Bonobo beats chimpanzee in intelligence test

[Queercommie Girl]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/video/2011/aug/10/bonobo-chimpanzee-cleverest-monkey-video

Scientists at the Royal Zoological Society of Antwerp have carried out an intelligence test which pitted bonobos against chimpanzees as part of a campaign to help publicise the African trade in bonobos as bushmeat.

The bonobos, chimp-like apes who live in matriarchal family groups and frequently use sex to resolve social conflicts, defied expectations by beating the group of chimpanzees in intelligence tests, because the chimps were too busy fighting among themselves for dominance

The evolutionary benefits of feminism and LGBT rights proved! :lol:

[Rafiq]

Bonobos are more evolved than chimps as well.

[PC LOAD LETTER]

Bonobos are adorable

I wonder what they think when they see a human ... "Hey! You're kinda like me."

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Bonobos are more evolved than chimps as well.

This doesn't make any biological sense. All presently extant organisms are equally "evolved".

Bonobos are however, more closely related to humans than other chimps.

[Devrim]

This doesn't make any biological sense. All presently extant organisms are equally "evolved".

Bonobos are however, more closely related to humans than other chimps.

Just as all animals are equally evolved, bonobos are equally closely related to humans as chimps in that they both share a more recent common ancestor.

Devrim

[Rafiq]

I meant that it would take the common chimp longer to evolve closer to us than a bonobo.

[The Vegan Marxist]

I meant that it would take the common chimp longer to evolve closer to us than a bonobo.

Evolve into us? That doesn't make much biological sense either. They may come to evolve intelligence similar to us, which I'm guessing is what you were trying to say.

Here's a great study on the biological history of chimpanzees and bonobos you may find useful:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2278377/?tool=pubmed

[Ocean Seal]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/video/2011/aug/10/bonobo-chimpanzee-cleverest-monkey-video

Scientists at the Royal Zoological Society of Antwerp have carried out an intelligence test which pitted bonobos against chimpanzees as part of a campaign to help publicise the African trade in bonobos as bushmeat.

The bonobos, chimp-like apes who live in matriarchal family groups and frequently use sex to resolve social conflicts, defied expectations by beating the group of chimpanzees in intelligence tests, because the chimps were too busy fighting among themselves for dominance

The evolutionary benefits of feminism and LGBT rights proved! :lol:
I would say that this proves even more thoroughly the benefits of collective thought instead of rule by might.

[The Vegan Marxist]

I would say that this proves even more thoroughly the benefits of collective thought instead of rule by might.

Like this:

"Are humans too generous? The discovery that subjects choose to incur costs to allocate benefits to others in anonymous, one-shot economic games has posed an unsolved challenge to models of economic and evolutionary rationality. Using agent-based simulations, we show that such generosity is the necessary byproduct of selection on decision systems for regulating dyadic reciprocity under conditions of uncertainty. In deciding whether to engage in dyadic reciprocity, these systems must balance (i) the costs of mistaking a one-shot interaction for a repeated interaction (hence, risking a single chance of being exploited) with (ii) the far greater costs of mistaking a repeated interaction for a one-shot interaction (thereby precluding benefits from multiple future cooperative interactions). This asymmetry builds organisms naturally selected to cooperate even when exposed to cues that they are in one-shot interactions."

http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2011/07/20/1102131108.abstract

[gendoikari]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/video/2011/aug/10/bonobo-chimpanzee-cleverest-monkey-video

Scientists at the Royal Zoological Society of Antwerp have carried out an intelligence test which pitted bonobos against chimpanzees as part of a campaign to help publicise the African trade in bonobos as bushmeat.

The bonobos, chimp-like apes who live in matriarchal family groups and frequently use sex to resolve social conflicts, defied expectations by beating the group of chimpanzees in intelligence tests, because the chimps were too busy fighting among themselves for dominance

The evolutionary benefits of feminism and LGBT rights proved! :lol:

Sex it will solve the worlds problems if everyone believed in free love..... if only aids never came about....

[Kiev Communard]

Still, there are some cases reported of violence among bonobo, while some chimpanzees proved to be rather sociable. So I do not think that this has something to do with "hard-wired" genes at all.

