Is it time to think things over? Chimps are people too.

Az · May 21, 2003, 15:20

Quote:

Chimps are human, gene study implies

22:00 19 May 03

NewScientist.com news service

The latest twist in the debate over how much DNA separates humans from chimpanzees suggests we are so closely related that chimps should not only be part of the same taxonomic family, but also the same genus.

The new study found that 99.4 percent of the most critical DNA sites are identical in the corresponding human and chimp genes. With that close a relationship, the two living chimp species belong in the genus Homo, says Morris Goodman of Wayne State University in Detroit.

The closeness of relationship between chimps and humans has become an important issue outside taxonomy, becoming part of the debate over the use of chimps in laboratory experiments and over their conservation in the wild.

Traditionally chimps are classified with the other great apes, gorillas and orangutans, in the family Pongidae, separated from the human family Hominidae. Within Hominidae, most paleoanthropologists now class virtually all hominid fossils in three genera, Homo, Australopithecus, or Ardipithecus.

On the basis of the new study, Goodman would not only put modern humans and all fossils back to the human-chimp divergence into Homo, but would also include the common chimp (Pan troglodytes) and the bonobo (Pan paniscus).

"The third chimpanzee"

It is not the first time such a suggestion has been made - in 1991 physiologist and ecologist Jared Diamond called humans "the third chimpanzee". But subsequent genetic comparisons have yielded varying results, depending on how the genotypes are compared.

Goodman compared published sequences of 97 genes on six species, including humans, chimps, gorillas, orangutans, and Old World monkeys. He looked only at what he considered the most functional DNA, bases which cannot be changed without a consequent change in the amino acid coded for by the gene.

Among these, he found that 99.4 percent were identical in humans and chimps. He found a lower correspondence for bases that could be changed without affecting the amino acid, with 98.4 percent identical for chimps and humans and the same for the "junk" DNA outside coding regions. Goodman believes the differences are larger for non-coding DNA because their sequences are not biologically critical.

Split date

His correlations are much higher than the 95 per cent similarity reported in 2002 by Roy Britten of the California Institute of Technology. Goodman does not disagree with those results, he told New Scientist, but points out that the differences analysed by Britten are not important to gene function because 98 percent of the DNA did not code for proteins

The small difference between genotypes reflects the recent split between chimps and humans, says Goodman, who dates the divergence to between five and six million years ago.

But Sandy Harcourt, an anthropologist at the University of California at Davis, believes chimps and humans split six to 10 million years ago. "That's an awful long time to be in the same genus," he told New Scientist.

Classifying chimps as human might raise their conservation profile, but Harcourt hopes that is not the only way to get people to worry about them. "I'd prefer to go the other way, and consider more things that aren't human" as important for conservation, he says.

If true, will we accept chimps as our brethen, or change our definition of human? Or will we continue with our everyday life, full of contradictions and inconsistencies?

For some reason, this is extremely troubling me.

Sava · May 21, 2003, 15:23

I think there are some chimps that are smarter than some humans.

Starchild · May 21, 2003, 15:25

I share 99.9% of my DNA with the rest of the human race yet if they were to be hunted for bushmeat and alternative medicine, I'd actually be less bothered about it than when chimps are hunted. Odd.

*calmly starts measuring out lengths needed for an Azazel fur coat*

Nubclear · May 21, 2003, 15:26

Quote:

Originally posted by Sava
I think there are some chimps that are smarter than some humans.

Sava · May 21, 2003, 15:28

exactly

reds4ever · May 21, 2003, 15:30

How can chimps be consdidered homo when they split from 'humans' >6 million years ago yet hominids placed in Australopithecus are <5 MYO?

Az · May 21, 2003, 15:31

Get your pseudo-political crap out of here, both of you. This is a serious ethics thread, and if you'll try to threadjack it for spam, I'll have no problem to complain to the mods.

Eli · May 21, 2003, 15:31

Voting rights for Chimps!

