by Chris Bodenner

Christopher Ryan lays into McArdle's critique of his book:

Got that? Humans aren't like bonobos because we're not like bonobos. No way! So there! Case closed.

In addition to this somewhat embarrassing "reasoning," it's pretty clear Ms. McArdle hasn't read even the first half of the book very closely. Pages 77 and 78 contain a table listing some of the major similarities between humans and bonobos, many of them unique to these two species. Hard to imagine how she managed to miss that. In the discussion of her article, she flatly states that chimps are genetically more closely related to humans than bonobos are, which is not only just plain wrong, it's something we explain very early in the book (along with a graph, no less, on p. 62).

Agree with our thesis or disagree with it, nobody who knows anything about primatology would argue that chimps are genetically closer to us than bonobos are (they're equidistant) or that humans and bonobos don't have a great deal in commonparticularly in terms of our sexual behavior and anatomy.

(Hat tip: Savage)

We want to hear what you think about this article. Submit a letter to the editor or write to letters@theatlantic.com.