In this 2005 photo provided by the University of Portsmouth, England, baby orangutan Naru laughs while being tickled, in Sabah, Malaysian Borneo. New research hints that laughter evolved in the common ancestor of man and ape.
(Miriam Wessels/University of Portsmouth/AP)Photos (1 of 1)
In apes’ giggles, scientists find an important evolutionary clue
By Matthew Shaer | 06.04.09
It’s no laughing matter.
A new study published today in the scientific journal Current Biology argues that human emotional expressions have their origins in a shared ancestor, who roamed the earth approximately 10 million years ago. As Malcolm Ritter of the AP writes, the results provide “very strong evidence that ape and human laughter are related through evolution.”
So how exactly did a group of scientists test their theory?
Well, they rounded up a group of apes – 22 in all – and then they tickled them. And then they tickled them some more. “The current work examined the acoustics of tickle-induced vocalizations from infant and juvenile orangutans, gorillas, chimpanzees, and bonobos, as well as tickle-induced laughter produced by human infants,” reads the summary from the study. “Taken together, the results provide strong evidence that tickling-induced laughter is homologous in great apes and humans.”
The experiment was headed by Marina Davila Ross, a scientist at the University of Portsmouth, in England, and involved staff from the Institute of Zoology in Hannover, Germany, and the Department of Psychology at Georgia State University, in the US.
The laughter “seemed like an expression of joy,” Davila Ross, a research fellow in the department of psychology at George State University, told the Atlanta Journal Constitution. “It seemed to me that the subjects enjoyed the attention and the positive interaction with their caretakers, and did not show much attempt to leave when the tickling session was over.”
Alan Boyle writes on MSNBC’s website that in the study, “11 auditory variables were measured for the 25 experimental subjects - variables such as the length of the vocalization, the in-and-out breathing patterns and the vibrations of the vocal cords. All those numbers were fed into a software program that looked for relationships between the data points. Then the computer constructed a phylogenetic tree (that is, the ‘family tree’) that fit the data best.”
<< These batteries are made for walkin’ | MainComments
2. Richard Zimmerman | 06.04.09
Orangutans are critically endangered in the wild because of rapid deforestation and the expansion of palm oil plantations. If nothing is done to protect them, these gentle creatures could be extinct in just a few years…
Visit the Orangutan Outreach website to learn how YOU can make a difference! http://redapes.org
Reach out and save the orangutans
4. mr_falbo | 06.05.09
the entire psychological structure of the west, based on the biblical reference to man being above and apart from the other animals, is creaking like a board and batten 5 story house. the extremes psychology has gone to to protect this canard! humanocentric items developed by the Chicago school, such as the LAD, have been repudiated by laughing apes, sea mammals which have names for each other, and the glaring, obvious kicker- humans from cultures who use pictographic languages use different areas of the brain to process language than the rest of us. the issue is too a priori for most to even see. but science (or art) based on error, just compounds the error.
is it any wonder that schools and current pedagogy, based on these semi-mythical theories, are failing?
5. David | 06.05.09
I know it is not funny but Willie you make me laugh so hard!
Anyway nothing new in this article. It is a waste of time and money. First, we all know that apes express primal and more complex emotions like humans (jealousy, joy, pain , submission, agressivity etc.) Secondly there is a big difference between studying apes in a zoo Vs their natural habitat. And third, I will be more impress with a study that explains me the relation between bipedism and the formation of language.
6. Donna Hilley | 06.05.09
As a Christian who totally believes in the book of Genesis and the biblical account of creation, I find this study terribly amusing. Evolutionists believe that, over millions of years, one kind of animal has changed into a totally different kind. However, creationists, based on the Bible’s account of origins, believe that God created separate kinds of animals and plants to reporduce their own kind; therefore, one kind will not turn into a totally different kind. Now this can be tested in the present. The scientific observations support the creationist interpretation that the changes we see are not creating new information. The changes are all within the originally created pool of information of that kind-sorting, shuffling or degrading it. The creationist account of history, based on the Bible, provides the correct basis to interpret the evidence of the present; and real science confirms it.
7. CKU | 06.05.09
Evolutionary Clue?
Wow, really?
But hey, they call it an evolutionary clue, and some can call it a creation clue. It only makes sense… seeming as though God of the Bible would be the creator of everything. Same creator, similar likenesses!
Conclusion of Laughing apes…. cat’s game, we have no winner.
Commence the evolution/creation battle at once!
8. Levi | 06.05.09
“I will be more impress with a study that explains me the relation between bipedism and the formation of language”…David that has already been done. Google larynx or evolution of the position of the larynx for speech. I know it’s rough getting to the real sciences on the net now, for you have to wade through a load of religious BS to find what you’re looking for, unless you know the correct site to visit in the first place. It’s added time, but can be done.
