ArtsAutosBooksBusinessEducationEntertainmentFamilyFashionFoodGamesGenderHealthHolidaysHomeHubPagesPersonal FinancePetsPoliticsReligionSportsTechnologyTravel

The Human Difference: Chimpanzees and Bonobos - Men and Women

Updated on February 3, 2015


Front Cover - 'Bonobo: The Forgotten Ape' by B. M. de Waal Frans + Frans Lanting (Amazon)
Front Cover - 'Bonobo: The Forgotten Ape' by B. M. de Waal Frans + Frans Lanting (Amazon)

Like Chimps ~ But Not That Much Like Chimps.

Although I accept evolution as true, there is something that has been bothering me for some time.

I know that, genetically, we humans are more closely related to chimpanzees, than chimps are to gorillas, but that fact certainly is not obvious to the beholder.

Most people can see a strong resemblance between chimps, bonobos, orang utans, gorillas, baboons, monkeys, etc, and even something of a resemblance with humans, but most people would assume that it is the hairy apes and monkeys that would be more closely related ~ not the 'naked ape' (as Desmond Morris calls humans).

Why is it, I keep wondering, that humans seem so different from the other apes, in spite of the closeness in DNA?

Why do gorillas look more like chimps than we do, even though they are more distantly related?

What is the human difference ~ and what causes it?

* * * * * *

Naked Ape

The Naked Ape: A Zoologist's Study of the Human Animal
The Naked Ape: A Zoologist's Study of the Human Animal

Author: Desmond Morris.

Published by Delta ~ April 13, 1999


And it is not just in looks!

The major difference is probably brain use and brain power ~ the way we think and what we can learn.

Is it true that this is where God comes into the equation?

Or aliens, even ~ as some people believe?

Monkeys Look More Like Chimps Than Humans Do!?

Book Covers
Book Covers

Earlier Humans

DK Eyewitness Books: Early Humans
DK Eyewitness Books: Early Humans

Published by DK CHILDREN ~ April 11, 2005


Go Ask the Chimps!

After a book presentation on genetics ~ during question time ~ I once asked a well-known and respected geneticist a question which had long been gnawing at me;

~ why was it, that, though we are more closely related to chimps than chimps are to gorillas, chimps still look closer to gorillas and we seem very different.

His answer?

'Why don't you go ask the chimps!'

That was when I started to realise that the experts didn't know the answer, either!

Chimpanzee and Bonobo - Our Closest Cousins

See: +
See: + | Source

DNA Similarities and DNA Differences

I watched a documentary on evolution, which included coverage of this subject. It was called 'What Darwin Never Knew'' and it was shown in Darwin’s anniversary week (Feb 2011).

I hoped to get some answers.


So what does make humans different?

Is it that we have more genes than any other creature?

(I understand that many people thought that this must be the case ~ including scientists)

But no!

According to the documentary, we have the same number of genes as a chicken, and fewer than a maize / corn plant.


Are these genes very different, then, from those in other animals?

It appears not.

Many were identical in humans and in other creatures.

These results may not be the ones expected, so what is the answer to the puzzle?

It’s not the number of genes, or the mutations in these genes ~ so what causes ‘the human difference’?

It seems that the answer lies in the parts of the DNA not classified as ‘genes’.

So what can be found in our DNA?

There are genes, switches and bodyplan DNA.

And these three types could explain the difference between us humans and other animals ~ including our closest relatives, the chimps

The Evolution of Mankind?

Out of copyright
Out of copyright | Source

99% Similarity : 1% Difference

Our closest relatives are the chimpanzees and the bonobos. We share approximately (slightly less than) 99% of our DNA. That is a very close relationship!

Yet we are noticeably different.

In spite of their obvious talents, chimpanzees do not do what we do. They do not study astronomy, or build rockets to explore outer space. They do not join Internet forums, in order to discuss religion and philosophy. They do not write symphonies or choreograph ballets.

They are very able, though. We must not under-estimate them. They can use tools. They can learn to communicate via sign language. They have even beaten humans in an IQ test.

But they are not human ~ not quite. There are subtle but very real differences.


What causes those difference?

Our DNA may be 99% similar, but it is 1% different. And that difference may be very important!

