels of chimpanzees in the Mahale Mountains, Nishida first reported that:

They form large communities: all members of one community mix freely in ever changing parties, but members of different communities never gather. Later, Goodall added territoriality to this picture. That is, not only do communities not mix, but males of different chimpanzee communities engage in lethal battles.

In both bonobos and chimpanzees, males stay in their natal group, whereas females tend to migrate during adolescence. As a result, the senior males of a chimpanzee or bonobo group have known all junior males since birth, and all junior males have grown up together. Females, on the other hand, transfer to an unfamiliar and often hostile group where they may know no one [Ram: bitches]. A chief difference between chimpanzee and bonobo societies is the way in which young females integrate into their new community.

On arrival in another community, young bonobo females at Wamba single out one or two senior resident females for special attention, using frequent GG rubbing and grooming to establish a relation. If the residents reciprocate, close associations are set up, and the younger female gradually becomes accepted into the group. After producing her first offspring, the young female's position becomes more stable and central. Eventually the cycle repeats with younger immigrants, in turn, seeking a good relation with the now established female. Sex thus smooth’s the migrant's entrance into the community of females, which is much more close-knit in the bonobo than in the chimpanzee.

Bonobo males remain attached to their mothers all their lives, following them through the forest and being dependent on them for protection in aggressive encounters with other males. As a result, the highest-ranking males of a bonobo community tend to be sons of important females.

What a contrast with chimpanzees! Male chimpanzees fight their own battles, often relying on the support of other males. Furthermore, adult male chimpanzees travel together in same-sex parties, grooming each other frequently. Males form a distinct social hierarchy with high levels of both competition and association. Given the need to stick together against males of neighboring communities, their bonding is not surprising: failure to form a united front might result in the loss of lives and territory. The danger of being male is reflected in the adult sex ratio of chimpanzee populations, with considerably fewer males than females.

Serious conflict between bonobo groups has been witnessed in the field, but it seems quite rare. On the contrary, reports exist of peaceable mingling, including mutual sex and grooming, between what appear to be different communities. If intergroup combat is indeed unusual, it may explain the lower rate of all-male associations. Rather than being male- bonded, bonobo society gives the impression of being female- bonded, with even adult males relying on their mothers instead of on other males. No wonder Kano calls mothers the "core" of bonobo society.


The bonding among female bonobos violates a fairly general rule, outlined by Harvard University anthropologist Richard W. Wrangham, that the sex that stays in the natal group develops the strongest mutual bonds. Bonding among male chimpanzees follows naturally because they remain in the community of their birth. The same is true for female kinship bonding in Old World monkeys, such as macaques and baboons, where males are the migratory sex.

Bonobos are unique in that the migratory sex, females, strongly bond with same-sex strangers later in life. In setting up anartificial sisterhood, bonobos can be said to be secondarily bonded. (Kinship bonds are said to be primary.)

Although we now know HOW this happens through the use of sexual contact and grooming we do not yet know WHY bonobos and chimpanzees differ in this respect. The answer may lie in the different ecological environments of bonobos and chimpanzees such as the abundance and quality of food in the forest. But it is uncertain if such explanations will suffice [Ram: The solution will be given by my research].

Bonobo society is, however, not only female-centered but also appears to be female-dominated. Bonobo specialists, while long suspecting such a reality, have been reluctant to make the controversial claim. But in 1992, at the 14th Congress of the International Primatological Society in Strasbourg, investigators of both captive and wild bonobos presented data that left little doubt about the issue.

Amy R. Parish of the University of California at Davis reported on food competition in identical groups (one adult male and two adult females) of chimpanzees and bonobos at the Stuttgart Zoo. Honey was provided in a "termite hill" from which it could be extracted by dipping sticks into a small hole.

As soon as honey was made available, the male chimpanzee would make a charging display through the enclosure and claim everything for himself. Only when his appetite was satisfied would he let the females fish for honey.

In the bonobo group, it was the females that approached the honey first.

After having engaged in some GG rubbing, they would feed together, taking turns with virtually no competition between them. The male might make as many charging displays as he wanted; the females were not intimidated and ignored the commotion.

