Cultural Behaviors Both humans and chimpanzees use tools as a way of creating what we need. According to the http://www.washingtonpost.com, wild chimps have been known to use tools to obtain difficult foods in times of food scarcity. But they have also been seen using tools during times of food abundance. The different levels of tasks in their tool use in multiple contexts, suggests that chimpanzees from the wild are intelligent tool users similar to humans. Certain animals such as crows differ in their tool usage because chimps use more types of tools in multiple situations and also understand when to use another tool if the current tool they are using isn’t working. Chimps use a series of tools. An example is when extracting honey, they will first beat the beehive with a club, they then use another tool to tear it apart, and they use a third tool to scoop the honey out of the beehive. (http://link.springer.com) Both humans and chimps rear young who are depend on their parents and have to learn survival skills rather than being naturally programmed with them from birth. They both also learn culture within their group. For example, chimps in different communities complete tasks, such as termite fishing, ant dipping, and nut cracking differently(http://link.springer.com). In short, there is a relatively similar significance in how chimps and humans are connected.
Not So Close Some researchers support the idea that chimpanzees and apes do not share as many common abilities and traits as the majority would like to think. Professor Roy Britten of the California Institute of technology said that most studies did not take into account large sections of DNA which are not found on the genome of both human and chimp. In the paragraph below, from www.BBCnews.co.uk, Professor Roy Britten has a detailed analysis of why he believes apes are not as closely related to humans as most scientists believe.
“These are insertions - where a whole section of genetic code appears in one species but not another, and deletions, in which a chunk is missing. Professor Britten suspected that these "indels" could be far more significant than the difference revealed by calculating single "base substitutions". He took DNA sequences from the chimp and compared them with the corresponding sections from the human genome. In these samples, while simply calculating base substitutions revealed a difference of 1.4%, "indels" accounted for a further divergence of 3.9%.The total difference between humans and chimps in these sequences would therefore be approximately 5.4%. While