"I vaguely recall that the Pan-Homo split occurred before Pan split to chimpanzees and bonobos." Of course, long before. Bonobos are often considered chimpanze

"I vaguely recall that the Pan-Homo split occurred before Pan split to chimpanzees and bonobos." Of course, long before. Bonobos are often considered chimpanzees, just not "common chimpanzees." (From Wikipedia: "Taxonomically, these two ape species are collectively termed panins; however, both species are more commonly referred to collectively using the generalized term chimpanzees, or chimps.") They are very close relatives, both members of the genus Pan. They can interbreed, but don't tend to in the wild because the croc-infested Congo River separates them. If you only vaguely remember that important detail, you probably don't have enough knowledge to say it is "just bullshit" that we came from chimpanzees. None of us do, actually. Many think the most recent common ancestor of chimps and humans was probably similar enough to a modern chimp to be classified as a chimp. Richard Wrangham was actually a big proponent of this view, see his mention here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chimpanzee%E2%80%93human_last_common_ancestor https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chimpanzee%E2%80%93human_last_... "Richard Wrangham (2001) argued that the CHLCA species was very similar to the common chimpanzee (Pan troglodytes) — so much so that it should be classified as a member of the genus Pan and be given the taxonomic name Pan prior." You can disagree with him, but given that we don't have a fossil of the most recent common ancestor, it's mostly speculation. (and in many ways it is not a scientific question, but a semantic one) Also, if you think a common ancestor of two species is always going to be equally similar to each of the two species, think of the polar bear and brown bear. The brown bear still occupies a similar ecological niche as to the common ancestor, while the polar bear occupies a very different one. In fact, the common ancestor WAS a brown bear.