Growing up Human: Harry D. Ape

By David S. Gullion LHS

Many years ago, when one of my daughters was still a little girl, I took her to the zoo. We saw a gorilla enjoying the warming rays of the sun on a chilly autumn day. For one brief moment, we three were doing the same thing, relaxing together in the welcomed rays of the sun.
Could I tell her that at one time in the distant past, our direct ancestors were no more advanced than the gorilla? Would she understand if informed that the gorilla was her relative and that she was even more closely related to a chimpanzee? If it were possible to roll back the hands of time under some ideal set of circumstances, this would be my story, both now, then. This is how Id tell her it happened.
Harry D. Ape is biographical. It is autobiographical. It is about no one in particular, and it is about everyone, including our relatives. It is fact, and it is myth. It explores who we are. Fact and myth describe who we are. It is hoped that after reading it, the reader will never look at a human, a chimp, or a great ape in the same way again.

• Language: English
• Publisher: Xlibris US
• Release date: Jul 31, 2015
• ISBN: 9781503590472

David S. Gullion LHS

The author’s earliest memories are of the tropics and the jungles of the Philippines. Growing up in Mindanao, the more southerly and least developed of that island chain, he simply had to go to the forest outside of town and catch a monkey for a pet. He never forgot his childhood experiences, and desiring to share what he knew, he chose to explore the topic in a more formal way. Using the knowledge gleaned by experts in many fields, he set out to explore the questions: where did I come from, and who am I? Growing Up Human is the result of his quest. He is the author of three other books: How Would You Like Your Balut?, Telling on Texas, and The Last Christian. His hallmark has always been exploring his topics in unique and unusual ways. Growing Up Human is both biographical as well as autobiographical. It is part myth, and it is also in part the history of us all. He is now retired and lives in Houston, Texas, with his wife and two children.

Book preview

Introduction

M any years ago, when one of my daughters was still a little girl, I took her to the zoo. We saw a gorilla enjoying the warming rays of the sun on a chilly autumn day. For one brief moment, we three were doing the same thing, relaxing together in the welcomed rays of the sun.

Could I tell her that at one time in the distant past, our direct ancestors were no more advanced than the gorilla? Would she understand if informed that the gorilla was her relative and that she was even more closely related to a chimpanzee? If it were possible to roll back the hands of time under some ideal set of circumstances, this would be my story, both now, then. This is how I’d tell her it happened.

Harry D. Ape is biographical. It is autobiographical. It is about no one in particular, and it is about everyone, including our relatives. It is fact, and it is myth. It explores who we are. Fact and myth describe who we are. It is hoped that after reading it, the reader will never look at a human, a chimp, or a great ape in the same way again.

It explains how we three came to meet at a primate exhibit so many years ago. Life is about building bridges. This is an attempt to bridge the many gaps in our common history. This bridge creates the possibility of connecting some portion of the past with a creature of the present or of the future. It is a history of all things. A tiny portion of the process is the history of apes.

Anatomically, we are apes. Humans and chimps had a common ancestor. What made us diverge? How did we change? How are we the same? Using the knowledge known to science, is it possible to construct plausible scenarios that explain differences and similarities in physiology and behavior? Is it possible to better understand one species of ape using the known or inferred characteristics of the other given party (1, 2)? What does it mean to be human?

This is a nonscientific exploration of ape behavior. Humans and chimps are so similar to each other anatomically that a chimp more closely resembles a human based on its DNA than it does any other ape. Consequently, this investigation is especially an exploration of chimp and human physiology and behavior. Its purpose is to cause the reader to think. It is hoped that it will be used as a source, that an interested party will check the available material and use their sources to create their own evaluation. As far as possible, technical and scientific jargon will be avoided.

No footnotes will be included. From time to time, sources may be noted in the test. These sources will not be included in an index. The sources will, in most cases, be noted in a general or vague way. The research, work, or works of a given source will be noted, but in most cases, chapter and page will not be noted. If a source is noted, the author’s own words will be used. The actual words of a given source may be copyrighted. However, the idea or ideas expressed by that source are not copyrighted. By following this procedure, the author will not infringe on anyone’s copyrighted material. At all times, the reader is invited to investigate the works of the experts in the field.

