1

Similarities Between Men And Animals

Presentation:Prof. Dr. Mr. Maqsood Hasni
 2

Contents

Similarities between men and animals

The Bonobo

Bonobo Peace Keeping

Evolutionary Starting Assumptions

Apes, Monkeys and lemurs

Apes’ are a group of animals that resemble human beings to quite an

extent

Similarities between chimps and humans

From Monkey Brain to Human Brain

The similarities of communication between humans and animals

Human Genetics

Linkages between animal and human health sentinel data

The Cell
Comparison of the Human and Great Ape Chromosomes as Evidence
for Common Ancestry

Human Chromosome 2 and its analogs in the apes

Does the miniature humanoid exist?

When Animals Think Like Humans, They Won't Thank Us

Half-Human, Half-Ape

Centaurs Appeared After Copulation Between Humans and Animals

Dog gives birth to mutant creature that resembles human being in

Umbaúba, Sergipe, Brazil.
 3

A bizarre creature has been born in Zimbabwe which looks like a

human-goat hybrid!

With man-like arms, goat legs and an enlarged head, the creature died
just hours after birth.

A Zimbabwean farmer was left stunned when his cow gave birth to a
piglet, it has been reported.

Neanderthal DNA Sequenced - How Similar are they to Modern

Humans?

cats and dogs

Old Human Hair DNA Has No Match With Modern Humans

Masvingo cow gives birth to pig-like calf

A Man or a Mouse or both?

Cat Gives Birth to a Dog!

A tiny human like creature,

Animals sadness same like human

Sheep Gives Birth to Human-Faced Lamb in Turkey

Alien or human-like fetus born from a cow

Woman gives birth to an ape-like baby

The Girl Who Gave Birth To Rabbits

Woman Gives Birth To Monkey Like Baby

MY SO-CALLED FROG
 4

Similarities Between Men And Animals

Evolutionists believe that similarity points to a common ancestry.

Animals resemble each other because they are related to each other,
and thus they believe that RESEMBLANCE indicates
RELATIONSHIP. They would say that man looks like a monkey
because he is KIN to a monkey (related to a monkey through a
common ape-like ancestor). Man does not look too much like an
elephant, but he looks more like an elephant than he does a jellyfish,
so this means that man is more closely related to the elephant than he
is to the jellyfish (he is a close cousin to the elephant, but he is a
distant relative to the jellyfish!).

Evolutionists believe that man is related to all plant and animal life
because they say that all life began from that first living cell which
they think evolved in the primitive ocean millions of years ago. Thus,
evolutionists even believe that we are related to the moss we walk
upon, to the mosquitoes which bite us, to the worms we fish with and
to the fish we catch with the worms! They believe that all living things
can trace their ancestry back to that first living cell.

Below is a diagram of an evolutionary family tree. "The base of the

trunk represents unknown, primitive forms of life from which all plants
 5

and animals arose" (Zoology, A Golden Science Guide, p. 6). This

family tree shows how the evolutionists believe that all plants and
animals are related to each other. [Perhaps the teacher or someone in
the class could bring in a science book or biology textbook which has
an evolutionary family tree.]
 6

The Bonobo

The Bonobo is very endangered and is found in the wild only in the
Democratic Republic of the Congo. Along with the Common
Chimpanzee, the Bonobo is the closest extant relative to humans.
Since the two species are not proficient swimmers, it is possible that
the formation of the Congo River 1.5 – 2 million years ago led to the
speciation of the Bonobo. They live south of the river, and thereby
were separated from the ancestors of the Common Chimpanzee, which
live north of the river.[8]

German anatomist Ernst Schwarz is credited with having discovered

the Bonobo in 1928, based on his analysis of a skull in the Tervuren
museum in Belgium that previously had been thought to have
belonged to a juvenile chimpanzee. Schwarz published his findings in
1929. In 1933, American anatomist Harold Coolidge offered a more
detailed description of the Bonobo, and elevated it to species status. [9]

The American psychologist and primatologist Robert Yerkes was also

one of the first scientists to notice major differences between Bonobos
and Chimpanzees.[10]

The species is distinguished by relatively long legs, pink lips, dark face
and tail-tuft through adulthood, and parted long hair on its head.
Although Bonobos are generally understood to be a matriarchal
species, there are also claims of a special role for the alpha male in
group movement.

The reason Bonobos are perceived to be a matriarchal species is that

females tend to collectively dominate males and commonly engage in
casual sexual activity, as well as significant homosexual contact.[11][12]
The limited research on Bonobos in the wild was taken to indicate that
these behaviors may be exaggerated by captivity, as well as by food
 7

provisioning by researchers in the field.[11] This view has recently been

challenged, however, by Duke University's Vanessa Woods; [13] Woods
noted in a recent radio interview[14] that she had observed bonobos in
a spacious forested sanctuary in the DRC exhibiting the same sort of
hypersexuality under these more naturalistic conditions; additionally,
while she acknowledges a hierarchy among males, including an "alpha
male," these males are less dominant than the dominant female
matriarch.

Common name

The name Bonobo first appeared in 1954, when Edward Tratz and
Heinz Heck proposed it as a new and separate generic term for pygmy
chimpanzees. The term has been reported variously as being a word
for "chimpanzee" or "ancestor" in a Bantu language. Another
suggestion for the derivation of the name is that the name is a
misspelling of the name of the town of Bolobo on the Congo River,
which has been associated with the collection of chimps in the 1920s.
[15]

Taxonomy

The scientific name for the Bonobo is Pan paniscus. While no official
publication on the bonobo genome is publicly available, an initial
analysis by the National Human Genome Research Institute confirmed
that the bonobo genome diverges about 0.4 % from the chimpanzee
genome. In addition, the group around Svante Pääbo of the Max
Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology is actually sequencing
the genome of a female bonobo from the Leipzig zoo. [16] Initial genetic
studies characterised the DNA of chimpanzees (Common Chimpanzee
and Bonobo, collectively) as being as much as 98% (99.4 in one
study) identical to that of Homo sapiens.[17] Later studies showed that
chimpanzees are more closely related to humans than to gorillas.[18]
The most recent genetic analyses (published in 2006) of chimpanzee
and human genetic similarity come from whole genome comparisons
and have shown that the differences between the two species are
more complex, both in extent and character, than the historical 98%
figure suggests.[19]

In the seminal Nature paper reporting on initial genome comparisons,

researchers identified thirty-five million single-nucleotide changes, five
million insertion or deletion events, and a number of chromosomal
rearrangements which constituted the genetic differences between
chimpanzees and humans, covering 98% of the same genes. [20] While
 8

many of these analyses have been performed on the Common

Chimpanzee rather than the Bonobo, the differences between the two
chimpanzee species are unlikely to be substantial enough to affect the
Pan-Homo comparative data significantly.

There still is controversy, however. Scientists such as Jared Diamond

in The Third Chimpanzee, and Morris Goodman[21] of Wayne State
University in Detroit argue that the Bonobo and Common Chimpanzee
are so closely related to humans that their genus name also should be
classified with the human genus Homo: Homo paniscus, Homo
sylvestris, or Homo arboreus. An alternative philosophy suggests that
the term Homo sapiens is the misnomer rather, and that humans
should be reclassified as Pan sapiens, though this would violate the
Rule of Priority as Homo was named before Pan (1758 for the former,
1816 for the latter). In either case, a name change of the genus would
have implications on the taxonomy of other species closely related to
humans, including Australopithecus. Ideas such as this are considered
far outside the mainstream. The current line between Homo and non-
Homo species is drawn about 2 million years ago, and chimpanzee and
human ancestry converges only about 7 million years ago, nearly three
times earlier.

Recent DNA evidence suggests the Bonobo and Common Chimpanzee

species effectively separated from each other less than one million
years ago.[22][23] The chimpanzee line split from the last common
ancestor shared with humans approximately six to seven million years
ago. Because no species other than Homo sapiens has survived from
the human line of that branching, both Pan species are the closest
living relatives of humans and cladistically are equally close to
humans.

Physical characteristics

Bonobo
 9

The Bonobo is sometimes considered to be more gracile than the

Common Chimpanzee, and females are somewhat smaller than males.
Its head is smaller than that of the Common Chimpanzee with less
prominent brow ridges above the eyes. It has a black face with pink
lips, small ears, wide nostrils, and long hair on its head that forms a
part. Females have slightly more prominent breasts, in contrast to the
flat breasts of other female apes, although not so prominent as those
of humans. The Bonobo also has a slim upper body, narrow shoulders,
thin neck, and long legs when compared to the Common Chimpanzee.
The Bonobo walks upright approximately 25% of the time during
ground locomotion. Its quadrupedal ground locomotion generally is
characterized by forelimb 'palm walking'[citation needed], similar to
orangutans and in contrast to the predominant use of knuckles as
characteristic of gorillas and the Common Chimpanzees. These
physical characteristics and its posture give the Bonobo an appearance
more closely resembling that of humans than that of the Common
Chimpanzee (see: bipedal Bonobos). The Bonobo also has highly
individuated facial features, as humans do, so that one individual may
look significantly different from another, a characteristic adapted for
visual facial recognition in social interaction.

Diet

This primate is mainly frugivorous, but supplements its diet with

leaves and meat from small vertebrates such as flying squirrels and
duikers,[24] and invertebrates.[25] In some instances, Bonobos have
been shown to consume lower-order primates.[26][27] Some claim that
Bonobos have also been known to practice cannibalism in captivity, a
claim disputed by others.[11][12] However there is at least one confirmed
report of cannibalism in the wild as reported by researchers Gottfried
Hohmann and Andrew Fowler.[28]

Psychological characteristics

Frans de Waal, one of the world's most respected and popular

primatologists, states that the Bonobo is capable of altruism,
compassion, empathy, kindness, patience, and sensitivity. How
peaceful Bonobos are has been disputed by some, but in general
scientists agree with these assessments and the fact remains that thus
far there are no confirmed observations of lethal aggression among
Bonobos, either in the wild or in captivity.[neutrality is disputed]

Observations in the wild indicate that the males among the related
Common Chimpanzee communities are extraordinarily hostile to males
 10

from outside of the community. Parties of males 'patrol' for the

unfortunate neighbouring males who might be traveling alone, and
attack those single males, often killing them. This does not appear to
be the behavior of the Bonobo males or females in their own
communities, where they seem to prefer sexual contact over violent
confrontation with outsiders. In fact, the Japanese scientists who have
spent the most time working with wild Bonobos describe the species as
extraordinarily peaceful, and De Waal has documented how Bonobos
may often resolve conflicts with sexual contact (hence the "make love
- not war" characterization for the species). Conflict is still possible
between rival groups of Bonobos however: the Congolese researcher
Mola Ihomi has reported confrontations between bands of Bonobos
which result in physical violence, sometimes resulting in serious
injuries from bite wounds. Bonobos live in different areas from the
more aggressive Common Chimpanzee. [29]

Neither of the species swims, their respective ranges being separated

by the great Congo River with Bonobos living south of the river and
Chimpanzees living north of the river. It has been hypothesized that
Bonobos are able to live a more peaceful lifestyle in part because of an
abundance of nutritious vegetation in their natural habitat, allowing
them to travel and forage in large parties.

The popular image of the Bonobo as a peaceful ape does not always
apply to captive populations. Accounts exist of Bonobos confined in
zoos mutilating one another and engaging in bullying. These incidents
may be due to the practice in zoos of separating mothers and sons,
which is contrary to their social organization in the wild. Bonobo
society is dominated by females, and severing the lifelong alliance
between mothers and their male offspring may make them vulnerable
to female aggression. De Waal has warned of the danger of
romanticizing Bonobos:

"All animals are competitive by nature and cooperative only under

specific circumstances" as well as writing that "when first writing about
their behavior, I spoke of 'sex for peace' precisely because bonobos
had plenty of conflicts. There would obviously be no need for
peacemaking if they lived in perfect harmony". The immature state of
Bonobo research in the wild, compared to that of the Common
Chimpanzee means that lethal aggression between Bonobos could still
be discovered.

Hohmann and Surbeck published in 2008 that Bonobos sometimes do

hunt monkey species. Having observed a group of Bonobos in Salonga
 11

National Park, they witnessed five incidents in five years in which

Bonobos preyed on monkeys. Their research indicates it was deliberate
hunting in which a group of Bonobos would coordinate their actions –
contrary to their normal hunting behaviour which is quite solitary and
less purposeful. On three occasions the hunt was successful and infant
monkeys were captured. But of course hunting is related to feeding
more than to aggression, and these observations cannot be used to
attribute a dark side to the bonobo as some have done. [neutrality is disputed]

Social behavior

Bonobo fishing for termites

Most studies indicate that females have a higher social status in

Bonobo society, though some field work suggests that Bonobo troops
are led by an alpha male (though females in this scenario are not
subordinate to all adult males as is the case with Chimpanzees). [30]
Aggressive encounters between males and females are rare, and
males are tolerant of infants and juveniles. A male's status is derived
from the status of his mother. The mother-son bond often stays strong
and continues throughout life. While social hierarchies do exist, rank
does not play so prominent a role as it does in other primate societies.

Bonobo party size tends to be variable since the groups exhibit a

fission-fusion pattern. A community of approximately one hundred will
split into small groups during the day while looking for food, and then
come back together to sleep. They sleep in trees in nests that they
construct.

Sexual social behavior

Sexual intercourse plays a major role in Bonobo society observed in

captivity, being used as what some scientists perceive as a greeting, a
means of conflict resolution, and post-conflict reconciliation. Bonobos
are the only non-human animal to have been observed engaging in all
 12

of the following sexual activities: face-to-face genital sex, tongue

kissing, and oral sex[31] (although a pair of Western Gorillas have been
photographed performing face to face genital sex[32]). In scientific
literature, the female-female behavior of touching genitals together is
often referred to as GG rubbing or genital-genital rubbing.

The sexual activity happens within the immediate family as well as

outside it. Bonobos do not form permanent relationships with
individual partners. They also do not seem to discriminate in their
sexual behavior by sex or age, with the possible exception of
abstaining from sexual intercourse between mothers and their adult
sons; some observers believe these pairings are taboo. When Bonobos
come upon a new food source or feeding ground, the increased
excitement will usually lead to communal sexual activity, presumably
decreasing tension and encouraging peaceful feeding. [33]

Bonobo males occasionally engage in various forms of male-male

genital behavior.[34][35] In one form, two males hang from a tree limb
face-to-face while "penis fencing".[36][37] This also may occur when two
males rub their penises together while in face-to-face position. Another
form of genital interaction, called "rump rubbing", occurs to express
reconciliation between two males after a conflict, when they stand
back-to-back and rub their scrotal sacs together. Takayoshi Kano
observed similar practices among Bonobos in the natural habitat.

Bonobo females also engage in female-female genital behavior,

possibly to bond socially with each other, thus forming a female
nucleus of Bonobo society. The bonding among females enables them
to dominate Bonobo society. Although male Bonobos are individually
stronger, they cannot stand alone against a united group of females. [37]
Adolescent females often leave their native community to join another
community. Sexual bonding with other females establishes these new
females as members of the group. This migration mixes the Bonobo
gene pools, providing genetic diversity.

Bonobo reproductive rates are not any higher than that of the
Common Chimpanzee. Female Bonobos carry and nurse their young
for five years and can give birth every five to six years. Compared to
Common Chimpanzees, Bonobo females resume the genital swelling
cycle much sooner after giving birth, enabling them to rejoin the
sexual activities of their society. Also, Bonobo females who are sterile
or too young to reproduce still engage in sexual activity.
 13

Closeness to humans

Bonobos are capable of passing the mirror-recognition test for self-

awareness. They communicate primarily through vocal means,
although the meanings of their vocalizations are not currently known.
However, most humans do understand their facial expressions [17] and
some of their natural hand gestures, such as their invitation to play.
Two Bonobos at the Great Ape Trust, Kanzi and Panbanisha, have been
taught how to communicate using a keyboard labeled with lexigrams
(geometric symbols) and they can respond to spoken sentences.
Kanzi's vocabulary consists of more than 500 English words [38] and he
has comprehension of around 3,000 spoken English words. [39] Some,
such as philosopher and bioethicist Peter Singer, argue that these
results qualify them for the "rights to survival and life", rights that
humans theoretically accord to all persons.

There are instances in which non-human primates have been reported

to have expressed joy. One study analyzed and recorded sounds made
by human babies and Bonobos when they were tickled.[40] It found
although the Bonobo's laugh was a higher frequency, the laugh
followed a similar spectrographic pattern to human babies. [40]

Habitat

Around 10,000 Bonobos are found only south of the Congo River and
north of the Kasai River (a tributary of the Congo),[41] in the humid
forests of the Democratic Republic of Congo of central Africa. They are
an endangered species, due both to habitat loss and hunting for
bushmeat, the latter activity having increased dramatically during the
current civil war due to the presence of heavily armed militias even in
remote "protected" areas such as Salonga National Park. Today, at
most several thousand Bonobos remain. This is part of a more general
trend of ape extinction.

Conservation efforts

Since 1996, the first and second Congo wars in the Democratic
Republic of Congo (DRC) have had a major impact on the Bonobo
population. Bonobos are in danger of being hunted to extinction.

As the Bonobo's habitat is shared with people, the ultimate success of

conservation efforts will rely on local and community involvement. The
issue of parks vs. people,[42] is very cogent in the Cuvette Centrale, the
Bonobo's range. There is strong local and broad-based Congolese
 14

resistance to establishing national parks, as indigenous communities

often have been driven from their forest homes by the establishment
of parks. In Salonga National Park, the only national park in the
Bonobo habitat, there is no local involvement, and recent surveys [when?]
indicate that the Bonobo, the African Forest Elephant, and other
species have been severely devastated by poachers and the thriving
bushmeat trade. In contrast to this, there are areas where the Bonobo
and biodiversity still thrive without any established parks, due to the
indigenous beliefs and taboos against killing Bonobos.

The port town of Basankusu is situated on the Lulonga River, at the

confluence of the Lopori and Maringa Rivers, in the north of the
country, making it well placed to receive and transport local goods to
the cities of Mbandaka and Kinshasa. With Basankusu being the last
port of substance before the wilderness of the Lopori Basin and the
Lomako River - the Bonobo heartland, conservation efforts for the
Bonobo,[43] use the town as a base.[44][45]

In 1995, concern over declining numbers of Bonobos in the wild led

the Zoological Society of Milwaukee in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, with
contributions from Bonobo scientists around the world, to publish the
Action Plan for Pan paniscus: A Report on Free Ranging Populations
and Proposals for their Preservation. The Action Plan compiles
population data on Bonobos from twenty years of research conducted
at various sites throughout the Bonobo's range. The plan identifies
priority actions for Bonobo conservation and serves as a reference for
developing conservation programs for researchers, government
officials, and donor agencies.

Acting on Action Plan recommendations, the ZSM developed the

Bonobo and Congo Biodiversity Initiative (BCBI). This program
includes habitat and rain-forest preservation, training for Congolese
nationals and conservation institutions, wildlife population assessment
and monitoring, and education. The Zoological Society has conducted
regional surveys within the range of the Bonobo in conjunction with
training Congolese researchers in survey methodology and biodiversity
monitoring. The Zoological Society’s initial goal was to survey Salonga
National Park to determine the conservation status of the Bonobo
within the park and to provide financial and technical assistance to
strengthen park protection. As the project has developed, the
Zoological Society has become more involved in helping the Congolese
living in Bonobo habitat. The Zoological Society has built schools, hired
teachers, provided some medicines, and, as of 2007, started an
 15

agriculture project to help the Congolese learn to grow crops and

depend less on hunting wild animals.

During the wars in the 1990s, researchers and international non-

governmental organizations (NGOs) were driven out of the Bonobo
habitat. In 2002, the Bonobo Conservation Initiative initiated the
Bonobo Peace Forest Project in cooperation with national institutions,
local NGOs, and local communities. The Peace Forest Project works
with local communities to establish a linked constellation of
community-based reserves, managed by local and indigenous people.
Although there has been only limited support from international
organizations, this model, implemented mainly through DRC
organizations and local communities, has helped bring about
agreements to protect over 5,000 square miles (13,000 km2) of the
Bonobo habitat. According to Dr. Amy Parish, the Bonobo Peace Forest
"…is going to be a model for conservation in the 21st century." [46]

This initiative has been gaining momentum and greater international

recognition and it recently[when?] has gained greater support through
Conservation International, the Global Conservation Fund, United
States Fish and Wildlife Service's Great Ape Conservation Fund, and
the United Nations' Great Apes Survival Project.

With grants from the United Nations, USAID, the U.S. Embassy, the
World Wildlife Fund, and many other groups and individuals, the
Zoological Society also has been working to:

 Survey the Bonobo population and its habitat in order to find

ways to help protect these apes.
 Develop anti-poaching measures to help save apes, forest
elephants, and other endangered animals in Congo's Salonga
National Park, a U.N. World Heritage Site.
 Provide training, literacy education, agricultural techniques,
schools, equipment, and jobs for Congolese living near Bonobo
habitats so that they will have a vested interest in protecting the
great apes. As of 2007, the ZSM started an agriculture project to
help the Congolese learn to grow crops and depend less on
hunting wild animals.
 Model small-scale conservation methods that can be used
throughout Congo.

Starting in 2003, the U.S. government allocated $54 million to the

Congo Basin Forest Partnership. This significant investment has
 16

triggered the involvement of international NGOs to establish bases in

the region and work to develop Bonobo conservation programs. This
initiative should improve the likelihood of Bonobo survival, but its
success still may depend upon building greater involvement and
capability in local and indigenous communities. [47]

The Congo is setting aside more than 11,000 square miles (28,000

km2) of rain forest to help protect the endangered Bonobo, in this
Central African country. U.S. agencies, conservation groups, and the
Congolese government have come together to set aside 11,803 square
miles (30,570 km2) of tropical rain forest, the U.S.-based Bonobo
Conservation Initiative. The area amounts to just over 1 percent of the
vast Congo - but that means a park larger than the state of
Massachusetts.

The Bonobo population is believed to have declined sharply in the last

thirty years, though surveys have been hard to carry out in war-
ravaged central Congo. Estimates range from 60,000 to fewer than
50,000 living, according to the World Wildlife Fund.

The Sankuru reserve also contains Okapi, closely related to the Giraffe,
that also is native to Congo, elephants, and at least ten other primate
species.

In addition, concerned parties have addressed the crisis on several

science and ecological websites. Organizations such as the World Wide
Fund for Nature, the African Wildlife Foundation, and others are trying
to focus attention on the extreme risk to the species. Some have
suggested that a reserve be established in a more stable part of Africa,
or on an island in a place such as Indonesia. Awareness is ever
increasing and even non-scientific or ecological sites have created
various groups to collect donations to help with the conservation of
this species.
 17

Bonobo Peace Keeping

Description: Aggressive behavior is typical of most primates. Gorillas,
humans and chimpanzees kill members of their own species. The need
for social and physical contact is also characteristic of most primates.
Species that live in groups need to reconcile aggression. Social groups
require some form of conflict resolution. Sexual behavior is one such
mechanism to overwhelm aggression.

Bonobo sex life is divorced from reproduction and also serves the
functions of pleasure and conflict resolution. Females are in a sexually
attractive state most of the time, and almost continuously sexually
active. Sexual activity is very frequent. Males, females and juveniles
all engage in erotic activity. Age and gender are not sexual boundaries
among the Bonobo. A typical sexual pattern is genital rubbing between
adult females. Erotic contacts in Bonobos includes oral sex, genital
massage and intense tongue-kissing.

Whereas in most other species sexual behavior is a fairly distinct

category, in the Bonobo it is part and parcel of social relations. Sex
seems to cement Bonobo bonds. Females use sex to form alliances
against males. Consequently males do not dominate females or coerce
them sexually. Bonobo culture is female-centered, egalitarian and
substitutes sex for aggression.

Context: Bonobos live in groups of 50 to 120 animals. Bonobo society

appears to be female-dominated. Male status is linked to that of his
mother. Older females occupy the highest rank. The strongest social
bonds are between females. Raising offspring is an exclusively female
activity.

In Bonobo society sexual excitement and aggression rates are higher

at feeding times. Dominant males may delay sharing food with females
who are not sexually disposed. Cofeeding takes place between
intimates. Among Bonobos, embracing, friendly touching and sexual
contact rates jump after an aggressive incident. According to zoologist
Frans de Waal, "The majority of mounts and matings occur in tense
situations." "(C)onflict resolution is the more fundamental and
pervasive function of Bonobo sex." Sex in Bonobo society is definitively
a mechanism for keeping the peace.
 18

Bonobo-Human Comparisons: Human nuclear families are presumably

incongruous with the sex habits found in Bonobo culture. Many of the
roots of human behavior can be traced to our primate heritage,
including survival through cooperation and mutual assistance. While
the same mechanisms and purposes may underlie Bonobo and human
social behavior, distinct solutions have evolved in these two groups. In
particular, humans and Bonobos have developed different mechanisms
for peacekeeping. Cultural transmission and highly developed symbolic
language are particularly unique to humans. Human conflicts and
aggression are typically reconciled and avoided through language.

The use of sex to reconcile or avoid conflict is present in human

culture, though it is nowhere near as pervasive a factor as among the
Bonobos. Conflicts are less likely to recur after body contact between
aggressors. This similarity to Bonobo use of sex can be seen in the
custom of adversaries shaking hands after conflict, or close friends
kissing and making up after a fight. Intimate human couples engage in
sexual activity after conflicts. Sexual receptivity maintains pair bonding
in humans much as it does group cohesion in Bonobos.

Unlike Bonobos, sexual control is evidenced in humans. Marriage

typically serves as a sexual control mechanism. Human males
participate in child rearing and, due to monogamous marriages, have
some assurance of paternity. In most cultures men honor proprietary
rights of husbands over their wife or wives. Marriage typically involves
exclusion and control over a female's sexual life. Humans also
demonstrate sexual coercion and jealousy between intimates. Most
human cultures are male-dominated.

Symbolic Communication.

