Chuckling Chimps Traced To Human Laughter

(AP)  When scientists set out to trace the roots of human laughter, some chimps and gorillas were just tickled to help. Literally.

That's how researchers made a variety of apes and some human babies laugh. After analyzing the sounds, they concluded that people and great apes inherited laughter from a shared ancestor that lived more than 10 million years ago.

Experts praised the work. It gives very strong evidence that ape and human laughter are related through evolution, said Frans de Waal of the Yerkes National Primate Research Center at Emory University in Atlanta.

As far back as Charles Darwin, scientists have noted that apes make characteristic sounds during play or while being tickled, apparently to signal that they're interested in playing.

It's been suggested before that human laughter grew out of primate roots. But ape laughter doesn't sound like the human version. It may be rapid panting, or slower noisy breathing or a short series of grunts.

So what does that have to do with the human ha-ha?

To investigate that, Marina Davila Ross of the University of Portsmouth in England and colleagues carried out a detailed analysis of the sounds evoked by tickling three human babies and 21 orangutans, gorillas, chimps and bonobos.

After measuring 11 traits in the sound from each species, they mapped out how these sounds appeared to be related to each other. The result looked like a family tree. Significantly, that tree matched the way the species themselves are related, the scientists reported online Thursday in the journal Current Biology.

They also concluded that while human laughter sounds much different from the ape versions, its distinctive features could well have arisen from shared ancestral traits.

Jaak Panksepp of Washington State University, who studies laughter-like responses in animals but didn't participate in the new work, called the paper exciting.

It's the first formal study of how chimps and other apes respond to tickling, a highly detailed examination that compares an unusually wide range of species to humans, he said.

Panksepp's own work concludes that even rats produce a version of laughter in response to play and tickling, with chirps too high-pitched for people to hear. So he believes laughter goes even farther back in the mammalian family tree than the new paper proposes.

Robert Provine, a neuroscientist at the University of Maryland, Baltimore County, who wrote the 2000 book, "Laughter: A Scientific Investigation," said the new paper reveals some important insights, like details of the ape sounds that hadn't been appreciated before.

[paddyhayes]

Oh, Audacity...

"Because you and bunch of scared atheists call Him a "myth" does not make it so. You only wish for Him to be a myth, that way you're not held accountable. But you will be"

If "we athiests" were scared, we'd find a god to believe in.

Fortunately, "we athiests" are not so afraid that we have to turn to myths.

[paddyhayes]

Hey, Audacity.

" That's not how AMERICA works pal. We have freedom of speech and freedom of religion in this country. This IS NOT a communist country where you can silence the voices of opposition to your secular world view just because you don't like what you hear.

Stalin did that, and you can be rest assured that you're in for a long, drawn out cultural fight if you're gonna try to push this militant atheism in our culture.

You wanted a fight, you're gonna get it."

I spent 23 years in uniform for this Republic as a Commissioned Officer in the Army. I'm a combat veteran. I took to the battlefield to protect your fat, armchair behind.

I'm an 7th generation US Soldier, in a direct male line unbroken since the Revolution. My son is the 8th generation and wears a uniform even now while you much potato chips and sit in front of your computer.

Don't lecture me on how "America works". See your recruiter.

[nic1234567-2009]

The elegant smoke theory? The puddle of seething primeval soup theory? The "Big Bang"?
Which one have you chosen to go with? by Audacity_of_Deception

Just a small correction the Big Bang, abiogenesis (Primordial Soup) and evolution addressing different areas of study. They can be said to be transition theory (one leading to the other) but they?re not really dependent on one another. For the sake of argument I?m not going to discuss the merits of any of them. I?ll simply summaries what the theories say. You can decide the merits for yourself.

The "Big Bang" Theory which relates to the origin of the universe not origin of man. The term generally refers to the idea that the universe has expanded from a primordial hot and dense initial condition at some finite time in the past, and continues to expand to this day. It does not directly relate to the origin of man or the origin of life in general.

I also know something about the Primordial Soup theory which is one of number of competing hypotheses under the umbrella of abiogenesis (origin of life). The primordial soup theory states that self-replicating entities, the precursors to life as we know it, arose spontaneously out of the chemical environment of the early Earth. This theory argues that the chance reactions taking place at high rates in the chemical mixture of the early atmosphere eventually gave rise to molecules with the property of replication. Again it?s not directly related to the origin of man which falls under the theory of evolution.

Evolution, which I?ve discuss previously, is the change in the genetic material of a population of organisms from one generation to the next. And it does relate to the origin of man or Human evolution. Which of course is the topic of the original post.

