DNA Ain't Everything

Citing a recent analysis of the genomes of humans, chimps, orangutans, and gorillas by Georgia Institute of Technology scientists, the Guardian reports that some researchers want to reclassify chimpanzees from their own genus Pan to our genus Homo. Why? Because, according to the Guardian,

The tests showed that even though humans and chimps split from a common ancestor between 5m and 7m years ago, the rate at which their genetic codes were evolving was extremely similar, differing by only 3%, and much slower than gorillas and orang-utans.

In taxonomy, a genus is a group of genetically related species possessing certain characters in common and easily separable from other groups of species. If we focus on bone structure, genetic similarity, sociability, omnivorousness, and so forth, chimps look a lot like current representatives of the genus Homo, namely us. On the other hand, if we focus on characteristics like brain size and structure, manual dexterity, language use, and relative hairlessness, they look quite different.

I like chimps as well as the next fellow, and if biologists want to reclassify them as Homo, that's fine by me. However, such a reclassification would have no effect on the moral status of chimpanzees. If chimps (or any other animals) want rights, they will have to demand them for themselves and also promise to respect ours.

Comments

[Ed]

(Waits for the GW Bush jokes to begin...)

[nostradumbass]

Why do the homo chimps hate America?

[mediageek]

This is going to cause much, much, much wailing and gnashing of teeth.

[Captain Holly]

If chimps (or any other animals) want rights, they will have to demand them for themselves and also promise to respect ours.

That's a tall order for male chimps: They have a nasty habit of attacking men whom they perceive to be rivals and biting their balls off or ripping their eyes out.

On the other hand, they'd be great cage fighters...

[SPD]

If chimps (or any other animals) want rights, they will have to demand them for themselves and also promise to respect ours.

Great. Now we have to wait for them to develop language.

[Ahrimahn]

That's a tall order for male chimps: They have a nasty habit of attacking men whom they perceive to be rivals and biting their balls off or ripping their eyes out.

Kind of like Muslims. 😉

[SPD]

They bite their WHAT off?!?

[wellfellow]

I'm so sick and tired of this agenda! First it was gay marriage, now homo chimps??

[eric]

This is a conflict between the proponents of cladistics and those of more "old-fashioned" methods of classification. Like any academic turf war, the cladistics folks, having won the major battles, now want more than their share, pushing their ideology over and beyond the question of what's most useful for classifying.

[Shawn Smith]

Is it just Chimpanzees that this group wants to re-genus? What about Bonobos? The article didn't say.

[linguist]

On the other hand, if we focus on characteristics like brain size and structure, manual dexterity, language use, and relative hairlessness, they look quite different.

Maybe, maybe not.
http://www.apa.org/releases/chimpbrains.html
http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?fromPage=online&aid=176661
http://www.hon.ch/News/HSN/522639.html

Sorry for boring academic post. This happens to be my research hobby. (Evolution of brain laterality is related somehow to evolution of language.)

Taxonomic classification, though? Who cares? The whole system probably needs to be redone now that we have DNA codes for more species.

[Captain Holly]

They bite their WHAT off?!?

Made you cringe, didn't I?

I remember reading a story from CA a while ago where someone's pet chimp went bonkers and attacked a neighbor. His balls were the first thing to go.

There was a male zookeeper here in Utah that was attacked by chimps a couple of years ago. He was lucky; they only bit off his nose before his female co-worker jumped on him and saved him (apparently, male chimps won't attack females).

From this story I also found out that the zoo keeps a 12-gauge nearby for just such an occasion; the chimps in question were quickly dispatched with 00 buckshot.

[Charleton]

Damned dirty apes.

[nofrontin]

Those people who say I can't kill retarded people are full of shit. I mean, they can't demand rights!

[Dave W.]

I don't think people should be allowed to eat chimpanzees. When they make laws against eating chimpanzees, I think those are good laws.