The author has chosen to act upon the following assumptions. It is assumed that a reader who has already made up their mind will not be swayed, regardless of what proofs or substantiating material is presented. It is assumed that an interested party will take the time to research the subject on their own and, when doing so, may find the sources noted in a general way as being helpful in their quest. The attempt is made throughout to arrive at plausible scenarios.

Much of human belief and/or conditioning is the result of factors not considered to be scientific works per se; from time to time, these sources may be noted in an attempt to help the reader better explore the topic from the vantage point of these sources and their own belief systems and conditioning. Often, it has been part of the human and nonhuman ape experience that many factors have shaped their behavior in ways not strictly scientific.

Scientists themselves are sometimes not immune to the influences of the culture in which they work. It too may shape their behavior in conscious and unconscious ways. Often, scientific research is dependent on funding from sources themselves influenced, directed, or controlled by biased interests. Sometimes a researcher is forced to take into account this fact when hat in hand requesting funding for research.

Even when considerations of funding are considered, how well (and how) do the investigative tools, in fact, do what they are designed or purported to do? Why might one conclude, if one concludes at all, that these tools are unbiased? To what degree, if any, may confidence be placed in the veracity of any given results or conclusions? Let’s investigate.

Aristotle, when investigating a given phenomenon, would make use of a syllogism. The way that it works is that one, for the purposes of the investigation, assumes a given premise. One may logically deduce that if the given premise is 100 percent correct that one may expect with certainty that an examination of the real world will support certain premises that may logically be deduced from the premise itself. For example, if one operated on the basic premise that all flowers are blue, then one could logically expect that under any and all possible conditions that one would only be able to find blue flowers. If an investigation should reveal, under any circumstances, that this was not always so, then one would have to revise or even scrap the basic premise in light of the substantiated findings. Following this procedure is known as using an Aristotle syllogism.

Socrates would ask leading questions when investigating a given phenomenon. He might ask something such as What is it made of? What form does it take? What is its purpose? How long has it been here? How much longer might one expect it to be here? If one combines Aristotle’s syllogistic method with Socrates’s leading-question approach, one has a way in which one might begin to investigate the world around us. Using these tools, one may begin to conduct experiments designed for the purpose of testing a hypothesis.

Because of its precise nature, mathematics readily lends itself to scientific investigation. If one combines these three tools, then one has enough tools to begin to investigate and systemize a given investigation in such a way that one may state one’s conclusions with some degree of confidence. Even more importantly, others might use these tools to try to replicate the experiment, thus establishing or disestablishing the basic premise (hopefully to at least some extent as defined by some given criteria).

In this investigation, only the first two of the three tools will be used far more than the third (mathematics). It is hoped that at some future date that mathematics may be combined with these two by scientific investigators in their attempt to answer the questions of who we are, who were, and what we might become. Many years ago, Dr. Lewis Leakey said it best. He stated, I want to know what made me. I want to know who I am.

It could be that someday something as effective as DNA analysis may be used to bring many of these stone fossils back to life. If this should ever happen, then conclusions and results may possibly be stated at some time in the future with something more like mathematical precision. Until that day dawns, often, what one has to do is make the best use of the evidence available to make the best conclusions or inferences possible. As a consequence, one often is in the position of being able to say or infer that one has something. The downside is that one often does not know how firm or with what degree of certainty the given conclusion may be made.

Refer back to the given hypothesis that all flowers are blue. Socrates might begin by asking the question, What is a flower? How does one define the color blue? Under what circumstances might one investigate the premise? Under what circumstances might one not be able to investigate the premise? How might one’s ability to investigate the premise affect one’s ability to establish, change, or disestablish the premise?

When information is known (to some degree of confidence) and it is combined with some other information (also known to some degree of confidence) for the purpose of postulating a theory, the cautious approach is to make use of the rule of parsimony (Occam’s razor). Even though it might be possible to construct a plausible theory (based on some given criteria), this should be avoided if an equally plausible, less-convoluted option is available. It is hoped that by doing so, one might achieve the best results in the more efficient manner available. This is the approach that has been used.

