The long-running conflict in a formerly unified community, the second ever observed, adds to Jane Goodall’s studies about a different chimp war in the 1970s.
  • mar_k [he/him]@hexbear.netEnglish
    24·
    4 days ago

    Worth noting that you can measure more genetic variation between a few chimpanzees in the same region than all genetic variation in the human race

    Humans are a very young species with abnormally low genetic diversity. We have purely surface-level diversity in physical appearance, with natural phenotypes making up a meaningless fraction of our actual genes. And we have high cultural/behavioral diversity because we have extremely high neuroplasticity as children, allowing the brains we’re born with to uniquely shapeshift to the environment we’re raised in

    Chimps even have 4 subspecies in different parts of the world, while all of humanity’s subspecies (neanderthals, denisovans, naledi, etc) went extinct. Our subspecies (sapien) has existed for a short 200k years, not enough time to evolve any real differences between us; or really even the most minor group differences when you consider our nonstop migration and group intermixing as an unprecedentedly social species. Chimps existed for millions of years, more than enough time to evolve major biological differences between countless numbers of groups; especially considering groups even across the same forest rarely leave their territory or intermingle with outside groups unless forced (i.e. nowadays from human deforestation). Humans are more or less born the same yet develop vast learned differences, while behavioral differences between chimps is bound to be way more innate

      • mar_k [he/him]@hexbear.netEnglish
        2·
        2 days ago

        I think we majorly community-mogged and art-mogged them yes

        Neandrathals may have actually been smarter than us in most ways, but they were less social and more individualistic, which was likely a big factor in their downfall. Sapiens are communal in our natural state. Like, cultures of indigenous tribes vary extremely widely, but almost universally foster a mentality of sacrifice for the collective self; survival of the larger group. And we almost always share new skills or technological findings with as many people as we can (often with outside groups too, although that’s more culturally dependent)

        If a neanderthal learned a new skill, say a more efficient fishing technique, they’d probably keep that shit to themselves or their immediate family. And they didn’t seem to have the capacity for abstract expression that we almost universally have, e.g. art reflective of culture or emotions

          • mar_k [he/him]@hexbear.netEnglish
            2·
            10 hours ago

            Nah, all non-Africans (white, asian, indigenous, etc) are 1-3% neanderthal, while Africans are 0.5-1%. All humans have some trace amounts, but most of it is meaningless genetic noise. Neanderthals had genetic issues due to inbreeding, so tangible effects of their DNA were selected out of our gene pool

            We used to think Africans are 0% neanderthal bc neanderthals exclusively lived in Eurasia. Now we know that’s not the case, since most modern Africans have ancestors who spent thousands of years in Eurasia before migrating back to Africa. East-Africans have ancestors who spent up to 30k years in Eurasia (sapiens first left Africa 60k years ago), long enough to adapt light-skin and become what we would consider “white people,” before migrating back to Africa and eventually regaining melanin. Goes to show how bs the idea of biological race is

            Also, the vast majority of humanity’s genetic variation isn’t between groups, but rather existing in all groups (e.g. genetic neurodiversity, like autism or ADHD, being found roughly equally across all ethnicities)