Some of Frans De Waal's Books:

Front Covers (Amazon)
Front Covers (Amazon)

Frans De Waal

"One can take the ape out of the jungle, but not the jungle out of the ape. ~ This also applies to us bipedal apes."

Frans De Waal ~ 'Our Inner Ape: A Leading Primatologist Explains Why We Are Who We Are'

A quote from Frans De Waal, on Amazon:

"For me, there is nothing more logical than to look at human society through the lens of animal behavior."

Website of Frans De Waal:

Geladas - Old World Monkeys

Copyright Tricia Mason
Copyright Tricia Mason

DNA - The Double Helix

See: | Source

The One Per Cent

One percent sounds like a trifling amount, but, when we are talking about 1% of the DNA in our bodies, it is no small figure. Indeed, 1% means about 30 million DNA letters.

In 30,000,000 letters of DNA, there could be many substantial differences. Have any been found?

According to the TV programme, 'What Darwin Never Knew', researchers have actually found thirteen places, where human DNA differs from chimpanzee DNA.

When they tried one of the different types of DNA in a mouse, to see what effects it might have, the scientists discovered that it was 'active all over the place', but one specific position was in the paw ~ in the areas of the thumbs and big toes.

Humans have thumbs which can touch each of the other digits separately, easily and with strength ~ thus enabling humans to be exceptionally dexterous in this respect. Other apes have useful thumbs, but not to this extent.

Although genes decide our traits, it is not gene DNA which actually causes humans to have such useful thumbs, but switch DNA. Switch DNA can 'turn genes on and off'. But what 'tells' this DNA to flick its 'switch'? It is another type of DNA, which has been labelled 'bodyplan'.

Primate Hands and feet

Out of copyright
Out of copyright | Source

The Human Brain

Humans have a larger brain than other animals ~ including their primate relatives.

Why is that? How has this feature come about?

Researcher, Hansell Stedman, has made an interesting discovery.

As part of his research into Muscular Dystrophy, he was studying the genes which made muscles ~ and, he found that, in humans, there was something not quite right.

In one gene, he discovered a mutation. Compared to other animals, there were 'two letters missing'.

Such a mutation might be expected to cause damage to the individual, yet it was one that all humans had, without any apparent muscle disease.

Stedman looked at the same gene in apes, and found that all four letters were in place. It was the same as any other muscle-making gene.

What muscle did this gene govern? Stedman found that, in apes, it made muscle for chewing, and for closing the jaw.

The lack of the two gene letters in this area, in humans, means that we humans chew with much less force than do apes.

Stedman concluded that this difference would also have another ~ very important ~ effect. He decided that the less powerful jaw muscle, in humans, could affect the evolution of the human brain.

How could this be?

The ape head, with its very strong large jaw muscles, is different from the human head. Ape skull plates fuse much earlier than human skull plates ~ at about 3-4 years in an ape, but at about 30 years in a human.

The result is that the human brain has more growing space, over a much longer period of time. As far as brain power is concerned ~ bigger seems to be much better!

This is another important area, where DNA, which is the same in other species, is very different in humans.


Source: Documentary 'What Darwin Never Knew'.


Our Primate Relatives

Book Covers
Book Covers

More on Jaws

In April 2009, someone named Geoff posted some information to the Internet,about jaws and evolution, asking: 'what if our diets changed and our brains got bigger due to proto-human society dealing and adapting to an increasingly frequent and nearly catastrophic mutation of the jaw?'

This is a reference to the mutation discovered by Stedman.

This is how 'Geoff' explains it:

"There is a protein called myosin heavy chain 16 (aka MYH16) which in chimpanzees and other non-human primates is expressed almost exclusively in their powerful jaw muscles. ........

" ... Non-human primates have DNA that codes for the complete MYH16 protein. The corresponding part of human DNA is missing a random chunk – which causes a frameshift mutation." ...

"... a frameshift mutation occurred in early humans that affected the production of the protein MYH16. This protein is involved in the strong powerful jaws that primates have, but not humans."

* * * *

The original source ~ G Milburn on 'Human Evolution and Frameshift Mutations' ~ is not currently available at the original web address.


And Yet More On Jaws

This is from an article in 'The Guardian', by Timothy Taylor, re Peter Forbes.