It could be that future development in the area of genetics would create a situation in which genetic progression over thousands of years could be replicated in a laboratory or controlled setting in but a minute fraction of the time in which changes have in the past occurred in the natural environment. By way of example, maybe a generation could be duplicated in a period of a couple of weeks or so. Maybe two million years of creative activity might be duplicated in, say, twenty years. Something along these lines occurs in mathematics. It is called scientific notation. It could be that someday biological diversity too may be scientifically noted. Experimentation might also be used to explore the possible ways in which a given organism might develop in the future. Doing so would open up a brave new world in which experimentation in genetic development along paths not heretofore taken could be carried out. One might reverse engineer an ape, thus revealing past long-extinct ancestors. One might create creatures that never were. This is not to say that it should be done, even though the possibility to do so might exist at some future date.

A debt is owed to those researchers who did the footwork, the case studies, the investigation, the mathematics, all the work and findings upon which this investigation has chosen to make use. Where did we come from? Where are we going? Who are we? Let’s try to find out. It is hoped that by doing so, a better understanding of the subject may be gained (1, 2).

From time to time, at the end of a given chapter, fictionalized characters will be used. If a human male is to be the example, Harry D. Ape will be used for the purpose of giving an example of the noted human behavior or condition. Harriet D. Ape will be used for the same purpose if the actor is a human female. On occasion, other characters will also be used. Chimp Popo will be used when a male chimp is used for the purpose of giving a noted chimp behavior or condition. If female chimp is used for the same purpose, Chimp Poppa may be so designated. By way of example, suppose one wished to examine the mating or courtship rituals of human and nonhuman apes.

Number notations may be found at the end of a given paragraph. They indicate where a given case study might best serve to make clearer to the reader the meaning of that paragraph. By doing so, it is then possible to make a comparative analysis of ape behavior, human and nonhuman. Even though the characters are themselves (typically) fictitious, it is hoped that the reader will begin to ask, "Do not they, in fact, present what could be plausible examples of ape behavior? It is hoped that they do and that by so doing will help to make the text of the investigation clearer and consequently serve to help us explore the topic.

Case Study 1

Harry had just gotten off work. It was a humid late summer afternoon in August. Dust devils whipped up by the scalding wind briefly obscured his view of a starving, mangy dog looking for a cool, shady place to die.

I need a drink, he thought to himself as he crossed the street on his way to his favorite watering hole. At first, he saw nothing. It took a few seconds for his eyes to adjust to the dimly lit den, which grandiosely went by the name of the King’s Roost. She was a vision of delight. She promised everything that a man might desire. She was female, and no parts were missing. He had seen better, but she was available.

Hello, beautiful, he said as he sat down at the table next to her barstool. Let me buy you a drink, he offered. She turned and eyed him for a moment. She knew that he wanted to hit on her, but she sure could use another drink. She didn’t want to touch her rent money and decided on the spur of the moment. What the hell. OK, she said and gave him a little smile. He wasn’t that bad looking, she thought to herself; and besides, if they did shack up for a while, she’d get him to pay his half of the rent.

I’m Harry. What’s your name? he asked. Harriet, she replied. I work as a waitress at Moe’s Crab Shack. I hope she doesn’t have crabs, he thought to himself as he smiled back at her. Barkeep, bring the lady a drink, he ordered. The cold beer immediately made her feel much better. I better not drink more than three beers, she thought to herself as she sipped on her second beer. Would you like a margarita? he asked. She didn’t reply. He ordered her a margarita. I love the taste of lime, tequila, and the icy frost is just darling, she thought to herself.

The King’s Roost had such a beautiful pink glow, she thought to herself. Sam was drunk and was singing some old song about a lost love. Usually, when he sang, she couldn’t stand the sound of his voice; but now, he sounded pretty good, she thought to herself. Before long, she began to sing along with him. She remembered the nice man who bought her the drinks, asking her for a dance. She remembered that he hadn’t looked that bad either.

Slowly, she opened her eyes. Suddenly, she was conscious that there was a naked man lying next to her. She didn’t know where she was or who it was snoring loudly next to herself. The room was dark. Slowly, she began to dress. She found her dress. Through the half-pulled blind, she could see the yellow-orange glow left by either a rising or a setting sun. She found her dress and her shoes, and thank goodness, her purse was lying on the floor in a corner. Never mind her underwear or stockings.