If Bailey would classify this as a "right" then I think chimps deserve at least this right. I think they deserve the right not to be tortured (absent a really good reason) too.

[Ken Shultz]

If chimps (or any other animals) want rights, they will have to demand them for themselves and also promise to respect ours.

Maybe Ruthless can shed some light on this for us...

...But I think chimpanzees have a long, tried and true cultural tradition of respecting our rights. ...I think I remember seeing them demand that we respect their rights on several documentaries. Do something they don't like with someone in their group, etc., and they get real vocal, actually.

I think they might make an excellent addition to our society too. ...Talk about libertarian! Their cultural taboos are limited to things like parent/child incest and... Come to think of it, I think that's their only cultural taboo.

They're not big on organized labor; I understand they've been locked out of SAG. (I wonder how much in back royalties is owed to the estate of Lancelot Link?) I don't know where they stand on intelligent design, specifically, but I'd bet they're against mandatory attendance or public schools in general. ...I understand they're kinda big on home schooling.

[biologist]

Shawn: bonobos are sometimes referred to as lesser chimpanzees, so they probably mean chimps in the broad sense, including both Pan troglodytes and Pan bonobo

bonobos don't bite off the balls of rivals. they solve social conflicts through sexual stimulation, rather than violence. both homosexual and heterosexual conflict resolution occurs.

the definition of the groups included in a genus or any other taxon other than the species is wholly subjective. species definitions are only somewhat subjective.

[D.A. Ridgely]

I suggest they call the new classification "Homo Chimpson."

[Bonar Law]

Vive la difference!

[B.P.]

"bonobos don't bite off the balls of rivals. they solve social conflicts through sexual stimulation, rather than violence."

Sounds like a 1980's Michael Douglas film.

[emme]

Didn't the article also mention that chimps evolve at a much faster pace than humans?

I feel like I'm going to get pounced on for asking this....but doesn't that suggest that chimps will eventually (don't know how long) form enough genetic mutations that are beneficial that they'll catch up to us or surpass us?

Or does one have nothing to do with the other? I'm a total newbie when it comes to this subject.

[Captain Holly]

bonobos don't bite off the balls of rivals. they solve social conflicts through sexual stimulation, rather than violence. both homosexual and heterosexual conflict resolution occurs.

Make Love, Not War!

[R C Dean]

I don't think people should be allowed to eat chimpanzees.

Why not, Dave W? And please, if you could address why people should not eat chimps and why the state should punish those who do, I'd appreciate it.

[thoreau]

So, what if you're starving, and the only food available is either a chimp steak or a muffin made with high fructose corn syrup....

[mediageek]

RC, Dave doesn't want people to eat chimps because they're very stringy and have a gamey flavor to them.

[Phil]

but doesn't that suggest that chimps will eventually (don't know how long) form enough genetic mutations that are beneficial that they'll catch up to us or surpass us?

That depends on the definitions of the following words:

mutations
enough
surpass
beneficial

[scape]

First it was gay marriage, now homo chimps??

Silverbrokeback Mountain - starring Heath Ledger and Koko.

[Shawn Smith]

Thanks, biologist.

I had heard that bonobos used to be called "pigmy" chimpanzees, but not "lesser."

I also heard that the conflict resolution sex (usually lasting 5-10 seconds) is least common between sons and mothers, but other combinations are all pretty well represented.

And finally, I have read (I think on talkorigins.org) that once we get past organism, "species" isn't completely well defined, either. I remember it mentioning plants where their offspring have twice as many chromosomes, and various kinds of bacteria. My memory could be faulty, however, and I'm sure you'll correct me, if it is.

[Stevo Darkly]

emme: "chimps are evolving at a faster pace than humans" just means that chimps are changing at a faster rate than humans -- but they aren't necessarily changing in a "human-like" direction.

It could mean they are evolving to be smaller, larger, better climbers, better at walking on the ground, more carnivorous, or even shedding some brain mass in favor of becoming bigger and stronger ... they aren't necessarily changing in a way that they'll "surpass us" in our own ecological niche as humans.