Description: Apes are physically unable to produce human speech, so

investigation of their ability for symbolic communication has been
difficult. Gardner and Gardner taught American Sign Language (ASL)
to Washoe, and subsequently to four other chimpanzees. Washoe's
instruction began at age one and continued for five years. Washoe
learned 132 signs and formed novel combinations of signs. Other
researchers, notably Francine Patterson and Roger Fouts, also
instructed Chimpanzees to use ASL. E. Sue Savage-Rumbaugh, in the
Animal Model Project, improved on the ASL system with lexigrams and
a symbol keyboard system (accompanied by special lighting on the
keyboard, image projection and accompanying sounds to correspond
to the symbols).
 19

Savage-Rumbaugh taught two chimps, Austin and Sherman, lexigrams

to symbolize tools needed to acquire food, among other symbols.
Using only the lexigrams, Austin and Sherman had to communicate
which tool was required to access food. Their success rate was 97
percent correct when the keyboard with lexigrams was available, and
dropped to 10 percent with the keyboard turned off. This established
that their communication was indeed symbolic. Sherman and Austin
had learned to communicate with each other through the use of
learned symbols in the setting of cooperation to obtain food. These
experiments established that chimpanzees are capable of acquiring or
learning symbolic communication.

Context: The benefits of communication can be learned along with an

awareness of the benefits derived therefrom, such as success in food
acquisition. Austin and Sherman learned to communicate symbolically
in a human experimental setting. They have shown the cognitive
capacity to realize that communication can alter the behavior of
others, and they used this capability to obtain food. We cannot as
easily ascertain if symbolic communication occurs in ape societies in
the wild. We know that vocalizations are an important aspect of
chimpanzee life, yet we have no proof that they are employed in a
highly symbolic fashion as is the case with human language.

Human Comparisons: The human mind evolved from the earlier

hominid mind, and that diverged from the ape mind. Human cognitive
processes had their direct antecedent in the ape brain. Chimpanzees
resemble humans more than any other animal with regard to mental
processes. Except in regard to size, human brains are very alike to
chimpanzee brains. The major differences between humans and apes
are not anatomical, but rather behavioral. The most significant
behavioral difference in humans is the complex uses of objects and
language. Human children refer to items in a representational manner
at an early age. Chimpanzees do not show this behavior. This does not
imply a lack in apes of the cognitive abilities which facilitate this
behavior in humans.

Humans definitely use symbolic communication to acquire food and

other resources. We have the cognitive capacity to realize that
communication can alter the behavior of others at an age before we
can uttering one word sentences. We very readily understand that
saying, "Please pass the salsa," alters the behavior of others.

In humans the capacity for symbolic communication has evolved to

surpass the level of this capacity in our ape cousins. Our reasons for
 20

and use of symbolic communication is far greater and more diverse

than in the apes, to the best of our knowledge. If symbolic
vocalizations occur at all among apes, only an understanding of
primate vocalizations can enlighten us of the actual degree of this
important difference between our species.

A cooperative resource sharing strategy and group planning in our

common ape ancestors probably fueled reproductive success and
evolution to greater mental capacities related to communication and
language in humans. Our very evolution evidences the ability for
symbolic communication in humans.

Medicinal Plant Usage.

Description: Detailed evidence for the use of medicinal plants in the

chimpanzee has been recently documented (Huffman). Chimpanzees
are susceptible to parasites that also infect humans. Parasite study
identified nematodes, trematodes and protozoae as chimpanzee
parasites. Two types of medicinal plant use, whole leaf-swallowing and
bitter pith chewing are known in chimpanzees.

Sixteen plant species of possible medical use have been observed and
identified to be ingested by chimpanzees across equatorial Africa. This
behavior has also been observed in the Bonobo and the eastern
lowland gorilla. Analysis of the feces collected from individuals
observed leaf-swallowing revealed that they were suffering from
parasite infections. Plant specimens were collected concurrently with
observations of their use. The chemical and physical properties of the
plants were analyzed. In some cases worms were expelled with leaves.
Some of the worms were actually firmly stuck to the surface of the
leaf. Anti-parasite activity due to chemicals produced by these plants
(whole leaf swallowing) was ruled out. Short hairs located on the
leaves appear to be responsible for the eviction of the parasites.
Chimpanzees select these plant species for their physical, roughness
properties, resulting in the physical purging action of adult parasites
by the leaves. Thus whole leaf swallowing is one self-medication
strategy used by chimpanzees against gastrointestinal parasites.

Bitter leaf-chewing is another method. Infection of parasites drops

noticeably after chewing of Vernonia amygdalina pith. Chemical
analyses has revealed sesquiterpene lactones and new steroid
glucosides with antiparasitic activity against Schistosoma, Plasmodium
and Leishmania.
 21

Context: Field observations have shown that ill chimpanzees consume

the remedial plants. Incidence of the medicinal plant use is higher
during the rainy season when parasite infections are also at their
highest. Chimpanzees have learned to distinguish between harmful
plant parts and parts that contain beneficial compounds. This behavior
is learned from other group members, which allows the group to
benefit from the experience of an individual.

Human Comparisons: The WaTongwe people also traditionally use V.

amygdalina as a treatment for similar symptoms. Among other African
peoples this plant is used for stomach aches and parasite infections.
The leaves of a domesticated variety is used as a food in order to
restore stamina. This is one example of the pervasive use of medicinal
plants among humans. The chimpanzee practice of parasite removal
by use of the physical properties of leaves has not been documented
among humans.

Many populations in the Amazon Basin use Banisteriopsis for its

purgative and evacuative effect, an analogous activity with a
somewhat different mechanism and more profound side effects. While
living in the Amazon basin this author also discovered the use of a tea
with anesthetic properties to be totally efficacious in curing an
infection which was likely amoebic dysentery. The active ingredient
was found in the root bark of a small plant.

Most interestingly, it is possible to acquire new medicines and new

medical techniques for humans by watching the behavior of sick
animals.

Sources:

de Waal, Frans, Peacemaking among Primates, Harvard University

Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1989.

de Waal, Frans B. M., Bonobo Sex and Society, Scientific American,

March 1995, pp. 82-88, accessed via:
http://soong.club.cc.cmu.edu/~julie/bonobos.html.

Huffman, Michael A., The Medicinal Use of Plants by Chimpanzees in

the Wild, Primate Research Institute, Kyoto University, Japan,
http://jinrui.zool.kyoto-u.ac.jp/CHIMPP/CHIMPP.html.

Jacobs, James Q., A Brief Note Regarding Campa Medical Practices,

http://www.jqjacobs.net/writing/ethnomed.html
 22

Primate Behavior, http://www.leeds.ac.uk/chb/lectures/anthl_11.html.

Pan paniscus, Bonobo or pygmy chimpanzee, Animal Diversity Web,

University of Michigan, http://www.oit.itd.umich.edu/projects/ADW/.

Pan troglodytes. Chimpanzee, Animal Diversity Web, University of

Michigan, http://www.oit.itd.umich.edu/projects/ADW/.

Savage-Rumbaugh, E. Sue, Ape Language, Columbia University Press,

New York, 1986.

Smuts, Barbara, Commentary - Apes of Wrath, Discover Magazine,

August 1995.

The Evolution of Morality, Yerkes Regional Primate Research Center,

http://www.emory.edu:80/YERKES/NEWSROOM/dewaal.html, August
30, 1996.
 23

Evolutionary Starting Assumptions

by Dr. David Menton

February 25, 2010

Perhaps the most bitter pill to swallow for any Christian who attempts
to “make peace” with Darwin is the presumed ape ancestry of man.
Even many Christians who uncritically accept evolution as “God’s way
of creating” try to somehow elevate the origin of man, or at least his
soul, above that of the beasts. Evolutionists attempt to soften the blow
by assuring us that man didn’t exactly evolve from apes (tailless
monkeys) but rather from apelike creatures. This is mere semantics,
however, as many of the presumed apelike ancestors of man are apes
and have scientific names, which include the word pithecus (derived
from the Greek meaning “ape”). The much-touted “human ancestor”
commonly known as “Lucy,” for example, has the scientific name
Australopithecus afarensis (meaning “southern ape from the Afar
triangle of Ethiopia”). But what does the Bible say about the origin of
man, and what exactly is the scientific evidence that evolutionists
claim for our ape ancestry?

Biblical Starting Assumptions

God tells us that on the same day He made all animals that walk on
the earth (the sixth day), He created man separately in His own image
with the intent that man would have dominion over every other living
thing on earth (Genesis 1:26–28). From this it is clear that there is no
animal that is man’s equal, and certainly none his ancestor.

Thus, when God paraded the animals by Adam for him to name, He
observed that “for Adam there was not found an help meet for him”
(Genesis 2:20). Jesus confirmed this uniqueness of men and women
when He declared that marriage is to be between a man and a woman
because “from the beginning of the creation God made them male and
female” (Mark 10:6). This leaves no room for prehumans or for billions
of years of cosmic evolution prior to man’s appearance on the earth.
Adam chose the very name “Eve” for his wife because he recognized
that she would be “the mother of all living” (Genesis 3:20). The
apostle Paul stated clearly that man is not an animal: “All flesh is not
 24

the same flesh: but there is one kind of flesh of men, another flesh of
beasts, another of fishes, and another of birds” (1 Corinthians 15:39).

Evolutionary Starting Assumptions

While Bible-believing Christians begin with the assumption that God’s

Word is true and that man’s ancestry goes back only to a fully human
Adam and Eve, evolutionists begin with the assumption that man has,
in fact, evolved from apes. No paleoanthropologists (those who study
the fossil evidence for man’s origin) would dare to seriously raise the
question, “Did man evolve from apes?” The only permissible question
is, “From which apes did man evolve?”

Since evolutionists generally do not believe that man evolved from any
ape that is now living, they look to fossils of humans and apes to
provide them with their desired evidence. Specifically, they look for
any anatomical feature that looks “intermediate” (between that of
apes and man). Fossil apes having such features are declared to be
ancestral to man (or at least collateral relatives) and are called
hominids. Living apes, on the other hand, are not considered to be
hominids, but rather are called hominoids because they are only
similar to humans but did not evolve into them. Nonetheless,
evolutionists are willing to accept mere similarities between the
fossilized bones of extinct apes and the bones of living men as “proof ”
of our ape ancestry.

What Is the Evidence for Human Evolution?

Though many similarities may be cited between living apes and

humans, the only historical evidence that could support the ape
ancestry of man must come from fossils. Unfortunately, the fossil
record of man and apes is very sparse. Approximately 95 percent of all
known fossils are marine invertebrates, about 4.7 percent are algae
and plants, about 0.2 percent are insects and other invertebrates, and
only about 0.1 percent are vertebrates (animals with bones). Finally,
only the smallest imaginable fraction of vertebrate fossils consists of
primates (humans, apes, monkeys, and lemurs).
 25

Because of the rarity of fossil hominids, even many of those who

specialize in the evolution of man have never actually seen an original
hominid fossil, and far fewer have ever had the opportunity to handle
or study one. Most scientific papers on human evolution are based on
casts of original specimens (or even on published photos,
measurements, and descriptions of them). Access to original fossil
hominids is strictly limited by those who discovered them and is often
confined to a few favored evolutionists who agree with the discoverers’
interpretation of the fossil.

Since there is much more prestige in finding an ancestor of man than

an ancestor of living apes (or worse yet, merely an extinct ape), there
is immense pressure on paleoanthropologists to declare almost any
ape fossil to be a “hominid.” As a result, the living apes have pretty
much been left to find their own ancestors.

Many students in our schools are taught human evolution (often in the
social studies class!) by teachers having little knowledge of human
anatomy, to say nothing of ape anatomy. But it is useless to consider
the fossil evidence for the evolution of man from apes without first
understanding the basic anatomical and functional differences between
human and ape skeletons.

Jaws and Teeth

Because of their relative hardness, teeth and jaw fragments are the
most frequently found primate fossils. Thus, much of the evidence for
the ape ancestry of man is based on similarities of teeth and jaws.
 26

In contrast to man, apes tend to have incisor and canine teeth that are
relatively larger than their molars. Ape teeth usually have thin enamel
(the hardest surface layer of the tooth), while humans generally have
thicker enamel. Finally, the jaws tend to be more U-shaped in apes
and more parabolic in man.

The problem in declaring a fossil ape to be a human ancestor (i.e., a

hominid) on the basis of certain humanlike features of the teeth is that
some living apes have these same features and they are not
considered to be ancestors of man. Some species of modern baboons,
for example, have relatively small canines and incisors and relatively
large molars. While most apes do have thin enamel, some apes, such
as the orangutans, have relatively thick enamel. Clearly, teeth tell us
more about an animal’s diet and feeding habits than its supposed
evolution. Nonetheless, thick enamel is one of the most commonly
cited criteria for declaring an ape fossil to be a hominid.

Artistic imagination has been used to illustrate entire “apemen” from

nothing more than a single tooth. In the early 1920s, the “apeman”
Hesperopithecus (which consisted of a single tooth) was pictured in the
London Illustrated News complete with the tooth’s wife, children,
domestic animals, and cave! Experts used this tooth, known as
“Nebraska man,” as proof for human evolution during the Scopes trial
in 1925. In 1927, parts of the skeleton were discovered together with
the teeth, and Nebraska man was found to really be an extinct peccary
(wild pig)!
 27

Skulls

Orangutan Skull

Human Skull

Skulls are perhaps the most interesting primate fossils because they
house the brain and give us an opportunity, with the help of
imaginative artists, to look our presumed ancestors in the face. The
human skull is easily distinguished from all living apes, though there
are, of course, similarities.

The vault of the skull is large in humans because of their relatively

large brain compared to apes. Even so, the size of the normal adult
human brain varies over nearly a threefold range. These differences in
size in the human brain do not correlate with intelligence. Adult apes
 28

have brains that are generally smaller than even the smallest of adult
human brains, and of course they are not even remotely comparable in
intelligence.

Perhaps the best way to distinguish an ape skull from a human skull is
to examine it from a side view. From this perspective, the face of the
human is nearly vertical, while that of the ape slopes forward from its
upper face to its chin.

From a side view, the bony socket of the eye (the orbit) of an ape is
obscured by its broad, flat upper face. Humans, on the other hand,
have a more curved upper face and forehead, clearly revealing the
orbit of the eye from a side view.

Another distinctive feature of the human skull is the nose bone that
our glasses rest on. Apes do not have protruding nasal bones and
would have great difficulty wearing glasses.

Leg Bones

The most eagerly sought-after evidence in fossil hominids is any

anatomical feature that might suggest bipedality (the ability to walk on
two legs). Since humans walk on two legs, any evidence of bipedality
in fossil apes is considered by evolutionists to be compelling evidence
for human ancestry. But we should bear in mind that the way an ape
walks on two legs is entirely different from the way man walks on two
legs. The distinctive human gait requires the complex integration of
many skeletal and muscular features in our hips, legs, and feet. Thus,
evolutionists closely examine the hipbones (pelvis), thighbones
(femur), leg bones (tibia and fibula), and foot bones of fossil apes in
an effort to detect any anatomical features that might suggest
bipedality.

Evolutionists are particularly interested in the angle at which the femur

and the tibia meet at the knee (called the carrying angle). Humans are
able to keep their weight over their feet while walking because their
femurs converge toward the knees, forming a carrying angle of
approximately nine degrees with the tibia (in other words, we’re sort
of knock-kneed). In contrast, chimps and gorillas have widely
separated, straight legs with a carrying angle of essentially zero
degrees. These animals manage to keep their weight over their feet
when walking by swinging their body from side to side in the familiar
“ape walk.”
 29

Evolutionists assume that fossil apes with a high carrying angle

(humanlike) were bipedal and thus evolved into man. Certain
australopithecines (apelike creatures) are considered to have walked
like us and thus to be our ancestors largely because they had a high
carrying angle. But high carrying angles are not confined to humans—
they are also found on some modern apes that walk gracefully on tree
limbs and only clumsily on the ground.

Living apes with a high carrying angle (values comparable to man)

include such apes as the orangutan and spider monkey—both adept
tree climbers and capable of only an apelike bipedal gait on the
ground. The point is that there are living tree-dwelling apes and
monkeys with some of the same anatomical features that evolutionists
consider to be definitive evidence for bipedality, yet none of these
animals walks like man and no one suggests they are our ancestors or
descendants.

Foot Bones

The human foot is unique and not even close to the appearance or
function of the ape foot. The big toe of the human foot is in-line with
the foot and does not jut out to the side like an ape’s. Human toe
bones are relatively straight, rather than curved and grasping like ape
toes.

While walking, the heel of the human foot hits the ground first and
then the weight distribution spreads from the heel along the outer
margin of the foot up to the base of the little toe. From the little toe it
spreads inward across the base of the toes and finally pushes off from
the big toe. No ape has a foot or push-off like that of a human, and
thus, no ape is capable of walking with our distinctive human stride or
making human footprints.

Hipbones

The pelvis (hipbones) plays a critically important role in walking, and

the characteristic human gait requires a pelvis that is distinctly
different from that of the apes. Indeed, one only has to examine the
pelvis to determine if an ape has the ability to walk like a man.

The part of the hipbones that we can feel just under our belt is called
the iliac blade. Viewed from above, these blades are curved forward
like the handles of a steering yolk on an airplane. The iliac blades of
the ape, in contrast, project straight out to the side like the handlebars
 30

of a scooter. It is simply not possible to walk like a human with an

apelike pelvis. On this feature alone one can easily distinguish apes
from humans.

Only Three Ways to Make an “Apeman”

Knowing from Scripture that God didn’t create any apemen, there are
only three ways for the evolutionist to create one:

1. Combine ape fossil bones with human fossil bones and declare
the two to be one individual—a real “apeman.”
2. Emphasize certain humanlike qualities of fossilized ape bones,
and with imagination upgrade apes to be more humanlike.
3. Emphasize certain apelike qualities of fossilized human bones,
and with imagination downgrade humans to be more apelike.

These three approaches account for all of the attempts by evolutionists

to fill the unbridgeable gap between apes and men with fossil apemen.

Combining Men and Apes

The most famous example of an apeman proven to be a combination

of ape and human bones is Piltdown man. In 1912, Charles Dawson, a
medical doctor and an amateur paleontologist, discovered a mandible
(lower jawbone) and part of a skull in a gravel pit near Piltdown,
England. The jawbone was apelike, but had teeth that showed wear
similar to the human pattern. The skull, on the other hand, was very
humanlike. These two specimens were combined to form what was
called “Dawn man,” which was calculated to be 500,000 years old.

The whole thing turned out to be an elaborate hoax. The skull was
indeed human (about 500 years old), while the jaw was that of a
modern female orangutan whose teeth had been obviously filed to
crudely resemble the human wear pattern. Indeed, the long ape
canine tooth was filed down so far that it exposed the pulp chamber,
 31

which was then filled in to hide the mischief. It would seem that any
competent scientist examining this tooth would have concluded that it
was either a hoax or the world’s first root canal! The success of this
hoax for over 50 years, in spite of the careful scrutiny of the best
authorities in the world, led the human evolutionist Sir Solly
Zuckerman to declare: “It is doubtful if there is any science at all in
the search for man’s fossil ancestry.”1

Making Man out of Apes

Many apemen are merely apes that evolutionists have attempted to

upscale to fill the gap between apes and men. These include all the
australopithecines, as well as a host of other extinct apes such as
Ardipithecus, Orrorin, Sahelanthropus, and Kenyanthropus. All have
obviously ape skulls, ape pelvises, and ape hands and feet.
Nevertheless, australopithecines (especially Australopithecus
afarensis) are often portrayed as having hands and feet identical to
modern man; a ramrod-straight, upright posture; and a human gait.

The best-known specimen of A. afarensis is the fossil commonly known

as “Lucy.” A life-like mannequin of “Lucy” in the Living World exhibit at
the St. Louis Zoo shows a hairy, humanlike female body with human
hands and feet but with an obviously apelike head. The three-foot-tall
Lucy stands erect in a deeply pensive pose with her right forefinger
curled under her chin, her eyes gazing off into the distance as if she
were contemplating the mind of Newton.

Few visitors are aware that this is a gross misrepresentation of what is

known about the fossil ape Australopithecus afarensis. These apes are
known to be long-armed knuckle-walkers with locking wrists. Both the
hands and feet of this creature are clearly apelike.
Paleoanthropologists Jack Stern and Randall Sussman2 have reported
that the hands of this species are “surprisingly similar to hands found
in the small end of the pygmy chimpanzee–common chimpanzee
range.” They report that the feet, like the hands, are “long, curved and
heavily muscled” much like those of living tree-dwelling primates. The
authors conclude that no living primate has such hands and feet “for
any purpose other than to meet the demands of full or part-time
arboreal (tree-dwelling) life.”

Despite evidence to the contrary, evolutionists and museums continue

to portray Lucy (A. afarensis) with virtually human feet (though some
are finally showing the hands with long, curved fingers).
 32

Making Apes out of Man

In an effort to fill the gap between apes and men, certain fossil men
have been declared to be “apelike” and thus, ancestral to at least
“modern” man. You might say this latter effort seeks to make a
“monkey” out of man! Human fossils that are claimed to be “apemen”
are generally classified under the genus Homo (meaning “self ”).
These include Homo erectus, Homo heidelbergensis, and Homo
neanderthalensis.

The best-known human fossils are of Cro-Magnon man (whose

marvelous paintings are found on the walls of caves in France) and
Neanderthal man. Both are clearly human and have long been
classified as Homo sapiens. In recent years, however, Neanderthal
man has been downgraded to a different species—Homo
neanderthalensis. The story of how Neanderthal man was demoted to
an apeman provides much insight into the methods of evolutionists.

Neanderthal man was first discovered in 1856 by workmen digging in a

limestone cave in the Neander valley near Dusseldorf, Germany. The
fossil bones were examined by an anatomist (Professor Schaafhausen)
who concluded that they were human.

At first, not much attention was given to these finds, but with the
publication of Darwin’s Origin of Species in 1859, the search began for
the imagined “apelike ancestors” of man. Darwinians argued that
Neanderthal man was an apelike creature, while many critical of
Darwin (like the great anatomist Rudolph Virchow) argued that
Neanderthals were human in every respect, though some appeared to
be suffering from rickets or arthritis.

Over 300 Neanderthal specimens have now been found scattered

throughout most of the world, including Belgium, China, Central and
North Africa, Iraq, the Czech Republic, Hungary, Greece, northwestern
Europe, and the Middle East. This group of people was characterized
by prominent eyebrow ridges (like modern Australian Aborigines), a
low forehead, a long, narrow skull, a protruding upper jaw, and a
strong lower jaw with a short chin. They were deep-chested, large-
boned individuals with a powerful build. It should be emphasized,
however, that none of these features fall outside the range of normal
human anatomy. Interestingly, the brain size (based on cranial
capacity) of Neanderthal man was actually larger than average for that
of modern man, though this is rarely emphasized.
 33

Most of the misconceptions about Neanderthal man resulted from the

claims of the Frenchman Marcelin Boule who, in 1908, studied two
Neanderthal skeletons that were found in France (LeMoustier and La
Chapelle-aux- Saints). Boule declared Neanderthal men to be
anatomically and intellectually inferior brutes who were more closely
related to apes than humans. He asserted that they had a slumped
posture, a “monkey-like” arrangement of certain spinal vertebrae, and
he even claimed that their feet were of a “grasping type” (like those of
gorillas and chimpanzees). Boule concluded that Neanderthal man
could not have walked erectly, but rather must have walked in a
clumsy fashion. These highly biased and inaccurate views prevailed
and were even expanded by many other evolutionists up to the mid-
1950s.

In 1957, the anatomists William Straus and A.J. Cave examined one of
the French Neanderthals (La Chapelle-aux-Saints) and determined that
the individual suffered from severe arthritis (as suggested by Virchow
nearly 100 years earlier), which had affected the vertebrae and bent
the posture. The jaw also had been affected. These observations are
consistent with the Ice Age climate in which Neanderthals had lived.
They may well have sought shelter in caves, and this, together with
poor diet and lack of sunlight, could easily have led to diseases that
affect the bones, such as rickets.

In addition to anatomical evidence, there is a growing body of cultural

evidence for the fully human status of Neanderthals. They buried their
dead and had elaborate funeral customs that included arranging the
body and covering it with flowers. They made a variety of stone tools
and worked with skins and leather. A wood flute was recently
discovered among Neanderthal remains. There is even evidence that
suggests that Neanderthals engaged in medical care. Some
Neanderthal specimens show evidence of survival to old age despite
numerous wounds, broken bones, blindness, and disease. This
suggests that these individuals were cared for and nurtured by others
who showed human compassion.

Still, efforts continue to be made to somehow dehumanize Neanderthal

man. Many evolutionists now even insist that Neanderthal man is not
even directly related to modern man because of some differences in a
small fragment of DNA! There is, in fact, nothing about Neanderthals
that is in any way inferior to modern man. One of the world’s foremost
authorities on Neanderthal man, Erik Trinkaus, concludes: “Detailed
comparisons of Neandertal skeletal remains with those of modern
humans have shown that there is nothing in Neandertal anatomy that
 34

conclusively indicates locomotor, manipulative, intellectual, or

linguistic abilities inferior to those of modern humans.” 3

Conclusion

Why then are there continued efforts to make apes out of man and
man out of apes? In one of the most remarkably frank and candid
assessments of the whole subject and the methodology of
paleoanthropology, Dr. David Pilbeam (a distinguished professor of
anthropology) suggested the following:

Perhaps generations of students of human evolution, including myself,

have been flailing about in the dark; that our data base is too sparse,
too slippery, for it to be able to mold our theories. Rather the theories
are more statements about us and ideology than about the past.
Paleoanthropology reveals more about how humans view themselves
than it does about how humans came about. But that is heresy. 4

Oh, that these heretical words were printed as a warning on every

textbook, magazine, newspaper article, and statue that presumes to
deal with the bestial origin of man!

No, we are not descended from apes. Rather, God created man as the
crown of His creation on Day 6. We are a special creation of God,
made in His image, to bring Him glory. What a revolution this truth
would make if our evolutionized culture truly understood it!