She held her wrist up to the light. She could just make out that it was half past five in the morning. My god, she thought to herself, Have I been here or someplace else, doing who knows what, for the last ten or twelve hours? She was dressed. She looked in her purse. She still had her rent money. Thank god, she thought to herself, at least he’s not a thief. Self-consciously, she noticed a $20 lying on the dresser next to the door. She knew that he had left it for her.

She did need money for bus fare. And she’d have to buy new stockings and underwear too. She looked around the room for his wallet. She didn’t find it. He knows what he’s doing, she decided. Quietly, she closed the door and left. She was in some cheap hotel. The clerk glanced up at her for a moment then went back to reading his newspaper and nursing his cup of coffee. She stepped outside. She felt the still cool air run up her thighs. There is just enough time for me to change and make it to work, she thought to herself.

She had a splitting headache. It must have been the margaritas, she thought to herself. Her hands were trembling as she fumbled in her purse for a bottle of aspirins. She took six of them. I’ll drink a cup of coffee with lots of cream when I get to work. That will make me feel better. Thankfully, she had not forgotten to take her birth control pill.

Harry woke up. Sunlight was streaming into the room. He glanced at his watch. It was past ten in the morning. It was a fine Saturday morning. All in all, it hadn’t been that bad of a gig. He’d gotten laid and succeeded in doing so without either having gotten into a fight or been robbed. I hope I didn’t catch anything, and I hope she didn’t get pregnant. She’d just try to pin it on me, he thought to himself. He dressed slowly. Suddenly, he was very hungry. Checkout was at noon. He made sure that he left the clerk a tip when he turned in the key. It was a wonderful day, and he was looking forward to a hearty brunch and a round of golf. Nothing like a night of sex to make a guy hungry, he thought to himself.

Case Study 2

Common Chimp Popo was alone. For the first time, he had left the protection of the troop. He continuously felt strong urges. He had wanted to mount the females in the troop. The problem was that his uncle would make a threatening display and chase him away whenever he tried to do so. So he had left the protection of the troop in frustration. That’s why he was patrolling the boundaries of his troop’s territory. He knew that doing so was dangerous. At any moment, the rival troop might spot him, and he could be attacked by a pack of males. If they caught him, it would mean death.

He had been part of just such a marauding gang. They had spotted a rival male. By the time that they had finished with him, he was dead. All his minor body appendages had been bitten off. He had no ears, lips, or genitals. He could still hear his terrified screams as he, in a fit of rage against the male who had violated their territory, joined the others in doing in their rival.

He shuddered at the memory. His urges were so strong that he suppressed his desire to turn back and join the safety of his troop. He paused for a moment. Was that a rustling in the distance? his brain registered. Suddenly, the breeze blew her scent his way. Her smell left him quivering and weak for a moment. She was in estrus. Cautiously, he moved in her direction.

Chimp Poppa had left her troop. She too was patrolling the borders of her world. She had always been on the lookout for an attractive male. The problem was that the alpha male in her troop chased her potential suitors away. He would then forcibly mount her to satisfy his passion and need for reassurance that he was still the man (during her short fertile period). She didn’t like it, but what could she do? He was much bigger and stronger than her and had his way with her whenever the urge to do so moved him. He and a small clique of other males did this to all the adult females.

She didn’t mind a bit of action from time to time, but she resented being forced to do so at some male’s beck and call. Suddenly, she spotted Popo. At first, she was hesitant and cautious. Who knew how a guy might be feeling? She knew that if she were caught out here with a strange male that the males in her troop would abuse her and mount her repeatedly. She had to be cautious. He wasn’t that bad looking. He approached her. He seemed to be gentle, not like the other males she had had contact with. She liked that in a guy.

He mounted her. In less than ten seconds, it was all over. Every thirty minutes, for the next several hours, he would mount her. Suddenly, in the distance, they heard the sounds of a troop. They had better get back to their community if they knew what was good for them. Cautiously, they returned, each going different ways.

She did not feel that well. Months passed. She gave birth. She didn’t know how it happened or why it happened, but it did. Every few years, for the rest of her life, she and the other females gave birth. They did not know how or why it happened, but it did. She had left the community of her birth. The females, as they entered puberty, felt the urge to do so. They didn’t know why, but it always happened. It was nature’s way of keeping down the incidence of incest.