Observers at the Belgian animal park of Planckendael, which currently has the most naturalistic bonobo colony, reported similar findings. If a male bonobo tried to harass a female, all females would band together to chase him off. Because females appeared more successful in dominating males when they were together than on their own, their close association and frequent genital rubbing may represent an alliance. Females may bond so as to outcompete members of the individually stronger sex.

The fact that they manage to do so not only in captivity is evident from zoologist Takeshi Furuichi's summary of the relation between the sexes at Wamba, where bonobos are enticed out of the forest with sugarcane.

"Males usually appeared at the feeding site first, but they surrendered preferred positions when the females appeared. It seemed that males appeared first not because they were dominant, but because they had to feed before the arrival of females," Furuichi reported at Strasbourg.

Occasionally, the role of sex in relation to food is taken one step further, bringing bonobos very close to humans in their behavior. It has been speculated by anthropologists, including C. Owen Lovejoy of Kent State University and Helen Fisher of Rutgers University, that sex is partially separated from reproduction in our species because it serves to cement mutually profitable relationships between men and women.

The human female's capacity to mate throughout her cycle and her strong sex drive, allow her to exchange sex for male commitment and paternal care, thus giving rise to the nuclear family [Ram: With one protector, like chimpanzees].

This arrangement is thought to be favored by natural selection because it allows women to raise more offspring than they could if they were on their own.

Although bonobos clearly do not establish the exclusive heterosexual bonds characteristic of our species, their behavior does fit important elements of this model. A female bonobo shows extended receptivity and uses sex to obtain a male's favors when, usually because of youth she is too low in social status to dominate him [Ram: Mmmm].

At the San Diego Zoo, I observed that if Loretta was in a sexually attractive state, she would not hesitate to approach the adult male, Vernon, if he had food. Presenting herself to Vernon, she would mate with him and make high- pitched food calls while taking over his entire bundle of branches and leaves. When Loretta had no genital swelling, she would wait until Vernon was ready to share. Primatologist Suehisa Kuroda reports similar exchanges at Wamba: "A young female approached a male, who was eating sugarcane. They copulated in short order, whereupon she took one of the two canes held by him and left."

Despite such quid pro quo between the sexes, there are no indications that bonobos form humanlike nuclear families. The burden of raising offspring appears to rest entirely on the female's shoulders. In fact, nuclear families are probably incompatible with the diverse use of sex found in
[Ram: In different to the Siamang]. If our ancestors started out with a sex life similar to that of bonobos, the evolution of the
family would have required dramatic change
[Ram: Dramatic change for human-chimpanzee not for human-bonobo].

Human family life implies paternal investment, which is unlikely to develop unless males can be reasonably certain that they are caring for their own, not someone else's, offspring. Bonobo society lacks any such guarantee, but humans protect the integrity of their family units through all kinds of moral restrictions and taboos [Ram: Like chimpanzees].

Thus, although our species is characterized by an extraordinary interest in sex, there are no societies in which people engage in it at the drop of a hat (or a cardboard box, as the case may be). A sense of shame and a desire for domestic privacy are typical human concepts related to the evolution and cultural bolstering of the family.

Yet no degree of moralizing can make sex disappear from every realm of human life that does not relate to the nuclear family. The bonobo's behavioral peculiarities may help us understand the role of sex and may have serious implications for models of human society [Ram: Good luck to publicize models that compare chimpanzees to certain type of humans (mindset) and bonobo to another type of human (mindset), I will bet the ratio between the two type of human mindset will be 4% to 6.7% human-bonobo’s out of the total current human population].

Just imagine that we had never heard of chimpanzees or baboons and had known bonobos first. We would at present most likely believe that early hominids lived in female- centered societies, in which sex served important social functions and in which warfare was rare or absent.

In the end, perhaps the most successful reconstruction of our past will be based not on chimpanzees or even on bonobos but on a three-way comparison of chimpanzees, bonobos and humans [Ram: Halleluiah….].

A manifest for a revolution (of the mind)

I will start with a statement from the terminator:

If you are listening to this (and understands it), you are the resistance!

I see lucid people with eclectic wisdom unable to funnel their grave frustration into productive measures in order to abort this inner-planetary suicide mission, which is led by insane representatives of an insane population of a pathologically insane species.