"After the switch to an upright posture, probably the biggest single anatomical change on the journey from apes to humans was the weakening of the jaw ... and that weakened jaw enabled a raft of innovations."

It continues, that "The ape brain could not grow because of the huge muscle load anchored to the skull's crest, and apes cannot articulate speech-like sounds because of the clumsy force of their jaws. This mutation allowed the increase in human brain size and the acquisition of language".

How and why should such a mutation occur?

The article gives an explanation from Richard Wrangham, as explained in his book 'Catching Fire'.

What is that explanation?

'Wrangham maintains that it was cooking that led to the change. Cooked food does not need strong jaws. In genetics a function that becomes redundant always leads to the gene being disabled by mutations. Around 2.4m years ago an ape switched to mostly cooked food. In the fossil record, a new proto-human appeared 1.8-1.9m years ago: Homo erectus had a much larger brain and no crest on the skull, indicating that the weakened jaw muscle was now standard.'


Was it cooking that led to man?

Steve Jones has reviewed Wrangham's book and mentions 'claims that cooking led to our leaving the trees, to sex roles, to marriage, to emotional restraint, to consciousness, and to society itself ..', adding 'Anthropologists have a fatal tendency to decide, without much evidence, what made us human ...'

Jones notes:

'Homo sapiens is the culinary primate. Compared to apes, we are gutless; small mouths, weak jaws, modest stomachs and a large intestine only half the size of that of our relatives. Cooking means that food is in part digested before it gets into our mouths.'

'Primates with smaller guts have larger brains (and brains are expensive), and ours is the smallest of all, probably because cooking liberated our intestines from a large part of the drudgery of digestion. The spare energy went straight to our heads.'

But he maintains: 'The problem with making grand theories about the past is that they often rest on too few facts'.


What Darwin Never Knew - Plus Related Items

Katie Pollard's Research

Katie Pollard is one scientist who has been studying DNA and brain evolution and she has found that more than half of 'switch' differences are 'near to a gene involved with the brain', including a gene affecting the cortex ~ the area of the brain concerned with music, language, mathematics, etc.

She found that 'small changes could have profound effects'.

Katie Pollard on the differences between humans and chimpanzees:

"... our DNA blueprints are nearly 99 percent identical to theirs. That is, of the three billion letters that make up the human genome, only 15 million of them—less than 1 percent—have changed in the six million years or so since the human and chimp lineages diverged. ....... somewhere among those roughly 15 million bases lay the differences that made us human."


In the documentary, 'What Darwin Never Knew', Katie Pollard mentioned 'a massive mutation' ~ and it concerned the human brain cortex.

Scientists had found an area of DNA, related to development of the cortex, where there was a difference of 18 letters (18 base pairs) between chimpanzees and humans.

To put this into context, there was a difference of only two letters (2 base pairs) between chickens and chimpanzees, whose ancestors had branched apart 300,000,000 years ago, and which are nowhere near as closely related to each other as humans and chimps are. The ancestors of chimps and humans branched apart only 6,000,000 years ago, so these changes must have occurred relatively quickly and relatively recently.

Thus, in humans, it seemed that there were areas, where there had been unusually accelerated change. Since the documentary was made, these regions have been named 'Human Accelerated Regions' ~ or HARs. It seems that these are often 'switches' which have resulted in 'rapid, recent evolution'.

There are forty-nine HARs, but HAR1 concerns brain and neurological development and may help to explain 'the human difference'.

It has been suggested that HAR1 may be evidence of creation, rather than evolution, but scientists assure us that this is, in fact, evolution in action.

* * *


What Darwin Never Knew

Wikipedia Quote

"Human accelerated regions (HARs), first described in August 2006, are a set of 49 segments of the human genome which are conserved throughout vertebrate evolution but are strikingly different in humans."

'The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind' - Julian Jaynes

"The Human Brain Sets Man Apart"

"The human brain sets man apart. About 2m years ago it began to grow in size, and today it is about three times larger than that of chimpanzees, man's closest relative.

"Human intelligence and behavioural complexity have far outstripped those of its simian cousins, so the human brain seems to have got more complex, as well as bigger."