Chapter One

Biological Similarities between Humans and Apes

T he author has sometimes been informed by other humans that they are not animals. When investigating this assertion, it is best to try to quantify what is meant by the term animal without going too deeply into the scientific definition of what it means to be an animal. Briefly, it may be safely stated that all great apes, including humans, are eukaryotic (have cell structures characteristic of life-forms defined as being part of the animal kingdom), multicellular, or heterotrophic (digest food in an inner chamber); lack rigid cell walls; are motile; have a blastular stage (less mature to more mature or developed growing stages); and have bodies composed of different kinds of tissues, which have different kinds of functions.

If one maintains that we are not animals, it must be assumed that we are not animals on some other given basis besides and instead of as defined by our biology. If so, then what is this basis? Do these differences lie in the mind or mental processes? Are the determining factors nonbiological? A comparison of the different life-forms scientists define as great apes forces one to conclude that humans are certainly as much animal, based on their physiology, as are such animals as common chimps, bonobos, gorillas, or orangutans based on shared anatomical structures.

Based solely on anatomical considerations, either we are animals as are they or animals are as human as us. If one does not like to use the word animal, one may instead use the word creature. If so, then one may ask, what kind of creature are we? What kind of creatures are they?

There are those who say, Your ancestors may have descended from monkeys but not mine. If one should hold to this belief (in point of fact the comparative base should be apes and not monkeys), then one has (even by this exclusion) the opportunity to find out how the other half came to be and what motivates them. In a way by reading this book, such a one will be able to snoop on their neighbors in what could be a number of significant ways.

One finds that humans and chimps have in common more than 98 percent of their DNA. Genomes are DNA presently active in determining the characteristics of a given life-form. With genomes, only four out of every one thousand of our genomes differ from that of chimps (according to Dr. Carl Sagan in his book Echoes of Forgotten Ancestors).

The same source notes that humans are so similar physiologically that both parties may use the other for purposes of blood transfusions. Both catch the same or similar diseases. However, for a number of diseases, there is a marked difference in incidence. A medical doctor capable of treating one is also capable of treating the other. Both breastfeed their young. They may laugh, cry, get angry, hold grudges, or be loving, hateful, or forgiving. They make war, build shelters, and make tools. They may be truthful in their dealings with others. Both have the ability to solve problems. They may lie and/or be misleading. Chimps have been observed practicing herbal medicine. They are as similar to humans as horses are to donkeys (even more so).

It is not possible to give a horse a blood transfusion using the blood of a donkey or a zebra. The only cross-species blood transfusion known to man is that which exists between chimp and human (as far as the author knows). Both may be blood typed in the same way. Based on the blood typing results, the interspecies blood transfusion may be done.

There is a saying, Someone convinced against their will is of the same opinion still. One recalls the mental image of the three monkeys. One covered his ears. Yet another covered his eyes. The third covered his mouth. The caption read, Hear no evil, see no evil, and speak no evil. Let’s assume that one does not believe that a human is an animal as is a great ape such as a chimp. Such a one should put their efforts into plausibly explaining what one may observe. The author, for one, will readily accept the more plausible explanation as based upon the phenomenon observed.

For our purposes what is known, logically speculated, or deduced, based upon what scientists and specialists have observed, will be made use of based on the assumption that we are indeed related. This is the conclusion to which scientific investigation has led. It behooves the skeptic to find some way to make the same or similar comparisons operating on the opposite and incompatible premise that we are not related based upon observable phenomenon. Intellectual honesty demands that such a one finds a way to explain, or even explain away, what one is able to observe.

If instead one chooses to cover their ears, eyes, and mouths, one should also be able to muster faith sufficient in and of itself to make the observable phenomenon go away or disappear. Denial is not likely to make the findings go away—if they, in fact, exist—except (maybe) in the minds of persons who just believe based upon their faith. The same could be said of one who had a cannonball dropped on their toes. If they just believe that this is not so, no one may make them change their mind.