I think that the late Professor Albert Allen Bartlett’s, famous statement: “The greatest shortcoming of the human race is our inability to understand the exponential function." is a perfect example of the fundamental cognitive dissonance that is shared among the academic flock, which may result in the “greatest shortcoming of the human race”

Prof. Bartlett’s statement is missing an overlooked fundamental factor that must be included in such statement in order to turn it valid:

“The greatest shortcoming of the human race, is Professor’s Albert Allen Bartlett flock inability to comprehend that they belong to one group of humans (~5% of the population) with a brain setup for System Thinking, while the majority of the human race comprise another group with a brain that is setup for Categorical Thinking (stack of symbolic objects) and the latest shares the inability to understand the exponential function and it is an inherent pathological and clinical condition."

It is the past failure of individuals such as the late Prof. Bartlett to recognize these phenomena, to understand it and to act accordingly, and this fact may result in the annihilation of all the planet’s life forms.

The main thing to understand is that we are facing an imminent situation, of a major cluster-fuck, because we the people, who are similar to Prof. Bartlett, have failed to recognize one of the most important factors in the equation of mind vs. reality:

There are two sub species of Hominids; two types of humans which coexist in the world population and the differences between these two groups are as profound as those which might exist between any two separate species that share the same ecosystem but do not share the same fitness strategies or trophic level (in the food chain), such as - lions and zebras.

But unlike the example above, the differences between the two type of humans are not external or visually apparent and they emerge in all ethnic groups – irrespective to race, color, culture, nationality or gender, these differences are an inherent two different brain tendencies each inhabit different types of cognition which come with a whole different set of traits and behaviors, much more distinctive then the difference between the bonobo and the common chimpanzee.

The members of the new emerging homo species, are currently stranded by the narratives of the well-established cannibalistic culture (literally cannibalistic, as discussed in the research) and its enforced politically correctness, confused by contradicting data from numerous indoctrinated disciplines which cause us to focus on isolated small events with multiple details without any real context and without easy access to cross-disciplines frameworks.

We are all experiencing the cognitive dissonance and the aggravating frustration of individuals who are more mentally evolved and may belong to a different homo species living within the cannibals.

Many of the people that do recognize that they are different from the majority of the population are so castrated and broken by this culture that they can’t even think of doing what the bonobo eventually did after a long period of fear and terror – 6 million years of it!

Many evolved humans have lost their hindsight, which is the only mean we have if we are to solve our evolutionary puzzle, a fundamental change is needed in the way knowledge and information are being treated:

  • There is a need to redefine the dictionary to include an absolute definition for facts as absolute truth, so myths and opinions will be easily filtered out.
  • Create a central data base containing all the evidence, observations and knowledge of humanity, and we need to create dynamics models to factor the data and to place it in the right context.
  • We should support easy access to all the available data for everyone, and we need to oppose rewords, degrees and intellectual property in order to eliminate competition between individuals and groups.
  • Support cooperation between researchers and any other thinkers and judge people by their contribution and not by their fancy piece of paper.
  • But most of all, we need to reorganize the whole human domain in accordance to reality and truth and I think we can finally achieve that by factoring the new evidences into the whole human domain.

Obviously nothing will be done and this are no more than a heart-wishes...

The deterioration of the scientific world “leaders” – the naked kings (Pseudo-scientists) of subjugating kingdoms

It’s disgusting to see how the “scholars” have turned from the lions that are serving as the gate keepers of the “shared knowledge” into domestic pussies that serve their masters the patented milk of knowledge that they had milked from their students, they serve it just the way their masters like it the most: overly sweetened or camouflaged by the PC color of chocolate.`These self-acclaimed scholars that shove in everyone’s face the certificate of authority they had received from their masters (which some of them have more head-shots than wannabe movie stars in L.A.) are the ones that hold the ultimate power of keeping the revealed “truth” in-line with the master’s narratives and filter and bury the ideas that oppose it.

Sadly, universities have turned into churches, where the choir boys are nothing but protégées, collecting bits and pieces of information, documenting it and then leaving it for the local patriarch (head of research and conformity) to decide where, how and if it will fit in the “PC” puzzle of the masters.