From: 'Man, Deconstructed' ~ published in 'The Economist', August 17th 2006, and quoted here:

More Genes, DNA and Darwin

Two Million Years Ago

So, humans and apes branched six million years ago and human brains started to grow two million years ago.

What else was happening to humans two million years ago??

According to a headline in Science Daily, dated October 21st 2009, 'Tool-Making Human Ancestors Inhabited Grassland Environments Two Million Years Ago'.

Is this relevant to the brain changes, I wonder?

The article states that: 'Dr Thomas Plummer of Queens College at the City University of New York, Dr Richard Potts of the Smithsonian Institution National Museum of Natural History and colleagues report the oldest archeological evidence of early human activities in a grassland environment, dating to 2 million years ago' ~ 'at 'Oldowan archeological site of Kanjera South, Kenya'.

The article notes that: 'scientists as far back as Charles Darwin have thought that adaptation to grassland environments profoundly influenced the course of human evolution'.


According to Wikipedia, it is '2.5 million years since the appearance of the genus Homo'.

Front Covers
Front Covers

Book: 'From Monkey Brain to Human Brain'

This looks like a quality book, from a reliable source, which can educate us on the subject of the human - chimanzee difference.

'From Monkey Brain to Human Brain' is also sub-titled: 'A Fyssen Foundation Symposium'. It is edited by Stanislas Dehaene, Jean-Rene Duhamel, Marc D. Hauser and Giacomo Rizzolatti and was published in June 2005, by the MIT Press. (418 pages)

Amazon quotes from a review by Michael Posner. Posner, Professor Emeritus in Oregon University's Department of Psychology, calls it an 'amazing volume' and states that it 'modernizes Darwin by showing how closely the human and monkey brain are linked in morphology and genetics'.

Amazon quotes from a review by Guy A. Orban, Professor of Neurophysiology at Belgium's Catholic University Leuven Medical School. He refers to it as a 'remarkable volume', stating that it illustrates 'the striking similarities between our brain and that of our smaller cousins, even for higher cognitive functions'.

Amazon's 'Product Description' notes that 'The extraordinary overlap between human and chimpanzee genomes does not result in an equal overlap between human and chimpanzee thoughts, sensations, perceptions, and emotions' ~ in spite of the 'considerable similarities' there are also 'considerable differences'.

(The Fyssen Foundation encourages 'scientific inquiry into the cognitive mechanisms that underlie animal and human behavior'. )
If you go to Amazon, there is a facility to 'look inside' this book, in order to examine its contents.

Book: What it Means to be 98% Chimpanzee

This book looks as if it could be really thought-provoking!

'What it Means to be 98% Chimpanzee: Apes, People, and their Genes' by Jonathan Marks.

Published byUniversity of California Press ~ 1st edition, December 2002. (312 pages)

Amazon provides some reviews for this book, including one from the 'New England Journal of Medicine'. This one begins: 'Do not be deceived by the title of this book. ... being 98 percent chimpanzee means nothing: despite all similarities, chimps are chimps, and humans are humans'.

The writer, Guido Barbujani, adds: 'We have largely the same genes as chimpanzees, and these genes do the same things in much of our bodies, but in the brain, the patterns of gene expression diverge dramatically. ..... what it means to be human is a fantastically complex question .....'

The following is an extract from an Amazon review from 'Booklist': 'Humans share about 98 percent of our genetic makeup with chimps, which would be impressive ... if we could figure out what it means. We also share about half our genes with fish and about a third with daffodils, but almost no one argues that anything can be learned from fish and flowers about human behavior


Other books by Marks:

'Human Biodiversity: Genes, Race, and History'

'Why I Am Not a Scientist: Anthropology and Modern Knowledge'

'The Alternative Introduction to Biological Anthropology'

The Role of God?

I can certainly understand why Christians see 'the human difference' and believe that God must be behind it, but which humans first displayed this difference?

~ Was it Homo erectus / ergaster?

Is that the species to which Biblical Adam and Eve were supposed to belong?

And genetics show that we are closely related to chimpanzees, so logic would tell us that, if God were involved, then it would have been to breathe special life into a type of ape, rather than to mould Adam out of the red earth.

To me, it seems logical and true that humans evolved from apes, but I still think that there is something of a mystery in our past and, indeed, many scientists are concentrating on researching the evolution and development of the human brain ~ which should answer many questions.

