[_ Old Earth _] Chimps and humans: How similar are we really?

[brother Paul]

We have recently found 1,307 orphan genes that are completely different between humans and chimpanzees, and these from just four areas of tissue samples. We can only imagine the vast numbers of differences that will be revealed once more areas of the anatomy and physiology are analyzed (see J. Ruiz-Orera, 2015, “Origins of De Novo Genes in Humans and Chimpanzees”, PLoS Genetics. 11 (12): e1005721)


Orphan genes, as many here know, are found only particular lineages of creature or sometimes only in a specific species or variety within a species. What is really interesting is they appear to have no evolutionary history. Despite that we have come to know these genes are incredibly important! Their expression often dictates very specific qualities and processes allowing for specialized adaptations of particular tissues, like the antisense gene, NCYM, which is over-expressed in neuroblastoma; this gene inhibits the activity of glycogen synthase kinase 3β (GSK3β), which targets NMYC for degradation (Suenaga Y, Islam SMR, Alagu J, Kaneko Y, Kato M, et al. (2014) NCYM, a Cis-antisense gene of MYCN, encodes a de novo evolved protein that inhibits GSK3β resulting in the stabilization of MYCN in human neuroblastomas. PLoS Genet 10: e1003996. doi: 10.1371/journal.pgen.1003996). Some contribute to specific proteins unique only to that species or to varieties within a species.


This genetic curiosity has been being studied for around 20 years with little insight as to why they are there at all (where did they come from), and we are just beginning to see how they function, but the doubted thousands of additional differences this will add to the human/chimp difference scenario is staggering.


Any thoughts?

 

[Barbarian]

One of the great scientific debates of the 19th century was Huxley's decisive win over Owen, in which he used Owen's own data to show that there is no structure in a chimpanzee brain that is not also present in a human brain, and vice versa.

So it's not just that humans and chimps are very, very close genetically. They are also close anatomically and behaviorally, particularly humans and bonobos. In fact, genetically, we and chimps are more similar to each other than either is to other apes:

Given observed rates of mutation, and evolutionary changes, the perhaps 6 million years of separation between humans and chimps would be expected to leave thousands of differences in alleles. Which is what we see. A few tens of thousands of years of separation left many, many significant differences between Neandertals, Denisovans, and anatomically modern humans. A separation hundreds of times longer left pretty much the predicted number of differences.

 

[brother Paul]

Except I would suggest that there are a much larger number of differences than the media presentations would lead us to believe...they would like us to think we are variations of the same creature at some point, but the data does not necessarily demonstrate that to be true, only possible. The genetics IMO only show the reasons for our physically all being mammals and then primates within that classification.

Just because something precedes something else does not necessitate that the primary caused the secondary, nor that something preceding two things is related to producing either or both. It COULD BE possible and even MAY BE possible but we do not know, and thus should not rhetorically present these subjunctives as truth.

Take statistics for example (and I know you know this), what sample, how large, from where, etc., all effect what the statistic could or may imply. Also from a number of statistical tests on the same subject matter often the tester decides or chooses the results needed to support their pre-concluded view or must use a line of best guess (which in itself can be deceptive based on the other factors mentioned above...the sample size, the who, the what, the where, the when, etc.)

 

[Barbarian]

Except I would suggest that there are a much larger number of differences than the media presentations would lead us to believe...

Probably, "media presentations" are a bad way to learn about science. The point is, the number of differences is close to the expected numbers, given the time of divergence. Remember, since both lines would continue to evolve, there would be roughly twice the number of differences as mutations in either species.

they would like us to think we are variations of the same creature at some point, but the data does not necessarily demonstrate that to be true, only possible.

Because anatomy, genetics, and physiology all indicate the same thing, it's inescapably true.

The genetics IMO only show the reasons for our physically all being mammals and then primates within that classification.

No. If that were true, we'd be equally close to tarsiers. And as you see, we are genetically closer to chimpanzees than either of us is to any other ape.

Just because something precedes something else does not necessitate that the primary caused the secondary,

That has nothing to do with it. It's not "which one was first." In this case, two lineages diverged from a common ancestor.

 

[brother Paul]

Which ancestor was that?

 

[Barbarian]

Which ancestor was that?

The last common ancestor of chimps and humans. Unfortunately, apes tend to live in forests, which rarely fossilize animals. So the ape record is not good, except for those that tended to live in open areas.

Orroin or Sahelanthropus may be close to that ancestor, but until we find more of the postcranial skeletons that will remain uncertain. What is becoming clear is that the common ancestor did not look more like a chimpanzee than like a human.

