So…
Do we tax them now and make them pay rent?
Are Creationist fundies monkey’s uncles?
This, *(if it stands up to peer scrutiny), *has implications that exceed the bounds of zoological academia.
Will it be powerful enough to shake faith in YE creationism?
It seems that there should be moral implications to this. Is there room for another category of creatures between Man and Beast?
What will PETA say? Can they make this be as over-the-top as their other shtuff?
Check out this thread in GQ for some discussion. I won’t repeat my comments, but there ain’t gonna be a reclassification of Homo anytime soon.
Creationism survived the 98.6% number for many years, the 99.4% number will be no different.
Yes, there is room for another category. It’s called Australopithicus sp. and Homo erectus.
PEAT will add this to their propaganda and still get nowhere.
These aren’t really what I was trying to say.
There are different sets of moral rules for our relationship with Beast than for our relationship with Man.
For example, we can feed dogs the same stuff everyday, day in and day out and not think twice about it. We can keep a dog on a chian for hours at a time without blinking. But try feeding a child the same ol same ol and all of your friends and relatives will be bitching about the kid’s diet, (regardless of the relative nutritional value of it). Try keeping a kid on a chain in the yard for even ONE hour and see where that’ll getcha.
The rules are just different. Isuspect that it relates to our expectations/suppositions of what the potential quality of life is for the critter involved, (kids or dogs). To most of us, a dog’s life can only get so good.
ThanX for the link to the GD thread. The hamsters are playing games right now so I haven’t had at it yet.
Simon: I probably came off more flipant than I meant to be in that statement. Just trying to get you to think outside the box a little.
Our view of chimps have changed over time. What was common practice in research labs 50 yrs ago wrt chimps (and other primates) is seen by almost everyone as cruel. Things have improved a bit, although not nearly enough, IMHO. But for policy changes to be implemented, you need to get a good portion of the electorate educated on a pretty difficult scientific idea. I forget the exact number, but something like 30% of the US (maybe even more) believe in the literal story of Adam and Eve, so the idea of us being so closely related to chimps is just not going to make much difference. You’d probably have better luck just emphasizing how cuddly they are.
And don’t get too worked up by this latest genetic data, though. Seems like every month someone puts out a new and improved number. Sometimes it goes up, and sometimes it goes down.
Here’s another link with some good info on the whole “X% genetically related” statement.
Genus Homo is not identical with “human”. Is anyone so stupid as to think that a cougar is identical to a housecat?
Cougar: Felis concolor
Housecat: Felis cattus (sometimes domesticus, but cattus is the internationally-accepted binomial.)
Indeed, I shudder to think what would happen to the poor chimps were they to begin to be considered human. There are far more and far more vocal pressure and political groups around devoted to overseeing the “rights” of non-humans than there are to oversee the rights of humans. Let a dog be starved and a city is up in arms. Let a dozen people starve and freeze to death in a week, and a city doesn’t even blink.
[nitpick]The human part came from the author of the NS article not me.[/nitpick]
Most likely so.
Interesting point. I use the idea of individual responsibility to make the distinction between the kinds of animals that are potentially acceptable for eating, leather and such and humans. If a man trains a dog to attack and kill on command and the dog does, the man is held responsible for the dog’s actions. The Nuremberg trials show that this is not the case for people. Man is considered to have a freewill of sorts. At least enough of a freewill to bear responsibility for their actions. Beast is not considered to bear the same responsibility.
In your illustration, the Man, (the dozen people), is considered to be responsible, (rightly OR wrongly so), for their position of being vulnerable to starving and freezing- the dog is not.
Where would this put our friends the chimps who appear not to be wholly Beast but certainly not Man?
Actually, it is. In the same way that both cougars and housecats are “cats”. In a scientific sense, Homo means human. We tend to equate Homo sapiens exclusively with human, but that is in the vernacular. So if your going to site Latin species name, let’s talk the language of science.
Check out this book, Extinct Humans for the details.
Big deal. It’s the .6% that makes all the difference. Now if the chimps could use language, that’d be another matter.
Actually, as Jared Diamond points out in his book, “The Third Chimpanzee”, (where he makes the same argument as Goodman) it’s convention to use the older genus name when two species are found to be in the same genus. Since “Pan” is older than “Homo”, the genus of the chimps wouldn’t change. Ours would.
Let’s argue semantics: 1.) we have humans with genetic abnormalities (ie Downs syndrome, fragile X syndrome) in which their DNA is quite drastically different from the norm. 2.) We have humans that can’t use language. Correct me if I’m wrong, but there are still tribes with very basic verbal skills and as yet still not written skills.
The question then becomes, what happens when we have a “human” that is more different from our definition of the norm, than our definition of a chimp?
Here’s the final joke to all this: Have we given modern day chimps enough help to make them human? If they were fed and taught properly, how advanced could they get? On the other hand, if you left a bunch of humans to grow up in the jungle, would they be more human or more ape (ie Tarzan)?
I heard the current US administration supported classifying chimps as human, after which we would invade Africa to “liberate” them. 
Having Down’s syndrome gives you extra DNA (one extra chromsome pair, IIRC) but not different DNA. That’s not the same at all. A Down’s syndrome person would have the same genetic difference form other humans as any “normal” human.
There are no “tribes” out there that have a lnaguage any less complex than any other language spoken on earth. Writing is whole different issue.