Ancient Aliens?

How did humans change from only having basic animal-like awareness to having complex human awareness?

Did advanced aliens come to earth in ancient times and cause mutations in the primitive apes, thus turning them into ... us?

Some people believe this theory to be true.

Some believe that there are items in the Bible which support it.

Here is an example from 'The Book of Genesis':

Genesis 6:1-4 (New International Version, ©2010)

'When human beings began to increase in number on the earth and daughters were born to them, the sons of God saw that the daughters of humans were beautiful, and they married any of them they chose. ......

'The Nephilim were on the earth in those days ~ and also afterward ~ when the sons of God went to the daughters of humans and had children by them. They were the heroes of old, men of renown.'

Self Awareness

Self-awareness goes with intelligence.

Dolphins and elephants recognise themselves in mirrors from a quite young age and show a strong interest in their reflections.

Their behaviour with mirrors is much like our own.

And there are almost unbelievable claims that elephants can paint self-portraits!

Can those stories really be genuine?! Is it just good training?

Certainly, though humans may seem to be exceptionally aware and intellectual, we are not the only intelligent animals!

So, presumably, we did not need aliens to make us intelligent and aware.


Conclusion - Do I Have My Answers?

No-one has all of the answers regarding the human difference. No-one really knows everything about this for sure.

Are we different, because we started cooking our food?

Is it because our brains can grow so large, owing to us not having very strong jaw muscles?

Is the difference somehow related to us moving onto the grasslands?

Is our HAR1 DNA responsible for all of the intellectual differences between us and the chimpanzees?

Is our ability to use our thumbs so dexterously behind our advanced intelligence?

Is it a combination of these factors?

Certainly they seem to go a long way towards explaining the important differences between humans and apes ~ including our closest relatives, the chimps.

Chimpanzee and human genes are very similar, but, in other parts of our DNA, there are major differences. Some differences have affected our thumbs, some have affected our jaws, and, consequently, our heads ~ and HAR1 DNA seems to have caused 18 base pair differences between humans and chimps.

So it is important to remember that, though our DNA is very, very similar to that of chimpanzees, it is definitely not identical ~ and it is the differences which cause the difference.

And the research goes on ...

Copyright Tricia Mason. All rights reserved


I am not a scientist and may well have made some errors. If so, do please excuse them ~ and let me know. That would be much appreciated. Thanks.

Clever Chimps!?

The Making of Mankind - Leakey

Front Cover
Front Cover

Bonobo - Cousin to Humans

See: | Source

Human-Like Gorilla

Bonobo Behaviour - Human-Like?


    0 of 8192 characters used
    Post Comment
    • Trish_M profile imageAUTHOR

      Tricia Mason 

      4 years ago from The English Midlands

      Hello Tsadjatko,

      I am sorry not to have replied to your comment before. I only just found it.

      I agree that one should be very careful to double-check any information one discovers in magazines or online, etc, but some articles are more reliable than others and this research, described in 'Nature', seems as reliable as anything available:

      'Bonobo's genetic code laid bare' By Jonathan Amos, Science correspondent, BBC News. 13 June 2012

      'Scientists have decoded the bonobo genome ... It is the last great ape to have its DNA sequence laid bare, following the chimpanzee, orang-utan and gorilla. ... The sequencing and analysis work is reported in the journal Nature.'

      "On average, the two alleles in single-copy, autosomal regions in the Ulindi [a female bonobo] genome are approximately 99.9% identical to each other, 99.6% identical to corresponding sequences in the chimpanzee genome and 98.7% identical to corresponding sequences in the human genome."

      From: /'The bonobo genome compared with the chimpanzee and human genomes'

      Nature 486. Published online 13 June 2012

      A website which calls itself '' is self-evidently biased against the science of evolution so I would not take that more seriously than a scientific publication.

      I think that it is very clear that bonobos are closely related to humans.