These two seem to have lived in open forests, and not rain forests, which accounts for the number of fossils found. However, that does not mean that our last common ancestor was not a rain forest inhabitant, and therefore not found in the fossil record.

 

[Corn Pop]

Hey Barbarian, because your a evolution fan, if you look into the future, what do you think humans would evolve into?, where are we headed?

 

[brother Paul]

The last common ancestor of chimps and humans. Unfortunately, apes tend to live in forests, which rarely fossilize animals. So the ape record is not good, except for those that tended to live in open areas.

Orroin or Sahelanthropus may be close to that ancestor, but until we find more of the postcranial skeletons that will remain uncertain. What is becoming clear is that the common ancestor did not look more like a chimpanzee than like a human.

These two seem to have lived in open forests, and not rain forests, which accounts for the number of fossils found. However, that does not mean that our last common ancestor was not a rain forest inhabitant, and therefore not found in the fossil record.

the cladisitic model (their tree bush) implies gorillas, from orangutan, from gibbon....

 

[Barbarian]

the cladisitic model (their tree bush) implies gorillas, from orangutan, from gibbon....

No. You're confusing existing species with the last common ancestor at each node. Which would be as wrong as supposing that the last common ancestor of humans and chimpanzees was a chimpanzee. The data indicate that the last common ancestor of humans and chimpanzees looked a lot more like a human than a chimpanzee does. Which, if you thought about it for a bit, makes perfect sense. You might as well suppose that the last common ancestor of humans and chimpanzees was a human.

 

[brother Paul]

I guess it depends on which artistically contrived tree/bush one looks at....in the one I was checking out gorillas produce an unknown about 6 mya which splits into humans and chimps (the work of creative imaginations is always entertaining) but even in your man made chart orangutan kind still becomes Gorilla and Chimp/Human (different opinion but same undemonstrated horse pucky)

 

[brother Paul]

The differences continue though....

Wong. K., “Tiny Genetic Differences between Humans and Other Primates Pervade the Genome”, Scientific American, Sept. 2014, reveals that the “…tiny portion of unshared DNA makes a world of difference: it gives us, for instance, our bipedal stance and the ability to plan missions to Mars. Scientists do not yet know how most of the DNA that is uniquely ours affects gene function.” And though the recent comparisons are performed on only about 33% of the genome, “individual differences pervade the genome, affecting each of our chromosomes in numerous ways.”

In some of the presentations in articles and texts I see a language of persuasion! For example, IMWO the “only 1.8% difference” language describing the similarity between humans and chimps is just an opinion! The actual difference is more like 5% (National Geographic claims 4% but close enough to show the smaller number to be enhanced) and most scientists agree.

In the limited sections of the genome accessed, exploring the limited aspects of the genome that they used to derive these figures, add to that the fact that the common person will not bother to understand, most are simply persuaded by the appeal to authority, and by faith in statistics (see How to Lie with Statistics, by Darrell Huff…a must read for any statisticians). Actually a complete genome comparison of human and chimp DNA has never been done (period)! However the masses are given this impression (the art of persuasion), and yet the details are not clarified.

The very best and most complete study so far as far as I know is Fujiyama, A., Watanabe, H., Toyoda, A., Taylor, T.D., Itoh, T., Tsai, S.F., Park, H.S., Yaspo, M.L., Lehrach, H., Chen, Z., Fu, G., Saitou, N., Osoegawa, K., de Jong, P.J., Suto, Y., Hattori, M., and Sakaki, Y., 2002, ‘Construction and analysis of a Human-Chimpanzee Comparative Clone Map.’ Science 295:131-134 and that study only utilized 19.8 million base pairs. Though this sounds huge, it really is not….it is really quite miniscule. Nothing learned in this study should be generalized as an overall fact.

In addition, in the Britten study (Britten, R.J. 2002. ‘Divergence between samples of chimpanzee and human DNA sequences is 5% counting indels.’ Proceedings National Academy Science 99:13633-13635) the team used only 779,000 base pairs. The study concludes 1.4% of the bases were “substitutions” (meaning completely different, and not actually one thing once that has been “substituted” later), plus they also added the additional number of indels (what can be “interpreted” as insertions or deletions when comparing one genome to another).