Footnotes

1. S. Zuckerman, Beyond the Ivory Tower (London: Weidenfeld &

Nicolson, 1970), p. 64. Back
2. American Journal of Physical Anthropology 60:279–317, 1983.
Back
3. Natural History 87:10, 1978. Back
4. American Scientist 66:379, 1978. Back
 35

In everyday speech, the name "monkey" is given to hundreds of

different species of the same order (the order of primates - chief order
of the animals). Primates share many characteristics such as five-
fingered hands with opposing thumbs, forward-facing eyes, and color
vision. But strictly speaking, monkeys are only the group with tails and
narrow chests. Apes are larger than monkeys, have no tails, and have
more complex brains. The apes include gorillas, chimpanzees,
bonobos, orangutans, and gibbons. Lemurs are small animals related
to monkeys, as are other Night monkeys.

Like many other groups of animals, they vary in size, color and in their
habits. They vary from the small Night monkeys, some of which are no
larger than a small cat, to the great apes, such as gorillas, which may
weigh up to 600 pounds. A large zoo usually showcases dozens of
different monkeys and apes. Intersperse the following “talking points”
throughout your tour of those areas.

Don’t bully: Naturalists have observed that in the social organization

of some species of monkeys, there are usually to be found “bullies”
and “underdogs.” The biggest bully is most likely to become the
dominant creature in the group. He is not necessarily a better fighter
or a bigger and stronger creature than his rivals, although these
factors certainly count. He is, however, usually a creature that under
most circumstances is more aggressive, more ready to fight to get
what he wants.

We often see the same things in a group of children -- and sadly,

sometimes adults too -- where a smaller but more arrogant member of
 36

the group may dominate others who are bigger and older, but of a
quieter and more peaceful nature.

A person who behaves like a bully will earn no honor or respect. At any
rate, it’s no big deal; even a monkey can be a bully! A true leader is
one who achieves a position of leadership by gaining wisdom through
diligent study and developing the kind of character qualities and
conduct which all good people value and admire.

When it’s good to imitate: Apes and monkeys are known to be

great imitators. Monkeys that grow up as pets tend to imitate human
behavior. We often speak of imitations in the negative sense, but
imitating is not always bad; sometimes it is a highly desirable trait!
When we see a person with fine qualities and admire the way he
conducts himself in certain situations, we sometimes wish we could be
like that person. If we try to imitate him, we can, in due course,
acquire some or all of the good qualities of that fine person. For this
reason the Sages taught us to acquire good teachers and companions,
so as to emulate their good qualities.

Above all we are taught to "imitate" G-d Himself. This is what is meant
when the Torah commands us to "walk in G-d's ways." For just as G-d
practices lovingkindness and acts of benevolence without thought of
any reward, so must we try to be in our dealings with other human
beings and creatures.

Do mitzvahs with joy: While apes and monkeys are known to be

great imitators, their imitation is not accompanied by thought or
feeling; it is "mechanical." Thus, any human being who does a good
thing without real thought or feeling is said to be acting "like an ape."
This is also the origin of the English expression "to ape.”

All actions of a human being should be thought out, deliberate and

meaningful. The things that we repeat often, every day, even several
 37

times a day, are the things which are most likely to become
mechanical, and performed as a matter of thoughtless routine. Next
time you do a Mitzvah do it with kavanah - with concentration and
intention, with inspired devotion, and with joy!

Apes’ are a group of animals that resemble human beings to quite

an extent
Jan 25th, 2010 by

madugundu krishna

Gorillas and chimpanzees are generally found in the Asian and

Africa forests. The chimpanzee is the only member of the apes
known to eat small animals’ regularity, in addition to fruits,
young leaves and seeds.
 38

`Apes’ are a group of animals that resemble human beings to quite an

extent. They have hairy, tailless bodied and mostly walk on the ground
or climb on the tree with two legs. They are also the most intelligent
animals, next only human beings.

Chimpanzees, orangutans and Gorillas are collectively known as great

Apes and Gibbons and Siamangs are known as lesser Apes. Monkeys,
however, are different from Apes.

An Ape is not a monkey even though their faces often look similar.
Apes lack tails and their arms are longer than their legs whereas
monkeys have long tails and arms legs of about the same length.

Apes are bigger than monkeys. An adult male gorilla may be as tall as
six feet and weigh about 450 pounds. On the other hand, the smallest
monkey, the pygmy marmoset, is about six inches long and weighs
less than a half pound.

Apes have large brains and some have even learnt to communicate
with humans by sign language. But monkeys are not as smart as apes.

Gorillas and chimpanzees

Gorillas and chimpanzees are generally found in the Asian and Africa
forests.  The chimpanzee is the only member of the apes known to eat
small animals’ regularity, in addition to fruits, young leaves and seeds.
Chimps are also known to use tools made of sticks, to help them
capture and eat insects such as ants and termites. Chimps normally
travel along the ground where they knuckle –walk in a manner similar
to gorillas. Due to increased industrial & commercial activate in their
natural habit, Gorillas, chimps & natural habit, Gorillas, chimps &
orangutans are endangered species today.

Orangutan, whose name has been derived from the Malay words for
``Old man of the forest’, has a high, arched forehead that gives it a
distinct human look. Long red hair distinguishes it from other apes, as
does its habit of searching for food individually, rather than in groups.
They have been observed to eat more than 200 kinds of fruits and are
found in the rain forests of Sumatra and Borneo.

Gibbons spend most of their life in the tree tops, sleeping unsheltered
but invisible among the leaves. They are noted for their fear of water.
Habitat destruction and the capture of the young ones for food and
 39

pets have placed two species, Kloss’s Gibbon and the pileated gibbon
on the endangered species list.

Read more:

http://www.bukisa.com/articles/234349_apes-are-a-group-of-animals-
that-resemble-human-beings-to-quite-an-extent#ixzz1AWtbhZ7M

Similarities between chimps and humans

 40

BY DAVID PESCOVITZ,
OCTOBER 30, 2007 11:42 AM

What's the difference between us and our chimpanzee cousins?

Researchers studying traits that we share, like altruism and
vengeance, and those we don't, like spite and most social learning
skills, are shedding light on what it means to be human. The new issue
of Smithsonian surveys several of these studies. From the article:

What makes us lucky bipeds human?

"The most important way to ask these really hard questions—is human
altruism unique, is human spite unique, is human fairness unique—is
to ask non-human animals,"
says Laurie Santos, director of the Comparative Cognition Laboratory
at Yale University.
This behavioral process of elimination defines humans as it progresses.

Since chimpanzees can't speak our language, researchers design

experimental scenarios to detect the presence or absence of such
traits.

BY NOEN ,
OCTOBER 30, 2007 12:07 PM

I am skeptical that real, true altruism exists in any species.

Cooperation is not altruism and many behaviors that people claim to
be altruistic on closer examination carry a benefit.

Natural selection does not operate at the group level.

BY PHILBERT ,
OCTOBER 30, 2007 1:13 PM

Noen,

I read an interesting thought experiment on altruism once. I'm afraid I

can't credit it properly but I believe it is quite well known.

Imagine 2 persons named John, standing alongside a river. Both of

them have a brother Bill, that falls into the river, and cannot swim.
 41

Now the one John has a gene that makes him care enough about his
brother to risk his own life, jump in and save his brother, so he does.
The other John lacks this gene so he lets his brother drown.

Now the loving John's brother Bill is very likely to have the same love
gene as his brother, so together, they will have twice as many love
gene carrying children as the non-caring John, so after a number of
generations, the love gene carrying people will be more numerous
than the people without.

BY BRICOLOGY ,
OCTOBER 30, 2007 1:19 PM

Co-operation isn't the issue here. Altruism has been observed many
times in other species, across species lines. Dogs and cats have often
independently displayed protective and even nurturing behavior
towards other species; for example, bitches allowing kittens or other
species to nurse on them is quite common. Wild dolphins frequently
rescue human swimmers in distress. There's lots about this here.

Dr. Frans de Waal's book "Good Natured" documents many examples

of altruism toward humans by other species, such as the incident
about 10 years ago at a zoo in Illinois, where a 3 year-old boy fell 18
feet onto the concrete floor of the gorilla enclosure. A female gorilla
carefully picked him up, cradled him and carried the seriously injured
boy to a zookeeper. That gorilla, although in a zoo, was wild and had
not been socialized with humans.

BY TERESA NIELSEN HAYDEN / MODERATOR,

OCTOBER 30, 2007 1:41 PM

If you were driving through the desert, and you found a newly-crashed
flying saucer whose injured pilot was begging for a few sips of brake
fluid plus a little duct tape to repair his/her/its carapace, wouldn't you
do it?

Life and complexity votes for more of the same.

BY TWOSHORT ,
OCTOBER 30, 2007 2:01 PM
 42

Natural selection could certainly select for altruism, because natural

selection is non-intelligent.

Let us say there is some gene that makes an individual pre-disposed

to act altruistically. When this comes into play, it will cause you to help
someone near you, not someone far away from you, so there will be a
bias towards helping those you are related to, who are more likely to
carry the gene. Even though the gene just makes you help anyone,
simple geography makes it favor your kin, so it gets selected for.

Even a gene that makes me want to help any living thing is going to
favor my kin disproportionately.

BY PETE__C ,
OCTOBER 30, 2007 2:47 PM

Two short, that only works if you can calibrate the amount of help you
give to the degree of relatedness.

Otherwise, you're spending energy helping people that could be used

for other things. And someone who didn't have this altruism gene will
save their energy while benefiting from your altruism. So kin selection
works, but the undiscriminating altruism you described doesn't.

Which isn't to say that altruism doesn't exist, just that this kind of
explanation for it doesn't work.

BY KYLE ARMBRUSTER ,
OCTOBER 30, 2007 8:50 PM

Monkeys, Monkeys, Ted & Alice

BY TERESA NIELSEN HAYDEN / MODERATOR,

OCTOBER 31, 2007 7:11 AM

Pete, we evolved in social groups, and are probably still doing it.
There's a strong incentive to be cooperative and altruistic.

BY SWEEP ,
OCTOBER 31, 2007 8:43 AM
 43

Noen, I am inclined to agree with you, if we make a distinction

between evolutionary altruism, which increases an organisms inclusive
fitness in some way, and "true altruism" which I'm assuming you
mean would be altruism with no fitness benefit at all. Then I too am
sceptical that this "true altruism" is present in humans or other
species.
However, I would like to hear your arguments for natural selection not
operating at the group level?

BY AIRSHOWFAN,
OCTOBER 31, 2007 9:53 AM

Sweep's post #9 comes close to my view on this.

IMHO there are three levels of altruism. In the order of how primitive
and primal they are:

Level One altruism is genetic. Even some species of bacterium have

genes that will cause some bacteria in a large group to commit suicide
if resources start to run thin. Most animals have genes that trigger
behavior for helping one's family/herd/pack. Groups with such genes
tend to last longer and preserve themselves better than groups where
each individual hoards resources, does not feel the urge to help a
sick/injured relative, etc.

Level Two altruism is Machiavellian and calculated. Since we are

intelligent, we can figure out when "being good" can help us get what
we want. We are nice to people who will benefit us. We kiss up to our
bosses, are friendly to our neighbors, act nice to important people who
have the power to give us opportunities that will help us reach our
goals. We network. We contribute to political campaigns. Carl Sagan
wrote a great article called "The Rules Of The Game" (Google it!)
where the mathematics of game theory show that, in many situations,
some amount of cooperation and forgiveness led to better individual
success than just being as selfish as you can all the time. He went
through a few alterations of the Golden Rule and how they did in those
experiments, and in the end "Do unto others as you would have done
unto you, unless someone screws you over at which point act selfish
towards them, unless they act nice again in which case forgive them
and help them again" did the best. (This mathematical demonstration
illustrates how natural selection might have come to favor the genes
that lead to Level One altruism. The difference here is that now we are
intelligent enough to understand the mechanisms and to tweak our
own "being nice" characteristics for maximum gain, if we so wish).
 44

Level Three is the conscience, it's "true" altruism, it's feeling bad when
you know you caused or helped to cause suffering. To be perfectly
honest, I think the conscience coalesces out of rules of thumb we
develop as kids to help us automatically do Level Two behavior. It's
conditioning, like Pavlov's dogs. After observing something like "When
we do things that cause people to suffer or that cause people injustice,
those people get mad at us" (this is when we are little kids), we form
rules of thumb that say "Doing things that cause others to suffer and
that cause injustice is BAD", and our animal-level brain eventually
turns this repeated rule of thumb into something like an instinct, into
making is actually FEEL BAD when we contemplate doing something
that leads to suffering and injustice. The same way that, if you yell at
or lightly hit/shock a dog every time he pees in the living room, he will
eventually feel bad when he contemplates peeing in the living room,
and if he does pee in the living room he will approach you with ears
and tail lowered as if saying "I feel I did something bad". After a
childhood of being punished for causing suffering and injustice, we are
conditioned to want to avoid that. And, since we are self-aware, we
can sense a part of the brain (the angel on the other shoulder) that
says "Don't do it!" or "Help the poor!", and we call that a conscience.
Animals might have a don't-pee-on-the-carpet circuit in their brain,
but they are not self-aware enough to realize it for what it is, and they
are not complex enough (nor do we have high enough expectations of
them) to be conditioned against all "bad" behavior (like barking late at
night, playing in the dirt, etc).

Sorry about the huge comment. I just finished writing a book about
this so it's all very fresh in my mind... The book is about the atheism-
religion debate, and one chapter goes over the above points to show
that Richard Dawkins is right when he says "Religious people think that
they get their morals from religion, but they don't. 'Where do atheist
get their morals?' - From the same place religious people do!".

BY SWEEP ,
NOVEMBER 2, 2007 9:44 AM

Airshowfan, nice post, I would be interested to read your book.

I find Game Theory particularly interesting as it can show good
mathematical demonstrations of how behaviours are beneficial. Think
the only problem with tit-for-tat is that it assumes an individual will
remember previous encounters with 100% accuracy, which is
obviously unlikely.
Level 3 altruism, as you call it, I like your explanation a lot, and I
 45

agree with you, but I would still hesitate to call it "true" altruism, in
the sense that it carries no selective advantage to be altruistic, or
rather to be inclined to be altruistic in this manner, I think that the
development of a Jimminy cricket must have a positive effect on
inclusive fitness. I think that it pays to care, in other words!

From Monkey Brain to Human Brain

A Fyssen Foundation Symposium

Edited by Stanislas Dehaene, Jean-René Duhamel, Marc D. Hauser

and Giacomo Rizzolatti

 46

Table of Contents and Sample Chapters

The extraordinary overlap between human and chimpanzee genomes

does not result in an equal overlap between human and chimpanzee
thoughts, sensations, perceptions, and emotions; there are
considerable similarities but also considerable differences between
human and nonhuman primate brains. From Monkey Brain to Human
Brain uses the latest findings in cognitive psychology, comparative
biology, and neuroscience to look at the complex patterns of
convergence and divergence in primate cortical organization and
function.

Several chapters examine the use of modern technologies to study

primate brains, analyzing the potentials and the limitations of
neuroimaging as well as genetic and computational approaches. These
methods, which can be applied identically across different species of
primates, help to highlight the paradox of nonlinear primate evolution
—the fact that major changes in brain size and functional complexity
resulted from small changes in the genome. Other chapters identify
plausible analogs or homologs in nonhuman primates for such human
cognitive functions as arithmetic, reading, theory of mind, and
altruism; examine the role of parietofrontal circuits in the production
and comprehension of actions; analyze the contributions of the
prefrontal and cingulate cortices to cognitive control; and explore to
what extent visual recognition and visual attention are related in
humans and other primates.

The Fyssen Foundation is dedicated to encouraging scientific inquiry

into the cognitive mechanisms that underlie animal and human
behavior and has long sponsored symposia on topics of central
importance to the cognitive sciences.

About the Editors

Stanislas Dehaene is Director of Research at INSERM's Cognitive

Neuroimaging Unit, Paris.

Jean-René Duhamel is Director of Research, Institute of Cognitive

Science at CNRS, Lyon.

Marc D. Hauser is Professor of Psychology and Codirector of the Mind,

Brain, and Behavior Program at Harvard University.
 47

Giacomo Rizzolatti is Professor of Human Physiology at the University

of Parma.

"This amazing volume modernizes Darwin by showing how

Endorsements
closely the human and monkey brain are linked in morphology and
genetics. Its chapters demonstrate that even our most impressive
cognitive achievements of language, mathematics, and empathy are
all illuminated by the relevant primate circuitry."
—Michael Posner, Professor Emeritus, Department of Psychology,
University of Oregon

"This remarkable volume brings together many pioneers of parallel

studies of structure and function in human and monkey brains. It gives
the reader a comprehensive picture of the striking similarities between
our brain and that of our smaller cousins, even for higher cognitive
functions. And it lays the groundwork for future studies in comparative
functional imaging."
—Guy A. Orban, Professor of Neurophysiology, Catholic University
Leuven Medical School, Belgium

The similarities of communication between humans

and animals
by Emma Walker

Chimpanzees greet each other by touching hands. Elephants show

affection by entwining trunks. Gorillas stick out their tongues to show
anger. Horses rub noses as a sign of affection. Kangaroo rats stamp
their feet to warn predators. Whales and dolphins use sound to
communicate, and the list goes on

Zoosemiotics is the study of animal, including human, communication.

Many animals are not only able to communicate within their own
species, but to others too. Dogs communicate various things to
 48

humans by a number of different ways. Your pet dog may raise one
paw begging for tit bits and bark at intruders.

Police dogs communicate with their handlers, they are able to follow
instructions including searching for; missing people, drugs, weapons
and explosives, they are trained by directing their natural instincts in
ways that they find rewarding, using good communication skills and
positive reinforcement.

Unsurprisingly one animal which communicates in a very similar way

to humans is chimpanzees, so much so that an area of the brain
involved in planning and producing speech, and sign language in
humans plays a similar role in chimpanzee communication.

Another similarity between chimpanzee and humans is the use of

body language. Chimpanzees have evolved many facial and body
muscles to help them convey messages, for example erect hair shows
agitation or aggression; grinning portrays fear; prolonged staring is
threatening behaviour; and hanging the lower lip indicates a calm,
relaxed mood.

The more social an animal is the more communicative it tends to be.

Elephants have very complex social systems; female elephants tend to
exist in herds of any where from 5 to 30 related elephants. The
primary reason for this seems to be for protection and nurturing of the
young.

Elephants are large brained animals capable of relatively complex

thought processes, and have the ability to learn. They have a wide
range of calls and signals which they use to communicate different
things such as caring for their young, reconciling differences and
announcing their needs and desires just as humans use speech to
communicate these things.

Elephants also use a range of non vocal means to communicate with

each other, such as smell and touch. Just as humans cuddle their
young to offer reassurance an elephant mother will use its trunk to
caress its young and offer reassurance.

Despite what some humans like to think we are not the only species
who have this wonderful ability to communicate with one another, and
the similarities between different species communicative techniques
are not that different. At the end of the day humans are animals too.
Further reading/References:
 49

www.elephan tvoices.orgwww.pbs.orgwww.scie
ncenetlinks.comwww.CNN.com

Human Genetics:
Researchers Find Similarities Between Human and
Chicken Genes

by Lisa Olen|  08 December, 2004  20:58 GMT

Chicken genes involved in the cell's basic structure and function

showed more sequence similarity with human genes than did those
implicated in reproduction, immune response and adaptation to the
environment. Chickens and humans share more than half of their
genes, but their DNA sequences diverge in ways that may explain
some of the important differences between birds and mammals,
according to an international research consortium. The group's
analysis is published in the December 9 issue of the journal Nature.

The International Chicken Genome Sequencing Consortium analyzed

the sequence of the Red Jungle Fowl (Gallus gallus), which is the
progenitor of domestic chickens. The National Human Genome
Research Institute (NHGRI), part of the National Institutes of Health,
 50

provided about $13 million in funding for the project, which involved
researchers from China, Denmark, France, Germany, Japan, Poland,
Singapore, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, the United Kingdom and the
United States.

First Bird Genome Sequenced

The chicken is the first bird, as well as the first agricultural animal, to
have its genome sequenced and analyzed. The first draft of the
chicken genome, which was based on 6.6-fold coverage, was
deposited into free public databases for use by researchers around the
globe in March 2004. Over the past nine months, the consortium
carefully analyzed the genome and compared it with the genomes of
organisms that have already been sequenced, including the human,
the mouse, the rat and the puffer fish.

"The chicken genome fills a crucial gap in our scientific knowledge.

Located between mammals and fish on the tree of life, the chicken is
well positioned to provide us with new insights into genome evolution
and human biology," said NHGRI Director Francis S. Collins, M.D.,
Ph.D. "By comparing the genomes of a wide range of animals, we can
better understand the structure and function of human genes and,
ultimately, develop new strategies to improve human health."

Powerful Tool for Biological Inquiry

In their paper published in Nature, members of the International

Chicken Genome Sequencing Consortium report that the chicken
genome contains significantly less DNA than the human genome, but
approximately the same number of genes. Researchers estimate that
the chicken has about 20,000-23,000 genes in its 1 billion DNA base
pairs, compared with the human count of 20,000-25,000 genes in 2.8
billion DNA base pairs. The difference in total amount of DNA reflects a
substantial reduction in DNA repeats and duplications, as well as fewer
pseudogenes, in the chicken genome.

About 60 percent of chicken genes correspond to a similar human

gene. However, researchers uncovered more small sequence
differences between corresponding pairs of chicken and human genes,
which are 75 percent identical on average, than between rodent and
human gene pairs, which are 88 percent identical on average.

Differences between human and chicken genes were not uniform

 51

across the board, however. Chicken genes involved in the cell's basic
structure and function showed more sequence similarity with human
genes than did those implicated in reproduction, immune response and
adaptation to the environment.

The analysis also showed that genes conserved between human and
chicken often are also conserved in fish. For example, 72 percent of
the corresponding pairs of chicken and human genes also possess a
counterpart in the genome of the puffer fish (Takifugu rubripes).
According to the researchers, these genes are likely to be present in
most vertebrates.

"Genomes of the chicken and other species distant from ourselves

have provided us with a powerful tool to resolve key biological
processes that have been conserved over millennia," said Richard
Wilson, Ph.D., of Washington University School of Medicine in St.
Louis, the consortium's leader and senior author of the Nature article.
"Along with the many similarities between the chicken and human
genomes, we discovered some fascinating differences that are
shedding new light on what distinguishes birds from mammals."

Like all birds, chickens are thought to have descended from dinosaurs
in the middle of the Mesozoic period and have evolved separately from
mammals for approximately 310 million years. Chickens were first
domesticated in Asia, perhaps as early as 8000 B.C.

As might be expected, genomic researchers determined that chickens

have an expanded gene family coding for a type of keratin protein
used to produce scales, claws and feathers, while mammalian
genomes possess more genes coding for another type of keratin
involved in hair formation.

Likewise, chickens are missing the genes involved in the production of

milk proteins, tooth enamel and the detection of hormonal substances
called pheromones, which researchers say may mirror the evolution of
the mammary glands and the nose in mammals and the loss of teeth
in birds. But other results of the analysis caught even the researchers
by surprise.

New Sensory Findings 

The analysis showed that a group of genes that code for odor receptor
proteins is dramatically expanded in the chicken genome – a finding
 52

that appears to contradict the traditional view that birds have a poor
sense of smell. And, as it turns out, birds might not have such a great
sense of taste. When compared with mammals, chickens have a much
smaller family of genes coding for taste receptors, particularly those
involved in detecting bitter sensations.

Other intriguing findings from the Nature paper include:

 Alignment of chicken and human genes indicate that

approximately 2,000 human genes may actually start at different
sites than scientists thought. The discovery of these "true" start
sites, which appear to lie inside the previously hypothesized
boundaries of the genes, may have implications for the
understanding of human disease and the design of new
therapies.
 Chicken genes that code for eggshell-specific proteins, such as
ovocleidin-116, have mammalian counterparts that play a role in
bone calcification. Previously, such genes were not known
outside of birds. However, the analysis also showed that, in
contrast to chickens, mammals are missing key genes coding for
proteins involved in egg production, such as egg whites and yolk
storage.
 Chickens have a gene that codes for interleukin-26 (IL-26), a
protein involved in immune response. Previously, this immune-
related gene was known only in humans. The discovery means
that the chicken may now serve as a model organism in which
researchers can investigate the function of IL-26.
 Chickens possess genes coding for certain light-dependent
enzymes, while mammals have lost those genes. It is thought
losses reflect a period in early mammalian history in which
mammals were active mainly at night.
 The avian genome contains a gene that codes for an enzyme
involved in generating blue color pigments, while mammals are
lacking that gene.

Besides providing insights into gene content and evolution of genes,

the consortium's analysis offers new perspectives on the evolution of
portions of the genome that do not code for proteins.

Less than 11 percent of the chicken genome consists of interspersed

segments of short, repetitive DNA sequences, compared with 40 to
50 percent of mammalian genomes. With genes comprising another
 53

4 percent of the chicken genome, researchers say that leaves them

with no explanation for the function of more than 85 percent of the
chicken genome.

They hypothesize this genetic "dark matter" may contain previously

unrecognized regulatory elements, but also may include ancient DNA
repetitive elements that have mutated beyond recognition.
Furthermore, researchers said it appears that the 571 non-coding RNA
"genes" that they identified in the chicken genome may use different
duplication and/or translocation mechanisms than do regular protein-
coding genes, opening the door to a whole new realm of scientific
inquiry.

Potential Use in Avian Flu Research

In addition to its tremendous value as a resource for comparative

genomics, the chicken is widely used in biomedical research. It serves
as an important model for vaccine production and the study of
embryology and development, as well as for research into the
connection between viruses and some types of cancer.

Recent outbreaks of avian flu have accelerated agricultural

researchers' interest in learning more about the chicken genome and
how genetic variation may play a role in susceptibility of different
strains to the disease.