And now I have White Zombie's "More Human Than Human" stuck in my head.

[emme]

That depends on the definitions of the following words:

mutations: A change of the DNA sequence within a gene or chromosome of an organism resulting in the creation of a new character or trait not found in the parental type.

enough: enough meaning enough traits developed via genetic mutations that would enable them to do many if not all things humans are capable. Ability to reason for example.

surpass: Can't answer this one.

beneficial: genes that are best at surviving and reproducing and will therefore eventually spread through the gene pool.

[Dr. Zaius]

Troy: I hate every ape I see,
From chimpan-A to chimpanzee,
No, you'll never make a monkey out of me!

(Statue of Liberty rises)

O my! I was wrong!
It was Earth, all along!
You've finally made a monkey,

Apes: Yes we've finally made a monkey,

Troy: Yes you've

& Apes: finally made a monkey out of me!

Troy: I love you, Dr. Zaius!

[Chimpy, the Argentinian Soccer]

"So, what if you're starving, and the only food available is either a chimp steak or a muffin made with high fructose corn syrup...."

Yeah, right, like THAT would ever happen.

[Les]

If chimps (or any other animals) want rights, they will have to demand them for themselves and also promise to respect ours.

Well, I'm very torn on this subject. I've worked with severely autistic and retarded kids who were as or less intelligent than chimps. I don't understand as well as I should the all philosophical nuances of the notion of "rights," but if I can't eat or conduct experiments on severely retarded, orphaned humans, why should it be okay to do so to demonstrably more intelligent/emotional creatures like normal chimps?

[Captain Holly]

And now I have White Zombie's "More Human Than Human" stuck in my head.

Better than "Dragula", I suppose.

Troy: I love you, Dr. Zaius!

And now I have "Dr. Zaius, Dr. Zaius! Oo! Oo! Oo! DR. ZAIUS!" going through my head....

[methodman]

doesn't that suggest that chimps will eventually (don't know how long) form enough genetic mutations that are beneficial that they'll catch up to us or surpass us?

The title of the post sums it up: DNA ain't everything.

Should they appear to be ready to "surpass" the human race at any time in any particular way, we will slaughter enough of them to slow their progress considerably, kind of like they did at that zoo that Captain Holly mentioned above.

[mk]

they solve social conflicts through sexual stimulation

That's probably more effective than the breakdancing-based conflict resolution I've been practicing.

[Dave W.]

Sure, RCD. some of my reasons are:

"Some consider the consumption of monkeys and apes to be too close to human cannibalism due to the similarity of our species. The similarity increases the danger of viruses. Most is "bushmeat" or caught from the wild, in area of high non-human primate populations such as Sub-Saharan Africa and southeast Asia, especially Indonesia. One of the major theories for the origin of the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) in humans is the eating of primate meat infected with a similar virus."

(From the Wiki)

I also would invoke the comments of the reply of the poster who works with autistic children. Maybe more to come if I feel like it and have time.

[emme]

"The title of the post sums it up: DNA ain't everything."

But isn't the title of the post misleading?

The differences between humans and chips has everything to do with DNA.

That small difference between our DNA and the chimp's is why we are so different.

[Allen T]

"...if we focus on characteristics like brain size and structure, manual dexterity, language use, and relative hairlessness, they look quite different."

Relative hairlessness? I guess this new DNA discovery would go a long way to explaining my healthy mane of back hair.

Excuse me, I'm going to go fling poo at my office mates now. 😉

[mediageek]

It seems to me that severly retarded or autistic people ought to be afforded the same rights as the rest of us as a way to err on the side of caution regarding what is human and what isn't.

Getting your foot in the door via being of the human species should count for something.

But I guess I'm just speciest.

[Captain Holly]

The similarity increases the danger of viruses. Most is "bushmeat" or caught from the wild, in area of high non-human primate populations such as Sub-Saharan Africa and southeast Asia, especially Indonesia. One of the major theories for the origin of the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) in humans is the eating of primate meat infected with a similar virus.