But remember, this was what was found using ONLY around 800,000 base pairs. Some indels were small sections being only 1 to 4 nucleotides in length, but others were quite large (even as much as 1000 base pairs long). These additional indels have been added into the alleged “percentile” similarity/difference conclusion changing the figure from 1.8 to 5%. Now multiply that out for the complete genome and the differences are nearing astronomical (but that will come in time). But even when speaking from this limited perspective, as slight as even 5 % may sound, that difference is HUGE.

The Human Haploid Genome contains around 3 BILLION base pairs. Now if we take away the approximate 2,010,000,000 similar pairs (around 67%), that actually contain many differences in function, that leaves 990,000,000 base pairs of which around 1/6th definitely vary, which means there may be around 165,000,000 differences in just these base pairs between humans and chimps. That is just one of the ways to look at it. Another straight forward comparison shows there to be about 120,000,000 base pairs as differing (4% of 3,000,000,000). Again, despite the rhetorical manipulations which make us think we are almost the same, that is a huge number of differences (especially considering THE FACT that we do not even understand the purpose and function of but a few % of the genome itself…see the Encode Project).

As for the near 67% (shared by all species categorized “Primate”) as appearing to be nearly identical (most of which translates into our having blood vessels, skin, a heart pump, a brain and so on), this still does not mean one came from the other….but based on the way we have determined to categorize things this really only means we all fit in that man-determined category…nothing else! Via this section first we are a living creature, then we all are mammals, with hair, and genitalia, feeding our young via mammary glands, and so on, and within that we are all primates. But the Encode project is discovering what was thought to be the same genes function differently and even combine differently in expression.

I would suggest (a personal hypothesis) that we will find these unique combinations and functions will differ from one species to another widening the gap. But that aside, the approximated “5% difference” exists only in the other 33% which means we have an actual difference of about 1/6th of what makes us human as opposed to what makes chimps ape, and that number of differences in the base pairs is still in the millions of differences (most of which we do not even understand at this point, though we are coming along).

Why not just say we have found at least 120,000,000 differences?

When stated like that (just the data)…if we count the number of possible functions and forms possibly effected, IMO it’s like the difference between arithmetic and calculus. The amount of information encoded in over 120 million base pairs is unfathomable. Plus we have barely scraped the surface of what this means. It is actually more information than a whole think tank of genius level scientists could ever contain in 10 lifetimes compared to a think tank with only the knowledge held by any general group of common persons in 10 lifetimes. See the difference? Vast, and incomprehensible, to say the least.

I guess what I would like people to see is how when we look at declared statistics of the very same genomic portrait from a different prospective area of approach, what a different picture we get. What is emphasized…the apparent smallness of numeric representation ”5%” or the reality of over 120,000,000 differences in just this small section of the genome?

Why not loudly announce to the public that we have found at least 120,000,000 differences just in this limited portion of their genomes? I believe because it is counter to the status quo hypothesis...

(more differences to come)

 

[Barbarian]

There are many millions of specific DNA differences between any two humans. While we and chimps only have about 30,000 genes that function, (admittedly with dozens to hundreds of different alleles for each gene locus) there's a lot of noncoding DNA, some or most of which has no function at all. And that tends to vary more because it's not open to natural selection.

Which is why it has no effect on the phylogenies of apes. Other species have many more differences. Here's a very recent study, using the most recent data:

Still somewhat controversial, the genetic data indicate an older divergence for humans and chimps, but with periodic hybridization between the two lines up to as recently as three million years ago. (the two parallel lines on the Human/Chimp clade. That's going to be an interesting issue to sort out.

 

[brother Paul]

1.,2.,3.,4.,5. are clearly all forms of apes (one most certainly an unsuccessful variety of Gorilla) with nothing but "possibly", but "not necessarily", "can be suggested that" and other subjunctive propand-eze type language....and when I hear "homini, homini, homini" all I think of is Jackie Gleason in the Honeymooners....but I am sure they will eventually convince the other members of the club, and most of the gullible masses.

Don't you lust love the way they make up names in Latin or Greek for these monkeys to make people think their conclusions are actually fact based science?

Find it...interpret it via the hypothesis...sell it...and viola', new material for the textbooks to convince innocently inquiring minds....its been a successful brainwashing technique for generations so why get honest?

 

[Barbarian]

1.,2.,3.,4.,5. are clearly all forms of apes

Humans are clearly a form of ape. The question is "which are close to the division of Pan and Homo?"

Don't you lust love the way they make up names in Latin or Greek for these monkeys to make people think their conclusions are actually fact based science?

