Slashdot Mirror
Chimps Belong in Human Genus?
Bradley Chapman writes "I found this interesting story from Discovery News about our ties with chimpanzees. Excerpts: 'Chimpanzees share 99.4 percent of functionally important DNA with humans and belong in our genus, Homo, according to a recent genetic study.
Scientists analyzed 97 human genes, along with comparable sequences from chimps, gorillas, orangutans and Old World monkeys (a group that includes baboons and macaques). The researchers then took the DNA data and estimated genetic evolution over time. They determined that humans and chimps shared a common ancestor between 4 and 7 million years ago. That ancestor diverged from gorillas 6 to 7 million years ago.'" Genus is the next step up from species, if you recall your taxonomy. Humans are the only living species in genus homo, currently.
to see if they can make babies?
I'm sure the creationists will pitch a fit if chimps are reclassified.
Any purist creationist gets annoyed if you just say DNA... but they're easily discredited. The intelligent ones will simply shrug because it doesn't matter in the slightest as far as their faith/belief goes. The middle majority will be disquieted by it at the very least, which is probably true for how most people will feel regardless of their creationist/evolutionist/whatever leanings.
I wonder if there would be any legal ramifications regarding the rights of chimps compared to other animals.
Certainly various animal rights activists will use this as a rallying cry to stop experimentation on chimpanzees. Of course, you can make the counter argument that because they are the closest to us genetically they are also some of the best test subjects. Unless, of course, the aforesaid activist would like to volunteer for stage 1 drug testing... no? Didn't think so.
1) You are obviously correct.
2) Species is most often defined: If two animals can and do interbreed, then they are the same species.
So, they argue, timber wolves and huskies are physically separated, if not genetically separated, and are thus different species. Huskies and poodles are not physically separated, so they are not different species.
Of course, this is a ludicrous argument, because poodles/huskies/great danes etc. were all recent man-made breeding experiments, derived from wolves under 5000 years ago. If they're really all that separate, they've only been separate momentarily.
There are no trails. There are no trees out here.
Speech is a misnomer. They are able to communicate via hand signs (ASL, for instance) if trained.
They are able to lie and insult others.
They seem to get to 3 years old intelligence and stop there.
http://www.cwu.edu/~cwuchci/quanda.html: Washoe, the most accomplished signer, has a vocabulary of 240 "reliable" signs...The chimps use the signs both singly and in combination with other signs in multiple-sign utterances. So far, one of the longest utterances observed has been a sentence of seven different signs...They have demonstrated an ability to invent new signs or combine signs to metaphorically express something different, for example: calling a radish CRY HURT FOOD or referring to a watermelon as a DRINK FRUIT. In a double-blind condition, the chimpanzees can comprehend and produce novel prepositional phrases, understand vocal English words, translate words into their ASL glosses and even transmit their signing skills to the next generation without human intervention.
..., but think that putting humans and chimps in the same genus is pushing matters slightly.
Why? I don't see why they should be either separate or included. Genus is supposed to be a grouping that is inclusive on ancestry, but I don't know of any standard that says just how similar to species have to be to be considered a part of the same genus. So I can see a genus consisting or merely humans, of humans and chimps, or of humans, chimps, and gorillas. Once you get past that, you are basically including all primates (what's the sense of including oragutangs but not gibbons?). But nowhere do I see a clear dividing line.
If we say a genus should be larger than merely one species, then Chimps should be included... but what's the basis for that?
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.