The chicken genome sequence will also serve as a resource for

researchers seeking to enhance the nutritional value of poultry and
egg products. Furthermore, as the first of 9,600 species of birds to
have its genome fully sequenced and analyzed, the chicken genome
will help to further understanding of avian genomics and biology in
general.
 54

Linkages between animal and human health

sentinel data

Matthew Scotch1, Lynda Odofin2 and Peter Rabinowitz3

1 
Yale Center for Medical Informatics, Yale School of Medicine, Yale
University, New Haven, CT USA
2 
Department of Epidemiology of Microbial Diseases, Yale School of
Public Health, Yale University, New Haven, CT USA
3 
Yale Occupational and Environmental Medicine Program, Yale
 55

School of Medicine, Yale University, New Haven, CT USA

BMC Veterinary Research 2009, 5:15doi:10.1186/1746-6148-5-15The
electronic version of this article is the complete one and can be found
online at: http://www.biomedcentral.com/1746-6148/5/15

Received: 11 June 2008

Accepted: 23 April 2009

Published: 23 April 2009

© 2009 Scotch et al; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.

This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the

Creative Commons Attribution License
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0),

which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any

medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Introduction
In order to identify priorities for building integrated surveillance
systems that effectively model and predict human risk of zoonotic
diseases, there is a need for improved understanding of the practical
options for linking surveillance data of animals and humans. We
conducted an analysis of the literature and characterized the linkage
between animal and human health data. We discuss the findings in
relation to zoonotic surveillance and the linkage of human and animal
data.

Methods
The Canary Database, an online bibliographic database of animal-
sentinel studies was searched and articles were classified according to
four linkage categories.

Results
465 studies were identified and assigned to linkage categories
involving: descriptive, analytic, molecular, or no human outcomes of
human and animal health. Descriptive linkage was the most common,
whereby both animal and human health outcomes were presented, but
without quantitative linkage between the two. Rarely, analytic linkage
was utilized in which animal data was used to quantitatively predict
human risk. The other two categories included molecular linkage, and
no human outcomes, which present health outcomes in animals but
 56

not humans.

Discussion
We found limited use of animal data to quantitatively predict human
risk and listed the methods from the literature that performed analytic
linkage. The lack of analytic linkage in the literature might not be
solely related to technological barriers including access to electronic
database, statistical software packages, and Geographical Information
System (GIS). Rather, the problem might be from a lack of
understanding by researchers of the importance of animal data as a
'sentinel' for human health. Researchers performing zoonotic
surveillance should be aware of the value of animal-sentinel
approaches for predicting human risk and consider analytic methods
for linking animal and human data. Qualitative work needs to be done
in order to examine researchers' decisions in linkage strategies
between animal and human data.

Introduction
In recent years, there has been increasing awareness on the part of
both human and animal health professionals that disease events in
animal populations may have direct relevance to human health. As
with the analogy of the "canary in the coal mine", animals may serve
as sentinels of human health threats in the environment, and work by
Halliday and others [1] have focused on establishing a framework to
facilitate surveillance efforts. Examples of sentinels include the
emergence of zoonotic diseases in wildlife populations concurrent with
a novel outbreak of disease in humans such as West Nile Virus (WNV)
[2,3], SARS [4,5], and Avian Influenza [6,7]. As a result of these
recent events, there has been a heightened emphasis on the use of
surveillance efforts in both domestic and wild animal populations. This
includes the worldwide surveillance of wild birds for avian influenza. In
2006, the United States Geological Survey, sampled more than
193,000 birds in the US alone as part of their Wild Bird Surveillance
Plan [8]. On a global scale, The Global Avian Network for Surveillance
(GAINS) surveillance system, funded by US AID, has one of the
leading avian surveillance systems and has over 100,000 birds
included in their electronic database [9].

This awareness of the shared risk faced by animal and human

populations has led to a call for a "One Medicine" approach [10] (now
called "One Health"), of communication and interdisciplinary practice
between veterinary and human medical professionals. A key part of
such an approach is "Joint cross-species disease surveillance and
control efforts in public health" (Kahn, L., B. Kaplan, and T.P. Monath:
 57

One Health Mission Statement, unpublished). There have been a

number of attempts to link human and animal health data such as the
tracking of syndromic events in pet animals [11] or the collection of
data on sentinel birds for West Nile infection control [12-21].
Controversy exists about the value of such approaches. For example
while Eidson et al reported that dead crow clusters predicted human
WNV risk [22], Brownstein et al have reported that dead crow
sightings are less reliable than mosquito surveillance for prediction of
human WNV risk [15]. Similarly, no clear correlations have been
published to date from ongoing surveillance of pet populations.
Perhaps the clearest example of routine use of animal disease data is
in national and state rabies surveillance, in which 49 states and Puerto
Rico participated in the monitoring and reporting of nearly 7,000
animal cases (and 3 human cases) to the CDC [23].

Animal health surveillance efforts and human health surveillance

efforts are often separate initiatives resulting in the data being stored
in separate and potentially vastly different databases. Careful attention
and planning must be done if these data sources are to be effectively
linked. There is a belief that automated systems to integrate public
health data can enhance the surveillance process. The design and
development of these systems requires experts in public health
informatics, which is the study of the acquisition, storage, and
management of electronic public health data for identifying and
controlling health issues in the population [24]. Much of the public
health informatics work has been in the development of biosurveillance
systems that automatically merge disparate health, environmental,
geographical, consumer, and population data to model and detect
aberrations that might signify a public health priority. Examples
include the Real-Time Outbreak and Disease Surveillance Systems
(RODS) [25] and the Automated Epidemiologic Geotemporal
Integrated Surveillance Systems (AEGIS) [26] that use electronic
hospital syndromic information to predict bioterrorism and naturally
occurring outbreaks such as influenza.

In order to identify priorities for building integrated surveillance

systems that effectively model and predict human risk of zoonotic
disease, there is a need for improved understanding of the practical
options for linking surveillance data of animals and humans. For this
study, we performed an analysis of the Canary Database [27], an
online resource for literature on the animal-sentinel interface, in order
to examine the use of how animal and human data is linked for
analysis purposes. The Canary Database does not represent the entire
spectrum of epidemiological papers of animal-human events. However,
 58

the purpose of this paper is not an exhaustive search of the literature

on animal-human health events. Rather, the intent is to highlight the
use of various linkage strategies for animal and human data and
discuss implications of these strategies for public health research. In
addition, both humans and non-human animals share the same
ecosystem and while it is possible that animals can serve as sentinels
for humans, there are times when a sentinel event in humans has
implications for animal health. The Canary Database, however, is
oriented toward animals as sentinels for human health hazards,
therefore for the remainder of this paper, we use the term 'animal
sentinel' to mean an instance in which a non-human animal might
indicate concurrent or future health risk to humans. However, we
believe that our findings regarding linkage between human and animal
data streams have relevance to both human health and animal health.

Methods
The Canary Database [27] is a publicly accessible online database of
studies in the biomedical literature concerned with animals as sentinels
of zoonotic, environmental, and toxic effects on human health.
Curators of this database include both human and animal health
professionals who periodically search the medical bibliographic
databases such as PubMed and identify, using predetermined
algorithms, studies that analyze the effects of zoonotic and
environmental health hazards on free ranging animal populations,
including companion, livestock, and wildlife animals. Articles are
curated into the database according to study methodology, hazards
and outcomes studied, animal species, and location. Currently, there
are over 1,600 articles in the database going back to 1966.

Using the advanced search feature in the Canary Database, an initial

group of papers were retrieved that described at least a shared health
outcome between animals and humans or a shared exposure (e.g. of
an environmental toxin). Then, two of the reviewers (MS and LO)
reviewed the curated information for each of these papers and if
needed, the papers themselves, to determine if they were original
investigations. Review articles and media analysis (newspaper or
magazine articles) were not included. In addition, papers describing
laboratory-based toxicology work were not included.

For each paper in the study, we defined their linkage category, based
on consensus among the authors, to be at least one of four
possibilities:
 59

◦ Analytic: Studies that use quantitative methods to assess human

risk. For example, studies that use cases of WNV found in dead crows
to quantify the risk of the disease in humans, would fall under this
category.

◦ Descriptive: Studies that describe the health outcomes in both

animals and humans, but do not attempt a quantitative linkage
between the two. For example, a seroprevalence study that lists the
number of positive Hantavirus cases in both rodents and humans in a
particular area would fall under this category.

◦ Molecular: Studies in which the investigators use molecular

epidemiological techniques to show similarities between strains of a
pathogen occurring in animals compared to humans, thereby providing
evidence as to whether or not species crossover of infection has
occurred. For example, studies that use phylogenetic algorithms to
assess the lineage of H5N1 Avian Influenza strains isolated in animals
and humans would fall under this category.

◦ No human outcomes. Studies in which no outcomes in humans are

considered. These studies often provide evidence of exposure in
humans, but do not discuss outcomes related to human health. For
example, a study that assesses the bioaccumulation of mercury in
tilapia would fall under this category. Humans are considered exposed
since they could eat the fish or drink the contaminated water but
outcomes are not assessed.

Thus, the first three categories represent original investigations that

describe health outcomes in both animals and humans, while the final
category describes all papers that include only animal outcomes or no
health outcomes at all.

Each paper was assigned to at least one of these four linkage

categories, with some papers counted in two categories. For example a
paper that describes the seroprevalence of a field study of Nipah Virus
in fruit bats and humans and then develops a phylogenetic tree to
assess the similarities would be considered both a descriptive linkage
and a molecular linkage.

Results
At the time of this study, Canary contained 1,661 articles from 1966 to
2007. Of these, 465 (28%) were judged to be appropriate original
epidemiological investigations that related animal disease data to
human disease data. These 465 papers were further analyzed.
 60

Table 1 shows that the majority of studies linked animal and human
data in a descriptive fashion (57%), thus describing or listing the
number of cases in animals and humans without an attempt to predict
future risk based on the results. This often includes the trapping of
suspected animal reservoirs that are located in the vicinity of
confirmed or suspected human cases. In these types of studies, results
are often reported as percentage of positive cases in animals and
percentage of positive cases in humans. Complicated or in-depth
statistical analysis is often not conducted in descriptive linkage studies.
Papers that used analytic methods ([2,13,15,18,20,21,28-50]) to link
animal and human data consisted of 6% of the articles retrieved and
the methods used in each are summarized in Table 2. For each paper,
the primary author, the zoonotic disease, the animals studied
(domestic, livestock, or wildlife), and our summary of the methods for
analytic linkage are presented.

Table 1. Papers in our Canary search by type of Linkage Category.

Table 2. Papers in our Canary search using Analytic Linkage for
human and animal health data
Analytic Linkage of Human and Animal Data Using Regression
Popular linkage approaches included multiple regression (Logistic,
Linear, Poisson), spatial analysis (Cluster analysis, Digital mapping,
etc.) and odds ratio/relative risk calculation. The purpose of these
papers tended to use infection, death, or contact with animals as the
main independent variable to predict risk of infection in humans. Many
also used additional input variables such as interview and survey data
to identify the most parsimonious model. For example a paper by
Dubey et al [30] studying risk of Toxoplasmosis on US farms collected
interview data from farmers and collected blood and fecal specimens
from animals and farmers as well as soil and water samples. In order
to study the association between the seroprevalence of farmers, the
authors combined the various animal specimen data with farmer
interview data in a logistic regression model. Seroprevalence of
toxoplasmosis in cats was the only variable found to be significant. In
another study, Brownstein et al [15] used a regression model to study
the value of non-human surveillance programs on predicting risk in
humans. The authors used data from the ArboNet system such as
number of virus-positive birds, mosquitoes and humans and evaluated
the models predictive ability by assessing the coefficient of
determination (R2) [15].

Analytic Linkage of Human and Animal Data Using Spatial

Analysis
 61

Many of the articles used spatial analysis in which georeferenced

locations of infected cases or reported animal deaths were considered.
This demonstrates the growing interest by epidemiologists and animal
health researchers in examining spatial factors in relation to animal
and human health monitoring. For example, the spatial scan statistic,
developed by Kulldorff [51], has been widely used to identify disease
clusters. The statistic scans temporal or spatial data, calculates the
number of observed and expected observations (infections, deaths,
etc.) using a shape (for spatial analysis) such as a circle or ellipse or
an interval (for temporal analysis). The method then uses the
likelihood ratio test to determine if the area inside the shape is
significantly different than the outside area [51,52]. Statistical
significance of the cluster with the maximum likelihood is then
assessed by Monte Carlo simulation testing. Many of the analytic
linkage papers used spatial scan functions to identify clusters of events
such as animal deaths or infected cases of humans or animals. For
example, Brownstein et al. [29] studied vegetation index data as a
means to identify clusters of West Nile Virus in mosquitoes in New
York City in 1999 [29]. The authors obtained human case information
for New York City in 1999 from the local health department, a census
track boundary map and population data from the US Census Bureau,
and vegetation data from a United States Geological Survey (USGS)
Landsat image [29]. Kulldorff's spatial scan statistic using a Poisson
distribution model was used to detect clusters of West Nile. Once the
clusters were detected, the authors used ANOVA to examine whether
Normalized Difference Vegetation Index (NDVI) differed between
clusters and non-clusters and used Logistic regression to determine if
NDVI could identify census tracks within clusters that had cases of
WNV. The authors concluded that mosquito and vegetation data, in
conjunction with the spatial analysis might provide early evidence of
human WNV risk [29].

Analytic Linkage of Human and Animal Data Using

Mathematical Modeling

Another analytic linkage method for animal and human data we found
was mathematical modeling. Many researchers use dynamic stochastic
models in which simulated data based on various distributions is
represented as differential equations. For example, Li et al [36] used a
probability model to examine the relationship between sentinel animals
for transmission of arboviruses. As part of their work, the authors
examined the relationship between various levels of vector bites per
host per season and the mean number of human cases of an arbovirus
[36]. Other calculated parameters in their model included "vector
 62

infection rate" ([36], pg. 450), "probability of an animal or human host

becoming infected" ([36], pg. 450) and "the number of seroconverted
samples on each sampling date" ([36], pg. 450). The authors
concluded that human risk is "negatively related to the distance from
the vector epicenter" ([36], pg. 450). These models can then be used
as a means to predict risk of human infection given actual ecological
data.

Analytic Linkage of Human and Animal Data Using Risk Ratios

Several of the papers that used analytic linkage of animal and human
data used direct calculation of risk ratios such as relative risk and odds
ratios. These can often be calculated directly using contingency tables.
The ratios are often used in active surveillance studies where the
number of observations and variables collected is relatively small. For
example Mannelli et al [37] calculated relative risk to determine the
association between occupation and exposure to tick bites for Lyme
Disease, while Gurtler et al [33] calculated the relative risk for the
combined effect of T. cruzi in dogs and children and infected Triatoma
infestans (insects). The authors performed a house-to-house survey
and performed laboratory analysis on all household members, dogs,
and Triatoma infestans. They determined that a causal association
existed between the presence of infected dogs and infected insects
[33].

Analytic Linkage of Human and Animal Data Using Cross

Correlation Functions
Cross-correlation function (CCF) has been used as a method to identify
leading indicators of disease outbreaks [53]. The emphasis here is to
examine the relationship between time series [53] to determine the
lead-lag correlation. CCF have been widely used to examine various
financial indices and the fluctuations in the stock market [54]. Two of
the papers in the Canary Database that use analytic linkage used the
cross-correlation function. In Niklasson et al [42], the authors used
CCF to examine the relationship between human hantavirus infection
and vole density. The authors concluded that in the Fall months, there
was more of a concurrent relationship between vole density and
human infection, whereas in the Spring, human infection was
dependent on the density in the preceding Fall months [42]. In this
Swedish epidemiological study, the authors utilized national incidence
data from 1985–1992 and trapping of voles [42].

Discussion
Examples of public health scenarios in which animal data can be used
to inform decision making include:
 63

1. Linkage of surveillance data streams through reporting of

companion, livestock, or wildlife populations in order to gauge human
risk.

2. Surveys of animal reservoirs to support a specific human outbreak

investigation.

3. Surveys of animal reservoirs in the absence of a known human

outbreak to gauge human risk and determine the need for public
health and animal control measures.

4. Short-term surveys of unusual clusters of disease in animals that

can lead to hypothesis about human risk.

5. Intentional sentinels (captive chickens, cows, etc.) followed in a

cohort fashion to gauge increase or decrease in human risk.

6. Analysis and comparison of available human and animal isolates of

an infectious agent to monitor genetic shifts in infectious agents.

Scenario 1 involves domestic or livestock animal medical cases by

veterinarians or general public reporting of wildlife (such as dead
birds). The animal health data in this scenario is reported to agencies
such as the Departments of Agriculture, Wildlife, or Public Health.
Many of these involve cases of suspected reportable animal diseases to
the Department of Agriculture or public sightings of dead birds to the
Department of Wildlife or Department of Health. An example is the use
of dead crow sightings for West Nile Virus surveillance [20].

Scenario 2 involves outbreak investigation of human cases by

obtaining health data on animals. The majority of disease surveillance
in wildlife is short-term and often in response to known cases or
spread of the disease [55]. This generally involves trapping,
seroprevalence, and necropsy of wildlife in the vicinity of the human
cases. It might also involve the testing of domestic animals in the
belief of pet-owner transmission. These surveys are often initiated by
governmental agencies such as the Department of Agriculture,
Wildlife, or Public Health. An example is the investigation of anthrax in
cattle and sheep on numerous Australian farms [56].

Scenario 3 is short or long-term seroprevalence surveys, typically of

wildlife animals, to estimate the degree of infection of a specific
zoonotic disease in animals. These surveys can be initiated by
governmental agencies or also the result of independent research by
university scientists. Trapping and testing rodents for plague in a
 64

country in order to estimate the levels of infection in wildlife is an

example of this scenario [57].

Scenario 4 is similar to scenario 2, but is initiated by the discovery of

unusual animal deaths, not human deaths.

Scenario 5 involves the use of specific sentinel animals (generally

livestock) for long-term assessment of infection rates. An example is
the use of sentinel chickens and horses for West Nile virus assessment
as part of the ArboNET surveillance program [58].

Scenario 6 differs from the other scenarios because of its emphasis on

laboratory techniques in the domain of molecular epidemiology. The
intention is to examine similarities between strains of a pathogen
occurring in animals compared to humans, thereby providing evidence
as to whether or not species crossover of infection has occurred. An
example is the development of phylogenetic trees to examine
similarities between animal and human strains of Hantavirus [59].

In our analysis, descriptive linkage was the most common linkage

category found. The use of animal data to quantitatively predict risk in
human was limited. This lack of analytic linkage can impact the
development of automated public health informatics systems to
support surveillance. Analytic linkage is inherent in early warning
surveillance systems for predicting risk in humans based on a range of
variables (syndromes, animals, behavior, environment, etc.). For
example, value has been shown in the use of dead crows and infected
mosquitoes for predicting human risk of West Nile Virus [2,15,20,22].
Without this evidence, it is likely that much less funding would go into
development of early warning WNV systems that link animal and
human data. A lack of analytic linkage will produce a lack of scientific
merit for using animals as sentinels for estimating human risk. This is
a global problem as noted by Childs, that "as of 2006, there appears to
be little scientific, social, or political consensus that animal-based
surveillance for zoonoses merits investment in international
infrastructure." pg. 423 [55]. The author does note that recent
collaborations by the World Health Organization (WHO), Food and
Agricultural Organization (FAO), and the World Organization for Animal
Health (OIE), to develop GLEWS, an integrated early-warning system,
might signal a change in the right direction [55].

In addition descriptive linkage is suitable for public health researchers

looking at discrete events, but it can get overwhelming if there is too
much data. The reliance on descriptive linkage puts a burden on public
health users and also creates discrepancies in how different users
 65

interpret the results. For example, as more governmental money has

gone into the epidemiology of Highly Pathogenic Avian Influenza
(HPAI), many studies have been initiated and large amounts of data
have been generated. However, the onus is on the researcher to
analyze the descriptive data across all of these studies and draw
conclusions without the aid of analytic methods for linking the findings.
Interpretation of the data determines if public health control measures
should be implemented. For zoonoses outbreaks, these measures can
carry significant financial consequences such as the slaughtering of
animals, and the cessation of trade.

We believe the three scenarios that tend to have long-term data

collection (1, 3, and 5) benefit most from the use of analytic linkage
between human and animal data. For example, scenario 1 is a long-
term focus with passive data collection that relies on the motivation of
veterinarians or the general public to report suspected cases. Scenario
1 is well suited for public health informatics systems that transfer,
manage, and analyze longitudinal case data. The collection of cases
over many years allows for analytic linkage of human and animal data
through temporal and geographical comparisons. However, the lack of
integrated informatics systems at animal and human agencies makes
analysis of longitudinal health and animal data difficult. Animal and
human agencies that do not use these systems to manage their case
data make it difficult to integrate animal and human health data and
conduct quantitative linkage. While it is encouraging that large
numbers of papers have attempted to look at linking animal and
human data, more emphases needs to be in quantitatively linking
animal and human data. This will provide more scientific merit that
animal data can be used as sentinels for predicting human risk, and
hopefully promote the need for public health informatics surveillance
systems to automatically integrate the animal and human data. In
addition, the importance of the "One Medicine" [10] (or "One Health")
collaboration needs to be emphasized across veterinary and human
medicine through formal education, conferences and workshops,
journal articles, and professional collaborations. An acceptance and
belief of one medicine will heighten the recognition for using animal
health data as a sentinel for determining risk in humans. It will also
emphasize the importance of quantitative linkage between the two
domains for producing empirical scientific evidence that will serve to
strengthen this initiative and the development of automated animal-
human informatics systems.

In our review of the Canary Database, we found different strategies for

analytic linkage including: multivariate regression, direct calculation of
 66

risk ratios, spatial analysis including scan statistics, cross-correlation

functions, and mathematical modeling. There are many other methods
that were not found that might also be useful for analytic linkage of
animal and human data. Other surveillance approaches include
Bayesian Networks, rule-based analysis, and various time-series
methods [60]. The authors here are not advocating one linkage
approach over another. Each situation is different depending on the
study goals, the prevalence of the disease in the area, additional
variables collected, the number of observations, how many years of
data were collected, and access to statistical and spatial software. It is
possible that the key barrier to analytic linkage is not technological,
but rather the lack of understanding of researchers of the importance
of animal data as a 'sentinel' for human health. Our study highlighted
that lack of animal-sentinel approaches in epidemiology and listed
methods from the literature for performing these types of linkages.
Researchers performing zoonotic surveillance should be aware of the
value of animal-sentinel approaches for predicting human risk and
consider analytic methods for linking animal and human data. Table 2
lists examples of Arboviruses such as West Nile Virus that use analytic
linkage. As variables such as crow mortality and mosquito abundance
have shown to be valuable for empirically predicting human risk,
follow-up studies using additional data sources and analytic linkage
efforts have been performed. As other research initiatives in public
health provide empirical evidence for animal-sentinel surveillance,
more scientific work that uses analytic methods to link this information
will be performed. Finally, efforts such as the One Health Initiative
[61], which focus on the collaboration of human and animal medicine,
represent important collaborations to address this lack of recognition
between the value of animal-human linkage. Going forward, qualitative
work needs to be done in order to examine researchers' decisions in
linkage strategies between animal and human surveillance data.

Limitations
While the Canary Database is not an exhaustive compilation of all
scientific studies relevant to issues of animal sentinels for human
health risk, it does represent a systematic attempt to sample the
published scientific literature from 1966 to 2007 to identify such
studies. It therefore was a reasonable sample to use for this attempt
to characterize the nature of epidemiological linkages between human
and animal health data related to environmental exposure risks.

Authors' contributions
 67

MS conducted the literature review, developed the taxonomy,

performed the analysis, and wrote the manuscript. LO conducted the
literature review, developed the taxonomy, and reviewed the
manuscript. PR developed the taxonomy and reviewed the manuscript.
All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank Daniel Chudnov for his programming
work on the Canary Database and Martin Slade for his assistance with
the statistical analysis of our study. This project is supported in part by
The National Library of Medicine (NLM) grants TI5 LM007056 and K99
LM009825 to Matthew Scotch and G08 LM07881 to Peter Rabinowitz.
The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not
necessarily represent the official views of the National Library Of
Medicine or the National Institutes of Health.