Yes, but that's not due to eating the meat per se, but the bites/scratches/cuts the hunters receive while catching/killing/butchering the chimp.

Cooking the meat will destroy the virus; even eating raw meat from an infected animal probably wouldn't make you sick, unless you had a cut or sore in your mouth for the virus to enter.

[Audrey]

I'm autistic, and I don't like being lumped with monkeys (or retarded people, for that matter).

[Curious]

"I remember reading a story from CA a while ago where someone's pet chimp went bonkers and attacked a neighbor. His balls were the first thing to go"

Why were the guy's balls exposed enough to be bitten?

[thoreau]

Why were the guy's balls exposed enough to be bitten?

Yeah, maybe the chimp was acting in self defense.

[Mankey]

If chimps (or any other animals) want rights, they will have to demand them for themselves and also promise to respect ours.

Now that its established that I am a monkey's uncle, I am claiming power of attorney and demanding those rights. So if you will respect ours, we will respect yours. While we are at it, if you pick the lice off my back, I will pick them off yours.

[TheDumbFish]

Bonzo, sick balls!

[BrianTerrel]

Didn't the article also mention that chimps evolve at a much faster pace than humans?

I feel like I'm going to get pounced on for asking this....but doesn't that suggest that chimps will eventually (don't know how long) form enough genetic mutations that are beneficial that they'll catch up to us or surpass us?

Or does one have nothing to do with the other? I'm a total newbie when it comes to this subject.

Here is my layman's understanding of the matter:

The short answer is no, the fact that chimps evolve faster than we do does not suggest that they will "surpass" us at some point.

The problem with that line of thinking is that it incorporates a common misunderstanding of evolution. Most people think that "to evolve" is to move up some sort of Great chain of being which hierarchically ranks organisms from simple to complex with humans at the very top. In truth, "to evolve" means nothing more than "to change". Usually , but not always, the change is in response to an environmental pressure. It doesn't usually make sense to talk about an organism as being more or less evolved than another; if one must compare, it is better to talk of how well adapted they are to their given environments.

As an example of environmental pressure lets consider an environment which is covered in snow much of the year. In such an environment a white rabbit would have a better chance of escaping predators than a black one. Over time more and more white rabbits will surive long enough to breed as compared to black rabbits. Each generation will thus have more white rabbits and less black ones than the generation before it. Over time the population will change composition in favor of white rabbits.

Each environment presents different pressures for different organisms. At one point in our history there was a strong pressure towards greater and greater intelligence, and our population changed (evolved) in favor of more intelligent humans.

Now we must ask, "Is there an environmental pressure for chimpanzees to become more intelligent." If there was such a pressure, and chimpanzees did change faster than we do, and we were to leave them alone then yes, chimpanzees would at some point catch or surpass us in intelligence. What we must consider, however, is that the environment chimpanzees inhabit already contains a massive population of intelligent primates.

An analogous situation might be the plight faced by bears in north america. The bears which have the intelligence to figure out how to get food from human environments are not the one's that have the best survival rate. Bears that roam through campgrounds and forage in dumpsters tend to come to a bad end rather quickly and thus will not have as many opportunities to pass on their inquisitive genes. A population of intelligent chimpanzees would face a similar dilemma. Chimpanzees possess much greater physical strength than the average human and as they became more intelligent they would likely be more inclined to behave in ways which would irritate (by stealing food) or threaten (by attacking) nearby humans. Sooner or later we'd get around to wiping them out with our superior technology. They'd never last long enough to develop the sort of foresight that would allow them to deal with us in a peaceable manner. In a sense there really is an environmental pressure against chimpanzees moving above a certain threshold of intelligence. They would never be safe if they came into direct competition with us.