These unquestionable patriarchs of the scientific community have dug their churches of knowledge underground, the same thing we did millions of years ago during our evolution, isolating and segregating their communities in large structures and separated chambers with restrictions on their hypothesis and on the knowledge they can share with others outside their gated community.

Researchers are segregated from others by the walls of faculties and disciplines, individualism is celebrated and communal effort is being discouraged, instead of developing communities of knowledge the current generation is sitting in cubicles, afraid of each other and from other communities as cannibals are afraid of their own kin.

The leaders of the scientific world have become as vain and remote from reality and normality as the kardiachiens are: and just like the “patriarch” of this twisted family, they are too seeking for the courage reward for removing their own balls (Nobel Prize (named after the guy that gave us better means to destroy the land and to kill our brothers – explosives)).

These “Kings” think that they are thinking out side of the box don’t understand that any box that they think that they are out of is nothing more than the space between a bigger babushka to a smaller one, and what they are doing instead of trying to expose the layers above them until the last one and examine the whole babushka in its environment to get some context? (and maybe finally they will notice that the babushka is standing on a burning shelve), instead they are digging-in deeper into the details the smallest and smallest babushkas and there is where they think the truth is , symbolizing the pyramid of any abusive hierarchy where the ones at the top causing every layer underneath them to focus on exponentially growing details in a narrower subjects to the point that one may invest his life investigating the left tow of the back leg, on the right side of the unicorn.

The Scenery – Context

Main evolutionary events and milestones


The main characters in order of appearance

Here are the main characters in order of evolutionary appearance:

Siamang (Symphalangus syndactylus):

  • Suborder: Haplorrhini
  • Infraorder: Simiiformes
  • Superfamily: Hominoidea
  • Family: Hylobatidae
  • Genus: Symphalangus
  • Species: S. syndactylus
  • Subspecies: S. s. syndactylus, S. s. continentis
  • Siamangs establish monogamous, egalitarian relations, and one couple will maintain a territory to the exclusion of other pairs.

Bili Ape Chimpanzee (Pan troglodytes schweinfurthii (northwestern))

  • Suborder: Haplorrhini
  • Infraorder: Simiiformes
  • Superfamily: Hominoidea
  • Family: Hominidae
  • Genus: Pan
  • Species: t. schweinfurthii
  • Current distribution: Northwestern corner of Zaire into western Uganda and Tanzania

Common Chimpanzee (Pan troglodytes (eastern), Pan troglodytes troglodytes (western))

  • Suborder: Haplorrhini
  • Infraorder: Simiiformes
  • Superfamily: Hominoidea
  • Family: Hominidae
  • Genus: Pan
  • Species: P. troglodytes
  • Subspecies: P. t. troglodytes, P. t. vellerosus, P. t. verus
  • Current distribution:
  1. troglodytes – found the western portions of the range from Gambia to the Niger River.
  2. troglodytes troglodytes – Inhabit forested regions from the Niger river to Congo, in the central portion of the range.
  • In chimpanzee groups the strongest bonds are established between the males in order to hunt and to protect their shared territory. The females live in overlapping home ranges within this territory but are not strongly bonded to other females or to any one male.

Bonobo (Pan paniscus)

  • Suborder: Haplorrhini
  • Infraorder: Simiiformes
  • Superfamily: Hominoidea
  • Family: Hominidae
  • Genus: Pan
  • Species: P. paniscus
  • Current distribution: Bonobos are confined to a 200,000 km² (77,220 mi²) area in central Africa in the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC)
  • Bonobo communities are peace-loving and generally egalitarian. The strongest social bonds are those among females, although females also bond with males. The status of a male depends on the position of his mother, to whom he remains closely bonded for her entire life.


  • Suborder: Haplorrhini
  • Infraorder: Simiiformes
  • Superfamily: Hominoidea
  • Family: Hominids
  • Genus: Homo
  • Species: Sapiens
  • Current distribution:
    All over the world
  • Human society is the most diverse among the primates. Males unite for cooperative ventures and some females also bond with those of their own sex. Monogamy, polygamy and polyandry are all in evidence.