References

1.Halliday JE, Meredith AL, Knobel DL, Shaw DJ, Bronsvoort BM,
Cleaveland S: A framework for evaluating animals as
sentinels for infectious disease surveillance.
J R Soc Interface 2007 , 4(16):973-984. PubMed Abstract |
Publisher Full Text | PubMed Central Full Text
Return to text
2.Watson JT, Jones RC, Gibbs K, Paul W: Dead crow reports and
location of human West Nile virus cases, Chicago, 2002.
Emerg Infect Dis 2004 , 10(5):938-940. PubMed Abstract |
Publisher Full Text
Return to text
3.O'Leary DR, Marfin AA, Montgomery SP, Kipp AM, Lehman JA,
Biggerstaff BJ, Elko VL, Collins PD, Jones JE, Campbell GL: The
epidemic of West Nile virus in the United States, 2002.
Vector Borne Zoonotic Dis 2004 , 4(1):61-70. PubMed Abstract
| Publisher Full Text
Return to text
4.Wang M, Yan M, Xu H, Liang W, Kan B, Zheng B, Chen H, Zheng
H, Xu Y, Zhang E, et al.: SARS-CoV infection in a restaurant
from palm civet.
Emerg Infect Dis 2005 , 11(12):1860-1865. PubMed Abstract
Return to text
5.Ng SK: Possible role of an animal vector in the SARS
outbreak at Amoy Gardens.
 68

Lancet 2003 , 362(9383):570-572. PubMed Abstract | Publisher

Full Text
Return to text
6.Shortridge KF, Zhou NN, Guan Y, Gao P, Ito T, Kawaoka Y,
Kodihalli S, Krauss S, Markwell D, Murti KG, et al.:
Characterization of avian H5N1 influenza viruses from
poultry in Hong Kong.
Virology 1998 , 252(2):331-342. PubMed Abstract | Publisher
Full Text
Return to text
7.Sims LD, Ellis TM, Liu KK, Dyrting K, Wong H, Peiris M, Guan Y,
Shortridge KF: Avian influenza in Hong Kong 1997–2002.
Avian Dis 2003 , 47(3 Suppl):832-838. PubMed Abstract
Return to text
8.Anonymous: Avian Influenza Surveillance of Wild Birds.
USGS Fact Sheet 2007. , 3094:
Return to text
9.Hively E: Wild Bird GAINS: Global Avian Influenza Network
for Surveillance of Wild Birds.
GAINS Fact Sheet 2007.
Return to text
10. Schwabe CW: Veterinary medicine and human health. 3rd
edition. Baltimore: Williams & Wilkins; 1984.
11. Glickman LT, Moore GE, Glickman NW, Caldanaro RJ,
Aucoin D, Lewis HB: Purdue University-Banfield National
Companion Animal Surveillance Program for emerging
and zoonotic diseases.
Vector Borne Zoonotic Dis 2006 , 6(1):14-23. PubMed Abstract
| Publisher Full Text
Return to text
12. Hadler J, Nelson R, McCarthy T, Andreadis T, Lis MJ,
French R, Beckwith W, Mayo D, Archambault G, Cartter M:
West Nile virus surveillance in Connecticut in 2000: an
intense epizootic without high risk for severe human
disease.
Emerg Infect Dis 2001 , 7(4):636-642. PubMed Abstract |
Publisher Full Text
Return to text
13. Andreadis TG, Anderson JF, Vossbrinck CR, Main AJ:
Epidemiology of West Nile virus in Connecticut: a five-
year analysis of mosquito data 1999–2003.
 69

Vector Borne Zoonotic Dis 2004 , 4(4):360-378. PubMed

Abstract
Return to text
14. Blackmore CG, Stark LM, Jeter WC, Oliveri RL, Brooks RG,
Conti LA, Wiersma ST: Surveillance results from the first
West Nile virus transmission season in Florida, 2001.
Am J Trop Med Hyg 2003 , 69(2):141-150. PubMed Abstract |
Publisher Full Text
Return to text
15. Brownstein JS, Holford TR, Fish D: Enhancing West Nile
virus surveillance, United States.
Emerg Infect Dis 2004 , 10(6):1129-1133. PubMed Abstract |
Publisher Full Text
Return to text
16. Cernescu C, Nedelcu NI, Tardei G, Ruta S, Tsai TF:
Continued transmission of West Nile virus to humans in
southeastern Romania, 1997–1998.
J Infect Dis 2000 , 181(2):710-712. PubMed Abstract |
Publisher Full Text
Return to text
17. Cherry B, Trock SC, Glaser A, Kramer L, Ebel GD, Glaser C,
Miller JR: Sentinel chickens as a surveillance tool for West
Nile virus in New York City, 2000.
Ann N Y Acad Sci 2001 , 951:343-346. PubMed Abstract |
Publisher Full Text
Return to text
18. Corrigan RL, Waldner C, Epp T, Wright J, Whitehead SM,
Bangura H, Young E, Townsend HG: Prediction of human
cases of West Nile virus by equine cases, Saskatchewan,
Canada, 2003.
Prev Vet Med 2006 , 76(3–4):263-272. PubMed Abstract |
Publisher Full Text
Return to text
19. Dietrich G, Montenieri JA, Panella NA, Langevin S, Lasater
SE, Klenk K, Kile JC, Komar N: Serologic evidence of west
nile virus infection in free-ranging mammals, Slidell,
Louisiana, 2002.
Vector Borne Zoonotic Dis 2005 , 5(3):288-292. PubMed
Abstract | Publisher Full Text
Return to text
 70

20. Eidson M, Miller J, Kramer L, Cherry B, Hagiwara Y: Dead

crow densities and human cases of West Nile virus, New
York State, 2000.
Emerg Infect Dis 2001 , 7(4):662-664. PubMed Abstract |
Publisher Full Text
Return to text
21. Guptill SC, Julian KG, Campbell GL, Price SD, Marfin AA:
Early-season avian deaths from West Nile virus as
warnings of human infection.
Emerg Infect Dis 2003 , 9(4):483-484. PubMed Abstract |
Publisher Full Text
Return to text
22. Eidson M, Kramer L, Stone W, Hagiwara Y, Schmit K:
Dead bird surveillance as an early warning system for
West Nile virus.
Emerg Infect Dis 2001 , 7(4):631-635. PubMed Abstract |
Publisher Full Text
Return to text
23. Blanton JD, Hanlon CA, Rupprecht CE: Rabies
surveillance in the United States during 2006.
J Am Vet Med Assoc 2007 , 231(4):540-556. PubMed Abstract |
Publisher Full Text
Return to text
24. O'Carroll PW: Public health informatics and information
systems. New York: Springer; 2002.
25. Tsui FC, Espino JU, Dato VM, Gesteland PH, Hutman J,
Wagner MM: Technical description of RODS: a real-time
public health surveillance system.
J Am Med Inform Assoc 2003 , 10(5):399-408. PubMed
Abstract | Publisher Full Text | PubMed Central Full Text
Return to text
26. Reis BY, Kirby C, Hadden LE, Olson K, McMurry AJ, Daniel
JB, Mandl KD: AEGIS: a robust and scalable real-time
public health surveillance system.
J Am Med Inform Assoc 2007 , 14(5):581-588. PubMed
Abstract | Publisher Full Text | PubMed Central Full Text
Return to text
27. Wiley JDJF, Gordon ZJ, Odofin LU, Rabinowitz PM: The
canary database: Animals as sentinels of human
environmental health hazards.
Clinical Toxicology 2005 , 43(6):720.
 71

Return to text
28. Ascione FR, Weber CV, Thompson TM, Heath J, Maruyama
M, Hayashi K: Battered pets and domestic violence: animal
abuse reported by women experiencing intimate violence
and by nonabused women.
Violence Against Women 2007 , 13(4):354-373. PubMed
Abstract | Publisher Full Text
Return to text
29. Brownstein JS, Rosen H, Purdy D, Miller JR, Merlino M,
Mostashari F, Fish D: Spatial analysis of West Nile virus:
rapid risk assessment of an introduced vector-borne
zoonosis.
Vector Borne Zoonotic Dis 2002 , 2(3):157-164. PubMed
Abstract | Publisher Full Text
Return to text
30. Dubey JP, Weigel RM: Epidemiology of Toxoplasma
gondii in farm ecosystems.
J Eukaryot Microbiol 1996 , 43(5):124S. PubMed Abstract
Return to text
31. Ezenwa VO, Godsey MS, King RJ, Guptill SC: Avian
diversity and West Nile virus: testing associations
between biodiversity and infectious disease risk.
Proc Biol Sci 2006 , 273(1582):109-117. PubMed Abstract |
Publisher Full Text | PubMed Central Full Text
Return to text
32. Ferguson NM, Ghani AC, Donnelly CA, Hagenaars TJ,
Anderson RM: Estimating the human health risk from
possible BSE infection of the British sheep flock.
Nature 2002 , 415(6870):420-424. PubMed Abstract | Publisher
Full Text
Return to text
33. Gurtler RE, Cecere MC, Rubel DN, Petersen RM,
Schweigmann NJ, Lauricella MA, Bujas MA, Segura EL,
Wisnivesky-Colli C: Chagas disease in north-west
Argentina: infected dogs as a risk factor for the domestic
transmission of Trypanosoma cruzi.
Trans R Soc Trop Med Hyg 1991 , 85(6):741-745. PubMed
Abstract
Return to text
34. Julian KG, Eidson M, Kipp AM, Weiss E, Petersen LR, Miller
JR, Hinten SR, Marfin AA: Early season crow mortality as a
 72

sentinel for West Nile virus disease in humans,

northeastern United States.
Vector Borne Zoonotic Dis 2002 , 2(3):145-155. PubMed
Abstract | Publisher Full Text
Return to text
35. Keeling MJ, Gilligan CA: Metapopulation dynamics of
bubonic plague.
Nature 2000 , 407(6806):903-906. PubMed Abstract | Publisher
Full Text
Return to text
36. Li X, Rossignol PA: Probability model on the use of
sentinel animal monitoring for arbovirus.
Epidemiology 1998 , 9(4):446-451. PubMed Abstract | Publisher
Full Text
Return to text
37. Mannelli A, Cerri D, Buffrini L, Rossi S, Rosati S, Arata T,
Innocenti M, Grignolo MC, Bianchi G, Iori A, et al.: Low risk of
Lyme borreliosis in a protected area on the Tyrrhenian
coast, in central Italy.
Eur J Epidemiol 1999 , 15(4):371-377. PubMed Abstract |
Publisher Full Text
Return to text
38. Mannelli A, Mandola ML, Pedri P, Tripoli M, Nebbia P:
Associations between dogs that were serologically
positive for Rickettsia conorii relative to the residences
of two human cases of Mediterranean spotted fever in
Piemonte (Italy).
Prev Vet Med 2003 , 60(1):13-26. PubMed Abstract | Publisher
Full Text
Return to text
39. Marrie TJ, Durant H, Williams JC, Mintz E, Waag DM:
Exposure to parturient cats: a risk factor for acquisition
of Q fever in Maritime Canada.
J Infect Dis 1988 , 158(1):101-108. PubMed Abstract
Return to text
40. Mitra M, Mahanta SK, Sen S, Ghosh C, Hati AK: Sarcoptes
scabiei in animals spreading to man.
Trop Geogr Med 1993 , 45(3):142-143. PubMed Abstract
Return to text
 73

41. Mostashari F, Kulldorff M, Hartman JJ, Miller JR, Kulasekera

V: Dead bird clusters as an early warning system for
West Nile virus activity.
Emerg Infect Dis 2003 , 9(6):641-646. PubMed Abstract |
Publisher Full Text
Return to text
42. Niklasson B, Hornfeldt B, Lundkvist A, Bjorsten S, Leduc J:
Temporal dynamics of Puumala virus antibody prevalence
in voles and of nephropathia epidemica incidence in
humans.
Am J Trop Med Hyg 1995 , 53(2):134-140. PubMed Abstract |
Publisher Full Text
Return to text
43. Niklasson B, Hornfeldt B, Lundman B: Could myocarditis,
insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus, and Guillain-Barre
syndrome be caused by one or more infectious agents
carried by rodents?
Emerg Infect Dis 1998 , 4(2):187-193. PubMed Abstract
Return to text
44. Rab MA, Frame IA, Evans DA: The role of dogs in the
epidemiology of human visceral leishmaniasis in northern
Pakistan.
Trans R Soc Trop Med Hyg 1995 , 89(6):612-615. PubMed
Abstract
Return to text
45. Shaman J, Day JF, Stieglitz M, Zebiak S, Cane M:
Seasonal forecast of St. Louis encephalitis virus
transmission, Florida.
Emerg Infect Dis 2004 , 10(5):802-809. PubMed Abstract |
Publisher Full Text
Return to text
46. Theophilides CN, Ahearn SC, Grady S, Merlino M:
Identifying West Nile virus risk areas: the Dynamic
Continuous-Area Space-Time system.
Am J Epidemiol 2003 , 157(9):843-854. PubMed Abstract |
Publisher Full Text
Return to text
47. Wall PG, Morgan D, Lamden K, Griffin M, Threlfall EJ, Ward
LR, Rowe B: Transmission of multi-resistant strains of
Salmonella typhimurium from cattle to man.
Vet Rec 1995 , 136(23):591-592. PubMed Abstract
 74

Return to text
48. Xu ZY, Tang YW, Kan LY, Tsai TF: Cats – source of
protection or infection? A case-control study of
hemorrhagic fever with renal syndrome.
Am J Epidemiol 1987 , 126(5):942-948. PubMed Abstract |
Publisher Full Text
Return to text
49. Zeman P, Januska J: Epizootiologic background of
dissimilar distribution of human cases of Lyme borreliosis
and tick-borne encephalitis in a joint endemic area.
Comp Immunol Microbiol Infect Dis 1999 , 22(4):247-260.
PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
Return to text
50. Zinsstag J, Roth F, Orkhon D, Chimed-Ochir G, Nansalmaa
M, Kolar J, Vounatsou P: A model of animal-human
brucellosis transmission in Mongolia.
Prev Vet Med 2005 , 69(1–2):77-95. PubMed Abstract |
Publisher Full Text
Return to text
51. Kulldorff M: A spatial scan statistic.
Communications in Statistics – Theory and Methods 1997 ,
26(6):1481-1496.
Return to text
52. Kulldorff M, Nagarwalla N: Spatial disease clusters:
detection and inference.
Stat Med 1995 , 14(8):799-810. PubMed Abstract
Return to text
53. Bloom RM, Buckeridge DL, Cheng KE: Finding leading
indicators for disease outbreaks: filtering, cross-
correlation, and caveats.
J Am Med Inform Assoc 2007 , 14(1):76-85. PubMed Abstract |
Publisher Full Text | PubMed Central Full Text
Return to text
54. Hamori S: An Empirical Investigation of Stock Markets:
The CCF Approach. Springer; 2003.
55. Childs JE: Pre-spillover prevention of emerging
zoonotic diseases: what are the targets and what are the
tools?
Curr Top Microbiol Immunol 2007 , 315:389-443. PubMed
Abstract
Return to text
 75

56. Turner AJ, Galvin JW, Rubira RJ, Miller GT: Anthrax
explodes in an Australian summer.
J Appl Microbiol 1999 , 87(2):196-199. PubMed Abstract |
Publisher Full Text
Return to text
57. Aragao AI, Seoane AC, Leal TC, Leal NC, Almeida AM:
[Surveillance of plague in the State of Ceara: 1990–
1999].
Rev Soc Bras Med Trop 2002 , 35(2):143-148. PubMed Abstract
| Publisher Full Text
Return to text
58. Marfin AA, Petersen LR, Eidson M, Miller J, Hadler J, Farello
C, Werner B, Campbell GL, Layton M, Smith P, et al.:
Widespread West Nile virus activity, eastern United
States, 2000.
Emerg Infect Dis 2001 , 7(4):730-735. PubMed Abstract |
Publisher Full Text
Return to text
59. Levis S, Morzunov SP, Rowe JE, Enria D, Pini N, Calderon
G, Sabattini M, St Jeor SC: Genetic diversity and
epidemiology of hantaviruses in Argentina.
J Infect Dis 1998 , 177(3):529-538. PubMed Abstract
Return to text
60. Wagner MM, Moore AW, Aryel RM: Handbook of
biosurveillance. Amsterdam; Boston: Academic Press; 2006.
One Health Initiative [http://www.onehealthinitiative.com/]
 76

The Cell

A human red blood cell

A plant cell from the leaf of a poplar tree

The cell is one of units of life.  There are millions of different types of
cells.  There are cells that are organisms onto themselves, such as
microscopic amoeba and bacteria cells.  And there are cells that only
function when part of a larger organism, such as the cells that make
up your body.  The cell is the smallest unit of life in our bodies.  In the
body, there are brain cells, skin cells, liver cells, stomach cells, and the
list goes on.  All of these cells have unique functions and features. 
And all have some recognizable similarities.  All cells have a 'skin',
called the plasma membrane, protecting it from the outside
environment.  The cell membrane regulates the movement of water,
nutrients and wastes into and out of the cell.  Inside of the cell
membrane are the working parts of the cell.  At the center of the cell is
the cell nucleus.  The cell nucleus contains the cell's DNA, the genetic
code that coordinates protein synthesis.  In addition to the nucleus,
there are many organelles inside of the cell - small structures that
help carry out the day-to-day operations of the cell.  One important
cellular organelle is the ribosome.  Ribosomes participate in protein
synthesis.  The transcription phase of protein synthesis takes places in
the cell nucleus.  After this step is complete, the mRNA leaves the
 77

nucleus and travels to the cell's ribosomes, where translation occurs. 

Another important cellular organelle is the mitochondrion. 
Mitochondria (many mitochondrion) are often referred to as the power
plants of the cell because many of the reactions that produce energy
take place in mitochondria.  Also important in the life of a cell are the
lysosomes.  Lysosomes are organelles that contain enzymes that aid
in the digestion of nutrient molecules and other materials.  Below is a
labelled diagram of a cell to help you identify some of these structures

There are many different types of cells. 

One major difference in cells occurs
between plant cells and animal cells.  While
both plant and animal cells contain the
structures discussed above, plant cells
have some additional specialized
structures.  Many animals have skeletons to give their body structure
and support.  Plants do not have a skeleton for support and yet plants
don't just flop over in a big spongy mess.  This is because of a unique
cellular structure called the cell wall.  The cell wall is a rigid structure
outside of the cell membrane composed mainly of the polysaccharide
cellulose.  As pictured at left, the cell wall gives the plant cell a defined
shape which helps support individual parts of plants.  In addition to the
cell wall, plant cells contain an organelle called the chloroplast.  The
chloroplast allow plants to harvest energy from sunlight.  Specialized
pigments in the chloroplast (including the common green pigment
chlorophyll) absorb sunlight and use this energy to complete the
chemical reaction:

6 CO2 + 6 H2O + energy (from sunlight)  C6H12O6 + 6 O2

 78

Comparison of the Human and Great Ape

Chromosomes as Evidence for Common Ancestry
 from The Evolution Evidence Page

Below, I have assembled a series of references and abstracts that

document striking evidence for the common ancestry of humans and
the great apes independently of the usual paleontological,
morphological, and molecular phylogenetic data that we usually see. I
first became aware of this through some postings on the internet of
Clark Dorman and Don Lindsay.

When one looks at the chromosomes of humans and the living great
apes (orangutan, gorilla, and chimpanzee), it is immediately apparent
that there is a great deal of similarity between the number and overall
appearance of the chromosomes across the four different species. Yes,
there are differences (and I will be addressing these), but the overall
similarity is striking. The four species have a similar number of
chromosomes, with the apes all having 24 pairs, and humans having
23 pairs. References 1 and 2 each contain high resolution
photomicrographs and diagrams showing the similarity of the
chromosomes between the four species (ref. 1 only covers humans
and chimpanzees, ref. 2 covers all 4 species). Furthermore, these
diagrams show the similarity of the chromosomes in that every one of
1,000 nonheterochromatic G-bands has been accounted for in the four
species. That means that each non-heterochromatic band has been
located in each species. (I hope to add a scan of the full sets of
chromosomes for all four species in the very near future. In the
meantime I'll have to make do with a couple of examples of the most
rearranged chromosomes that Don Lindsay has posted.)

Creationists will be quick to point out that despite the similarities,

there are differences in the chromosomal banding patterns and the
number of chromosomes.  Furthermore, they will claim that the
similarities are due to a common designer rather than common
ancestry. Let's address the differences first, and then we will see if we
can tease apart the conflicting scenarios of common ancestry vs. a
common designer.

The following observations can be made about similarities and

differences among the four species. Except for differences in non
genetic heterochromatin, chromosomes 6, 13, 19, 21, 22, and X have
 79

identical banding patterns in all four species.  Chromosomes 3, 11, 14,

15, 18, 20, and Y look the same in three of the four species (those
three being gorilla, chimps, and humans), and chromosomes 1, 2p,
2q, 5, 7 - 10, 12, and 16 are alike in two species. Chromosomes 4 and
17 are different among all 4 species.

Most of the chromosomal differences among the four species involve

inversions - localities on the chromosome that have been inverted, or
swapped end for end. This is a relatively common occurrence among
many species, and has been documented in humans (Ref. 8 ). An
inversion usually does not reduce fertility, as in the case I have
referenced. Don Lindsay provides a diagram of the chromosome 5
inversion between chimpanzees and humans scanned from ref. 1. Note
how all of the bands between the two chromosomes will line up
perfectly if you flip the middle piece of either of the two chromosomes
between the p14.I and q14.I marks. The similarity of the marks will
include a match for position, number, and intensity (depth of
staining).  Similar rearrangements to this can explain all of the
approximately 1000 non-heterochromatic bands observed among each
of the four species for these three properties (band position, number,
and intensity).

Other types of rearrangements include a few translocations (parts

swapped among the chromosomes), and the presence or absence of
nucleolar organizers. All of these differences are described in ref. 2
and can be observed to be occurring in modern populations.

The biggest single chromosomal rearrangement among the four

species is the unique number of chromosomes (23 pairs) found in
humans as opposed to the apes (24 pairs). Examining this difference
will allow us to see some of the differences expected between common
ancestry as opposed to a common designer and address the second
creationist objection listed above.

There are two potential naturalistic explanations for the difference in

chromosome numbers - either a fusion of two separate chromosomes
occurred in the human line, or a fission of a chromosome occurred
among the apes.  The evidence favors a fusion event in the human
line. One could imagine that the fusion is only an apparent artifact of
the work of a designer or the work of nature (due to common
ancestry). The common ancestry scenario presents two predictions.
Since the chromosomes were apparently joined end to end, and the
ends of chromosomes (called the telomere ) have a distinctive
structure from the rest of the chromosome, there may be evidence of
 80

this structure in the middle of human chromosome 2 where the fusion

apparently occurred. Also, since both of the chromosomes that
hypothetically were fused had a centromere (the distinctive central
part of the chromosome), we should see some evidence of two
centromeres.

Human Chromosome 2 and its analogs in the apes

Yunis, J. J.,
Prakash, O.,
 81

The origin of man:

a chromosomal pictorial legacy. Science, Vol 215,
19 March 1982, pp. 1525 – 1530

The first prediction (evidence of a telomere at the fusion point) is

shown to be true in reference  3 . Telomeres in humans have been
shown to consist of head to tail repeats of the bases 5'TTAGGG
running toward the end of the chromosome.  Furthermore, there is a
characteristic pattern of the base pairs in what is called the pre-
telomeric region, the region just before the telomere. When the
vicinity of chromosome 2 where the fusion is expected to occur (based
on comparison to chimp chromosomes 2p and 2q) is examined, we see
first sequences that are characteristic of the pre-telomeric region, then
a section of telomeric sequences, and then another section of pre-
telomeric sequences. Furthermore, in the telomeric section, it is
observed that there is a point where instead of being arranged head to
tail, the telomeric repeats suddenly reverse direction - becoming
(CCCTAA)3' instead of 5'(TTAGGG), and the second pre-telomeric
section is also the reverse of the first telomeric section. This pattern is
precisely as predicted by a telomere to telomere fusion of the
chimpanzee (ancestor) 2p and 2q chromosomes, and in precisely the
expected location.  Note that the CCCTAA sequence is the reversed
complement of TTAGGG (C pairs with G, and T pairs with A).

The second prediction - remnants of the 2p and 2q centromeres is

documented in reference 4. The normal centromere found on human
chromosome 2 lines up with the 2p chimp chromosome, and the
remnants of the 2q chromosome is found at the expected location
based upon the banding pattern.

Some may raise the objection that if the fusion was a naturalistic
event, how could the first human ancestor with the fusion have
successfully reproduced? We have all heard that the horse and the
donkey produce an infertile mule in crossing because of a different
number of chromosomes in the two species. Well, apparently there is
more to the story than we are usually told, because variations in
chromosome number are known to occur in many different animal
species, and although they sometimes seem to lead to reduced
fertility, this is often not the case. Refs 5, 6, and 7 document both the
existence of such chromosomal number differences and the fact that
differences do not always result in reduced fertility.  I can provide
many more similar references if required. The last remaining species of
wild horse, Przewalski's (sha-val-skis) Wild Horse has 66 chromosomes
 82

while the domesticated horse has 64 chromosomes. Despite this

difference in chromosome number, Przewalski's Wild Horse and the
domesticated horse can be crossed and do produce fertile offspring
(see reference 9).

Now, the question has to be asked - if the similarities of the

chromosomes are due only to common design rather than common
ancestry, why are the remnants of a telomere and centromere (that
should never have existed) found at exactly the positions predicted by
a naturalistic fusion of the chimp ancestor chromosomes 2p and 2q?

Another chromosomal rearrangement has recently been discovered,

this one shared both by humans and chimpanzees, but not found in
any of the other monkeys or apes that were tested. This
rearrangement was the movement of about 100,000 DNA pairs from
human chromosome 1 to the Y chromosome10. See "The Promise of
Comparative Genomics in Mammals" Science, Oct. 1999 to learn how
similar chromosomal comparisons are being used to map the
evolutionary relationships of all

living mammals.

Please e-mail questions, suggestions, or comments to  Robert Williams

Return to The Evolution Evidence Page

References:
1. Yunis, J. J., Sawyer, J.R., Dunham, K., The striking resemblance of
high-resolution g-banded chromosomes of man and chimpanzee.
Science, Vol. 208, 6 June 1980, pp. 1145 - 1148

2. Yunis, J. J., Prakash, O., The origin of man: a chromosomal pictorial

legacy. Science, Vol 215, 19 March 1982, pp. 1525 - 1530

3. IJdo JW, Baldini A, Ward DC, Reeders ST, Wells RA, Origin of human
chromosome 2: an ancestral telomere-telomere fusion. Proc Natl Acad
Sci U S A 1991 Oct 15;88(20):9051-5

Abstract:
We have identified two allelic genomic cosmids from human
chromosome 2, c8.1 and c29B, each containing two inverted arrays of
the vertebrate telomeric repeat in a head-to-head arrangement,
5'(TTAGGG)n-(CCCTAA)m3'. Sequences flanking this telomeric repeat
are characteristic of present-day human pretelomeres. BAL-31
 83

nuclease experiments with yeast artificial chromosome clones of

human telomeres and fluorescence in situ hybridization reveal that
sequences flanking these inverted repeats hybridize both to band 2q13
and to different, but overlapping, subsets of human chromosome ends.
We conclude that the locus cloned in cosmids c8.1 and c29B is the relic
of an ancient telomere-telomere fusion and marks the point at which
two ancestral ape chromosomes fused to give rise to human
chromosome 2.

4. Avarello R, Pedicini A, Caiulo A, Zuffardi O, Fraccaro M, Evidence for

an ancestral alphoid domain on the long arm of human chromosome 2.
Hum Genet 1992 May;89(2):247-9

Abstract:
In situ hybridization, under low stringency conditions with two alphoid
DNA probes (pY alpha 1 and p82H) labeled with digoxigenin-dUTP,
decorated all the centromeres of the human karyotype. However,
signals were also detected on the long arm of chromosome 2 at
approximately q21.3-q22.1. Since it is supposed that human
chromosome 2 originated by the telomeric fusion of two ancestral
primate chromosomes, these findings indicate that not only the
telomeric sequences, but also the ancestral centromere (or at least its
alphoid sequences), have been conserved.