9. George V. | 06.05.09
Donna - I think the process of Creation was too rushed. If I had been the Creator, I would have waited between the daily stages to see the consequence. I would have noticed and been appalled by the yucky excrement the non-human animals were leaving behind, and would have scapped all and started anew, or at least designed a new and improved digestive system for Man. (Just one example of the shoddy work.)
10. Kaifang | 06.05.09
the entire psychological structure of the west, based on the biblical reference to man being above and apart from the other animals, is creaking like a board and batten 5 story house. the extremes psychology has gone to to protect this canard!
—————–
I don’t need the Bible, the Koran, or anything to prove that I am higher and apart from other animals. Want me to prove it? Look at how we are communicating.
Show me a lesser animal that has an evolving tool culture that progresses from generation to generation and maybe I’d whistle a different tune.
Until then, I’m not too worried about sea mammals being able to designate terms for each other.
11. Jim | 06.05.09
I find the never-ending argument between creationists and evolutionists to be too amusing.
I once asked a Born-Again Christian, “What if Evolution was the way that God chose to do his Creating?”
He had never thought of that.
Who knows?
Even if we are the result of a spark of enzymes coming together in some prehistoric slime pool, what caused that to happen?
Is it all random chance?
Who knows?
I reckon I would have to BE God to know the answers to everything, and I am certainly not. Neither were the folks who wrote the Bible. Are you? If you are, please do something about the mess the world is in, would you?
Ever notice that if you look at all the Religious and Spiritual writings throughout history, they all reflect the times, the culture, and the thinking of the people who wrote them and lived them.
And I think most creationists do not know that Darwin’s degree was in theology.
12. steven streets | 06.05.09
Im a street musician and my monkee speaks perfect French. I asked him what he thought about this article and he just shrugged and took another hit on his cigarette. Then he hit me up for another peanut. If he was human he would make a great panhandler. He gets pissed if I dont give him what he wants. Good thing I had him neutered or he would bite my face off. He did seem to lose a lot of motivation after becoming a eunich. Now he just sits, sulks, drinks, smokes, and watches old Gomer Pyle episodes. He’s even lost interest in watching YouTubes Japanese snow monkees. Seriously folks he’s a great business manager. I named him Jacque Eloge Bourse and he never gets in the till. Can you trust your employees like that?
13. CKU | 06.05.09
@ Jim
“What if Evolution was the way that God chose to do his Creating?”
Born again, right here!
Um, well… that would mean that our existence would be impossible, because evolving from one thing to an entirely different thing is impossible. All living creatures have what scientists call cells, and a billion different partrs to us. Well, each of those parts are extraordinaryily important for living. You take just one particular cell away… DEAD. You try adding just one particular cell… DEAD again.
@George
There is no “SHODDY” job, but pure presision. All living things are truly amazing. AMAZING!!! And oh so wonderful!
I think the best part of the whole.. Well I asked a Christian, or I asked and evolutionist, or I asked some other thing is, is that MOST people, not limited to Christian, evolutionist, etc. etc. don’t fully inform themselves of what they believe.
So yeah you can hardy har har at anyone that way, but lets face it everyone… Apes can laugh!
It is no joke though, that there is a battle between evolution/creation. Should there be? Eh, should people be forced to believe neither way, no. Should people be forced to learn if they don’t want to? I’d say no. Is knowing things important… it is circumstancial.
I don’t belive in evolution, but if you want to believe in it, that is entirely your choice, but to war over it, and make comments reflecting ill intelligence on others because of a difference of views. Downright pathetic. Especially since there is a counter argument at every turn in the evolution/creation debate.
But what most of us can agree to, except George by his own word of mouth, it that life, and all living things have extraordinary detail, and are very amazing. WOW, I am totally amazing with cells and other things I can’t see, but whoa, so are you… and that laughing ape!
Praise God or not, I’m digging this living thing.
I would also like to thank the colon for getting rid of all the stuff that my body doesn’t need, truly amazing how a body can do that!
Yatzee!!
14. Kori | 06.05.09
While I find the photo very sweet and am not surprised that these aniamls giggle when tickled, I find the whole idea of a study like this ridiculous. Laughable, if you will. Because really, why do any of us, um, care? Or maybe it’s just me. I am a Christian but apparently NOT as good a one as some, as the whole Creation vs. Evolution Theory just doesn’t even register on my radar. I believe what I believe, other people believe what THEY believe, and does it really need to turn into an argument? Sheesh. What if we all die and NONE of us are right?
15. Inspector Gadget | 06.05.09
What is the definition of a lengthy comment? ‘Cause cku, though in my opinion is boarderline novel!
But I agree with Kori about believing in what you want, and see similarities in Cku’s post. ‘Cause majority of people do just believe, and when confronted, aren’t always able to reply logically.