    • tsadjatko profile image

      4 years ago from now on

      About the similarities in chimp and human DNA, I found this to be especially enlightening,

      how in the article published by the American Association for the Advancement of Science which states about only a 1% difference (a claim that goes back to 1975), the chimp genome was not built from scratch. Small pieces of the chimp DNA were first sequenced; that is, the order of the chemical letters was determined using chemical procedures in laboratories. These small strings of ‘letters’ were then aligned with the human genome in the places the evolutionists thought they should go (using computers to compare and place the segments). Then the human genome was removed, leaving a pseudo-chimp genome that assumed common ancestry (evolution), creating a mongrel sequence that is not real. The assumption of evolution in constructing the chimp genome in this way would make it look more like the human genome than it really is. But even with this evolutionary bias, the actual differences are much bigger than 1%.

      You can never take so called "scientific" conclusions as fact especially as reported in the media because when you actually examine the science used the assumptions made, frankly the facts you often discover it is not really science at all.

    • Trish_M profile imageAUTHOR

      Tricia Mason 

      6 years ago from The English Midlands

      Thank you, osaeoppongde. I have had a look at your items. Very interesting! :)

    • osaeoppongde profile image

      Deborah L. Osae-Oppong 

      6 years ago from Chicago, IL

      Great post! Thanks for sharing! The field of bioinformatics is greatly advancing this research in this subject area!

    • Trish_M profile imageAUTHOR

      Tricia Mason 

      7 years ago from The English Midlands

      Hello Whowas :)

      Thank you very much, indeed, for reading my hub ~ and for your very kind words! Much appreciated.

      There are quite a few very interesting items about evolution on HubPages, but perhaps you are correct about evolutionists being in the minority :)

      Thanks again!

    • profile image


      7 years ago

      Superb hub. Excellent research, clear succinct prose and style, beautifully presented. It's so refreshing to read another evolutionist on hubpages! I was beginning to think that I was in a very, very tiny minority here. This is such a beautiful piece of work, too. I am full of admiration.

      I find the natural explanation entirely satisfactory and I think that many of the differences that we perceive as being so great from within our necessarily human perspective might not really be so by other measures. There is no doubt about the storyline of our evolution, all that remains now is to fill in some of the details.

      A great hub, all the accolades, voted up, facebooked and tweeted. This hub deserves much more attention than it has got so far.

      Thank you!

    • Trish_M profile imageAUTHOR

      Tricia Mason 

      8 years ago from The English Midlands

      Hi Dude :)

      Thanks for reading and commenting ~ and thank you for the link!

      Interesting thoughts.

      If we continue to eat and drink the rubbish that many of us choose to put into our bodies at the moment, then one has to wonder if evolution could go into reverse!

    • profile image


      8 years ago

      interesting article from a non-scientist :)

      YES, the docs also don't know it all.

      but they often act like it. frustrating others.

      But just the fact, that the brain would have space to grow, does not mean it will.

      So 2.4m years ago apes were able to use fire?

      All because of a cooking accident, we were able to building nuclear bombs?

      When meat fell into a fire…. and was not thrown away… but "tried" and found "good"?

      And now recently we abandoned cooking and invented "fast-food".

      Will it make our brains grow even more? (brain is fat, so yes?)

      Will fast-food make mankind even more intelligent? (cook less, study more?)

      Or will sophisticated cooking foster more intelligent chidlren?

      Sounds somewhat logical.

      I often tend to believe, we are far less intelligent than we think, humans in crowds often act not more intelligent than a bunch of bacteria... consume, consume, consume until there is nothing left to consume.

      i have posted some follow up thoughts here:

    • Trish_M profile imageAUTHOR

      Tricia Mason 

      8 years ago from The English Midlands

      Hello Anton :)

      Yes, I can see your logic, but, sadly, a lot of Christian fundamentalists would say that you had been led astray by the devil :) :)

    • profile image


      8 years ago

      I think 'allegory' is the word you are aiming at (?)

      Personally, I believe the bible is mostly allegory. (can you imagine the damage to the earth if the sun stood still as in Joshua?"

      The writers of the bible were not unintelligent, but I think they were trying to explain the universe before the adoption of scientific method. I'm fairly positive they didn't get most of it literally correct, even if they were devinely inspired. (shucks, my wife and I sometimes have difficulty understanding each other, and we have an awful lot in common):)

      One of my favourite notions was something I had seen on a science program (sorry, I don't remember the name) about genetics. They took the first line of the gospel of John "In the beginning was the word. . ." and said something like: "The bible is correct. That word is 'gattaca'" which is the acronym for all the proteins in the correct order for the human genome.