[Queercommie Girl]

Sex it will solve the worlds problems if everyone believed in free love..... if only aids never came about....

You are mistaken. Feminism and LGBT rights don't equate with "free love".

BTW, you shouldn't take this too literally. We are not directly talking about humans, but our closest genetic relatives, after all.

[Queercommie Girl]

Still, there are some cases reported of violence among bonobo, while some chimpanzees proved to be rather sociable. So I do not think that this has something to do with "hard-wired" genes at all.

In the animal world, often genes do determine a lot of behaviour rather directly.

You cannot compare humans directly to animals, that's a mistake. Humans, by virtue of our ability to make tools and use tools to fundamentally transform the natural world, frankly are no longer bound by our genes intrinsically speaking. We are at a qualitatively higher level, as water is to ice. For humans, genes are no-longer "hard-wired" in any absolutist sense. A trans-humanist future is certainly possible.

[Devrim]

I meant that it would take the common chimp longer to evolve closer to us than a bonobo.

Chimps, and Bonobos as well, are not evolving nearer to us. They are evolving away from us, or to be more accurate we are all evolving away from a common point.

Devrim

[Devrim]

In the animal world, often genes do determine a lot of behaviour rather directly.

You cannot compare humans directly to animals, that's a mistake. Humans, by virtue of our ability to make tools and use tools to fundamentally transform the natural world, frankly are no longer bound by our genes intrinsically speaking. We are at a qualitatively higher level, as water is to ice. For humans, genes are no-longer "hard-wired" in any absolutist sense. A trans-humanist future is certainly possible.

I think people are more 'hard-wired' than you suspect.

Devrim

[Lenina Rosenweg]

I am not sure how well regarded this is among scientists but Richard Dawkins in "The Ancestor's Tale" brings up the interesting theory that the "higher apes", chimps, bonobos, and gorillas (not sure about orangutangs) are actually descended from Austrapithecenes, that is most apes are descended from hominids, who once had the ability to walk on two legs but then "lost" this ability. This is an intriguing idea (at least to me) and would make sense. Our ape cousins may have been pushed by another group of Austrapithicenes (who eventually became us) back into wooded areas and adapted accordingly.

[Queercommie Girl]

I think people are more 'hard-wired' than you suspect.

Devrim


I don't know exactly what you mean. As things stand now, genetics cannot really be changed, but Marxism believes "human nature" is more underpinned by socio-economic and to a lesser extent cultural conditions than simply genes. Socialism rejects biological reductionism.

I was referring to the possibility of transhumanism and genetic engineering in the future, which remains science fiction today, but certainly cannot be ruled out.

[Rafiq]

I don't understand, then. Are we not a constantly evolving? Will chimps not eventually evolve into something that resembles man? The loss of hair, intelligence, an upright posture? Didn't we as humans evolve from chimps too? I don't understand. Where did intelligence that we possess come from? Is it not inevitable chimps develope it as well? If not, what made us so goddamn lucky ?

[ColonelCossack]

Bonobos are more evolved than glenn beck as well.
see I changed your quote to say something witty about glenn beck :p

[ColonelCossack]

I don't understand, then. Are we not a constantly evolving? Will chimps not eventually evolve into something that resembles man? The loss of hair, intelligence, an upright posture? Didn't we as humans evolve from chimps too? I don't understand. Where did intelligence that we possess come from? Is it not inevitable chimps develope it as well? If not, what made us so goddamn lucky ?

Humans and chimps evolve from a common ancestor- like a tree.


humans chimps
l_ _____l
l
l
l common ancestor

[Rafiq]

So humans did not evolve from chimps?

[AnonymousOne]

So humans did not evolve from chimps?

Nope. We didn't. The modern chimp and humans share a common ancestor, here's famed evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins to explain;

wh0F4FBLJRE

[ColonelCossack]

So humans did not evolve from chimps?

No. But molluscs evolved from glenn beck.

(see? I did it again! :laugh:)

[Revy]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/video/2011/aug/10/bonobo-chimpanzee-cleverest-monkey-video

Scientists at the Royal Zoological Society of Antwerp have carried out an intelligence test which pitted bonobos against chimpanzees as part of a campaign to help publicise the African trade in bonobos as bushmeat.