Eli · May 21, 2003, 15:32

I wonder how long will it take for some missionary to try and convert them to Christianity.

Sava · May 21, 2003, 15:33

Quote:

This is a serious ethics thread

Arrian · May 21, 2003, 15:35

Wasn't there a thread about this yesterday?

-Arrian

Az · May 21, 2003, 15:36

Quote:

How can chimps be consdidered homo when they split from 'humans' >6 million years ago yet hominids placed in Australopithecus are <5 MYO?

It appears that they want to consider Australopithecus as a human, too. But this is a problem, since ancient creatures are classified according to their various phenotypes, and not genetics, so this is a completely different comparison.

Now, you'll get the scary, yet valid, question: if Chimps are not humans because of phenotype, there are heaps of people with various genetical degenerative deseases that don't look "human", as well. are we free to kill them too? Or must we stop the killing of the monkeys, as well?

Should intelligence be a key to measuring creatures? The geneticists make a valid point, yet how much of that DNA is really human and not "hitchhiker" DNA is yet to be seen.

Arrian · May 21, 2003, 15:40

There was a thread on this yesterday, and I posted in it, but it went precisely nowhere:

http://apolyton.net/forums/showthrea...threadid=86686

Carry on. Maybe this one will turn into a good discussion.

-Arrian

Az · May 21, 2003, 15:41

Oh. I see. never bothered to open that thread, since it had a funny/stupid looking title.

reds4ever · May 21, 2003, 15:44

I don't know about you, but on visits to the zoo, in pictures or on TV, I get the 'feeling' of humanity when i look in a chimps eyes.

The homo has always been an artifically elitist genus (man likes to seperate himself from the beasts)

Wernazuma III · May 21, 2003, 15:47

Quote:

Originally posted by Azazel
For some reason, this is extremely troubling me.

Why? Actually medical testing and maltreatment of apes, even more if chimps and bonobos (because they're used more often) has troubled me already before this study.
What change does it make it name them "human". Hey, it's still not the same species as we can't mix-breed (I wouldn't want to know who tried that

) and we already knew beofre that they're feeling, sentient individuals with different characters and abilities.
Somehow I must miss the point of the study (or at least I miss why such categorization can be so important.

Az · May 21, 2003, 15:47

I have no problem with being an elitist Genus. if we were a normal species, we wouldn't have to do it, we'd just munch everything away, without having any moral constraints.

Quote:

I don't know about you, but on visits to the zoo, in pictures or on TV, I get the 'feeling' of humanity when i look in a chimps eyes.

I know what you mean. But it's more of an eye feature than a primate feature. Look at a dog's eyes. They're just as "human".

reds4ever · May 21, 2003, 15:56

Quote:

Originally posted by Azazel
I have no problem with being an elitist Genus. if we were a normal species, we wouldn't have to do it, we'd just munch everything away, without having any moral constraints.

Quote:

I don't know about you, but on visits to the zoo, in pictures or on TV, I get the 'feeling' of humanity when i look in a chimps eyes.

I know what you mean. But it's more of an eye feature than a primate feature. Look at a dog's eyes. They're just as "human".

But you look at a primate and you can feel a connection, like its thinking 'what are you looking at' or whatever, I've got a dog at home and when he looks at me it just means he want some food or to go for a p1ss!

GePap · May 21, 2003, 15:59

I would not classify chimps as part of the genus Homo, if only becuase they are not upright, and I thin that should be an important devide.

Classifying chimps to the genus homo would change little, given what we know of humanities acts towards fellow member of the genus homo, and even to its own species. I think the ethical questions about what we do to creatures like chimps, and dolphins (neither human, but showing some level of intelligence and understanding, if low) c are as valid without them being in our genus and I thgink avoiding causing harm and misery to animals in general is a good idea overall.

Shi Huangdi · May 21, 2003, 16:03

We only need have loyalty to our own species, Chimps should be available for medical testing when nessecary.