So far it doesn’t seem to me that anyone is really fighting though, just an array of opinions!
16. Curious | 06.05.09
To CKU:
Your argument confuses me.
One of the things you said is just plain wrong. I’m not slandering you by saying that, but it is wrong: Your cells are dying and getting replenished constantly, and the presence or absence of one healthy cell doesn’t kill you. It is true that when the DNA in a cell in an already-developed organism changes, the change is usually bad (cancer, virus-infection, etc.) It is also true that when the DNA of an embryo is abnormal, that is almost always bad. It almost always kills or disables the embryo. The key word here is “almost.” Not all genetic changes are bad.
I’m curious as to how you think the toy poodle came into existence. Or those apple trees that are basically twigs with full-size apples on them, that must be tied to posts to stay upright. Neither of these things existed even a few hundred years ago. Neither could survive in the wild. People bred them. People selected abnormal examples of wolves and apple trees, and concentrated the abnormalities to such an extent that bizarre new organisms were created. It’s evolution on fast-forward, and it’s also intelligent design. You might say that dogs are not that different from each other, and I believe that genetically, all breeds are still capable of interbreeding. But so are lions and tigers. And I really don’t think a female Pomeranian could survive being impregnated by a newfie.
There’s even a market for evolution. Don’t people pay ridiculous sums of money to get their mare studded by a race-winning stallion? I won’t even get into how fast bacteria and viruses evolve, and how much money goes into combating that. But I know someone with swine flu.
BTW, a great many Christians do believe that evolution is how God creates, so don’t speak for all of them.
17. kehills | 06.05.09
@ Kori -
It’s a mistake to assume that science must always have a motive or cause aside from curiousity. The best, and truest, science, is done simply because humankind is curious, and is looking for answers to questions; not for money or gain or progress, but simple, pure, curiousity.
It’s what ultimately motivates and defines humans, as a species.
As for the creationists here - it would help your argument(s) if you understood the theory of evolution. And as evidenced here, you certainly do not. (Is it any coincidence that the decline of the American education is simultaneous with the rise in fundamentalist religious belief and creationism?)
Besides, there’s absolutely no way a benevolent god created calculus. :p
18. Mike | 06.05.09
“I don’t need the Bible, the Koran, or anything to prove that I am higher and apart from other animals. Want me to prove it? Look at how we are communicating.
Show me a lesser animal that has an evolving tool culture that progresses from generation to generation and maybe I’d whistle a different tune.
Until then, I’m not too worried about sea mammals being able to designate terms for each other.”
You invent your criteria for “superior” and imagine that, you win! I bet the tiger has a different criteria for superiority. And on your idea of your superiority being based on communication, humans aren’t nearly as adept at it as we like to think. Otherwise there wouldn’t be so many failed relationships, lawsuits, wars, etc. We may be fantastic at making tools, but we primarily started creating them so we could kill each other. And in that, we truly are superior.
19. Mike | 06.05.09
Creationism vs. Evolution? I personally believe in Evolution and think it was God’s way of creating us. I find it even more evidence of God’s incredible power and foresight. Only someone omnipotent and omniscient could possibly create the Universe in such a way that a tiny speck like Earth would be formed with all the necessary ingredients that in 4+ billion years would eventually lead to the human race. Now that is real power. A whole lot more impressive than a simple labor of 7 days which I believe is a metaphor. Either way, God is Great!
20. Gregory Orme | 06.05.09
The “toy poodle” argument by Curious is valid. If you accept the view that a worldwide flood wiped out all land life a few thousand years ago, I expect you would have to accept evolution that is more rapid than that proposed by mainstream science. That being said, for all the wonderful work on breeding dogs, racehorses, and apple trees, it has proven extraordinarily difficult to change an ape into a human, let alone build a mammal from a bird or reptile. I offer that the argument is not so much about how one views these theories as much as how one views the world. In general, if one believes that religion has done more harm than good, one seeks scientific evidence to disprove it; if one believes religion has done more good than harm, one seeks scientific evidence that supports their faith and attacks evidence that seems to attack it. I have been a Christian for many years, and although I am fascinated with the subjects of a young earth and creationism, I am not willing to base my faith on it. In Christianity, he primary tenet that requires a young earth is the belief that there was no death before the fall of man in the Garden of Eden. I am skeptical of such absolutes. If the Bible says “all have sinned,” does it really mean “all”? What about Jesus Christ? No? What about little babies? I guess that one depends on the denomination, but certainly some who are willing to make an antievolutionary stance a fundamental article of faith will also deny that a baby sins. I believe that the truth is the truth, and no one on either side should fear it, only learn from it.