The upshot is that even if chimps are evolving faster than we are, they are not responding to the same pressures that our ancestors did and thus will not follow a similar path. It is important to remember that evolution is not a progressive, goal oriented phenomenon; organisms change in ways that make them more suited to their environment, not more like us.

Hopefully that isn't too much in the way of pouncing 🙂

[Captain Holly]

Why were the guy's balls exposed enough to be bitten?

Yeah, maybe the chimp was acting in self defense.

Alas, I don't know. The chimp probably bit his groin area and his teeth cut through the pants.

Not a pleasant thought shudder

[R C Dean]

they're very stringy and have a gamey flavor to them.

Slice thin, and soak in buttermilk. Pan frying tends to make them chewy, so I prefer to grill.

Some consider the consumption of monkeys and apes to be too close to human cannibalism due to the similarity of our species.

And some don't. Let each consume according to his beliefs and preferences.

One of the major theories for the origin of the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) in humans is the eating of primate meat infected with a similar virus.

There are a number of diseases that can be caught from poorly prepared food. We don't outlaw beef because of e Coli. We don't outlaw eggs because of botulism. Why should we outlaw chimp because of HIV?

[Eric the .5b]

Silverbrokeback Mountain - starring Heath Ledger and Koko.

Koko was female, IIRC...

[Phil]

It's worth mentioning, in response to Ron's original post: If chimps (or any other animals) want rights, they will have to demand them for themselves and also promise to respect ours.

As far as the latter part goes, they pretty much do. I haven't seen many incursions by bands of armed chimps trying to kidnap our children in order to use them for medical research, industrial testing, or to teach them tricks, have you? No, they pretty much keep to themselves until we fuck with them.

[bubba]

Chimps hunt monkeys for food.

Chimps will kill male humans who are perceived to threaten dominance. There have been humans dismembered this way. Last year (?) was an example of a man getting between a chimp and his favorite human woman. Not good.

Chimp muscle fibers are structured differently from ours. We're basically mutant. This may have removed some constraints on skull growth, etc, but it means that a "small" chimp can easily rip you limb from limb.

To those of you referring to disabled people who can't speak for themselve, I refer to you a recent DilbertBlog entry: BOCTAOE.

When some chimps start asking for equal rights, I will give the benefit of the doubt to the other chimps.

[Captain Holly]

As far as the latter part goes, they pretty much do. I haven't seen many incursions by bands of armed chimps trying to kidnap our children in order to use them for medical research, industrial testing, or to teach them tricks, have you? No, they pretty much keep to themselves until we fuck with them.

That's because they have to, not because they want to. There's a difference between voluntarily respecting someone's rights in recognition of a moral/legal code, and avoiding something in order to survive.

Waaaay back in the old days, before that funny shiny buzzing obelisk induced our ancestors to pick up bones and kill animals with them, chimps probably had pitched battles with hominids.

They'd do it if they could today, but we became so much better at sharpening sticks and accurately delivering objects at high speed that they figured out it wasn't worth the trouble.

But as I pointed out earlier, in a one-on-one situation male chimps are more than happy to relive the good ol' days.

[jtuf]

Dean,

The risk of diseases jumping to humans are much greater if they come from closely related species. That?s because our biochemistry is so similar that just a few adjustments in the pathogen allow it to adapt to humans. The principles behind quarantining people also apply here. We wouldn?t quarantine someone with a 5% chance of spreading a deadly disease, but people with a 95% chance of spreading disease do get quarantined. Someone who eats a chimp has a greater risk of catching and spreading a new disease than someone who eats cows and chickens. I?m not sure I agree with quarantines or a law against chimp eating. However, David has a point, and I would definitely _recommend_ against eating chimps.

[jtuf]

Shawn,

You?re right about plant offspring sometimes having double the chromosomes of their parents. Compared to animals, plants aren?t too picking about interspecies fertilization or two sperms fertilizing the same egg. These events occasionally happen and can cause the chromosome doubling you mentioned. It also makes cladeograms in the plant kingdom a bit reticular.