The bonobos, chimp-like apes who live in matriarchal family groups and frequently use sex to resolve social conflicts, defied expectations by beating the group of chimpanzees in intelligence tests, because the chimps were too busy fighting among themselves for dominance

The evolutionary benefits of feminism and LGBT rights proved! :lol:

Bonobos ARE more closely related to humans than chimpanzees. I already knew that, although people think it is chimpanzees that are. More recent evidence has suggested otherwise.

But bonobos are closely related to chimpanzees (both belong to genus Pan). In fact another name for the bonobo is the "pygmy chimpanzee".

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/0c/Hominidae.PNG

[Lenina Rosenweg]

To an amoeba, humans are not the pinnacle of creation, amoebas are. Bonobos are not necessarily proto-humans.Bonobos and chimps may evolve into whatever most suits their specific survival strategy in whatever future environment they find themselves in.The Scottish biologist Dougl Dixon wrote a "speculative biology" book, "Life After Man" in which he imagined the directions animal fauna living today may evolve millions of years from now. Dixon has our chimp evolving into something like a lion.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/After_Man:_A_Zoology_of_the_Future


Its online somewhere and it makes a fun read. There's also a BBC series, "The Future Is Wild" about far future evolution . The CGI is quite interesting. Most of its on Youtube.

Humans did not evolve from chimps or bonobo. Instead its believed that the apes and humans branched off from common ancestors. According to genetic analysis, gorillas branched off first, chimps and bonobos branched off a bit later, very close to the time when our ape ancestors became bipedal, walked on two legs.

Two million or so years ago there were a large number of ape-like species who could walk upright, "hominids" living around the same time.As I understand, the common view today is to think of early human evolution not so much as a one to one evolution from one ape-like ancestor to another, but rather as a large population pool from which a number of hominids emerged. At one stage chimps, bonobos, and gorillas emerged from this, at a later stage humans emerged.

[Devrim]

Bonobos ARE more closely related to humans than chimpanzees. I already knew that, although people think it is chimpanzees that are. More recent evidence has suggested otherwise.

But bonobos are closely related to chimpanzees (both belong to genus Pan). In fact another name for the bonobo is the "pygmy chimpanzee".

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/0c/Hominidae.PNG

Bonobs are not more closely related to humans than the common chimpanzee as you diagram actually shows. The fact that both Bonobos and Chimpanzees are part of the same genus, Pan, means that they both share a more recent common ancestor than either of them share with humans, and therefore they are both equally distant from humans.

Devrim

[Devrim]

So humans did not evolve from chimps?

No, humans and chimps evolved from a common ancestor.


I don't understand, then. Are we not a constantly evolving?

Yes, but human evolution will have slowed considerably due to the fact that we now have a global gene pool.


Will chimps not eventually evolve into something that resembles man? The loss of hair, intelligence, an upright posture?

No, beings evolve to be successful in their own environment. If there is no evolutionary pressure to develop intelligence then there is no reason for it to develop.

Humans are not at the top of an evolutionary tree, which all things are developing towards. If we take cockroaches for example, they are very well adapted to their environment, and manage to get by pretty successfully without intelligence.


I don't understand. Where did intelligence that we possess come from?

There is a lot of debate about this, but it is generally considered that it evolved as an adaption to living in groups.


Is it not inevitable chimps develope it as well?

No, not unless they would gain benefits from it that outweigh the costs. Fueling a bigger brain is expensive in terms of the energy it consumes.


If not, what made us so goddamn lucky ?

Basically luck.

Devrim

[Devrim]

I don't know exactly what you mean. As things stand now, genetics cannot really be changed, but Marxism believes "human nature" is more underpinned by socio-economic and to a lesser extent cultural conditions than simply genes. Socialism rejects biological reductionism.

I find this view extremely problematic. The idea that 'socialism' takes a position on scientific issues is contrary to the entire method of 'Marxism'. Whether 'biological reductionism' is true is a question to be determined by the scientific, not by political ideology.

There are things that are 'hard-wired'. That is beyond doubt. Many of them may seem banal, but that is merely an expression of how fundamental they are. For example all human beings without exception regardless of their cultural background or social economic situation smile to show friendliness. Chimps on the other hand use the same gesture to display aggression.