5. Chromosomal heterozygosity and fertility in house mice (Mus

musculus domesticus) from
Northern Italy.

Hauffe HC, Searle JB

Department of Zoology, University of Oxford, Oxford OX1 3PS, United

Kingdom. [email protected]

Following the discovery of over 40 Robertsonian (Rb) races of Mus

musculus domesticus in Europe and North Africa, the house mouse has
been studied extensively as an ideal model to determine the
chromosomal changes that may cause or accompany speciation.
Current models of chromosomal speciation are based on the
assumption that heterozygous individuals have a particularly low
fertility, although recent studies indicate otherwise. Despite their
importance, fertility estimates for the house mouse are incomplete
because traditional measurements, such as anaphase I nondisjunction
and germ cell death, are rarely estimated in conjunction with litter
 84

size. In an attempt to bridge this gap, we have taken advantage of the

house mouse hybrid zone in Upper Valtellina (Lombardy, Italy) in
which five Rb races interbreed. We present data on the fertility of
naturally occurring ("wild-caught") hybrids and of offspring from
laboratory crosses of wild-caught mice ("laboratory-reared"), using
various measurements. Wild-caught mice heterozygous for one fusion
were more infertile than predicted from past studies, possibly due to
genic hybridity; laboratory-reared heterozygotes carrying seven or
eight trivalents at meiosis I and heterozygotes carrying one
pentavalent also had low fertilities. These low fertilities are especially
significant given the probable occurrence of a reinforcement event in
Upper Valtellina.

6. An observed chromosome fusion:

Hereditas 1998;129(2):177-80

A new centric fusion translocation in cattle: rob (13;19).

Molteni L, De Giovanni-Macchi A, Succi G, Cremonesi F, Stacchezzini S,

Di Meo GP, Iannuzzi L

Institute of Animal Husbandry, Faculty of Agricultural Science, Milan,

Italy.

A new Robertsonian translocation has been found in cattle. A bull from

Marchigiana breed (central Italy) was found to be a heterozygous
carrier of a centric fusion translocation involving cattle chromosomes
13 and 19 according to RBA-banding and cattle standard
nomenclatures. CBC-banding revealed the dicentric nature of this new
translocation, underlining the recent origin of this fusion. In fact, both
the bull's parents and relatives had normal karyotypes. In vitro
fertilization tests were also performed in the bull carrying the new
translocation, in two bulls with normal karyotypes (control) and in four
other bulls carrying four different translocations.

7. J Reprod Fertil 1979 Nov;57(2):363-75

Cytogenetics and reproduction of sheep with multiple centric fusions

(Robertsonian
translocations).
 85

Bruere AN, Ellis PM

The significance of centric fusions (Robertsonian translocations) in

domestic animals, with special reference to sheep, is reviewed. The
mating is described of a further 856 ewes with either a normal
chromosome number 2n = 54 or carrying one or more of the three
different translocations (centric fusions) t1, t2 and t3 in various
heterozygous and homozygous arrangements. Rams which were used
in the matings were homozygous for one of the translocation
chromosomes (2n = 52), double heterozygotes (2n = 52), triple
heterozygotes (2n = 51) or were carriers of 4 translocation
chromosomes (2n = 50) and 5 translocation chromosomes (2n = 49).
A remarkably even distribution of segregation products was recorded
in the progeny of all combinations of translocation ewes x translocation
rams in those groups in which sufficient animals were available for
statistical analysis. Forty-eight chromosomally different groups of
animals were mated. Further, the overall fertility of the translocation
sheep, measured by conception rate to first service, lambing
percentage and number of ewes which did not breed a lamb, was not
significantly different from New Zealand national sheep breeding data.
In some groups the poorer reproductive performance could be
explained by the age structure of the flock and inbreeding depression,
which probably affected the performance of some animals. Sheep with
progressively decreasing chromosome numbers, due to centric fusion,
2n = 50, 2n = 49 and 2n = 48, are reported. The 2n = 48 category
represents a triple homozygous ewe and a triple homozygous ram and
is the first report of the viable evolution of such domestic animals.
Less than 1% of phenotypically abnormal lambs were recorded in a
total of 1995 progeny born over 10 years. It is now considered that
there is little or no evidence to suggest that centric fusions in a variety
of combinations affect the total productive fitness of domestic sheep.
It is suggested that future research should be more actively directed to
understanding their genetic significance.

8. Hum Genet 1997 Dec;101(2):175-80

Inv(10)(p11.2q21.2), a variant chromosome.

Collinson MN, Fisher AM, Walker J, Currie J, Williams L, Roberts P

Wessex Regional Genetics Laboratory, Salisbury District Hospital, UK.

 86

We present 33 families in which a pericentric inversion of chromosome

10 is segregating. In addition, we summarise the data on 32 families
in which an apparently identical inv(10) has been reported in the
literature. Ascertainment was through prenatal diagnosis or with a
normal phenotype in 21/33 families. In the other 12 families, probands
were ascertained through a wide variety of referral reasons but in all
but one case (a stillbirth), studies of the family showed that the reason
for referral was unrelated to the chromosome abnormality. There has
been, to our knowledge, no recorded instance of a recombinant
chromosome 10 arising from this inversion and no excess of infertility
or spontaneous abortion among carriers of either sex. We propose that
inv(10)(p11.2q21.2) can be regarded as a variant analogous to the
pericentric inversion of chromosome 2(p11q13). We conclude that
prenatal chromosome analysis is not justified for inv(10) carriers. In
addition, family investigation of carrier status is not warranted in view
of the unnecessary concern this may cause parents and other family
members.

9.  J Reprod Fertil Suppl 1975 Oct;(23):356-70

Cytogenetic studies of three equine hybrids.

Chandley AC, Short RV, Allen WR.

A detailed investigation of testicular meiosis in a mule, a hinny and a

Przewalski horse/domestic horse hybrid were made. Abnormalities of
pairing were observed in the mule and hinny in most germ cells at the
pachytene stage of meiotic prophase, and spermatogenesis was almost
totally arrested. A few mature spermatozoa were recovered from the
ejaculate and epididymal flushings of the hinny. The Przewalski
horse/domestic horse hybrid was fertile and showed normal
spermatogenesis. Chromosome banding studies showed a close
homology between the karyotypes of the Prezwalski horse (Equus
przewalskii, 2n = 66) and the domestic horse (E. caballus, 2n =
64), and it is evident that a single Robertsonian translocation has
occurred transforming four acrocentric chromosomes of E. przewalskii
into two metacentric chromosomes in E. caballus. The investigations
showed that a trivalent is formed at meiosis in the hybrid (2n = 65),
segregation from which gives two classes of genetically balanced
spermatozoa. Both of these are capable of producing normal
offspring if they fertilize the eggs of a domestic mare.

10. Chromosome Res 2002;10(1):55-61

 87

Direct evidence for the Homo-Pan clade.

Wimmer R, Kirsch S, Rappold GA, Schempp W.

Institute of Human Genetics and Anthropology, University of Freiburg,

Germany.

For a long time, the evolutionary relationship between human and

African apes, the 'trichotomy problem', has been debated with strong
differences in opinion and interpretation. Statistical analyses of
different molecular DNA data sets have been carried out and have
primarily supported a Homo-Pan clade. An alternative way to address
this question is by the comparison of evolutionarily relevant
chromosomal breakpoints. Here, we made use of a P1-derived artificial
chromosome (PAC)/bacterial artificial chromosome (BAC) contig
spanning approximately 2.8 Mb on the long arm of the human Y
chromosome, to comparatively map individual PAC clones to
chromosomes from great apes, gibbons, and two species of Old World
monkeys by fluorescence in-situ hybridization. During our search for
evolutionary breakpoints on the Y chromosome, it transpired that a
transposition of an approximately 100-kb DNA fragment from
chromosome 1 onto the Y chromosome must have occurred in a
common ancestor of human, chimpanzee and bonobo. Only the Y
chromosomes of these three species contain the chromosome-1-
derived fragment; it could not be detected on the Y chromosomes
of gorillas or the other primates examined. Thus, this shared
derived (synapomorphic) trait provides clear evidence for a Homo-Pan
clade independent of DNA sequence analysis.

Since April 13, 1999

Does the miniature humanoid exist?

A bizarre discovery at Indonesia around 1970s, named ‘Jenglot’ makes
suggestion that it was miniature humanoid. But then the research
proved that Jenglot was an idol which made from the combination of
the animal’s carcass. For your information, Jenglot was used for the
 88

worship purpose.

In Chile on October first of 2002, a group of family members found

what appeared to be a small humanoid creature. The miniscule being
measures about 7.2 centimeters long. It has a relatively large head,
two arms with long fingers, and two legs. The bizarre creature was
found among bushes by one of the children during an outdoors trip.
The child claims that it stayed alive for about eight days, and in some
instances, it even opened its eyes. Nevertheless, after supposedly
being dead for a few days, the small creature displays signs of
advanced decomposition; it even appears to be in a strange state of
mummification. After the investigation, these lots of opinion came out
from the expertise, but still no conclusions in this regard could be
made beyond a reasonable doubt.

Another legend is born

RE: Strange human like creature - Shastar –

08-17-2009 07:43 AM

How spooky those things look, I can see where some primitive people
think they are really. The craftsmanship on them isnt horrible but also
I think the creator went a bit overboard with the teeth.

Also I think that horse is rather upset about someone cutting its hair
too.

I think we just can’t understand their faces sometimes but they can be

When Animals Think Like Humans, They Won't

Thank Us
 89

What happens when we finally figure out how to make non-human

creatures into better slaves by giving them implants to help them
speak? Or genetically engineer them to have human-like intelligence?
One thing is for sure: they aren't likely to be thrilled. In fact, science
fiction about "uplifted" animals generally represent the newly-brainy
creatures turning into violent revolutionaries, running away, or killing
themselves. If you're intrigued by the idea of creating non-human
intelligence here on Earth with our fellow fauna, read our list of some
of the best tales in the genre.

We3, by Grant Morrison with drawings by Frank Quitely. I'll admit it:
This comic book is so emotionally powerful that it made me cry. In
fact, just looking at pictures from it gets me kind of choked up. It's the
story of a dog, cat, and rabbit who are given brain implants and body
armor and forced to become secret assassins for the military. Of
course, they hate it — the cat calls all the humans "stink boss" — and
eventually a sympathetic scientist helps them escape. The book follows
their bloody adventures as they flee the military and a giant, evil
cyber-pitbull. Quitely's drawings are incredible, and Morrison's spare,
urgent dialog is heart-wrenching. Do not read this in public if your
 90

heart is made of a material softer than tungsten.

The Uplift Series, by David Brin. Humans have "uplifted" monkeys

and dolphins, giving them human-like intelligence. The second and
third novels in the series center on spaceships piloted by monkeys and
dolphins respectively. What galls is that Brin's creatures are always in
danger of slipping back into their "animal" natures, something that
humans supposedly don't do. Yeah, right. (Note that there is an
uplifted dolphin in William Gibson's "Johnny Mnemonic" too.)

The Lives of the Monster Dogs, by Kirsten Bakis. This is quite

simply an incredible book about dogs given human-like intelligence
and upper-class manners by an early-twentieth-century mad Austrian.
It's gorgeously written from the point of view of the Vanity Fair
reporter assigned to cover the dogs' story when they come to live in
New York. What's brilliant about this novel is that the dogs feel like
aliens not so much because they are humanoid canines, but because
the United States is so modern compared to the tiny backwoods berg
where they came of age. So they feel like anachronisms, early
twentieth-century creatures thrust into a contemporary world of cell
phones and televisions that they can never understand. Step inside
Bakis' gothic dog world and you won't be able to leave until the novel
is done.

Planet of the Apes. As we learn in the fourth movie, Conquest of the

Planet of the Apes, humans "uplifted" apes in order to make them into
janitors and lab assistants. This movie, while it suffers from the cheese
factor, is nevertheless an interesting portrait of an oppressed group of
 91

uplifted animals as they revolt against their human masters. It's pretty
obvious that the filmmakers, lensing in the early 1970s, were
obsessed with the civil rights movement of the 1960s and modeled
their ape revolutionaries on Malcolm X.

Tank Girl. Among the mutants in this comic book (and movie) are
humanoid kangaroos who apparently make the best lovers. Tank Girl's
boyfriend is a kangaroo, and some of her best friends are too. Because
society has already fallen, there isn't much revolting against evil
human masters here. It's just anarchist, interspecies love.

The Mount, by Carol Emschwiller. This is a terrific reversal of the

usual uplift fare — here, invading aliens turn humans into animals. The
tiny, weak-legged aliens fit perfectly onto human shoulders and use
people as "mounts," breeding them for speed and muscle. The story
focuses on one young mount, bred to be ridden by a prince, and his
dawning realization that maybe freedom is better than a warm stall
and a few pats.

Flowers for Algernon, by Daniel Keyes. A strange spinoff of the

animal uplift genre is this novel, made into a drippy movie called
Charly, about a drug that allows a developmentally-disabled guy to
become a super-genius for a short period of time. Yeah, there's some
creepy stuff here with low-IQ humans being treated like animals —
just like in real life. There is actually a whole subgenre of tales in this
vein, including Lawnmower Man and an awful episode of Star Trek:
TNG where a dork named Barkley merges his brain with the ship.
 92

Half-Human, Half-Ape

A “chimera”—originally the fabulous Greek mythological creature with

a lion’s head, a goat’s body, and a serpent’s tail—has come to mean
any hybrid of two or more creatures.

Chimpanzees are believed by many scientists to be the closest

relatives of humans. The genetic difference between the two species is
estimated to be about 1.7 percent at the DNA level (less than that
between horses and zebras). Recent progress in studies of DNA
sequences, the fossil record, and brain functions support the idea that
there is a sizeable gap separating chimpanzees and monkeys, but not
chimpanzees and humans.

Many years ago, according to the recently declassified Soviet

documents, a famous scientist tried to close the gap between Homo
sapiens and Pan troglodytes.

Human-Ape Hybrids

Ilya Ivanovich Ivanov was born in 1870. In 1898, he established

several zoological laboratories in Moscow, where he studied the
reproductive processes of farm animals. In 1901, he established the
world’s first center for artificially impregnated horses. Before and after
the Bolshevik revolution, Ivanov applied his practical technique to
other domesticated species. Several million cattle and sheep were
artificially inseminated by the mid-1930s; the Soviets needed strong
animals for their monumental transformation of the economy. Ivanov
also tried to preserve some endangered species using artificial
insemination.

In 1927, the Russian émigré newspaper Russkoye Vremya published

articles concerning shocking experiments in which Ivanov allegedly
tried to artificially inseminate human and ape females with the other
species’ sperm. Few people, however, believed these reports. Many in
the West at the time were supporting the “progressive” Soviet
Republic.

Proof came after the fall of the Soviet Union, according to Alexander
Potapov, who published his research in Na Grani nevozhmozhnogo
newspaper (issue 335/4, 2004). A document was discovered in the
 93

state archives of the Russian Federation reporting the findings of a

special commission created in 1929 to evaluate Ivanov’s proposed
anthropoid interspecies hybridization experiments. These experiments
were considered to be of “great scientific importance,” and the report
indicated that they were to be continued in the Sukhumi Monkey
Colony, a Soviet primate center.

The hybridization experiments (the artificial insemination of human

females by anthropoid sperm) were to be conducted only with the
written agreement of the female. She would accept the risk and obey
the required strict isolation regime. The experiments were to be
conducted with all necessary safeguards, including preclusion of
natural insemination. The trials were to be conducted on as many
human females as possible, but in no case, fewer than five.

Why would the luminaries of Soviet science laud Ivanov’s uncanny

research? According to Potapov, the Bolshevik elite wanted to destroy
the belief in God, and subject nature to serve the new Soviet Man. As
a former Soviet citizen myself, I can affirm that neither general ethical
concerns nor Judeo-Christian beliefs would be of any interest to Soviet
Marxists. Stalin, whose bloody star was rising in the crimson world of
Soviet politics, would get hybrid slaves who would be completely
obedient. The GULAG and its network of concentration camps would
not be a necessity for the hybrids.

Ivanov and the Socialist Motherland were interested in another result

of crossbreeding, referred to as hybrid vigor, or heterosis. Heterosis
levels tend to be higher as a result of crossbreeding, meaning that the
vigor of the hybrids is greater than that of the parental lines.

I am sure that Stalin and his henchmen would have found another use
for the chimeric anthropoids designed by Ivanov. Today we call it
biological warfare.
 
Guinea

Ivanov decided that an expedition to Africa would help him achieve the
necessary results. He put in a request, and received an approval from
the Soviet government. He also was given a financial support in the
amount of $291,912, a huge amount of money for the impoverished
Socialist state.

Ivanov believed that he would have no problems inseminating African

women with chimpanzee sperm. But he was wrong. Local women
 94

refused to crossbreed with apes. The Russian scientist would not give
up, and made an agreement with physicians in a local hospital to
conduct the intramural hybridization experiments. The governor of the
province did not object to the experiments on the condition that the
patients would agree to it. But the women of Guinea categorically
refused to be any part of the lurid experiments of the Soviet scientist.
Ivanov was arrested on December 13, 1930, and sentenced to a
concentration camp for five years. The OGPU (the forerunner of the
KGB) commuted his sentence to a five-year exile in Kazakhstan, and
finally, Ivanov was released from prison in 1932. He died just a few
months later, on March 20. But our story does not end here.

 Tue 20 Dec 2005

Stalin's half-man,
half-ape super-warriors
CHRIS STEPHEN AND ALLAN HALL

THE Soviet dictator Josef Stalin ordered the creation of Planet of the
Apes-style warriors by crossing humans with apes, according to
recently uncovered secret documents.

Moscow archives show that in the mid-1920s Russia's top animal

breeding scientist, Ilya Ivanov, was ordered to turn his skills from
horse and animal work to the quest for a super-warrior.

According to Moscow newspapers, Stalin told the scientist: "I want a

new invincible human being, insensitive to pain, resistant and
indifferent about the quality of food they eat."

In 1926 the Politburo in Moscow passed the request to the Academy of

Science with the order to build a "living war machine". The order came
at a time when the Soviet Union was embarked on a crusade to turn
the world upside down, with social engineering seen as a partner to
industrialisation: new cities, architecture, and a new egalitarian society
were being created.

The Soviet authorities were struggling to rebuild the Red Army after
bruising wars.
 95

And there was intense pressure to find a new labour force, particularly
one that would not complain, with Russia about to embark on its first
Five-Year Plan for fast-track industrialisation.

Mr Ivanov was highly regarded. He had established his reputation

under the Tsar when in 1901 he established the world's first centre for
the artificial insemination of racehorses.

Mr Ivanov's ideas were music to the ears of Soviet planners and in

1926 he was dispatched to West Africa with $200,000 to conduct his
first experiment in impregnating chimpanzees.

Meanwhile, a centre for the experiments was set up in Georgia -

Stalin's birthplace - for the apes to be raised.

Mr Ivanov's experiments, unsurprisingly from what we now know,

were a total failure. He returned to the Soviet Union, only to see
experiments in Georgia to use monkey sperm in human volunteers
similarly fail.

A final attempt to persuade a Cuban heiress to lend some of her

monkeys for further experiments reached American ears, with the New
York Times reporting on the story, and she dropped the idea amid the
uproar.

Mr Ivanov was now in disgrace. His were not the only experiments
going wrong: the plan to collectivise farms ended in the 1932 famine
in which at least four million died.

For his expensive failure, he was sentenced to five years' jail, which
was later commuted to five years' exile in the Central Asian republic of
Kazakhstan in 1931. A year later he died, reportedly after falling sick
while standing on a freezing railway platform.

USSR

In 1974, Belgian zoologist Bernard Heuvelmans and Soviet scientist

Boris F. Porchnev published a fascinating book entitled L’homme de
Néanderthal est toujours vivant. This book contains the account of a
Russian doctor who escaped from the Soviet concentration camps, and
in 1952 or 1953 met a trusted friend of Heuvelmans. The doctor
claimed that he was arrested because he refused to obey the orders
from his superiors. He was to conduct artificial insemination of Oriental
women by the sperm of male gorillas. The experiments were
 96

conducted in the medical department of the Soviet forced labor camps.

The doctor claimed that a race of ape men was created. They were
extremely strong and covered with fur, worked tirelessly in the salt
mines, and grew larger than the humans—but they could not
reproduce.

Did the Soviets create an ape man in their secret labs, a creature that
later escaped to be mistaken in Russia and Eurasia for a “snowman,”
or a relict hominoid?

People’s Republic of China

The noted British novelist, screenwriter and director Stephen Gallagher

revealed an interesting bit of information during an address given at
the Wellcome Institute’s symposium on the topic “Do Artists Demonize
the New Genetics?” on March 23, 1995.

Gallagher had heard of a doctor in Shenyang, in northeast China, who

claimed to have achieved success with the artificial insemination of
human sperm to a female chimpanzee, only to have the three-month-
old fetus destroyed by Red Guards who came in and smashed up his
laboratory.

Scientists in China have created embryonic chimeras, hybrid embryos

that contain human and rabbit DNA. On September 7, 2001, a report
in Beijing Youth Daily stated that Professor Chen Xigu in the
Experimental Animal Center of Sun Yat-sen University had transferred
a skin cell nucleus from a seven-year-old boy into a rabbit’s
denucleated egg and created an embryo. The aim of his research,
according to the paper, was to use cloning to develop cures for such
illnesses as diabetes and Parkinson’s disease.

Apparently, with the growing numbers of scientists and medical

centers engaged in similar experiments in China (such as the Shanghai
Second Medical University), there is also a growing debate over the
ethics of cross-species reprogramming.

Italy, 1987

A very interesting article, headlined “New breed of half-ape ‘slave’

thought possible,” was published in the May 14, 1987, issue of the
Houston Chronicle. Brunetto Chiarelli, dean of anthropology at
Florence University, claimed that he had knowledge of a secret
experiment in which a chimpanzee egg was exposed to human sperm
 97

with the result that an apparently viable embryo was created. The
experiment was interrupted at the embryo stage because of ethical
considerations. “Scientific information is numerous but reserved.
Maybe at the end of the year we will have an idea of what has been
achieved,” Chiarelli said. Apparently, the cell proceeded to divide; it
was the beginning of a routine developmental process that could
potentially have resulted in a human-chimpanzee hybrid.

Italy, 1990s
 98

Another fascinating document from the declassified Soviet archives

confirms that noted endocrinologist Sergey Voronov conducted
experiments on great apes in the 1920s. Voronov lived in a special
facility in Grimaldi, Italy, a center he established known as “The
Simian Castle.” This animal preserve could contain 100 animals at a
time. Voronov was searching for a formula to enable him to slow down
the process of aging. He also conducted experiments to increase male
virility and researched organ transplantation. Voronov published a
book about sexual cell transplantation from apes to humans.

Ventimiglia is a small Ligurian Sea and the Italian Riviera, near the
French border. In nearby Grimaldi are grottoes in which prehistoric
remains have been found. Strange creatures were sighted in this area
in the 1990s, resembling the crossbreed of a primitive man and a
gorilla. They were naked and stood two meters tall, with long hair,
human-looking heads, large hypnotic eyes, and wrinkled skin.

Did Voronov create chimeric creatures whose descendants wander in

the wilderness around the Italian Riviera? There is little available
information about the enigmatic Russian surgeon. Did he know of
Ivanov and his research? Italian sources state that the Russian
scientist tried to “graft bodies of animals on human ones.” on the
Italian town

United States

According to an article in the October 27, 2003, issue of U.S. News

and World Report (“Mixing species—and crossing a line?”), U.S.
scientists have placed human neural stem cells into the brains of fetal
monkeys to see how well these cells formed brain tissue. The cells
thrived and migrated through the brain. The experiment drew little
notice at the time. Nell Royce, the author of the article, wrote that
today the experiment would spark more debate.

Scientists at Advanced Cell Technology, an American biotechnology

company in Massachusetts, have previously (1998) mixed human cells
and cow eggs in an attempt, similar to the Chinese experiments
described above, to make hybrid embryos as a source of stem cells.
The genes activated and the egg began to divide in the normal way up
to the 32-cell stage at which it was destroyed. According to a number
of American newspapers, those experiments were not successful.
 99

Ethical Concerns

Nowadays the use of genetic engineering raises a number of concerns.

By far, the greatest public concern is over the mixing of human and
animal genes. After all, both cell fusion and recombinant DNA
techniques allow species barriers to be readily overcome.

Human beings are changing the world at an ever-increasing pace. New

crops appear almost every day. It is certain that we will be using
genetic manipulation to change life forms themselves in the coming
decades. Of course, we should be more alarmed about manipulation of
animals than of vegetation and microorganisms.

There is a threshold of cross-species research that must never be

stepped over, lest we walk into a minefield. We must not create
situations where humans make life or death decisions without
reference to God. We must be cautious not to create interspecies
chimeras that would be able to replace or destroy Homo sapiens. Most
of the data on chimp strength is anecdotal and decidedly unscientific.
In tests at the Bronx Zoo in 1924, a dynamometer--a scale that
measures the mechanical force of a pull on a spring--was erected in
the monkey house. A 165-pound male chimpanzee named "Boma"
registered a pull of 847 pounds, using only his right hand (although he
did have his feet braced against the wall, being somewhat hip, in his
simian way, to the principles of leverage). A 165-pound man, by
comparison, could manage a one-handed pull of about 210 pounds.
Even more frightening, a female chimp, weighing a mere 135 pounds
and going by the name of Suzette, checked in with a one-handed pull
of 1,260 pounds. (She was in a fit of passion at the time; one
shudders to think what her boyfriend must have looked like next
morning.) In dead lifts, chimps have been known to manage weights
of 600 pounds without even breaking into a sweat. A male gorilla could
probably heft an 1,800-pound weight and not think twice about it.
 100

Man-monkey split called messy affair

DNA study indicates years of interbreeding - Final break came

about 6.3 million years ago

May 19, 2006. 01:00 AM

NEW YORK—One of the most detailed comparisons yet of human and

chimp DNA shows that the split between the two species was a long,
messy affair that may even have featured an unusual evolutionary
version of breakup sex.