I?m not familiar the elegant smoke theory. I?ve heard the term Elegant Universe which is a discussion about the State of String Theory. String Theory is a unifying theory that combines quantum mechanics and general relativity into a quantum theory of gravity. Again it not directly related to the origin of man or the origin of life.

You really should do some fact checking before post your arguments. It?ll avoid confusion on the part of you readers.

[nic1234567-2009]

Lord Jesus Christ, and give Him the glory for the things He has done, instead of focusing all of your faith on Darwin. Can you do that? by Audacity_of_Deception

Yes I can but I?d like to point out that this is a forum about the roots of human laughter and how it relates to evolution. It you took the time to read the Rules of Engagement for this website it says that comments should be limited to the topic of the original posting. Also as I have pointed out to you on several occasions I?m a Theistic evolutionist. We believe that faith and science both lead to truth about God and creation. Theistic Evolution, therefore, is the belief that evolution is how God created life. So when I talk about evolution it within that context. It in no way is intended to diminish the glory of Gods work.

I again invite you to visit the biologos website it should clear up many of your misconceptions regarding my beliefs.
http://www.biologos.org/

Finally calling you a "young earth creationist" was never intended as an insult. I?m sorry if took it that way. It was simply a way of distinguishing your beliefs from "old earth creationist" which is a wider category which includes Theistic evolutionists such as me. It you have a different preference in terms I would be happy to use it. By the way don?t you find it a tad hypocritical to attack my faith in God while at the same time calming others are attack yours. If you look through my post you?ll see that I?ve never question you commitment to the Lord Jesus Christ or that your faith was not genuine. Please allow me the same courtesy. Remember when it comes to our faith in God we have more in common than you may think.

[paddyhayes]

"and He made His appearance bluntly clear on earth 2,000 years ago. No "invisibility" to it."

A lot of mythical characters have made their appearance.

Jesus just happens to be a popular myth at the moment.

[paddyhayes]

Why, oh, WHY are you Fundies always drawn out like flies to the light of science? It's like you are trying to convince yourselves you are right.

Go find a Fundie forum, all of you.

Leave the science articles to those who do not steep themselves in myth and legend.

OK?

[nic1234567-2009]

That should tell you something. Your faith is in Darwin, not Christ. by Audacity_of_Deception

What it tells me is you?re hung up on conspiracy theories. Many young earths Creationist have an unhealthy fixation over the damnable doctrine statement he made in his Autobiography. They have interrupted that to mean he was an Atheist and ant-Christian. Rather than attack evolution directly, some try to tar it by association. The claim is often made that the theory of evolution leads inevitably to eugenics and to atrocities like those perpetrated by Hitler. These claims are irrelevant to the reality of evolution and are also largely untrue. As for Darwin on Religion he was very clear on that subject he referred to himself as an Agnostic.

For example Darwin describes his own state of mind in a letter to friend.

"What my own views may be is a question of no consequence to any one but myself. But, as you ask, I may state that my judgment often fluctuates . . . In my most extreme fluctuations I have never been an Atheist in the sense of denying the existence of a God. I think that generally (and more and more as I grow older), but not always, that an Agnostic would be the more correct description of my state of mind."

Actually I?m a Theistic evolution. Theistic evolutionists believe that there is a God that God is the creator of the material universe and all life within, and that biological evolution is simply a natural process within that creation. I?m also a devolved Christian. My faith is in God And Christ and unshakable. However my trust in evolution is based on science and subject to change if the facts warrant it.

If you want to learn something about Theistic evolution.
http://www.biologos.org/

[Audacity_of_Deception]

Audacity_of_Deception, how do you know the Bible is true? I mean, it's not like it's never been proven wrong before
posted by heliocracy

-A: The bible proves itself true by undeniable prophecy that is 100% accurate

B: No, the Bible HAS NOT been proven "wrong" despite the efforts of atheists and secular progressives in this world.

[nic1234567-2009]

heliocracy - I would encourage you to reframe from calling someone insane because of their religious belief. You?re simply reinforcing the ?conspiracy? theme but forth by some Creationist that atheist scientists are actively repressing alternative views to evolution. Try engaging in respectful discourse and don?t fall in to that trap.

[heliocracy]

Audacity_of_Deception, how do you know the Bible is true? I mean, it's not like it's never been proven wrong before. I just don't understand why people would be convinced that something for which there is no evidence whatsoever must be the truth, but something for which there is evidence can't possibly be true. Face it, you believe the Bible is true because some people told you so, and that's it. No other reason.

Here's another one for you. The Sun is a god which is carried daily through the sky on a flying chariot. Now, go forth and worship mighty Ra...because there's every bit as much evidence that he exists as there is for your Christian god. Which is none at all.

In short, you are insane. Get help.