[jtuf]

My animal behavior professor worked with chimpanzees. He told us about a couple of times when the chimpanzees helped him find food and one time when a chimpanzee saved a female coworkers life. He also showed us a video of chimpanzees hunting and eating smaller primates.

[scape]

Koko was female, IIRC...

Yeah, she was. How about ... Rosie O'Donnell and Koko?

[Captain Holly]

Someone who eats a chimp has a greater risk of catching and spreading a new disease than someone who eats cows and chickens. I?m not sure I agree with quarantines or a law against chimp eating. However, David has a point, and I would definitely _recommend_ against eating chimps.

I know I'm being pedantic here, but eating chimp meat, by itself, is not hazardous if it has been properly cooked. Virtually all potential pathogens will be destroyed by adeuqate cooking.

I'm pretty sure I'll never try Filet of Bonzo. But that's a choice based on personal tastes, not biology.

[mediageek]

"Someone who eats a chimp has a greater risk of catching and spreading a new disease than someone who eats cows and chickens."

So you're saying that the crazy guy with the helmet and the whip wasn't the most dangerous thing Indiana Jones took on in "Temple of Doom?"

[consisto]

When some chimps start asking for equal rights, I will give the benefit of the doubt to the other chimps.

When some members of genus Homo start asking for equal rights, I will give the benefit of the doubt to the other members.

Disabled people are by no means an obvious exception--some mentally disabled people are going to spend their lives at a lower level than chimps. The only reason it seems "obvious" to you is that those exceptions happen to make up the difference between the proposed rule (must respect rights of others) and the rule you truly desire (must be homo sapiens). You want the latter, but you have no philosophical basis for it, so you opt for the former and try to use a "obvious exception" fudge factor to make up the difference.

But some people see chimps as "disabled" people--though the connotations of that word are tricky as always. Your misbehaved "obvious exception" simply won't stay where you leave it.

In fact, as a non-libertarian who arrived here by some stream of consciousness hyperlink chain that I can no longer recall, technically I don't even qualify for protection under this reciprocal regime of rights, because I deny such rights exist. I don't think anyone has an absolute right to anything. I do believe that protecting human life is good, and I encourage the government to do what is good.

[v.]

>Koko was female, IIRC...

>>Yeah, she was. How about ... Rosie O'Donnell and Koko?

If Rosie would show Koko her tits, Koko might go for it.

http://www.livescience.com/animalworld/051202_ap_koko_nipple.html

[jtuf]

Captain,

Cooking does close that line of argument. Just out of curiosity, what do you think of a law against eating raw chimp meat?

[Stevo Darkly]

"Relative hairlessness?"

You just reminded me of something. I read somewhere that, follicle for follicle, human beings have just as many hairs as chimpanzees do. But theirs are longer and thicker.

And now I have "Dr. Zaius, Dr. Zaius! Oo! Oo! Oo! DR. ZAIUS!" going through my head....

APE 1: Look out! The human's about to escape!

TROY: Get your paws off me, you ... dir-ty ape!

APE 1: He can talk!

APE 2: He can talk!

TROY: I can siiiiiiiiiiiinnnnnnnng!

(Thump-thump boomp!)

FEMALE VOICE: Help me, Dr. Zaius!

CHORUS: Dr. Zaius, Dr. Zaius! Doc-tor Zaius!
Dr. Zaius, Dr. Zaius! Doc-tor Zaius!
Dr. Zaius, Dr. Zaius! Ooooooooh, Dr. Zaius!

(Dr. Zaius! Dr. Zaius! Dr. Zaius! Dr. Zaius...)

TROY: Help me, Dr. Zaius!

(Thump-thump boomp!)

What's wrong with me?

DR ZAIUS: I think you're crazy!

TROY: Want a second opinion!

DR ZAIUS: You're also lazy!

(CHORUS)

TROY: Can I play the piano ... any ... more?

DR ZAIUS: Of course!