For them, as a consequence of their faith, it just is not so. In certain situations, faith alone may cause a phenomenon to disappear or not occur. For example, if their faith were strong enough, they might prevent swelling or bruising or cause the condition to not occur. It is also true that if one’s faith were sufficient enough, one might cause physical symptoms to appear even if what was judged to be an appropriate physical catalyst was not present. By way of example, hypnotized persons have had blisters form on an appendage when told by the hypnotist that said area had been touched by a lit match (even though no lit match was applied). There have been religiously devout persons who have experienced what appears to be the stigmata of Christ as a direct result of their faith. However, except for them, the empirical evidence continues to be real.

It could be that the persons making the assertion that we are not animals do so because they do not like being grouped anatomically with other life-forms. Doing so causes them to feel uncomfortable. If so, on this point, the author heartedly is in sympathy with them. The author too does not like and prefers to avoid most situations that make him feel nervous and/or uncomfortable.

This is the fight-or-flight reflex. All apes have it. We all have it. It could be that an objection is based on the belief that human performance and ability sets us apart from even our closest biological relatives. We intend to explore several of these areas and compare the technologies employed. Of course, there are also those who hope that it just is not true that humans are related to the other great apes or maybe hope that no one will ever find out.

Many of the characteristics possessed by humans, chimps, and other great apes are known. Consequently, it is possible to do what one may refer to as the duck test. If it quacks like a duck, looks like a duck, walks like a duck, has webbed feet like a duck, swims like a duck, hatches from an egg like a duck, might not one in at least some instances conclude that one has a duck? Might not one to a high degree of confidence assume that one has something at least very similar to a duck and, consequently, classify it as being similar to a duck? If it is similar, if one still does not classify it as a duck or being similar to a duck, then it behooves one to find an observable basis on which still does not classify it as being a duck or similar to a duck.

Be as it may, it is certainly possible to explore the premise that similarities or dissimilarities between the designated parties do exist. Others are invited to explain what one finds when examining the evidence as it exists.

Humans often describe the same phenomenon using different symbol languages. In this context, it may be said that physics, metaphysics, and philosophy are but different symbol languages used to describe the same thing. Each tries to describe all reality. From time to time, the attempt will be made to use all three. Many humans find these methods to be useful. That’s why they use them.

It is an ancient belief that it is our behavior that sets us apart from the other apes. At that time, the technological inventions and innovations that now are a part of our lives for the most part did not exist. Most people lived a life far closer to nature. Agriculture and animal husbandry were the norm. Hunting and gathering was still the way that many made their living. In such a world, our biological similarities would be noted, and the inference would logically be drawn that it was by and large not our physiology that made us different.

An ancient sacred text, the Quran, makes note of at least one instance in which a group of humans became (non-human) apes as a direct consequence of their actions. An English translation of al-Araf (The Heights) 7: 166 reads, When in their insolence they transgressed [all bounds], We [God] said to them, ‘Be ye apes, despised and rejected.’ So based on this sacred text, there is something about our behavior (as humans) that does set us apart from apes. A human may cross this barrier and become an ape, despised and rejected. By doing so, the behavior that once set us apart now serves to make us the same. Certainly, if an ape is defined as an animal, we humans are indeed capable of becoming an animal as they are animals. What is this difference that sets us apart?

With the sacred text as our starting point, it is noted that arrogance toward God is the catalyst of the change. Mankind (knowingly and consciously) places himself in the driver’s seat, replacing God’s directing (as one might choose to define God) by their directing. Invariably, this leads to a society run on the premise that the lower exist for the benefit of the higher and that the higher exist to take care of each other. This is the same cultural value practiced by the great (non-human) ape. It is the law of the jungle, of the creature and not of the Creator who gives humankind the ability to do better through revelation and to use his faculties as God has chosen to equip him. All life apart from humanity is in harmony with God the Creator. The animals [in this case, the ‘other great apes’] do not have the ability to consciously revolt against God. They act upon their instinct. Humans, in addition to instincts like theirs, have an instinct to both know God (to some extent) and to live in harmony with what God reveals about God’s nature and God’s creation.

