Are Chimpanzees people?

Click here and disable ads!

No it doesn't since the split between the branch that developed into chimps and the one that became human is well documented and points at a specific and very important stage in evolution. Remove the seperarte terminology and you muddy the distinction here not only among laymen but also people who recieved their education from 'outdated' sources - and for what? What possible gain is reached here?

In fact, it simply muddies the whole issue.

Get your filthy politicing out of science you damned dirty ape!
But seriously, please show me one reason why blurring the line between the divergence of chimps and mankind is of any use. We know they evolved from a common ancestor. We mark the seperation by a change in terminology. What is your problem with that?

It is the job of a scientist to keep up with the cutting edge. The process of learning and updating your knowledge never stops. But reclassifications, new theories and so forth do NOT muddy the issues, as a scientist would never stop following development. There's a reason why they subscribe and write to all these journals. It also bears mention that sources cannot be 'outdated', they can be outdated, and most likely WILL be outdated.

The problem with current chimpanzee classification is that it no longer holds true, not after all the new discoveries that put our species as extremely close kin.

Again, what possible gain in understanding is achieved by removing the obvious primate classifacation that lead directly to mankind? Calling chimps homo- anything is a misnomer since it would imply this branch is part of they type that led to humans. We know they are close kin. We also know they evolved from a seperate branch. Where does reclassifacation help to farther than understanding in any way?

*sigh* Genus does not denote a species and its ancestors, but species of same descent that are close. And that is why chimpanzees should be reclassified as part of genus homo, as level of real divergence between us is ultimately extremely low (much lower than the necessary limit) and our shared is ancestry so recent in evolutionary terms, that we are the three living species of our genus. The implication is not that they are ancestors of humans, but that they share our ancestral species. Thinking genus denotes a linear path of evolution is silly, black bears did not evolve from polar bears.

I will give an example about the issue.

Now we talk about cats.

So, what do you think about this?

And this?

Despite their great similarities, they come from a different genus. The first is a Felis nigripes and the second a Prionailurus bengalensis.

And let's go to a different example.

Look at this...

...and this.

They look quite different but actually they belong to the same genus. The first one is a Prionailurus planiceps and the second one, again, a Prionailurus bengalensis.

Homo erectus and Homo sapiens belong to the same genus. Does it make them the same? No. That's why the one is called erectus and the other sapiens. Homo habilis is also in our genus and he was around 4'2" in height, with very long hands while an average chimpanzee(Pan troglodyte) might be considered "more human" in his appearance. Or not.

The thing is, it's not just a matter of what we believe is right or what looks like a logical conclusion. Neither is it about some great enlightenment we will gain. It's about following the rules the scientific community has set.

I don't know if chimpanzees can be changed to the homo genus but lets not consider it something outside the realm of logic.

Muchos gracias (both for the clarifying post, and the fact thread has kittehs now).

And like said, the fact that the idea of reclassifying Chimpanzees was considered plausible already IN THE SIXTIES and that ever since evidence of our similarities has only been growing rapidly, it's only scientifically sound to reclassify chimpanzees as part of genus Homo.

BROS DOING BRO THINGS, BRO!

Actually, I think those are both females.

The significant growth in brain size should be the dead giveaway here if we are talking about an animal that started on the path to becoming human (you know like the term homo actually implies). Chimps took a different path and have much smaller brains than most (all?) species in the homo group.

This (and the fact that the very term homo means human) should be enough to keep chimps out of this class. If we are - you know - trying to make classifacations that actually make sense.

And where does extending the genus that literally means on the way to becoming human (actually it means human) to include chimps more closely following these rules?

It is illogical to change something into a less acurate term just to appease some sense of politic.

Humans have 46 chromosomes. Chimpanzees have 48 chromosomes. Have fun fucking for mutant retard babies. Retard.

The peak of scientardation, sorry but science MUST be reasonable, logical, and most of all accountable, if not it's hardly science.
Saying that the only things that counts is following the set rules without questioning as such rules came about is blind ideology/faith not what science should supposedly be.

What we are talking about is if chimpanzees are eligible for a change of classification, from Pan troglodytes to Homo troglodytes(or whatever Homo something they choose). That's the issue we are discussing, so you can't really make that point. As for brain size I agree it is an important factor but not the only one. Already you can find big differences between humans in brain size (the pygmies for example).

No one is saying to change them just for the heck of it. Personally, I would be very annoyed if something like that happened. But if there is enough evidence, according to the rules, that suggest Pan troglodytes are eligible for reclassification, then they should do it.

Agreed. It is also illogical to not change something into a better accurate term just to appease some sense of politic. The issue is not the sense of politic but what is the most accurate term. Personally, I believe we are a different genus, but who knows? Maybe new evidence will change everything in the future. Or maybe the evidence they have now is enough, according to the rules. Or maybe nothing will change. Science is not set in stone and the same applies to me.

Let me rephrase that please for better clarity.

The thing is, it's not just a matter of what we believe is right or what looks like a logical conclusion to us(by 'we' and 'us', meaning people with less knowledge than a large number of experts). Neither is it about some great enlightenment we will gain. It's about following the rules of biological classification, the scientific community has set.

Does your comment still stand so that I can respond?

I think chimpanzees are more human than humans and thus not humans.

Are you aware of the rules of taxonomy, and if you are, what is unreasonable, illogical, and not accountable about them?

I consider taxonomy a science, with it being a framework by which biological organisms are classified, and if it is a framework that is apparently too rigid for your tastes, I suggest that you propose an alternative framework by which scientists can work.