Previous genetic research has shown that chimpanzees and humans

are sister species, having split off from a common ancestor about 7
million years ago. The new study goes further by looking at
approximately 800 times more DNA than earlier efforts.
"For the first time we're able to see the details written out in the DNA,"
said Eric Lander, one of the collaborators on the study. "What they tell
us at the least is that the human-chimp speciation was very unusual."

Unusual, indeed. The researchers, from the Broad Institute of the

Massachusetts Institute of Technology and Harvard University, propose
humans and chimpanzees first split up about 10 million years ago.
Then, after evolving in different directions for 4 million years, they got
back together for a brief fling that produced a third, hybrid population
with characteristics of both lines. That genetic collaboration gave rise
to two branches — one leading to humans and the other to chimps.

The work has inspired both admiration and skepticism. Many

 101

palaeontologists have a hard time believing some of the fossil humans

known to have lived during that era could have beenpairing up with
apes.

"It's a totally cool and extremely clever analysis," said Daniel

Lieberman, a professor of biological anthropology at Harvard who
wasn't involved in the study

"My problem is imagining what it would be like to have a bipedal

hominid and a chimpanzee viewing each other as appropriate mates —
not to put it too crudely."

The report, published in yesterday's issue Nature, estimates that final

break between the human and chimpanzee species did not come until
6.3 million years ago at the earliest.

ASSOCIATED PRESS
 102

Centaurs Appeared After Copulation Between

Humans and Animals
 
Researchers insist that centaurs actually existed.
 
Archeologists have discovered rock paintings depicting strange
creatures and called them teriantrops, hybrids of humans and
animals. Researchers believe that ancient artists made the painting
from life.
 
Paul Takon from the Australian Museum in Sydney and anthropologist
Christopher Chippendale from the University of Cambridge say that
such hybrids, including centaurs, were highly likely living side by side
with primitives. In Australia and South Africa, the researchers
discovered dozens of rock paintings showing animals with human
heads and humans with animal heads that may be over 32 thousand
years old.
 
They have had the first in history detailed study of the strange
drawings. The study covered about 5,000 rock paintings of our
ancestors; the researchers systematized the frequency and the types
of depicted teriantrops and determined their ages. They arrived at a
conclusion that animal men actually existed in the remote past. They
believe that primitives could hardly draw what they never saw.

Myths of Ancient Greece and Rome also tell us about animal men, and
centaurs are the most frequent ones. These are creatures with the
human torso transforming into the feet of a horse or some other
animal, a bull, a donkey, a sheep and even a goat. The word centaur is
a compound of KEN (kenw) meaning "I kill" and TAUROS meaning
"bull", and it reveals astronomic knowledge of our ancestors. When the
constellation of Sagittarius (Centaurus throwing a spear) appears in
the night skies, we can no longer see Taurus, one of the Sun symbols.

The ancient legends say that centaurs came down from the Greek
mountains where they failed to keep up friendly relations with the local
population. As far as some centaurs loved drinking wine, they easily
flew into a rage and conflicted with people.
 103

Mythology expert, Candidate of historical sciences Alexander Guryev

says that animal men were the result of buggery, sex contacts
between men and animals, which were quite typical of the ancient
epochs. The expert adds that many people believed that they
descended from animals: Tibetans believed they descended from
monkeys, Hindu believed that horses were their ancestors and people
in Thailand thought they descended from the dog.
 
Some ancient legends are absolutely strange indeed. There is an old
Greek myth saying that great conqueror Alexander the Great was
conceived after a contact with a grass-snake, into whom Zeus, the
patron of all gods and humans, turned with the view to seduce
Olympia, the daughter of Macedonian king.
 
Historical sources reveal that buggery was very popular among ancient
Greeks and Romans. A legend says that Greek scholar Thales
recommended his master Periandr not to engage unmarried shepherds
not to produce more centaurs. Roman satirist Juvenalis wrote that
"Roman women often exposed their naked buttocks to tempt donkeys
into sex contacts." In Egypt, these contacts were part of the fertility
cult ceremony.

In ancient times, warriors took a flock of sheep or goats for every

battle; they used animals for eating and having sex. There is written
evidence saying that Italian soldiers deserted during the siege of Lyons
by catholics in 1562 because they had little sheep for sex contacts.
Allowing sex contacts between soldiers and animals was believed the
lesser evil than sex with prostitutes. Respectable scholars - Paracelsus,
Cardano and famous accoucheur of the 16th century Fortunio Liceti -
several times registered birth of hybrids, animal kids born by humans
and human kids born by animals. Their notes mention horses,
elephants, dogs and even lions.

Alexander Guryev says that some time ago the official science would
not recognize the possibility of interbreeding of humans and animals.
But recently reliable scientific sources have published results of genetic
experiments as a result of which researchers got chimeras in test-
tubes, germs having part of human and part of animal cells. From the
genetics point of view, the difference between humans and animals
makes just several per cent. It is not ruled out that spontaneous
mutations may take place in rare instances, and natural interbreeding
is quite possible in this case. May it be so that humans with such
mutations lived in all epochs? Famous Danish anatomist Thomas
Bartolin wrote he saw a woman who had a baby with a cat head after
 104

copulation with a cat. Medicine books of the 19-20th centuries describe

instances of birth of animal humans. At the end of the past century,
some British researchers wrote about women living together with
gorillas. Children born as a result of such contacts could even do easy
work about the house and even speak. Unfortunately, researchers had
no chance of seeing these creatures because the hybrids felt seriously
hurt and escaped to the jungle.|

Alexander Guryev says that researchers have no whole centaur

skeletons but lots of upper and lower parts of centaurs skeletons.

JEFF GETTY SHOULD BE DEAD BY NOW. He has had HIV for about 15
years. His immune system is barely functioning. And on top of that, in
a desperate attempt four weeks ago to reverse the course of his
disease, doctors at San Francisco General Hospital infused him with an
experimental bone-marrow transplant from a baboon. Immunologists
warned that his body would eventually reject the nonhuman tissue and
that the operation would almost certainly end his life rather than
prolong it. However, Getty is not only alive, but last week he was
healthy enough to go home from the hospital. No matter how much
time he has left, friends and family call him a medical miracle.

But there is also a small chance that the technology that allows people
like Getty to receive tissues from animals could someday unleash a
medical disaster. The danger is that patients could receive a previously
unknown microbe along with their transplants. When viruses or
 105

bacteria have made the jump from animals to humans in the past,
they have often proved exceedingly virulent: HIV, which causes AIDS;
Ebola virus; and hantavirus are all chilling precedents. In a worst-case
scenario, such transplants could introduce humanity to a plague that
would make all of those look tame. "This is a serious mistake," says
Jonathan Allan, a virologist at the Southwest Foundation for
Biomedical Research in San Antonio, Texas. "It only takes one
transmission from one baboon to a human to start an epidemic.
There's no way you can make it safe."

No one ever had to worry about such potential hazards before,

because scientists hadn't been able to figure out how to make an
animal-to-human transplant work. It's hard enough to trick an
individual's immune system into accepting tissues from another
person. But when organs from an entirely different species are stitched
into the human body, immune defenses go into overdrive, leading to
swift and irreparable destruction of the foreign tissue. Two years ago,
when doctors at the University of Pittsburgh transplanted baboon livers
into two seriously ill patients, both men died soon after the operation.

The advent of genetic engineering, among other things, has allowed

researchers to begin breaching that natural barrier. Last spring
scientists at Duke University Medical Center reported that they had
successfully altered the genetic makeup of a strain of pigs. As a result,
the researchers managed to fool the immune systems of three
baboons into accepting pig hearts, for a short while at least. Using a
similar technique, the British biotechnology company Imutran has
produced a herd of 300 genetically altered swine. The company
expects to transplant either a pig's heart or a liver into a human
subject later this year

Read more:
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,983954,00.html#i
xzz1ApBqusyo
 106

Dog gives birth to mutant creature that resembles

human being in Umbaúba, Sergipe, Brazil.
 107

The city's population of Umbaúba, Brazil was impressed and shocked:

the birth of offspring of a dog with human characteristics. Of the five
puppies born, one that was born dead, had human hands and feet,
besides the male genital organ.

According to the veterinarian John Farias, this is probably a genetic

anomaly. "It is a disorder of chromosome at the time of formation of
the fetus, which call Neoformacao Genetics, nothing more than that.
There is the possibility that fetus has been generated from a sexual
relationship of a man with a dog, because his sperm is totally different
from the animal. The only chromosome that is similar to that of
humans is the primate, anyway, it is impossible to fertilization, "he
explained.
 108

A bizarre creature has been born in Zimbabwe which looks like a

human-goat hybrid!
 109

With man-like arms, goat legs and an enlarged head, the creature died
just hours after birth.

Experts are puzzled by the reports and photos published in African

newspapers.

The creature, which died just a few hours after birth, had a huge head
and a face that resembled a severely disfigured baby. The neck and
shoulders were much like a a small human, but it had goat legs and a
tail.

Residents of the village of Maboleni, where a goat gave birth to the

creature, burnt the corspe in an attempt to rid the town of a curse.

A belief in ghosts is still alive and well in the region and the creature
was taken as a sign of evil – perhaps even witchcraft.

But local Governor Jason Machaya (56) is sure, that it was a half-man,
half-goat hybrid which was the result of bestiality: "A grown man
was responsible for this."

Doctors, however say that it would be a biological impossibility.

No vet did not have a chance to investigate the mysterious creature,

 110

but based on photos he concluded the kid was suffering from

hydrocephalus, also known as water on the brain.

The condition would have accounted for the abnormally large skull and
for the chin, nose, ears and other body parts having shifted during
development.

A different rare two-headed calf

A Zimbabwean farmer was left stunned when his cow gave birth
to a piglet, it has been reported.
The farmer, Mr Tinos Mberi of Chatsworth in Masvingo eastern
highlands of the country said he could not believe his eyes when he
saw the strange animal.  He said it was impossible for a pig to mate
with a cow.

“The whole body and size was that of a piglet. The nose and mouth
was like that of a pig, except that it did not have a hairy body,” said
Mr Mberi.

He said it was difficult to attribute the strange occurrence to anything

other than witchcraft.
 111

“I think it is the work of some black magicians. How can anyone

explain such a horrible occurrence. It is the work of black magicians
who are trying to scare me off the land,” said Mr Mberi.

He said this was the first time that his cow has given birth and he had
not expected what he got. The Masvingo Provincial Veterinary Officer,
Dr Ernest Dzimwasha, said there was nothing unusual about the
incident although it was rare.

“It was simply a deformed calf that looked like a pig. Some deformed
calves may look like monsters and we also have some that are known
as bulldog-calves.

“These may look like a bulldog but it’s all due to deformities, just like
in human beings,” he explained.

The most closely related extant animals to humans are chimpanzees

and bonobos. These are equally closely related to us, as they share a
common ancestor together more recently (~1 million years ago) than
they share a common ancestor with humans (~6-7 million years ago).

The various gorilla species are the next most closely related to
humans, sharing a common ancestor with humans, chimps and
bonobos ~10-12 million years ago.

Read more:
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_is_the_3_closest_animals_to_human
s_alive#ixzz1Aux47tXR

Neanderthal DNA Sequenced - How Similar are they

to Modern Humans?
Submitted by Ann on Wed, 05/12/2010 - 16:41
 112

Svante Paabo with a reconstructed Neanderthal skull. - Image copyright Frank

Vinken

Some 400,000 years ago, Neanderthals diverged from the primate line
that led to present-day humans.  The Homo neanderthalis died out
30,000 years ago, while we managed to evolve into the handsomely
built, technically skilled, and somewhat reasonable animal we are
today.  Research into Neanderthal DNA now shows that our extinct
relatives did leave their mark in the genomes of some modern
humans, leading researchers to believe that our species 'paired up'
with our less evolutionary successful cousins when we were both living
in the Middle East, about 100,000 to 50,000 years ago and before we
left to populate Europe and Asia.

Neanderthals are the most recent, extinct relatives of modern humans.

The current fossil records suggest they diverged from the primate line
that led to the Homo sapiens some 400,000 years ago in Africa.
Neanderthals then migrated north into Eurasia, where they became a
geographically isolated group, evolving independent of the line that led
to modern humans in Africa. They lived in Europe and western Asia,
and Neanderthal remains have been found as far east as southern
Siberia and as far south as the Middle East. Until 370,000 years later –
about 30,000 years or approximately 1500 generations ago – they
disappeared.

For comparison, another of our relatives, the chimpanzee – not extinct

yet, but endangered – diverged from the same primate line some five
 113

to seven million years ago. Currently there are about half a million
chimps populating Planet Earth, almost seven billion humans and zero
Neanderthals.

Click the images for a larger version. Then use the arrow buttons to
browse the slideshow.

In the last decades, controversy has surrounded the question of

whether Neanderthals interbred with anatomically modern humans.
Both physical properties of early man (derived from fossils) and DNA
research have been used to argue both for and against an, errr,
‘genetic contribution’ by Neanderthals towards the kind of animal we
are today.  Previous studies comparing Neanderthal and human
mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) have failed to provide a match, and thus
evidence for interbreeding or 'admixture'. However, this does not
exclude the possibility of Neanderthal-on-human action, leading to
Neanderthals contributing other parts of their genome to our present
day genetic make-up.

Researchers have now produced the first whole Neanderthal sequence

– written as a succession of three billion letters – using DNA samples
from the bones of three female Neanderthals who lived and died at the
Vindija Cave in Croatia some 40,000 years ago.  The study was
published in last week's Science.

Complete Neanderthal Genome Sequenced

“Working with ancient, sample-derived DNA is tough when compared

with fresh samples,” said Andy Bhattacharjee of Agilent's Life Sciences
Group. “Thirty to forty thousand years have passed since Neanderthals
walked on earth, and all that is left are ancient bones containing
severely degraded DNA. The DNA itself has also undergone a sort of
chemical aging, deamination.”
 114

Svante Pääbo, Director of the Department of Evolutionary Genetics at

the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology in Leipzig, says
the main problem that arose when doing this was contamination by
other organisms. “Over 95 percent of the DNA in one sample
originated from bacteria and microorganisms which colonized the
Neanderthals after their death.”

“Therefore, removal of this contaminant DNA is of paramount

importance, as this allows more coverage of the endogenous genome
and therefore allows one to better decipher the genetic code. The
capture methodology solves this big problem by enriching for
Neanderthal sequences and depleting contaminant DNA. It's an
elegant solution,” adds Bhattacharjee.

The method, published in the same May 2010 issue of the journal
Science as the Neanderthal study, uses two rounds of 'target
enrichment' procedure to enrich ancient DNA from rare and precious
bone samples so it can be sequenced.

Another factor was human DNA, which could enter the samples during
excavation or in the laboratory, jeopardizing the results. Various
techniques were used to prevent this from influencing the results:
each DNA fragment was marked with a short synthetic piece of DNA as
a label, the samples were processed in ultra-clean rooms and various
tests were run on the date to ensure contamination was minimized.

Comparing the draft Neanderthal genome sequence with the genetic

sequence of humans and chimpanzees allows scientists to catalog the
genetic differences. The researchers do so by identifying features that
are unique to present-day humans and estimating when these
mutations took place, as well as checking their findings against the
fossil record for the evolution of hominins.

However, the new data suggests evolution did not proceed in a

straight line. The diagram that shows how the different branches of
hominins split off from one another that we were shown in high school
might, as we suspected, just be too simplistic. Rather, evolution
appeared to be a messier process, with emerging species merging
back into the lines from which they diverged.

“The comparison of these two genetic sequences enables us to find out

where our genome differs from that of our closest relatives,” said
Svante Pääbo.
 115

Cataloging What Makes us Human

Member of the research team with a reconstructed Neanderthal

skeleton. It clearly shows the bell-shaped ribs. - Image copyright Max
Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology

By comparing the Neanderthal and modern genetic sequences,

researchers have tried to discover genes that distinguish modern
humans from their close relatives and which may have given us certain
advantages over the course of evolution. For example, the catalogue
includes differences in genes that code for functional elements, such as
proteins, in which the Neanderthal versions are more like those of the
chimpanzee than present-day humans. Some evolutionary changes
were found in genes involved in cognitive development, skull
structure, energy metabolism, skin morphology and wound healing.

This was done by identifying sites in the genome alignment where the
human genome sequence – which was decoded about ten years ago –
does not match that of chimpanzee, orangutan or rhesus macaque and
are likely to have changed since the ancestor we shared with chimps –
and then comparing these to the Neanderthal DNA.
 116

Two notable genes that emerged from the results are a gene
influencing the pigmentation of the skin, and differences in genetic
make-up that could affect aspects of energy metabolism – how
effectively mammoth steak is rendered into human action.

Another gene that differs is RUNX2. When affected in the Homo

sapiens (that's us!) it can cause a series of abnormalities, which can
easily be associated with the Neanderthal physique: a bell-shaped rib
cage, a more prominent cranial frontal bone and differences in the
architecture of the shoulder joint. It is thus reasonable to assume that
an evolutionary change in this gene was of importance to the origin of
modern humans.

The Neanderthal in you

The study found Neanderthals are equally close to Europeans and

East-Asians, but significantly closer to non-Africans than to Africans.
The Neanderthal exchanged genes with ancestors of non-Africans,
more particular, the researchers concluded that the gene flow was
from Neanderthal into modern humans.

A 2009 study estimated the amount of non-African genomes affected

by gene flow from 'archaic' hominids, including Neanderthals, to be
14%, however Pääbo's team claim that this figure is over-estimated.
They conclude that between 1 to 4% of 'Eurasian DNA' is derived from
Neanderthal.

Thus the genomic data seems to suggest that Neanderthals re-

encountered anatomically modern humans, who began migrating out
of Africa some 80,000 years ago. When we were leaving Africa in small
pioneering groups, we must have encountered – of the seventh kind –
a bunch of Neanderthals living in the Fertile Crescent of the Middle
East, before the human population spread across East Asia.

These are preliminary data based on a very limited number of

samples, so it is not clear how widely applicable these findings are to
all populations. The findings do not change our basic understanding
that humans originated in Africa and dispersed around the world in a
migration out of that continent.
The study does stipulate that “the actual amount of interbreeding
between Neanderthal and modern humans may have been very
limited, given that it only contributed to 1 to 4% of the genome of
present-day non-Africans.”
 117

“It was a very unique series of events, with a founding population of

modern humans of greatly reduced size – tens to hundreds of
individuals,” Jim Mullikin commented. Geneticists can detect a
population constriction or bottleneck where certain genetic markers
are concentrated; that only occurs when the population is small. “At
that time,” Dr Mullikin continued, “where the population was greatly
reduced, the modern humans migrating out of Africa encountered
Neanderthals and interbreeding occurred between the two groups,
leaving an additional, but subtle, genetic signature in the out-of-Africa
group of modern humans.”

The researchers have not yet detected any signs that the DNA from
modern humans can be found in the Neanderthal genome. Neither is it
known whether a more systematic sampling of African populations will
reveal the presence of Neanderthal DNA in some indigenous Africans.

Click To Watch Video

MEanderthal iPhone app - Morph yourself (and your friends)

into a caveman!
If you're non-African there's a good chance 1 to 4% of your DNA is
'Neanderthal'. But how would we look if we were 100% 'prehistoric
man'? Find out with this free app for iPhone and Android.
CLICK TO WATCH

“These are preliminary data based on a very limited number of

samples, so it is not clear how widely applicable these findings are to
all populations,” said Vence Bonham. “The findings do not change our
basic understanding that humans originated in Africa and dispersed
around the world in a migration out of that continent.”

So nothing is 'really' certain, yet again. But don't let that put you off:
the methodology developed during these studies can also be applied to
other challenging studies in paleontology and archaeology as well as
other human forensics. And having overcome multiple technical
challenges, the scholars look optimistically into the future: “We will
also decode the remaining parts of the Neanderthal genome and learn
much more about ourselves and our closest relatives,” said Svante
Pääbo.
 118

This did lead to an entertaining challenge over the weekend:

explaining all this over a pint, and accurately estimating the amount of
Neanderthal (or other primitive hominins’) DNA in the specimens of
male Homo sapiens we observed or interacted with. The conclusion
was that this study must still underestimate the amount of DNA the
more primitive hominids have contributed, unless they did not take
alcohol intoxication of said specimens into account. We'd also
appreciate a heads up on any more research into a) if 'addiction' is
mapped into our genes or rather a Pavlov effect (fruits beyond
conservation date make me merry, so I'll consume more) and b)
spatial awareness, in particular, theoretically, whether a monkey can
learn to beat a human at foosball?

If humans share 98% of the same DNA with Chimps, is it fair to

say that humans share more DNA with Neanderthal?
 In that case then does that mean that humans share 97% of
their DNA with the Common Ancestor being as Chimps are 98%,
Neanderthals must be 99%, so does the Common ancestor share
100% of their DNA with that of Chimps Neanderthals and
Humans being that they all descended from the Common
Ancestor?..

If this is true then is the Common Ancestor regarded as more

like Chimps than we are, and are Chimps regarded as more like
Neanderthals than the Common Ancestor is, and are
Neanderthals regarded as more like Humans than the Chimps or
the Common Ancestors are?..

Therefore this begs the question: Did the Common Ancestor

evolve from Monkeys and do Monkeys share more of their DNA
with the Common Ancestor than they do with Apes, and if
Monkeys do share more DNA with the Common Ancestor then
did the Common Ancestor have a tail?..

And if the Common Ancestor did not have a tail then did the
"Common Ancestor" from Monkey to Common Ancestor have a
tail or if not was it vestigial on the Monkey and why did it
become vestigial considering cats and dogs still have theirs?..

Please answer all questions if you want or answer the ones you
can, Thanx.. 1 year ago
 119

cats and dogs

by Asker
cats and dogs are about AS close relatives to primates as are bears,
and hyeanas, and hoofed animals.

the closest relatives of primates are hedgehogs and other insectivores.

you know, all that "common DNA" is somewhat more difficult than you
imagine it.

having a tail and not having a tail is not THAT difficult. there are CATS
without tail (genetically defined)
http://www.google.cz/search?q=Manx+cat&i…

as a rule of thumb, you can tell, the more crossroads over the
evolution tree you pass from one species to another, the more
different the DNA will be.
Because of that, Neanderthals are closer to us than the chimps. the
common ancestor of both humans and chimps should have more in
common with humans than chimps do.

However, the genetic diversity within HUMAN population is larger than

the differences between chimps AND humans respectively! the
apparent paradox arises from comparing various populations within
species, while when comparing the two species, you are comparing a
"mean/average" DNA.
 1 year ago

I think we share 80% of a bananas DNA or something like that.

It doesn't mean we are related. Just because we have a close
DNA match does not mean humans are in any way similar to
monkeys. It's our brain that is important. Maybe the reason
humans have been created very similar looking to an animal is
so we respect them. God wouldn't want us to disrespect animals.

o 1 year ago

by ruth
 120

This is Religion & Spirituality. Are we saying the origin theory of

evolution is a religion now? We probably should.

You need to produce said neanderthal and test said

neanderthal's DNA.

Oh, and I wonder about your numbers there. lol Your father's
DNA match to yours is 99.99something.

1 year ago

by cafkhan

if humans evolved from monkeys then why are monkeys still

here ? and moreover if evolution was a continuous process
then why didn't we humans evolve to something else ? . so it
is best to go by the fact that humans came to earth as
humans though a crude form in the past and monkeys were
as they are and will continue to be so .

by numbnuts...

The common ancestor with chimps was still an ape and so had
only a vestigial tail. Neanderthals were hominids, another
species of human.

by Matt (April Fools Day :D)

it's been shown that the neanderthal was not a predecessor to

modern man. cro magnon however does show up in our dna.

by zee zee

mans DNA was changed from the original form, with Adam and
Eve..... we use to have 12 helix's and now we only have 2

by 10 out of 10 birds prefer Handel

<<If humans share 98% of the same DNA with Chimps, is it fair
to say that humans share more DNA with Neanderthal?>>

That would be so, because Neanderthals branched off from the

 121

main Homo genus, probably from Homo Erectus species, I don't

remember what the estimate of when that happened would be,
but was millions of years after the divergence of paths between
hominids and apes. Homo Sapiens would appear to have
developed off the Homo Erectus line with perhaps some big
changes then gradual improvements - the Cromagnon early
Homo Sapiens still have archaic features apparently.

It's not very pc, but I think a lot of changes could effect the way
we think, and that would be more significant than body form, so
I think the Neanderthals were thick-in-the-head compared with
us! Supposedly the geneticists think there was no interbreeding
between early modern man and Neanderthals. I think
Neanderthals only died out at the end of the last Ice Age, but
don't remember.

o 1 year ago

Subject: 12,000-Year-

Old Human Hair DNA

  Has No Match With Modern Humans

The following was extracted from a published interview and story by

Linda Moulton Howe of www.earthfiles.com and is reprinted here, in
part, on the Christian Geology Ministry site by written permission of
the copyright holder. Republication and dissemination of the contents
of this screen are expressly prohibited without prior Earthfiles.com
written consent. The full article, including graphics, is available by
subscription at http://www.earthfiles.com/news/news.cfm?
ID=298&category=Science

12,000-Year-Old Human Hair DNA Has No Match With Modern Humans

© Copyright © 2001 by Linda Moulton Howe - All Rights Reserved.
 122

October 28, 2001 Woodburn, Oregon - Human hair dating back to the
last Ice Age ten to twelve thousand years ago was discovered in 1999
at an archaeological dig in Woodburn, Oregon between Salem and
Portland. The Ice Age site is filled with the bones of elephants, sloths,
condors and a bird with a 14-foot wingspan. The unidentified human
hairs were found perfectly preserved a few feet underground and had
enough follicles for DNA analysis. This week I talked with geology
professor emeritus, William Orr, at the University of Oregon, about
DNA efforts to match the Ice Age hair to any living hominoid species
on earth today.

Evacuation units at Woodburn, Oregon Ice Age archaeological site

were prepared and excavated. Some units were skim shoveled and
then trowled so that animal limbs and fauna could be extracted
without harm.