      And a last thought (not all mine, but I like it)

      The truth doesn't care what I believe. It has no mercy. It will always be right.


    • Trish_M profile imageAUTHOR

      Tricia Mason 

      8 years ago from The English Midlands

      Hello Anton :)

      Thanks for commenting :)

      Yes, I mentioned, in my other hub on evolution, that God and evolution might be compatible. That is why so many Christians feel that they can accept evolution.

      However, a lot of Christians simply will not accept this possibility at all ~ and, of course, a lot of atheists will not accept it, either.

      I do not know enough to say, for sure, but, personally, I find the Genesis story unbelievable, except as, possibly, an analogy (not sure if that is exactly the right word???).

    • profile image


      8 years ago

      I like your exploration of the idea, but would like to propose a possibility for the 'Adam from dust vs. Adam from ape' hyposthesis.

      The creator made the life, the genome and evolution as the mechanism for creating a soul. A soul is a delicate and complex entity requiring. Having done so and observing the result, humans were created by manipulating the existing genome, and creating an organic matrix to grow it in (from 'dust'), thus creating humans.

      Scientists are trying to this even now: creating life out of chemicals and there is some evidence that they will one day succeed.

      I doubt that the real thing is anything like this simple, but if I can imagine a way that both genesis and origin of species can be compatable, surely the mind of the infinite can also.

      Just a thought.

    • Trish_M profile imageAUTHOR

      Tricia Mason 

      8 years ago from The English Midlands

      Hi Cascoly :)


      Glad you enjoyed it :)

    • cascoly profile image


      8 years ago from seattle

      Great hub, well researched, and plenty of links for us to follow up

    • Trish_M profile imageAUTHOR

      Tricia Mason 

      8 years ago from The English Midlands

      Hello John

      Thank you for your comment :)

      Actually, humans did not evolve from chimps; both chimps and humans evolved from a common ancestral 'ape'.

      But, even if they had evolved from chimps, that would not necessarily mean that chimps would have become extinct.

      After all, dogs are descended from wolves ~ but wolves still exist.

      Thanks for commenting :)

    • profile image

      John MacNab 

      8 years ago

      A powerful thought provoking hub, Trish. I believe that if humans evolved from chimps there would be no chimps.

    • Trish_M profile imageAUTHOR

      Tricia Mason 

      8 years ago from The English Midlands

      Thank you, Mrs JB ~ I'm very pleased that you enjoyed it :)

    • Mrs. J. B. profile image

      Mrs. J. B. 

      8 years ago from Southern California

      WOW!!!!! This hub was so interesting, educational and I just loved it.....

    • Trish_M profile imageAUTHOR

      Tricia Mason 

      8 years ago from The English Midlands

      Thanks Baileybear

      Good idea ~ I'll give it some thought :)

    • profile image


      8 years ago

      People that don't believe humans can be as hairy as apes just need to look at those that have the genetic throwback 'werewolf syndrome' - very hairy, including face, including women.

      Educational hub.

      I liked your wolf/poodle analogy in THAT hub - maybe could tease that out into a hub & explain in plain english for non-scientists to understand?

    • Trish_M profile imageAUTHOR

      Tricia Mason 

      8 years ago from The English Midlands

      Thanks to all three of you for reading and commenting ~ much appreciated :)

    • Trish_M profile imageAUTHOR

      Tricia Mason 

      8 years ago from The English Midlands

      Hi Diogenes :)

      Thank you for your positive comments :)

      I wasn't aware of any disagreement re the human ~ great ape genetic relationship. And I think that there is enough fossil evidence to support relationships and ancestry as put forward by evolutionists.

      Could you give me some examples of what you mean, please, so that I can look into this further. Thanks :)

    • Trish_M profile imageAUTHOR

      Tricia Mason 

      8 years ago from The English Midlands

      Barbara ~

      Hello and thank you. That's very kind. :)

      I respect your opinions, but I do think that there is enough evidence for me to accept evolution ~ I have written more about this in my earlier hub on the subject.