Consequently, only humankind has the ability to knowingly and willfully strike out on its own in defiance of and in revolt against God. Human arrogance toward God inevitably leads to arrogance toward God’s creatures. In such a society, the lower exist [disproportionately] for the benefit of the higher, and the higher exist [disproportionately] to take care of each other. Such a creature has returned to the law of the jungle, the state of existence, of being of the mere beast (in this case that of the non-human great ape). In this state, the mere ape does so in a state of unknowing ignorance as God has chosen its station to be. When a human does so, it is as a direct consequence of rejecting God’s guidance for living a better existence (which is superior to that of the mere beast, a chimp or near-chimp creature—an ape).

Dr. Carl Sagan, in his book Echoes of Lost Ancestors, notes that the Greek and Macedonian soldiers who served in the army of Alexander the Great were the first known Europeans to encounter chimpanzees. The soldiers concluded that the common chimps were a kind of human. They captured some of the chimps and observed their behavior. It is noted that they then put to death several of the chimps for what they described as gross moral indecency. One could say that they must have exceeded all bounds. One notes that the pagan Greeks and Macedonians, even by our often-lax Western standards, had a reputation for being swingers in their own right. Since the source did not say what the offense was, one can only imagine what the chimps did that so offended the soldiers’ moral sensibilities.

Chapter Two

Alpha Males in Ape Society

O ur common ancestor may have lived as long as six million years (or longer). As the earth cooled and then warmed (many times), our ancestor(s) had to survive as a group (or groups) in climates that became colder and then once again became warmer. Open grassland and/or desert would have meant that certain groups would have congregated around bodies of water. Others would have had to adapt to living in areas of forest, savannah, or even desert. Some would have become hunters, developing an ability to run great distances across open countryside. To at least some extent, a divergence and lack of interaction among groups of our early ancestors would have occurred. It is also true that there would have been interactions between different parties, which otherwise would not have happened.

It is noted that researchers have indicated that even though there may have been bipedal apes more than seven million years ago, for two million years ago (or so), interbreeding likely still occurred between at least some of the bipedal and non-bipedal apes. It is noted that even though the common chimp and the bonobo (non-bipedal apes) diverged from each other hundreds of thousands of years ago, it is still possible to have interbreeding between the two kinds of chimps.

Based on Dr. Carl Sagan’s book Echoes of Forgotten Ancestors, one may conclude chimps live in groups not numbering more than a few dozen (it is noted that other sources place the number of members of chimp communities as being between 15 and as many as 120 members). They are ruled over by an alpha male. He may rule alone or with the aid of a handful of other males. If the group is smaller, there may be only one ruling male. Sexual intercourse is predominantly the enforced choice of the alpha male (or, at the most, includes input from the few other significant males). Sexual intercourse is common between male and female and may often occur once every thirty minutes during waking hours. It is noted that only 3 percent of these encounters are consensual. The result of this behavior is that the dominant male or males pass on their genetic makeup to the next generation. Non-dominant males do not disproportionately pass on their genetic material, if they pass it on at all.

The alpha male is not necessarily the largest or strongest male. He will certainly, though, be the one who is the most political and manipulative. These characteristics are used by him for the purpose of maintaining his social position. The alpha male uses his dominance for the purpose of mating with the females. He may use his position for attacking other males who cross him. It should not be overlooked that he uses his position for the purpose of getting first access to sources of food and drink as well (1, 2, 3, 4).

Females in common chimp society are submissive toward dominant males, but they do at times determine who is to be the dominant male. The females must have a leader who has the ability to lead them into areas where they can get sufficient food through foraging. There are times when the females get together and, with the help of some of the non-dominant lower class males, depose an alpha male (and his clique) who is replaced by yet another clique who hopefully will succeed in leading the community into an area where they may secure sufficient food. Even when the alpha male rules virtually unchecked, no male may become ruler unless the females as a community withdraw their opposition to his rule. If they as a group oppose his rule, they may succeed (with the help of disaffected males and those on the make) in toppling him and his clique. These liberators then proceed to dominate the community in a close-to-absolute manner just so long as the issue of subsistence is not the major concern (5, 6, 7, 8).

Even if common chimps in their societies and communities have not thought out the concept of subsistence for the poor or downtrodden as being a moral claim, they do act as if they have internalized the value. Even in the absence of direct monotheistic influence in human cultures around the world, the operation of this moral claim may be observed. The ruling clique or cliques may pretty well do what they choose unless the subsistence level of the underlings is threatened. When this happens,