William Orr, Ph.D., Professor Emeritus in Geology, University of

Oregon, and Director of the State Museum of Paleontology, Eugene,
Oregon: "You can identify human hair, forensic criminologist types,
can identify human hair from a single strand because of the granules
and color and all that kind of stuff. You can distinguish human hair
from all other hair just from a little piece of follicle."

DNA analyses of hair follicles found at the site have so far failed to find
a match with any known human racial type living on earth today.

"We found several strands of human hair, long pieces a foot and a half
long, black, long pieces of hair. And then if you can find the root of the
hair that still has a follicle, you can do DNA on it. So researchers
immediately sent the (Ice Age) hair off to a lab and they began to
extract the DNA. Some of it was not so good, but a lot of it was well
preserved in the oxygen-poor bogs of Woodburn. The geneticists found
the hair didn't match any Asian hair DNA. It didn't match African,
European. It didn't match anything. Dogma would be that Ice Age
humans along the west coast of the United States would be from a
Japanese population that is alleged to have come over the Bering Sea
back twelve to thirteen thousand years ago."

"So right now we have DNA we can't track. We can't figure out what
it's from. Apparently from a population we don't have today. They are
gone. And it's only 11,000 or 12,000 years old. About that time period,
there was a huge crisis in animals. The larger animals all disappeared
 123

and they disappeared in a wave. They disappeared first in British

Columbia and then in Washington, Oregon, California and right on
down. Some were still around until 10,000 years ago in Tierra del
Fuego. So, it was like a wave of extinction at the rate of about 10
miles per year."

Howe: "SO THERE IS A MYSTERY ABOUT WHAT KILLED OFF ALL OF

THESE MAMMALS IN WAVES TEN OR TWELVE THOUSAND YEARS
AGO?"

Orr: "Oh, yes. In fact for my money, it's far more profound than the
crisis that killed off the dinosaurs and a few other animals at 66 million
years ago. This (western North American) was more sudden, more
pervasive. It kind of selectively took the large animals in a short period
of time."

Howe: "HOW DEEP DOWN WERE THE HAIRS FOUND?"

Orr: "The deepest ones were from ten to twelve feet, but a lot of them
were from much shallower depths. It's an old stream bed and we just
took a little auguring device to core down and began getting well-
preserved hair out of the clays. The Woodburn stuff it's like putting it
in a deep freeze, or a glad bag and freezing it. It's an anoxic
environment (no oxygen). You wouldn't believe the insects come out
with colors still. And as you watch them, the color changes from the
iridescent blue-green back to a kind of dull black, just in the exposure
as they oxidize before your eyes. Even the butterflies come out with
pigment and then they just change color."

Howe: "IT'S ALMOST AS IF THEY WERE QUICK FROZEN?"

Orr: "Almost."

Copyright © 2001 by Linda Moulton Howe

All Rights Reserved.
[email protected]

End of Earthfiles.com Copyrighted Material

Bible, Genesis & Geology Comments: In reference to the remarks

about the remains being preserved almost as if "Quick Frozen" this is
extremely interesting, as such is consistent with the finding of Wooly
Mammoths, from the same period in time, whose remains indicate
 124

they too appear to have been quick frozen (many links can be found
on the Internet which document that particular find).   By
interpretation, in the context of the Gap Theory doctrine, this is
compelling evidence of a sudden and catastrophic end to life on this
planet in the old world. If the sun (indeed the entire cosmos) of the
old world suddenly went dark, by whatever agency, these findings
would be consistent with such an event and the conditions on the
Earth before the regeneration of the heavens and earth (Genesis 1:2).

By Mui Mui on 25-11-2007

Masvingo cow gives birth to pig-like calf

zimdiaspora 04 August, 2010 02:56:00
 125

A Man or a Mouse?
Or Both?

Jeremy Rifkin — Los Angeles Times June 7, 2005

What happens when you cross a human and a mouse? Sounds like the
beginning of a bad joke but, in fact, it's a serious experiment recently
carried out by a research team headed by a distinguished molecular
biologist, Irving Weissman, at Stanford University. Scientists injected
human brain cells into mouse foetuses, creating a strain of mice that
was approximately 1% human. Weissman is considering a follow-up
experiment that would produce mice whose brains are made up of
100% human cells.

What if the mice escaped the laboratory and began to proliferate in the
outside environment?
 126

What might be the ecological consequences of mice with human brain

cells let loose in nature?

Weissman says that, of course, he would keep a tight rein on the mice
and if they showed even the slightest signs of humanness, he would
kill them. Hardly reassuring.

In a world where the bizarre has become all too commonplace, few
things shock the human psyche. But experiments like the one that
produced a partially humanized mouse stretch the limits of human
tinkering with nature to the realm of the pathological.

This new research field — creating hybrid creatures out of different

species — is at the cutting edge of the biotech revolution and is called
chimeric experimentation (after the monster of Greek mythology that
was part lion, part goat and part serpent).

The first such chimeric experiment occurred many years ago when
scientists in Edinburgh, Scotland, fused together a sheep and goat
embryo — two completely unrelated animal species that are incapable
of mating and producing a hybrid offspring in nature. The resulting
creature, called a geep, was born with the head of a goat and the body
of a sheep.

Now, scientists have their sights trained on breaking the final taboo in
the natural world — crossing humans and animals to create new
human-animal hybrids of every kind and description. Already, aside
from the humanized mouse, scientists have created pigs with human
blood running through their veins and sheep with livers and hearts
that are mostly human.

The experiments are designed to advance medical research. Indeed, a

growing number of genetic engineers argue that human-animal
hybrids will usher in a golden era of medicine. Researchers say the
more humanized they can make research animals, the better able they
will be to model the progression of human diseases, test new drugs
and harvest tissues and organs for transplantation into human bodies.

Some researchers are speculating about human-chimpanzee chimeras

— creating a humanzee. A humanzee would be the ideal laboratory
research animal because chimpanzees are so closely related to human
beings. Chimpanzees share 98% of the human genome, and a fully
mature chimp has the equivalent mental abilities and consciousness of
 127

a 4-year-old human.

Fusing a human and chimpanzee embryo — a feat researchers say is

quite feasible — could produce a creature so human that questions
regarding its moral and legal status would throw 4,000 years of ethics
into utter chaos.

Would such a creature enjoy human rights and protections under the
law? For example, it's possible that such a creature could cross the
species barrier and mate with a human. Would society allow inter-
species conjugation? Would a humanzee have to pass some kind of
"humanness" test to win its freedom? Would it be forced into doing
menial labor or be used to perform dangerous activities? If the whole
purpose of creating this hybrid is to perform medical experiments,
could those experiments possibly be morally permissible?

Please understand that none of this is science fiction. Anticipating a

flurry of new experiments, the National Academy of Sciences, the
country's most august scientific body, is expected to issue guidelines
for chimeric research in April. What would be the ramifications of
creating hundreds, even thousands, of new life-forms that are part
human and part other creature? Creatures that could mate, reproduce
and repopulate the Earth?

Bioethicists are already clearing the moral path for human-animal

chimeric experiments, arguing that once society gets past the
revulsion factor, the prospect of new, partially human creatures has
much to offer the human race.

Of course, this is exactly the kind of reasoning that has been put forth
time and again to justify what is fast becoming a macabre journey into
a Brave New World in which all of nature can be ruthlessly
manipulated and re-engineered to suit the momentary needs and
whims and caprices of just one species, the Homo sapiens.

This time, we risk undermining our own species' biological integrity in

the name of human progress. With chimeric technology, scientists now
have the power to rewrite the evolutionary saga — to sprinkle parts of
Homo sapiens into the rest of the animal kingdom as well as fuse parts
of other species into our own genome and even to create new human
subspecies and super-species. Are we on the cusp of a biological
renaissance, as some believe, or sowing the seeds of our own
destruction?
 128

What scientists fail to mention is that there are other equally

promising and less invasive alternatives to these bizarre experiments.
There's sophisticated computer modeling to study disease and to test
the effectiveness and toxicity of drugs. There's in vitro tissue culture,
nanotechnology and artificial prostheses to substitute for human tissue
and organs. When it comes to chimeric experimentation, then, the
question is, at what price?

I believe the price is too steep. We should draw the line at this type of
experimentation and prohibit any further research into creating
human-animal chimeras.

Jeremy Rifkin is the author of "The Biotech Century" (Tarcher, 1999).

 129

Strange human like creature - UglyNRude - 08-17-2009 06:38 AM

Cat Gives Birth to a Dog!

A woman in Georgia's cat stunned scientists when it gave birth to a

dog!
 130

A tiny human like creature,

some say with vampire like traits famous in Indonesia. If you take
time to look you will see people claim to find them with snake bodies,
mermaid bodies, human like bodies. They range in size from several
inches to several feet. They all seem to have long human like hair in
varying shades.
http://bakka-deliviano.blogspot.com/2009/02/jenglot.html
 131

Animals sadness same like human

132
133
134
135
 136

Sheep Gives Birth to Human-Faced Lamb in Turkey

 
By Pravda.Ru writer Dmitry Sudakov
12.01.2010

A sheep gave birth to a dead lamb with a human-like face. The calf
was born in a village not far from the city of Izmir, Turkey.

Erhan Elibol, a vet, performed Cesarean section on the animal to take

the calf out, but was horrified to see that the features of the calf’s
snout bore a striking resemblance to a human face.

“I’ve seen mutations with cows and sheep before. I’ve seen a one-
eyed calf, a two-headed calf, a five-legged calf. But when I saw this
youngster I could not believe my eyes. His mother could not deliver
him so I had to help the animal,” the 29-year-old veterinary said.

The lamb’s head had human features on – the eyes, the nose and the
mouth – only the ears were those of a sheep.

Veterinaries said that the rare mutation most likely occurred as a

result of improper nutrition since the fodder for the lamb’s mother was
abundant with vitamin A, CNNTurk.com reports.

In Zimbabwe, a goat gave birth to a similar youngster in September

2009. The mutant baby born with a human-like head stayed alive for
several hours until the frightened village residents killed him.

The governor of the province where the ugly goat was born said that
the little goat was the fruit of unnatural relationship between the
female goat and a man.
 137

This incident is very shocking. It is my first time to see such an evil

thing. It is really embarrassing," he reportedly said. "The head belongs
to a man while the body is that of a goat. This is evident that an adult
human being was responsible. Evil powers caused this person to lose
self control. We often hear cases of human beings who commit
bestiality but this is the first time for such an act to produce a product
with human features," he added.

The mutant creature was hairless. Local residents said that even dogs
were afraid to approach the bizarre animal.

The locals burnt the body of the little goat, and biologists had no
chance to study the rare mutation.

Alien or human-like fetus born from a  cow

 138

These are pictures I received in an email. Apparently, this “dead baby”

was aborted from a cow in Thailand. What would be the explanation
for a human-like torso and head with hoof like legs and a tail? Is this
genetic engineering gone wrong, or did something else happen?

This was the description that came with the email. This is all I know:

“This dead alien-like being found in a small town in

Thailand was claimed to be born from a cow and seems at
first to be a severe case of birth malformation defect. A
closer examination however reveal that the alien being
resembles too much of a human baby with its front legs
looking more like hands than feet.
In the form of a ritual, the local residents pour baby
powder onto the dead body and burnt incense in their
belief of cleansing the area of evil and hopeful that it will
be reincarnated peacefully.”

I am hoping that this is just a malformed aborted calf. But it does have
some resemblance to an alien with cow’s feet.
 139

Are abominations possibly going on with mating animals and

humans/aliens/demonic beings in the last days?

I show the pictures. You decide.

140
141
142
 143

Woman gives birth to an ape-like baby

The condition is called Anencephaly. Children with Anencephaly are

born with no forebrain. They are usually blind, deaf, unconscious, and
unable to feel pain, however reflex actions such as breathing and
responses to sound or touch may still occur.

There are approximately 1,000 to 2,000 babies born with anencephaly

each year in the United States

The Girl Who Gave Birth To Rabbits

A True Medical Mystery

Clifford A. Pickover
 144

"I'm a big fan of serious books on medical oddities. And right next to
my copies of certified classics will go Cliff Pickover's The Girl Who Gave
Birth to Rabbits. Written in Pickover's unique style, an eclectic mix of
serious scholarship and puckish fun, the bizarre tale of Mary Toft will
simultaneously fascinate and horrify. That's an unbeatable
combination, and it gets my three thumbs up!"   -- Professor Paul J.
Nahin, author of Time Machines, An Imaginary Tale, and Oliver
Heaviside

"Here's another far-out book from polymath Pickover. Providing many

a lewd and lurid list, he touches upon the bizarre beliefs and practices
of the 18th century. Pickover leaves you pondering. What's harder to
believe: The story of a woman birthing bunnies or the time's seemingly
boundless gullibility?"

  -- Michael Abrams, Discover Magazine

Mary Toft was a young woman with a peculiar passion -- and an

ordinary life that was forever changed when she gave birth to something
inhuman. From that moment onward, she was propelled into a world she
never dreamed existed -- a dark, alien, medical subculture flourishing in
the courts of the King. Mary careened out of control, a pawn in the
hands of the powerful while she forced her contemporaries to question
their most basic beliefs.

The Girl Who Gave Birth to Rabbits is history's most fascinating

 145

medical mystery, a dark, true-life Alice in Wonderland with a streak of

horror. Why should we care today about a poor, eighteenth-century girl
who gave birth to monstrosities? Mary Toft's story contain timeless
themes: justice and morality, crime and punishment, and science and
superstition separated by the filmiest of curtains. Her tale also involves
sex, money, ambition, jealousy, and scandal involving the leaders of
nations. It touches on humankinds' greeds and basic fears.

See Pickover books at Amazon.Com in separate window.

Mary Toft was the Monica

Lewinsky of the 1700s. Both
women elicited an avalanche of
media coverage, jokes, and
national shame. Monica's story
cast a bad light on American
politics; Mary's affair placed the
eighteenth-century London
physicians in a bad light.

Prepare yourself for a shattering

odyssey as The Girl Who Gave
Birth to Rabbits unlocks the
doors of your imagination.
Acclaimed author Dr. Clifford
Pickover takes you to the
ultimate frontier of medical
Mary Toft speculation. With numerous
(painted in 1726 by the artist John illustrations, this is an original,
Laguerre). fun-filled, and thoroughly unique
introduction to eighteenth-
century science and its metaphor
for today's scientific superstitions
and politics. For Mary,
conspiracies are everywhere, the
line between good and evil lost,
and the consequences exceed
her most unthinkable, private
desires.
 146

Praise for The Girl Who Gave Birth to Rabbits

"She gave birth to rabbits, small ones or bits of rabbits anyway.

Many people were fooled, but Cliff Pickover, as intelligent as always,
sorts out the different accounts, and highlights that particular clue
which begins to show how it was worked. Immerse yourselves in this
strange story, and experience many more oddities that surround the
pseudo-science of sex and sorcery. Cliff has given us many anecdotes
and illustrations too, which make this book a little museum of this odd
corner of human perversion."

  -- Professor Jack Cohen, author of The Collapse of Chaos and

Figments of Reality

"Pickover surpises us once again with his eclectic and fascinating

topics. At first you may think he's gone to the extreme with The Girl
Who Gave Birth to Rabbits -- but the history, mystery and gullibility of
the times make this another type of puzzler."

Woman Gives Birth To Monkey Like Baby

This is amazing ! i don’t know how is this possible,but it is real. the

video is in turkish,but you can clearly see the monkey baby.
 147

MY SO-CALLED FROG

The BBC reports an Iranian woman gives birth to a frog, and "illustrates" the
claim with a stock photo.
by Ashley O'Dell

While at times referring to its subject as a "so-called frog," BBC News

reported an Iranian woman gave birth to a frog. Citing "The Iranian
daily Etemaad," BBC News says, "the paper carries quotes from
medical experts who say there are human characteristics to the
animal."

The BBC carries a lovely photo of a frog, but it reeks of stock footage:

If this is indeed a photo of the frog-child beast on that tropical-looking

branch, all media outlets involved missed a grand chance to get the
mother's quote about how much she's saving on nursery furniture. If
the photo is, however, stock, then it serves no purpose whatsoever, as
most people who read BBC News Online probably know what a frog
looks like. In this case, instead of serving an informative purpose (as a
stock photo would if, for instance, a woman had supposedly given
birth to a zebu) it only serves to decorate or to deceive.

Citing "Farsi-language daily E’temad" Payvand.com covers the "story"

 148

too, saying "Following severe bleeding, the woman who has not been
named gave birth to a live gray frog accompanied with mud."

Halfway around the world, there are medical experts pondering a frog
with fingers. No wonder you have to wait so long to see a doctor --
they're all in the back prodding amphibians.

And I swear I've either ordered "live gray frog accompanied with mud"
at the Chinese restaurant in Newkirk Plaza or seen the interpretive
troupe I-Dance perform it as a routine.

The frog birth report was confirmed, says Payvand.com, by someone

they identify as "Gynecologist Varasteh." (I wonder if Gynecologist is a
family name. Someone's great uncle, perhaps?)

Without independently verifying the story, British news source

Ananova actually published this sentence: "BBC Online says Iranian
daily Etemaad claims the creature grew from larva inside the woman's
body." In other words, British news source Ananova says BBC Online
says Iranian daily Etemaad claims...

And the Washington Times, republishing a UPI story, provides the

following as background and precedent: "In the 17th Century,
Catharina Geisslerin, known as 'the toad-vomiting woman' of
Germany, claimed to have incubated amphibians inside of her body.
However, when she died in 1662, doctors found no evidence animals
had ever lived inside her body."

BBC News reports, "it is unclear how this could have happened."

And while they have no idea how this could be true, all news outlets
involved are still going to report it as news.

Woman Gives Birth to Cat-Human Mutant

Carcinogens in every-day food products blamed

Albany, New York - A woman at an undisclosed area hospital has given

birth to a cat-human mutant, doctors say.
 149

While many on-staff doctors were unable or unwilling to provide a

medical explanation for this bizarre birth, other doctors were
convinced that carcinogens, Cancer-causing chemicals, are to blame.

"It is clear to me," one doctor said, on the condition of anonymnity,

"that the cancer-causing agents found in everyday food items is the
root of this curious occurrence."

Which foods are to blame? Our anonymous physician tells us there is

no-one food item that could have caused this. "All mammals share
nearly seventy pecent of the same DNA sequences. The cumulative
effect of all of the minute amounts of mutagenic carcinogens, in
theory, could have caused a re-sequencing of those genes that make
us uniquely human."

The cat-child's Mother was unavailable for comment, and hospital

officials refused to release the birth certificate. Animal rights
supporters expect this birth to significantly boost their cause. "Now
there can be no arguments that animals dont deserve the same rights
and treatment as you and I."

Women who give birth to donor egg babies are the

biological moms
Posted Jul 21 2009 12:53am
Freedom Pharmacy published this great booklet about egg donation --
here an excerpt:
“Perhaps the greatest myth surrounds pregnancy. Many believe the
uterus is simply an incubator. Nothing could be further from the truth.
The most important aspect of all pregnancies- including egg donation
pregnancies- is that as the fetus grows, every cell in the developing
body is built out of the pregnant mother’s body. Tissue from her
uterine lining will contribute to the formation of the placenta, which
will link her and her child. The fetus will use her body’s protein, then
she will replace it. The fetus uses her sugars, calcium, nitrates, and
fluids, and she will replace them. So, if you think of your dream child
as your dream house, the genes provide merely a basic blueprint, the
biological mother takes care of all the materials and construction, from
the foundation right on up to the light fixtures. So, although her
husband’s aunt Sara or the donor’s grandfather may have genetically
programmed the shape of the new baby’s earlobe, the earlobe itself is
the pregnant woman’s “flesh and blood.” That means the earlobe,
along with the baby herself, grew from the recipient’s body. That is
 150

why she is the child’s biological mother. That is why this child is her
biological child.”

Kimberly Powell also wrote:

"While not discounting that genetic tendencies may exist, supporters

of the nurture theory believe they ultimately don't matter - that our
behavioral aspects originate only from the environmental factors of our
upbringing. Studies on infant and child temperament have revealed
the most crucial evidence for nurture theories.

•American psychologist John Watson, best known for his controversial

experiments with a young orphan named Albert, demonstrated that
the acquisition of a phobia could be explained by classical conditioning.
A strong proponent of environmental learning, he said: Give me a
dozen healthy infants, well-formed, and my own specified world to
bring them up in and I'll guarantee to take any one at random and
train him to become any type of specialist I might select...regardless
of his talents, penchants, tendencies, abilities, vocations and race of
his ancestors.

•Harvard psychologist B. F. Skinner's early experiments produced

pigeons that could dance, do figure eights, and play tennis. Today
known as the father of behavioral science, he eventually went on to
prove that human behavior could be conditioned in much the same
way as animals.

•A study in New Scientist suggests that sense of humor is a learned

trait, influenced by family and cultural environment, and not
genetically determined.

•If environment didn't play a part in determining an individuals traits

and behaviors, then identical twins should, theoretically, be exactly the
same in all respects, even if reared apart. But a number of studies
show that they are never exactly alike, even though they are
remarkably similar in most respects.

So, was the way we behave ingrained in us before we were born? Or

has it developed over time in response to our experiences?
Researchers on all sides of the nature vs nurture debate agree that the
link between a gene and a behavior is not the same as cause and
effect. While a gene may increase the likelihood that you'll behave in a
particular way, it does not make people do things. Which means that
we still get to choose who we'll be when we grow up. "
 151

Genes must be ‘expressed’ within an individual in order to have an

effect.

The same gene or genes can express in a number of different ways

depending upon the environment. A gene can remain ’silent’ or
unexpressed; it can be expressed strongly; it can be expressed
weakly,and so on. There is also an entire field of study called
imprinting having to do with which gene you ‘activate,’ the copy you
received from your mother, or the copy you received from your father.

The field of epigenetics studies these phenomenon, and popular

journalism is just starting to write about it. While the Human Genome
Project was still underway, we usually heard genes referred to as ‘the
Bible’ of the human being, as a kind of absolute truth concerning the
fundamental nature of the individual.
That is now changing.

In a donor egg pregnancy, the pregnant woman’s womb is the

environment.It is her genes, not the donor’s, that determine the
expression of thedonor -egg baby’s genes.

A donor egg baby gets her genes from the donor; she gets
the‘instructions’ on the expression of those genes from the woman
who carries her to term.

This means that a donor egg baby has 3 biological parents: a father,
the egg donor, and the woman who carries the pregnancy.

The child who is born would have been a physically & no doubt
emotionally different person if carried by his genetic mother.

In horse breeding for example, it’s not uncommon to implant a pony

embryo into the womb of a horse.
The foals that result, are different from normal ponies.They’re bigger.
These animals’ genotype – their genes – are the same as a pony ’s,
but their phenotype
 152

Woman gives birth to snake

30/10/2010 15:33:00

It sure sounds unbelievable, but a young woman has been delivered of

a snake in Umuahia. The woman delivered the scary reptile on
Wednesday following hours of intense prayers at the Eternal Sacred
Order of Cherubim and Seraphim Church, along Eze Ogbulafor Street,
Umuahia, Abia State.

Chairman of the Organisation of African Instituted Churches (OAIC) in

Abia state, Apostle Emmanuel Agomoh, who is also the head of the
Eternal Sacred Order of the Cherubim and Seraphim in the state said a
priest, Apostle Uche Ugwu had engaged himself in hours of prayers to
cause the delivery of  the snake from the private part of the 35-year-
old lady whose names are being withheld.

The snake, said to have been programmed into the woman’s womb

since her secondary school days, was headless and tailless.
The incident, which has become the talk of the town, happened around
5p.m. on Wednesday at the church premises.

Daily Sun learnt that the young lady hails from Olokoro in Umuahia
South LGA.
She was said to have delivered the snake like a woman under labour
 153

following prayers by the priest that everything that was not of God in
her should come out of her body. The incident attracted a large crowd.

Apostle Agomoh said the snake forced itself out of the woman’s private
part with the intention of attacking Apostle Ugwu. The cleric’s younger
brother, however, was able to kill the animal.

The cleric said the woman came to the church on Monday for prayers
following the pains she had been experiencing  all over her body since
she was in secondary school. According to him, it was at this juncture 
that one of the prayer warriors in the church Apostle Ugwu conducted
the prayers that forced the snake out of her body.

“As I was praying and calling on whatever was inside the lady to come
out, the lady was writhing in pains. The snake even wanted to attack
me until my brother here killed it with the stick,” Ugwu told our
reporter.
He said such miracles happen very  often in the church. “But we don’t
advertise  it and we don’t use any fetish things here. We only engage
in prayers,” he said.

Daily Sun learnt that the lady, who is still  in shock is currently
recuperating in her village.

A sheep gave birth to a dead lamb with a human-like face. The calf
was born in a village not far from the city of Izmir, Turkey.

Erhan Elibol, a vet, performed Cesarean section on the animal to take

the calf out, but was horrified to see that the features of the calf’s
snout bore a striking resemblance to a human face.

“I’ve seen mutations with cows and sheep before. I’ve seen a one-
eyed calf, a two-headed calf, a five-legged calf. But when I saw this
youngster I could not believe my eyes. His mother could not deliver
him so I had to help the animal,” the 29-year-old veterinary said.

The lamb’s head had human features on – the eyes, the nose and the
mouth – only the ears were those of a sheep.

Veterinaries said that the rare mutation most likely occurred as a

result of improper nutrition since the fodder for the lamb’s mother was
abundant with vitamin A, CNNTurk.com reports.
 154

Cow Gives Birth to Quadruplets

A world record event has repeated itself when a cow from the Pingluo
County in the Ningxia Hui Autonomous Region of China, gave birth to
four calves on Sunday.

“It is the first time I have seen so many calves born from a cow at one
time,” said Guo Xuefeng, the cow’s owner, who is known as a skilled
cow breeder in the county. Three of the newborn calves are female
and they are all in good condition.

A cow from Nanjing, China, set the record having quadruplets in

December of 2003 and was entered into the Guinness World Records.

Animal experts only give a 2% to 4% chance for a cow to have twins,

so the percentage to have quadruplets is very small.

(China Daily)