Az · May 21, 2003, 16:05

Quote:

Originally posted by Wernazuma III

Why? Actually medical testing and maltreatment of apes, even more if chimps and bonobos (because they're used more often) has troubled me already before this study.
What change does it make it name them "human". Hey, it's still not the same species as we can't mix-breed (I wouldn't want to know who tried that

) and we already knew beofre that they're feeling, sentient individuals with different characters and abilities.
Somehow I must miss the point of the study (or at least I miss why such categorization can be so important.

A very important point Werna, it flew right across me.

AFAIK, humans and chimps cannot interbreed. But who would be the monster that would try it?

I'd like to point out that for me, the issue is very important. If something is human, only then can ethics apply to it. Ethics exist ONLY in the human context, the effects things have on humans. Therefore, this is a very important question. I find it weird that people completely ignore this under the presumption of " even if they're not human we shouldn't harm them". I'll put the validity of that claim aside, and I'd like to emphasize the big difference them being human would make. Education system of sorts, rights, name, and a full introduction to human society.

Az · May 21, 2003, 16:11

Quote:

We only need have loyalty to our own species, Chimps should be available for medical testing when nessecary.

Exactly. Though the psychological damage to humans maltreating chimps should be considered.

Dauphin · May 21, 2003, 16:19

I don't really care about the genetics or the nomenclature. What is more important is how 'human' they are in their abilities and thought processes. I've heard they can communicate abstract thought, have a proto-language, display standard human emotions, demonstrate mathematical abilities etc...

If humans are given rights, then surely so too they should be given them. I would not go as far as to say they have human rights, but they should have something equivalent.

BeBro · May 21, 2003, 16:21

Quote:

Originally posted by Azazel
I'd like to point out that for me, the issue is very important. If something is human, only then can ethics apply to it. Ethics exist ONLY in the human context, the effects things have on humans. Therefore, this is a very important question. I find it weird that people completely ignore this under the presumption of " even if they're not human we shouldn't harm them". I'll put the validity of that claim aside, and I'd like to emphasize the big difference them being human would make. Education system of sorts, rights, name, and a full introduction to human society.

But what exactly does it mean to be human? Is it enough to have to over 99% of the same genes?

Edit. haven´t seen Big Crunch´s post before writing mine

Az · May 21, 2003, 16:23

Quote:

But what exactly does it mean to be human? Is it enough to have to over 99% of the same genes?

That's one of the main question of the thread, child.

Quote:

If humans are given rights, then surely so too they should be given them. I would not go as far as to say they have human rights, but they should have something equivalent.

How come? if they're human, they should be given full rights. If they're not, they're are not a part of our species, and society, and ethics do not apply to them outside the context of interaction with humans.

reds4ever · May 21, 2003, 16:27

We'd better hope that whatever extraterrestrial species makes first contact with mankind has a different attitude to us than we do to the chimps.

If they are vastly more developed than us, would that give them the right to use us for medical testing?

Japher · May 21, 2003, 16:28

Quote:

Oh. I see. never bothered to open that thread, since it had a funny/stupid looking title.

Judging the book by the cover, eh?

Bigot!

Az · May 21, 2003, 16:30

Quote:

We'd better hope that whatever extraterrestrial species makes first contact with mankind has a different attitude to us than we do to the chimps.

If they are vastly more developed than us, would that give them the right to use us for medical testing?

I have little doubt they will have any different attitude.

Japher:

BeBro · May 21, 2003, 16:31

[QUOTE] Originally posted by Azazel

That's one of the main question of the thread, child.

[/q]

Yeah, I should be more precise

I wanted to know your current position about this.

Az · May 21, 2003, 16:34

A human is a person who's parents are human.

But this is rather simplistic, and makes for a circular argument.

I'll try to answer it tomorrow. As you know, it's almost midnight here, and I have classes tomorrow.