TROY: ............... Well, good! 'Cause I couldn't before!

(CHORUS)

(All I can do from memory...)

[Douglas Fletcher]

Something about chimps really brings the monkey out in people.

[Les]

I'm autistic, and I don't like being lumped with monkeys (or retarded people, for that matter).

I wasn't "lumping" autistic people with any other group (and chimps aren't monkeys, btw). I said that some severely autistic and retarded people have less intellectual/emotional capability than a healthy chimp and I asked why chimps should have fewer rights than humans with severe mental disabilities.

So far, only mediageek has attempted to answer the question. Thanks, mediageek, you rotten speciest, you. 😉 But I disagree that classification should matter more than actual neurological capability.

[biologist]

I had heard that bonobos used to be called "pigmy" chimpanzees, but not "lesser."

you're right, I'm wrong

And finally, I have read (I think on talkorigins.org) that once we get past organism, "species" isn't completely well defined, either.

I agree, that's why I said species are somewhat subjective.

I remember it mentioning plants where their offspring have twice as many chromosomes, and various kinds of bacteria.

Most plants have multiple sets of chromosomes (i.e. multiple copies of the whole genome of the ancestral plant species), most animals are diploid, having only two copies of each chromosome.

My memory could be faulty, however, and I'm sure you'll correct me, if it is.

are you saying I'm some sort of perfectionist ass? you'd be correct.:)

Comment by: Shawn Smith at January 25, 2006 03:09 PM

[tomWright]

Yeah, she was. How about ... Rosie O'Donnell and Koko?

But I thought the joke was in the pairing of a gorilla and a human?

[Terry]

Ron:
"If chimps (or any other animals) want rights, they will have to demand them for themselves and also promise to respect ours."

Are you making the argument that: torturing to death a young child or mentally retarded adult human being would be the personification of evil, *but* doing the exact same thing to a chimpazee (or any other animal) would be A-OK !

Just wondering...

[plunge]

"You just reminded me of something. I read somewhere that, follicle for follicle, human beings have just as many hairs as chimpanzees do. But theirs are longer and thicker."

Yep. All great apes have the same number: it's one of the things that defines them from other primates.

Know another key defining feature of great apes? Their molars are unique in the animal kingdom. They have five cusps with a distinctive sort of Y-like shaped groove. While the exact shape of a primate molar doesn't seem to be particularly important, all apes have this shape of molar, and only apes have it.

I may not have described what it looks like too well, but there is an easy way to see what one looks like. Go look at your own molars in a mirror. 🙂

"Are you making the argument that: torturing to death a young child or mentally retarded adult human being would be the personification of evil, *but* doing the exact same thing to a chimpazee (or any other animal) would be A-OK !"

Can't you see why this is sensible? Morality is supposed to be a set of arbitrary rules with no justification other than habit. Don't try to cloud the waters by trying to bring consistency into it.

[jtuf]

"I said that some severely autistic and retarded people have less intellectual/emotional capability than a healthy chimp and I asked why chimps should have fewer rights than humans with severe mental disabilities."

Mental capacity is too subjective a criteria for assigning rights. There are many cases were governments lock up dissidents by claiming they are mentally ill. Even in the US, hospitals lock up non-violent people with this claim. Assigning rights by species isn?t perfect, but it provides clearer boundaries, which makes it more difficult for people to move those boundaries arbitrarily.

[jtuf]

Some people complain of speciesism, but unless they are airitarians or futilitarians, they are guilty of kingdomism.

[Dave W.]

Further to previous answer to RCD:

Also, the older I get, the more intelligent animals seem to me generally. The more intelligent I consider animals to be, the less I think people should be allowed to eat them. For the same reasons that people can't eat other people. Because intelligent things have a metaphysical value positively correlated with their intelligence.

Now I don't deal with chimps much, but I am pretty confident that chimps are a lot smarter than dogs or cats. So when dogs or cats or even squirrels do things that seem to evince intelligence become more intelligent in my eyes, the more intelligence I constructively give to the chimps.