The extent of the generic influence is still a matter of much controversy, but it is undeniably there.

Devrim

[Olentzero]

Bonobos in action (http://www.ted.com/talks/susan_savage_rumbaugh_on_apes_that_write.html). This is some mind-blowing stuff here.

[gendoikari]

Bonobos in action (http://www.ted.com/talks/susan_savage_rumbaugh_on_apes_that_write.html). This is some mind-blowing stuff here.

Jesus Y Christo! Dude, that's Language away from human intelligence levels. Maybe not QUITE on our level, but shit, damn close. Close enough they could be integrated into society.

[Olentzero]

Just don't give 'em the car keys!

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

I don't understand, then. Are we not a constantly evolving? Will chimps not eventually evolve into something that resembles man? The loss of hair, intelligence, an upright posture? Didn't we as humans evolve from chimps too? I don't understand. Where did intelligence that we possess come from? Is it not inevitable chimps develope it as well? If not, what made us so goddamn lucky ?

We diverged from the other apes because we were subject to different selection pressures. Evolution does not have humans, or any specific trait such as intelligence, as some kind of "endpoint" or "goal" (evolution has no goals or telos), a notion stemming from the pre-Darwinian concept of a "Great Chain of Being", with God at the top, then humans and then animals.

We are not the favoured sons of creation - we are all cousins with the rest of life on Earth.

[Olentzero]

We diverged from the other apes because we were subject to different selection pressures.I honestly don't think that's the right way to look at it. Since we evolved from a common ancestor, we have to have been subject to the same selection pressures at some point. Therefore we evolved in a different direction because our random genetic mutations allowed us deal with those selection pressures more effectively than those members of the common ancestor species that didn't end up with it. Granted, the selection pressures that came upon us as humans (early or otherwise) are markedly different than those experienced by chimps, gorillas, or bonobos, but that's a result of our development as a species, not the cause of it.

[Vanguard1917]

Bonobos in action (http://www.ted.com/talks/susan_savage_rumbaugh_on_apes_that_write.html). This is some mind-blowing stuff here.

I'll have to watch the rest of this later, but so far i'm up to the bit where she says that there were people in Tanzania no more advanced than apes.

[Olentzero]

Culturally. And it's not a racist slam against anyone. Herewith the whole text:
There are many people who think that the animal world is hard-wired and that there's something very, very special about man. Maybe it's his ability to have casual thought. Maybe it's something special in his brain that allows him to have language. Maybe it's something special in his brain that allows him to make tools or to have mathematics. Well, I don't know. There were Tasmanians who were discovered around the 1600s and they had no fire. They had no stone tools. To our knowledge they had no music. So when you compare them to the Bonobo... the Bonobo is a little hairier. He doesn't stand quite as upright. But there are a lot of similarities.Tasmania ain't Tanzania, for one thing. But on the whole this is clearly not some racist screed about how another section of the human race is more like monkeys than we are. It's a pretty factual description of the material conditions of a tribe discovered almost 400 years ago that were, culturally speaking, still stuck back before the Stone Age. And, therefore, pretty much at the same level as most modern-day apes. She's using it as a point of comparison - that there's nothing inherently special about Homo sapiens because some humans clearly didn't develop culturally, whereas what you're about to see the Bonobos do is gonna blow your mind with how human-like they are.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

I honestly don't think that's the right way to look at it. Since we evolved from a common ancestor, we have to have been subject to the same selection pressures at some point. Therefore we evolved in a different direction because our random genetic mutations allowed us deal with those selection pressures more effectively than those members of the common ancestor species that didn't end up with it. Granted, the selection pressures that came upon us as humans (early or otherwise) are markedly different than those experienced by chimps, gorillas, or bonobos, but that's a result of our development as a species, not the cause of it.

I think it depends on how exactly the speciation occurred:

http://1.2.3.9/bmi/upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/53/Speciation_modes.svg/500px-Speciation_modes.svg.png

Besides, random mutation is only relevant if there are appropriate environments in the first place that the mutations can take advantage of. Unless there is a population already occupying or adjacent to the kind of environment that leads to new species, then effect of the mutations will be neutral to negative.