      But I'm glad that you enjoyed reading this :)

    • Trish_M profile imageAUTHOR

      Tricia Mason 

      8 years ago from The English Midlands

      Hello Alex,

      Thank you for your comments!!! :)

      You may be right about sharks; I don't know ~ but nothing would surprise me :)

    • diogenes profile image


      8 years ago from UK and Mexico

      Excellent, well-researched and provoking article. One would need to write another hub to even address the the arguments you have raised. Geneticsts still seem to disagree on the human-chimp-gorilla gene question. What might help is to find a fossil of the forerunner of the great apes which includes us. None have been found so far as I expect you know. Really first class work...Bob Up and awesome

    • Barbara Kay profile image

      Barbara Badder 

      8 years ago from USA

      This was an interesting article. I still believe in creation though, because everything is too complex to have just happened. I think man started as man, but has evolved because of his environment. This will be a question everyone has forever.

      You did an excellent job on this hub.

    • alexfantastico profile image


      8 years ago from Victoria, Australia

      Brilliant hub. Very impressive and enjoyable to read.

      I think I read somewhere that we are more closely related to sharks than sharks are to other fish?? If I remember correctly and that's true, then outward appearance and closeness of relations don't always correlate, as evident with chimps, gorillas and humans.


    This website uses cookies

    As a user in the EEA, your approval is needed on a few things. To provide a better website experience, uses cookies (and other similar technologies) and may collect, process, and share personal data. Please choose which areas of our service you consent to our doing so.

    For more information on managing or withdrawing consents and how we handle data, visit our Privacy Policy at:

    Show Details
    HubPages Device IDThis is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.
    LoginThis is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.
    Google RecaptchaThis is used to prevent bots and spam. (Privacy Policy)
    AkismetThis is used to detect comment spam. (Privacy Policy)
    HubPages Google AnalyticsThis is used to provide data on traffic to our website, all personally identifyable data is anonymized. (Privacy Policy)
    HubPages Traffic PixelThis is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.
    Amazon Web ServicesThis is a cloud services platform that we used to host our service. (Privacy Policy)
    CloudflareThis is a cloud CDN service that we use to efficiently deliver files required for our service to operate such as javascript, cascading style sheets, images, and videos. (Privacy Policy)
    Google Hosted LibrariesJavascript software libraries such as jQuery are loaded at endpoints on the or domains, for performance and efficiency reasons. (Privacy Policy)
    Google Custom SearchThis is feature allows you to search the site. (Privacy Policy)
    Google MapsSome articles have Google Maps embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
    Google ChartsThis is used to display charts and graphs on articles and the author center. (Privacy Policy)
    Google AdSense Host APIThis service allows you to sign up for or associate a Google AdSense account with HubPages, so that you can earn money from ads on your articles. No data is shared unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
    Google YouTubeSome articles have YouTube videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
    VimeoSome articles have Vimeo videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
    PaypalThis is used for a registered author who enrolls in the HubPages Earnings program and requests to be paid via PayPal. No data is shared with Paypal unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
    Facebook LoginYou can use this to streamline signing up for, or signing in to your Hubpages account. No data is shared with Facebook unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
    MavenThis supports the Maven widget and search functionality. (Privacy Policy)
    Google AdSenseThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    Google DoubleClickGoogle provides ad serving technology and runs an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    Index ExchangeThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    SovrnThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    Facebook AdsThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    Amazon Unified Ad MarketplaceThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    AppNexusThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    OpenxThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    Rubicon ProjectThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    TripleLiftThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    Say MediaWe partner with Say Media to deliver ad campaigns on our sites. (Privacy Policy)
    Remarketing PixelsWe may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.
    Conversion Tracking PixelsWe may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.
    Author Google AnalyticsThis is used to provide traffic data and reports to the authors of articles on the HubPages Service. (Privacy Policy)
    ComscoreComScore is a media measurement and analytics company providing marketing data and analytics to enterprises, media and advertising agencies, and publishers. Non-consent will result in ComScore only processing obfuscated personal data. (Privacy Policy)
    Amazon Tracking PixelSome articles display amazon products as part of the Amazon Affiliate program, this pixel provides traffic statistics for those products (Privacy Policy)
    ClickscoThis is a data management platform studying reader behavior (Privacy Policy)