None of those are monkeys. Do you understand the difference? And of course, the binomial nomenclature was invented by Linnaeus, a creationist. It seems that if you had more facts (like the difference between apes and monkeys) you would be able to evaluate the facts we've presented, more capably.

And as you probably now realize, humans and chimpanzees remain more closely related to each other than either is to any other organism.

 

[brother Paul]

Humans are clearly a form of ape...

Hypothesis based conclusionism! We are both physically primates, but very different creatures....but then we have been around that wheel 1,000 times so we will have to agree to disagree...maybe if God is wrong (which He is not), apes are merely the closest to human that nature could come up with on its own (the earth bringing forth creatures after its kind)...again this new blended re-classification is only the result of hypothesis based redefinition of terms grouping the other two into Hominidae (more propagand-eze)

None of those are monkeys.

I know...I was being a wise guy...sorry....that sometimes is a problem for us Homo Cognitarus

 

[brother Paul]

We have big brains (1100 cc to 1500 cc) they have small brains (300 cc to 600 cc)…

We are bi-pedal and they are knuckle walkers,

We have pronounced chins they have small receded chins,

We have a big toe in line with our other toes and they have opposable or separated big toes, ours for balance and walking, theirs for grasping and other forms of manipulation…

We have very different skeletal structures…

We have rounded craniums and a flatter face, they have a flatter cranium with a pronounced sagittal crest and protruding lower face (better for biting adversaries)…they have a distinctly protruding brow ridge (which varies to a small degree) and we have a far less protruding brow ridge (which varies to a small degree)

The difference in the orbital socket allows us to see laterally for more than any ape but definitely more than chimps (their skull hinders viewing freely to the sides). Our eye sockets are allegedly wider relative to our height than a chimps and in humans the outer margin is recessed much further back.

Chimp teeth demonstrate a need as a weapon and a show of dominance as well as for eating, where humans teeth are smaller, more regular, for eating (and sometimes part of attracting mates)

Our pelvis is properly designed for our distinctly bi-pedal gait, the chimps is longer and narrower for knuckle walking, Humans by nature are bi-pedal except for short bursts of walking on all fours, chimps are arboreal knuckle walkers with short bursts of standing or walking upright.

Our spines are long and straight for energy efficiency and support, the chimps is bent differently and positioned so their heads can jutt forward for walking on all fours,

We exhibit 3 main morphological types (Neanderthal Sapiens, Denisovan Sapiens, and Sapien sapiens) chimps do not demonstrate different morphological types,

Chimp-kind is only found in Africa, while human-kind is found everywhere in the world,

Chimp intelligence is dwarfed compared to even the lowest examples of human intelligence,

Humans live long compared to chimps,

Humans demonstrate things like uniqueness of culture, religion, philosophy, abstract thinking, art, intricate application of symbolic thought, and more, where chimps exhibit none of these things,

We have a covering of fine hairs and theirs are thick, course, fur.

The best of signing chimps only know objects wanted or not wanted, and learn specific phrases taught by conditioning in order to get food, petting, sex, and so on.

Human communication (language) utilizes vocabulary but also syntax. For chimps "give orange me," can mean something totally different than "give me orange" even among different signing chimps. We can condition them to sign “give orange me” to ask for an apple and “give me orange” to say they are tired now….they do not get confused or associate the difference…On the other hand, from a very young age, humans understand this. If your two or three year old asks for some orange and you gave them apple, they would protest or say “No! Orange not apple”…or at least exhibit confusion

We have an innate ability to create new meanings by combining and ordering words in diverse ways. Chimps studied, taught, and even conditioned for years, show no such capacity.

Human children demonstrate the ability (on their own) to vary syntax and express related ideas and concepts (sometimes vert abstract) while even the most mature chimps, trained from birth show no propensity of being able to produce this variance to either communicate with others or even to get their own way.

Cognition scientists have concluded after half a century of research that “chimps” are unable to infer the mental state of another, whether they are happy, sad, angry, interested in some goal, in love, jealous or otherwise, while even 1 and 2 year old humans can do this (see the Project Nim documentary). In addition, even trained “chimps” do not conversate with other individuals though as individuals they do demonstrate some basic emotions (anger, rage, happiness, grief, depression, etc.)

Just some more considerations from Homo Cognitarus...

 

[Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:
Humans are clearly a form of ape...

Hypothesis based conclusionism!

Inference based on evidence. And that's not just modern science. The creationist, Linnaeus admitted that he could find no character to distinguish humans from apes, and he would have done so, if he wasn't afraid of the religious authorities.