22. CKU | 06.05.09
My statement about cells and genetic changes weren’t meant as a reflection as a whole, sorry I did not specify. I agree that a dog is a dog, and dogs can make other dogs, etc. etc. But a dog can’t make a different type of creature. Apes can’t evolve to humans, humans can’t evolve to elephants, etc. etc. That is where I meant the statement of changing dna/cells etc. can’t happen. That is why evolution in a sense that one species can become an entirely different species is not real or possible.
As far as kehills statement… I applaud to you, you manage to speak like any child in a argument… (Calling names to the people, rather than focusing on the actual topic brought up)”Well you just don’t know! Blah blah blah! I attack the person because I don’t know what to discuss”. If you are offended by being considered to a child’s mannerisms, then decide to speak/type your words wisely. People are very smart, but sometimes they don’t express it well. Number one individual right here, yo!
As far as knowing the Evolutionary Theory, and who knows it or not, you don’t have a clue. You don’t know one persons knowledge about the subject, on this site.
The Evolution Theory is such a large expansive theory, often melted down to one thing and tries to be passed as truth as a whole.
What are there… FIVE different types of evolution.
Micro - Small changes within a species
Macro - One species to a completely different
Stellar - Stars forming/birth
Cosmic - (can’t remember, has to do with gases I think?)
Organic - None living to living
As far as I can tell, only micro evolution has ever been considered a real. All the other evolutions are entirely based on assumptions, dare I say faith?
I’m more prone to believe in a spaghetti monster than I am to believe that I can turn into a cougar, or that a non-living thing can produce a living thing, etc, etc.
And evolution as a whole does not establish how everything came to be. Big Bang doesn’t etablish where matter came from, cause NOTHING is not acceptable to science, although it is allowed to be. Newton’s Law must have got tossed out the window when evolution was coming into play, but it makes sense, it was establish by communists and adopted by Darwin who had no scientic experience what-so-ever… and then adopted by the leaders of Christian faith, Catholics.
God on the otherhand is supernatural (therefore not being bond by any scientific laws), calculus is a subject that any person can learn given enough time and practice. Only a fool can say they understand even a portion of what something supernatural could poccess.
Anywaym Kehills is not a child, but a intelligent person with his/her own point of view. Rock on with your point of view!!
23. Johnathan | 06.06.09
As a Buddhist Christian who understands that science is how we humans attempt to gather and quantify information about the greatness of creation, I find Donna’s utterly incorrect view of evolution both funny and very sad. Genesis was never intended to be understood as literal; it is a creation myth, and its power and truth lies in its mythical quality.
That baby orangutan makes me joyous. Such beauty.
24. Vash | 06.06.09
What? Calculus… that’s a kids game. Manual labor on the other hand, now that is brutal.
How many people take and pass calculus each year? You should be glad that God is so much greater than anything ever, cause you may have came out far worse.
*Winks
Anyway just had to comment.
As far as the topic goes, I am not really amazed at all. I actually would consider it more animal training than anything else. Animals who are in the presence of humans for periods of time, can pick up on human behaviors. Parrots mimmic, dogs mimmic, etc. etc. Babies mimmic. This isn’t science, it is common response!
25. Kori | 06.06.09
Well, to each his own. To waste (and yes, in my opinion it IS a waste) valuable resources and grants to satisfy simple curiousity seems extravagent and even selfish. Because it adds nothing of value and there is no real purpose to it at all. But again, to each his own. Had to laugh at the calculus comment, though!
26. Donna | 06.10.09
Hey guys! Just go to see “THE BODY” at a museum near you. Take a look at the intricacies of every single thing it takes to make these amazing vehicles in which we live move, feel, breathe, think, eat, digest etc. The nervous system alone will blow your mind! You may not come out of there believing in a Creator, but I guarantee you will have a harder time believing we all just “evolved” into the amazing creatures that we are.
27. Donna | 06.10.09
Hey Johnathan, you know, you are right! If you take out the Bible, then I have no argument. I just find that someone who identifies themselves as Christian but doesn’t take the Genesis account literally difficult to understand. How can you believe God but not believe the Bible? Anyway, this will all be answered someday and we will see who’s beliefs are “funny” and “sad”. God bless you, Johnathan!
Trackbacks/Pingbacks
Leave a Comment
We do not publish all comments, and we do not publish comments immediately. The comments feature is a forum to discuss the ideas in our stories. Constructive debate - even pointed disagreement - is welcome, but personal attacks on other commenters are not, and will not be published.
Tip: Do not write a novel. Keep it short. We will not publish lengthy comments. Come up with your own statements. This is not a place to cut and paste an email you received. If we recognize it as such, we won't post it.
Please do not post any comments that are commercial in nature or that violate copyrights.
Finally, we will not publish any comments that we regard as obscene, defamatory, or intended to incite violence.
1. Eric Klieber | 06.04.09
This describes my cats’ response to tickling purrfectly.