[Die Rote Fahne]

Is it right to say that even an alligator, a billion years down the road, could become a biped, primate like organism?

The same, that a bonobo, or Orangutan, could evolve to go become an aquatic organism, right?

[Die Rote Fahne]

Bonobos in action (http://www.ted.com/talks/susan_savage_rumbaugh_on_apes_that_write.html). This is some mind-blowing stuff here.
Holy shit, that is awesome!

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Is it right to say that even an alligator, a billion years down the road, could become a biped, primate like organism?

It could become bipedal, but never "primate like" - the phase space of potential organisms is far too large to enable such close "hits".


The same, that a bonobo, or Orangutan, could evolve to go become an aquatic organism, right?

As you may know, cetaceans were once land-dwelling creatures. So yes.

[Vanguard1917]

Tasmania ain't Tanzania, for one thing.

Sorry, got my countries mixed up there.



She's using it as a point of comparison - that there's nothing inherently special about Homo sapiens because some humans clearly didn't develop culturally, whereas what you're about to see the Bonobos do is gonna blow your mind with how human-like they are


But that's where she would be wrong. You could take a newborn Homo sapien child from the most culturally primitive tribe on earth, install and raise him or her in, say, Los Angeles, California, and that child would grow up to be no different from the rest of the population there. Obviously the same does not go for a bonobo.

I would agree that what makes us unique as a species, or what explains our development, goes far beyond biology. But our biological differences from the rest of the animal kingdom are clearly very important -- otherwise it would be possible to take a bonobo baby and raise it to be human.

[Nehru]

Is there any species that could evolve to become as intelligent as humans are in the next few million years?

[Le Rouge]

Is there any species that could evolve to become as intelligent as humans are in the next few million years?

Dolphins? Apes probably.

It would need a creature that absolutely need a big brain to survive. Apes are good candidates.

[¿Que?]

For example all human beings without exception regardless of their cultural background or social economic situation smile to show friendliness.
Devrim
Not true. A smile can mean all sorts of different things depending on context and culture. Grifters smile to gain confidence not to show friendliness per se. And in fact there are cultural differences in how smiling is perceived (https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Smile#Cultural_differences).

In any case, that's like saying every culture uses some form of dress. Is wearing clothes hardwired?

[Rafiq]

Sorry, got my countries mixed up there.



But that's where she would be wrong. You could take a newborn Homo sapien child from the most culturally primitive tribe on earth, install and raise him or her in, say, Los Angeles, California, and that child would grow up to be no different from the rest of the population there. Obviously the same does not go for a bonobo.



Perhaps because the constraint for intelligence on a human is far superior to that of a bonobo.

[Lenina Rosenweg]

Is there any species that could evolve to become as intelligent as humans are in the next few million years?

It might take longer than a few million years but there's been speculation,as far as I understand, that squid or several octopus species have a nervous system(if not brain structure) similar to humans and with flexible arms could conceivably develop human like intelligence. Possibly racoons as well. This is not to say that these species are somehow waiting to become human, they are well adapted for what they do know but if there is a radically different environment they could evolve in different directions.

[ckaihatsu]

Jesus Y Christo! Dude, that's Language away from human intelligence levels. Maybe not QUITE on our level, but shit, damn close. Close enough they could be integrated into society.


Weeeeelllllllll, making stone tools and playing video games is fine and all, but what *I'd* like to know is where they would stand on the class struggle...(!)


= D


x D

[noble brown]

Sorry, got my countries mixed up there.



But that's where she would be wrong. You could take a newborn Homo sapien child from the most culturally primitive tribe on earth, install and raise him or her in, say, Los Angeles, California, and that child would grow up to be no different from the rest of the population there. Obviously the same does not go for a bonobo.

I would agree that what makes us unique as a species, or what explains our development, goes far beyond biology. But our biological differences from the rest of the animal kingdom are clearly very important -- otherwise it would be possible to take a bonobo baby and raise it to be human.

But you can't raise a bonobo to be a lion either.

[Agent Equality]

"Caesar.. is.. home"
Look on James franco's face: :confused::blink::huh::ohmy:
"okay. Caesar's home" :o

[Devrim]

Not true. A smile can mean all sorts of different things depending on context and culture. Grifters smile to gain confidence not to show friendliness per se. And in fact there are cultural differences in how smiling is perceived (https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Smile#Cultural_differences).