We are both physically primates,

In classification, that's what matters. Yes, in addtion to being apes, we also are immortal souls. As C.S. Lewis put it, we are not bodies. We have bodies. We are souls.

...maybe if God is wrong (which He is not), apes are merely the closest to human that nature could come up with on its own (the earth bringing forth creatures after its kind)...

Nature did nothing on its own. It brought forth life, including man, because that is what God created it to do.

Sure, it's humbling. But God loves us. That's why we have immortal souls. Trust Him.

 

[brother Paul]

Inference based on evidence. And that's not just modern science. The creationist, Linnaeus admitted that he could find no character to distinguish humans from apes, and he would have done so, if he wasn't afraid of the religious authorities.

Induction does not demonstrate the truth value of an argument because it is opinion based. And I would be sad for poor Linnaeus if what you say of him is true....just re-read post 16 and that opinion is utterly dismantled.

 

[Barbarian]

We have big brains (1100 cc to 1500 cc) they have small brains (300 cc to 600 cc)…

So did some early human species. Chimps encephalization index...

Turns out to be precisely where you would expect. Remember, they are much smaller than humans, so the absolute numbers have to be factored with their relative size. The same argument used to be used to "prove" women weren't as smart as men.

We are bi-pedal and they are knuckle walkers,

They are also bipedal when they choose to be, such as when they are carrying things.

We have pronounced chins they have small receded chins,

By that measure, Neandertals aren't human.

]We have very different skeletal structures…

Pretty close to perfectly homologous. Even down to erector pili muscles (this is not what you probably think it is). We no longer need those, but we still have them. Chimps use them for threat displays.

We have rounded craniums and a flatter face, they have a flatter cranium with a pronounced sagittal crest and protruding lower face (better for biting adversaries)…they have a distinctly protruding brow ridge (which varies to a small degree) and we have a far less protruding brow ridge (which varies to a small degree)

Neandertals again. You think they aren't human?

The difference in the orbital socket allows us to see laterally for more than any ape but definitely more than chimps (their skull hinders viewing freely to the sides). Our eye sockets are allegedly wider relative to our height than a chimps and in humans the outer margin is recessed much further back.

We exhibit 3 main morphological types (Neanderthal Sapiens, Denisovan Sapiens, and Sapien sapiens)

When you use those for actual taxonomic names, you don't capitalize them.

chimps do not demonstrate different morphological types,

Two actually. The forest/savanna chimps, and bonobos.

Chimp intelligence is dwarfed compared to even the lowest examples of human intelligence,

In most respects. They have better cognitive memory than we do.
Young chimps apparently have an extraordinary ability to remember numerals and recall them even better than human adults do.


Although researchers have extensively studied chimpanzee memory in the past, the general assumption has been that it is inferior to that of humans, as with many other mental functions.


"There are still many people, including many biologists, who believe that humans are superior to chimpanzees in all cognitive functions," said researcher Tetsuro Matsuzawa, director of the Primate Research Institute of Kyoto University in Japan. "No one can imagine that chimpanzees—young chimpanzees at the age of 5—have a better performance in a memory task than humans."
http://www.livescience.com/7444-chimps-numbers-humans.html

The best of signing chimps only know objects wanted or not wanted, and learn specific phrases taught by conditioning in order to get food, petting, sex, and so on.

They are capable of making new words to fit new things, and of course, they are able to infer mental states in others, which allows them to lie.

Some problems were simple, involving inaccessible food – bananas vertically or horizontally out of reach, behind a box, and so forth – as in the original Kohler problems; others were more complex, involving an actor unable to extricate himself from a locked cage, shivering because of a malfunctioning heater, or unable to play a phonograph because it was unplugged. With each videotape the chimpanzee was given several photographs, one a solution to the problem, such as a stick for the inaccessible bananas, a key for the locked up actor, a lit wick for the malfunctioning heater. The chimpanzee's consistent choice of the correct photographs can be understood by assuming that the animal recognized the videotape as representing a problem, understood the actor's purpose, and chose alternatives compatible with that purpose.
http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?fromPage=online&aid=7131588

Like most people, Koko has good behaviors and bad behaviors. Like most people, she takes credit for the good behaviors and blames the bad ones on someone else.

The cat came in handy on one particularly destructive day. When no one was around, Koko managed to rip a sink out of the wall in her habitat. When the humans returned, they asked Koko who ripped out the sink.