If you left any primate in the jungle to “grow up” by itself it would die. That argument really doesn’t make sense. The point is you could take any “primitive” tribesman from the jungle and he could be taught to operate normally in any industrialized society. Apes cannot.
Downs syndrome was one example of a genetic abnormality, there are others that I can’t quite remember. My point is that if you are going on genetics alone, I’m sure some humans might fall out of your classification. As it stands, we don’t run a DNA test on all children to assess their similarity before granting citizenship. As a really bad example, men and women are genetically different. Does anyone know the percentage on that?
CITE???
I’m kidding, I hate when people do that. But part of my argument was towards people that are unable to speak; they are no less human than those that can. Chimps have some form of communication, as do whales, dolphins, and elephants. Sure they’re not as smart as we are, but then again, some humans fail to meet that grade as well. Also, some birds are able to speak. We can teach chips to sign, perhaps they’re just a little slower and require a little more patience that the normal human child.
Careful John, we grant human rights, laws, and protection to all humans regardless of their ability to operate normally in an industrialized society.
EM:
Actually, if you look at how “genetic distance” is measured, you’ll see that even people with gross genetic abnormalities would not fall outside the human “norm”. Chimps are not simply “humans with defective genes”. They are primates with quite a few entirely different genes. That’s a whole 'nother thing.
And yes, some mentally impared humans cannot communicate. I’m not talking about mute people who can communicate fine thru sign language, but severely retarded or brain damaged people. And yes, there are some people who would claim they have no more “rights” than animals might have.
I didn’t imply, nor did I mean to, that we would grant different rights to a “primitve tribesman” who immigrated to the US.
The housecat isFelis sylvestris catus.
The old spider sense tells me that the New Scientist article cited above is probably not going to herald the dawning of a new age of brotherhood between apes and humans. The article provides a link to the webpage of Professor Morris Goodman, in which he informs us helpfully that “(t)he molecular genetic view, free of anthropocentric bias, places all the living apes (gibbons, orangutans, gorillas and chimpanzees) with humans in the same family and within that family barely separates chimpanzees from humans, the two as sister subgenera grouping together in the same genus.”
Which is all very well and good, but does it really make sense to use molecular genetic similarity as the defining criterion of taxonomic classification? Would doing so provide an understanding that is “free of anthropocentric bias?” My guess would be “No” and “No,” respectively.
First off, I note that Prof. Goodman is using a fairly restrictive definition of “genetic similarity” that only takes into account the protein-coding regions of DNA. The total difference between humans and chimps is still apparently 95%, as cited in this article (which the above feature links to). For his part, Goodman argues that the noncoding regions aren’t biologically significant. Far be it from me to second guess a Ph.D in Biochemistry, but this seems to contradict my admittedly limited understanding of the current school of thought in molecular biology, which is discovering that the noncoding regions may indeed be fairly important to the genome. Then too, even if two organisms have exactly the same genetic material, its expression can be influenced profoundly by its position within the chromosome. Biologists, please correct me if I am overstating my case here.
Secondly, while molecular biology can be used to determine the degree of relatedness between organisms with great precision, the point where lines are drawn to designate “genus” and “species” are still fairly arbitrary. What percentage of similarity defines a difference in genus? Let’s assume for the sake of argument that we set the bar at .7% of protein-coding DNA, which means that humans and chimps are in the same genus as per Prof. Goodman’s scheme. Why not 10%, or .1%? Isn’t any such percentage going to be a more or less arbitrary value for determining genera, absent other considerations?
Lastly, I would suggest that if the manifold differences between chimpanzees and humans are not sufficient to warrant a generic distinction, then taxonomy would be fairly bankrupt as a useful system of classification. I guess that the “99.4% similarity = chimps are human” interpretation will be bandied about fairly heavily for shock value in the future, but won’t add any profound insights to considerations of science or morality. They’re still chimps, after all.
Ter:
I’ve always been supspicious of the term “junk DNA”. I’d like to see a geneticist remove all of the “junk DNA” from an organism and see how it does.
Yeah, this sort of smacks of a publicity stunt. They have to know that there is zero chance, at this point, of putting chimps and humans in one genus.
John Mace:
Oh, I wouldn’t go that far. Call me cynical, but I wouldn’t be too terribly surprised if there weren’t a concerted attempt to include chimpanzees in genus Homo someday soon. All’s I’m saying is, such a change wouldn’t be based on any revolutionary new scientific understanding, but would rather be a “consciousness-raising” effort on the part of well-meaning biologists, or simply an attempt to manufacture a scientific revolution in the absence of any new information. Let’s face it, vertebrate taxonomy is relatively stagnant these days unless you actively shake things up a bit. It’s not like they’re discovering whole new genera every day anymore, so you have to keep things fresh by suddenly decreeing that birds are reptiles or whatever.
Correct on the lack of writing ability, which no culture has had (as far as we know) more than ~5000 years. But verbal ability is another matter. As far as I know there’s no known example of a technologically primitive tribe that speaks an accordingly “primitive” language, say one that would be equivalent to that of an 18-month old toddler in an more ‘advanced’ society. In other words, barring mental deficiency or other extroardinary circumstances, no human adult says the equivalent of “Og smash rock”. Instead, everyone says what in his/her language would mean, “Og smashed the rock.” If the given language doesn’t provide for tense and pronoun conjunctions, this meaning is provided through some other construction.
Maybe. There is the “minor” stumbling block of Australopithicus that will get in the way. And new genera of Hominids are being added, not taken away. We’ll see.