The fact that people can fake expressions of emotion to try to con people doesn't show that these aren't universal expressions. In fact it is precisely the opposite. If they weren't universal expression, they wouldn't fake them.

I think generally all serious scientists are agreed that facial expression are not culturally determined, but universal:


Universality debate

Charles Darwin noted in his book The Expression of the Emotions in Man and Animals:
...the young and the old of widely different races, both with man and animals, express the same state of mind by the same movements.[2]
Still, up to the mid-20th century most anthropologists believed that facial expressions were entirely learned and could therefore differ among cultures. Studies conducted in the 1960s by Paul Ekman eventually supported Darwin's belief to a large degree.
Ekman's work on facial expressions had its starting point in the work of psychologist Silvan Tomkins.[3] Ekman showed that contrary to the belief of some anthropologists including Margaret Mead, facial expressions of emotion are not culturally determined, but universal across human cultures.
The South Fore people of New Guinea were chosen as subjects for one such survey. The study consisted of 189 adults and 130 children from among a very isolated population, as well as twenty three members of the culture who lived a less isolated lifestyle as a control group. Participants were told a story that described one particular emotion; they were then shown three pictures (two for children) of facial expressions and asked to match the picture which expressed the story's emotion.
While the isolated South Fore people could identify emotions with the same accuracy as the non-isolated control group, problems associated with the study include the fact that both fear and surprise were constantly misidentified. The study concluded that certain facial expressions correspond to particular emotions, regardless of cultural background, and regardless of whether or not the culture has been isolated or exposed to the mainstream.
Expressions Ekman found to be universal included those indicating anger, disgust, fear, joy, sadness, and surprise. Findings on contempt are less clear, though there is at least some preliminary evidence that this emotion and its expression are universally recognized.[4]
More recent studies in 2009 show that people from different cultures are likely to interpret facial expressions in different ways. For example, in Canada, the surprised face can be easily mixed up for the disgusted (or sometimes scared) in Kowloon, Hong Kong.[1][verification needed]


In any case, that's like saying every culture uses some form of dress. Is wearing clothes hardwired?

No, it is not. As is well know some human cultures go naked, which means it is not universal.

Devrim

[Olentzero]

But that's where she would be wrong. You could take a newborn Homo sapien child from the most culturally primitive tribe on earth, install and raise him or her in, say, Los Angeles, California, and that child would grow up to be no different from the rest of the population there. Obviously the same does not go for a bonobo.As we are now, yes. But that's not what she's saying. Her point is that - like ÑóẊîöʼn says above - we are not the favored children of creation. There was nothing special in our genes that enabled us to become the dominant species on the planet; it's more what our environment even as far back as 2 million years ago permitted our species to do. Quite clearly, cultural intelligence is not the sole province of Homo sapiens - if we go extinct (which I would greatly not prefer, thank you) my money would be on the bonobos replacing us.

[ckaihatsu]

Quite clearly, cultural intelligence is not the sole province of Homo sapiens


Since "intelligence" is a misnomer that means that everything social -- even on an inter-species level -- *is* cultural. Culturally speaking, then, it looks like bonobos are more assimilationist than chimps are, going by that video....

[Rafiq]

Actually, I hear squids are highly intelligent creatures, sometimes more so than the common chimp

[ckaihatsu]

Actually, I hear squids are highly intelligent creatures, sometimes more so than the common chimp


Well, perhaps, but do they use sex to relieve social tensions...?


x D

[Olentzero]

Culturally speaking, then, it looks like bonobos are more assimilationist than chimps are, going by that video....Meaning what, exactly? Not sure I'm following your argument.

[ckaihatsu]

Meaning what, exactly? Not sure I'm following your argument.


If we look at bonobos as being the source of a distinct *cultural* group then the term 'assimilationist' can be used to refer to how much or how little the bonobos as a group interact with (human) people and allow influences from human culture(s) to become part of their own culture.





2. the social process of absorbing one cultural group into harmony with another;
[syn: assimilation, absorption]

freedictionary.org/?Query=assimilation&button=Search