Koko signed, "The cat did it."
http://www.naturalnews.com/038743_primates_liars_gorilla.html

Patterson also reports that she has documented Koko inventing new signs to communicate novel thoughts. For example, she says that nobody taught Koko the word for "ring", but to refer to it, Koko combined the words "finger" and "bracelet", hence "finger-bracelet"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Koko_(gorilla)

We have an innate ability to create new meanings by combining and ordering words in diverse ways. Chimps studied, taught, and even conditioned for years, show no such capacity.

One claim was that upon seeing a swan, Washoe signed "water" and "bird". Harvard psychologist Roger Brown said that "was like getting an S.O.S. from outer space".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washoe_(chimpanzee)

Cognition scientists have concluded after half a century of research that “chimps” are unable to infer the mental state of another, whether they are happy, sad, angry, interested in some goal, in love, jealous or otherwise, while even 1 and 2 year old humans can do this (see the Project Nim documentary).

See above. The evidence is quite clear. One does not lie without inferring that some other has a mental state.

 

[brother Paul]

chimps do not demonstrate different morphological types,
two actually. The forest/savanna chimps, and bonobos.

Once considered nothing more than a pygmy or gracile “chimpanzee”, the terminology was merely changed to indicate they are two different types (which you are categorizing as different “morphological types”), but this is nothing more than like saying human dwarfs or pygmies constitute different “species” of Homo-Sapien (not that they really do).

So on the one hand it can be said they are a different “morphological types”, but not really…it again is an extension of an original definition so one can do the “bait and switch” like has been done to the word “species”, “theory”, “evolution” and so on. These terms can have more than one meaning now, so when used in one sense in the same discussion, a person can jump to and infer a different meaning as is convenient to their argument.

This is a common logic fallacy called “the fallacy of equivocation” where one can shift the meaning of a word within an argument. Usually that catches the person responded to off guard and the speaker may not even realize they did this but it is one the common unintentional errors made in discussions like this.

"There are still many people, including many biologists, who believe that humans are superior to chimpanzees in all cognitive functions," said researcher Tetsuro Matsuzawa, director of the Primate Research Institute of Kyoto University in Japan. "No one can imagine that chimpanzees—young chimpanzees at the age of 5—have a better performance in a memory task than humans."

This one is interesting to me (and further exploration may change my mind) and may have indications of better memory, but there are unrevealed factors in this article. The chimps were motivated by getting food or not getting food (a non-motivator for humans) which is a very powerful conditioning tool in chimps. Once the right sequence was discovered, rewarded, and repeated they were more consistent, but that does not really implicate a high level of intelligence just the ability to perform a conditioned task more accurately. Why? Because success represented something significant from necessity. I believe one can do this with a 5 year old human more successfully than with an adult as well (but in society it would or could be considered a form of abuse….like the Skinner box experiments on his later very neurotic daughter). Human adults have a ton of stuff occupying their minds at any given moment but perhaps with some motivation they associated with real and necessary survival or pleasure they would perform as well.

The Koko experiment

First note the subjunctive mood in the phrase “can be understood by assuming” and on this one occasion she signed “the cat” but this still COULD HAVE BEEN (now I am using the same type of thinking so if acceptable for them it should also be acceptable for me) a learned response.

On previous occasions bad behavior got punished or deprived, good behavior got rewarded and this eventually was an attempt to escape deprived/punished and gain reward.

Patterson also reports that she has documented Koko inventing new signs to communicate novel thoughts. For example, she says that nobody taught Koko the word for "ring", but to refer to it, Koko combined the words "finger" and "bracelet", hence "finger-bracelet"

Now this one was compelling. I really like this one…thanks! But note that this is a gorilla not a chimp (and that is our subject of comparison)!!! You must be careful for the fallacy of equivocation.

And as for Washoe she just as likely could have been signing water and bird as separate observations of the same event knowing the sign for each…calling the water “water”, and the Swan “bird”, does not mean she thought “wow, a water-bird”….might have, could have but DID????....The researcher mommy/daddy could have been implementing their own hopefulness that such a thing was true…out of all the 100 or so signing chimps we would have to see more to draw any conclusions….

A cunning technique of propaganda (used intentionally by politicians) is trying to make a possible exception appear to be the rule and the rule appear to be the exception. However in this case it may not even have been a legitimate exception….

See above. The evidence is quite clear. One does not lie without inferring that some other has a mental state.

No! Not even close…and also one can lie void of consideration of anyone else’s mental state (the conclusion does not follow the evidence)…there are many reasons one may lie (food, sex, survival, and so on)...they can also lie simply to gain some advantage (pure selfish nature)