Anyway, the rules of taxonomy have changed over the centuries, to account for genetics and other discoveries made since ancient times. The rules will change when there is ample evidence that it should be changed. If a scientist is to name an organism outside of the current rules of taxonomy (i.e. doing things that don't follow the set rules), he or she must be able to justify why - and if he or she does so successfully, then the rules of taxonomy will simply change to accept that justification because new knowledge on how to classify organisms has now been gained. That is science. Science doesn't deal in fuck-this-bullshit-I'm-going-to-classify-this-spider-as-an-ant-because-it-looks-like-one-and-fuck-all-those-scientists-who-disagree-because-fuck-you-your-rules-are-wrong-anyway-animals-should-be-called-like-how-they-look.

If laymen are confused by the terminology, they are still free to call animals whatever they want amongst themselves - there are no taxonomist death squads breaking in doors to terminate them should they do so.

In other news, bats are birds.

Yes, but nothing like the proportional differences between any human type species (homo-) and any non human species. Pigs share have a loty in common with us biologically. In fact some pig tissue is even better for human medicine than even tissue from any other great ape species. Should we then include pigs in with the homo genus?

Great. But that still wouldn't make the change in terminology warranted since the genus homo refers to the direct path in which humans ascended. Chimps and Bonobos (I think) were split off from the common ancestreal strain and evolved into their own genus. What is so hard to accept about this very basic and important divergence? Where will changing the terminology improve understanding or classifacation?

Well yeah, if it is later discovered that we did not split off into a different evolutionary path and somehow chimps are far more closely related than I guess a change might be in order. I hardly think that is going to happen, do you?

It also bears mention that looking at the brain size alone is not the correct way to classify a species, you need more than one defining trait or bats are birds. And it's not the size of the brain that matters, it's the brain/body mass ratio. Even so, what's the biologically important aspect is the structure of the brain, and that's where the similarities between Homo Sapiens and chimpanzees lie in terms of the brain, and what matters the most. A good example is the recent discovery that in communication the chimpanzee brain and the human brain use the exact same sections (as mentioned before), which is a fact of paramount importance.

It also bears mention that human physique is not that different on a fundamental level, but more importantly that it is caused by neoteny: The preservation of fetal and infant traits in adults. If you observe the process, you'll notice that chimpanzee and human infants remain very similar for a long time. But you will also notice that the human infant seems to stop developing on a radical level, not acquiring the body proportions and traits that an adult primate male would but instead in many ways seems to simply "overgrow" as an infant. The exact role of neoteny in human evolution has not yet been completely defined, but it is generally agreed to be at least a major feature (many prominent evolutionary scientists believe it to be THE feature of human evolution). Anyway, the point here was that what you might see as "uniquely human" aspects on the surface (when you go in for a closer look, similarities start popping up everywhere) are actually not that unique at all and are caused by a specific biological phenomenon.

It must also be remembered that even radical superficial differences might not mean anything, ie dog breeds or the introduction of the wild boar to the Americas through escaped domestic pigs (which when escaped took only a few generations to return to their real state, that of the wild boar; this is particularly interesting subject btw).

But what I find more curious is this... Why should the fact genus Homo means human bar chimpanzee reclassification?

EDIT: FYI, the reason pig tissue is used is because it's far easier to get substantial amounts of healthy pig tissue than ape tissue.

Much better question would be "are people chimpanzees?".
Seeing how flinging excrement, not to mention savoring its taste so much, at one another and anyone else that comes in range is a favorite and predominant activity on the codex... i would say that most of codex should be reclassified over.
And put in a cage for advanced being to see and have as a permanent reminder of pandering to the lowest common denominator.

Also, you ignorant fucks, if any ape should be called a hominid its a Bonobo ape, not a fucking shit throwing, cannibalistic chimpanzees.
Probably Orangutans too but Bonobo apes first of all.

Morons.

Captain Obvious to the rescue! Because chimps are not human. They are a quite seperate species that diverged from the common anscestor millions of years ago.

Really? I thought it was due to the fact that rejection rates were significantly lower than with any other animal tissue?

You are oversimplifying it. I think it would be better if you looked at the sum of all the common parts than to look at each one seperately.

The last common ancestor known, you mean. The knowledge we have concerning the matter, is blury at best. That's why I'm keeping an open mind. Either way, I won't be surprised.

I'm not into predictions.

Teach us, oh mighty wizard! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hominidae

Silence!

First, what is wrong with simplifying science wherever you can? Is some jargon laced terminology known to the initiated only really a better way to communicate science (or anything else) than keeping terminology as simple as you can and only complicating it where absolutely necessary?

Second, looking at the sum of all the common parts chimps are very different than either humans or any other species to have the homo prefix; even the earliest examples. We are obviously a quite seperate species and I would go on to say that in the interests of evolutionary clarity we retain the quite important genus distinction that notes the differences between modern man and chimpanzees.

This should be obvious should it not?

If there was a divergence at the 4-6 million year mark is this not enough for a seperate genus especially since we have living examples from both (or all three if you like) modern descendants?
In the absence of a different theory on where chimps came from aren't you guys the ones that are wildly speculating here by including them in a genus that specifically denotes the exact branch that modern man descended from?

Don't mean to be snarky here but see above.

I think you guys are just dancing around the fucking issue.

Look, it's simple.

Step 1) Agree to a definition on the genus 'homo.'
Step 2) List positive and negative correlations between chimps and the definition agreed upon in Step 1.

Stop this "offer 1/3 of a definition of 'homo' and then write a multi-paragraph argument based on an incompletely-described premise" bullshit.

Are blacks people?

http://www.ted.com/talks/susan_savage_rumbaugh_on_apes_that_write.html

All right, I will add one thing to what Kaiserin and Khor already said.

According to the theory we all come from a common ancestor, unsurprisingly some species are more near to us on the evolutionary tree than others.
Unless there is direct evidence that Humans derive from Chimpanzees genetic similarity is a moot point.

See the above.

See the above.

See the above.