It's not just semantics. What we have are bones and teeth. I don't believe that we know anything about the social behavior of the CHLCA species. Whether it was more like common chimpanzees, or more like bonobos. So the bit about parallel evolution of social behavior in bonobos and humans is highly speculative, at best.
And FWIW, I didn't argue that "a common ancestor of two species is always going to be equally similar to each of the two species". I argue that some stuff -- where we have no data -- is unknown. Maybe similar, maybe different. We just don't know.
Edit: Upon reflection, maybe we do. Bonobos being really an isolated subspecies. But TFA doesn't explain that.
I do like the idea that humans have domesticated themselves, in any case. A lot of it is neoteny. Speciation through arrested development. So if only the childlike survive, that's going to select for it.
And FWIW, I didn't argue that "a common ancestor of two species is always going to be equally similar to each of the two species". I argue that some stuff -- where we have no data -- is unknown. Maybe similar, maybe different. We just don't know.
Edit: Upon reflection, maybe we do. Bonobos being really an isolated subspecies. But TFA doesn't explain that.
I do like the idea that humans have domesticated themselves, in any case. A lot of it is neoteny. Speciation through arrested development. So if only the childlike survive, that's going to select for it.