It is hard to know where to draw the line personally and where to draw the line in the law. Personally, I substantially stopped eating cow and pig in 2004. As a matter of law, I think it should be legal to eat these creatures, both now and for the foreseeable future. On the other hand, I think chimps are both too intelligent for me to eat personally and also to intelligent for my neighbors and peers to be eating. maybe there should be exceptions for indigenous tribes with long traditions and there should certainly be an exception if your plane crashes in the Andes with a load of chimps and chimp corpses. But generally: don't eat the chimps. I implore you.

[scape]

I thought the joke was in the pairing of a gorilla and a human?

It was supposed to be a male gorilla but I couldn't think of a famous one.

I think chimps are both too intelligent for me to eat personally and also to intelligent for my neighbors and peers to be eating

Perhaps a sliding scale based on IQ or SCT scores. If you're in the top 10% you can eat whatever meat you desire. If you're in the bottom 10% then monkey, dolphin, pig, dog and exceptionally bright cattle are off limits.

[thoreau]

Dave W., please report to the food thread for a critique of the article that you recommended to me. And please read all of my posts before responding. My thinking on the matter went through certain modifications over time.

You might even say that it evolved, since it sure as hell wasn't arrived at in an intelligent manner 🙂

[Captain Holly]

Cooking does close that line of argument. Just out of curiosity, what do you think of a law against eating raw chimp meat?

I would leave it up to the locals. If the people of Ghana want to enjoy Chimp aux champignons, then that's their choice. OTOH, if a state or the US government wanted to outlaw it here, I'm cool with that. I have no strong feelings either way, because it really doesn't affect me.

One could argue that by allowing consumption of chimps there is an economic value attached to them and the local farmers won't view them as worthless pests. Similar to what happened with elephants: In southern Africa, where they could be harvested and used, they prospered. In eastern Africa, where they were totally protected, they diminished because they had no net value to the local population.

[Guy in the back row]

First they came for the chimp eaters, but I didn't care because I don't eat chimps....

[Stevo Darkly]

It was supposed to be a male gorilla but I couldn't think of a famous one.

1) Gargantua the Great, of the Ringling Bros./Barnum & Bailey circus:

http://www.yale.edu/opa/v34.n14/story15.html

2) Phil the Gorilla (famous in my town, anyway):

http://stlzoo.org/home/history/philthegorilla.htm

3) Snowflake, the albino gorilla:

http://www.pbs.org/wnet/nature/snowflake/snowflake.html

These are all dead now, but should suffice for joke purposes.

[Stevo Darkly]

Actually, there is a quick way to settle the question of whether chimps are entitled to human rights.

I did a quick Google search of "chimpanzee" in connection with "mourn" and "mourned." There is abundant evidence that when chimps die, they are mourned -- not just by other chimps, but by indisputable members of Homo sapiens-type humanity.

Consider the death of Nim Chimpsky:

http://www.mcgill.ca/reporter/32/13/chimpsky/

Nim Chimpsky, a 26-year-old male chimpanzee, died of a heart attack at the Black Beauty Ranch near Tyler, Tex.

Nim spent much of his adult life there, but when he was a baby, he lived with me. I raised him like a human child and taught him American Sign Language in a pioneering experiment into the nature of the essence of language.

In many ways, I was the closest thing Nim had to a "mother," and thus news of Nim's death brought swift condolences from my colleagues around the world in the scientific community.

Knowing exactly how to react has been less clear. How does a community mourn the death of a chimpanzee?

I first learned that Nim had died early last week while I was playing with my three-year-old daughter. If I had had but a second alone, I would have been better able to hide my shock and the tears. But she saw me. Worse, she heard my sigh: "Nim's dead."

And what turmoil ensued. I had forgotten that in my house, all three of my young daughters affectionately refer to Nim -- whose photos are everywhere -- as their "brother."

"My brother is dead, my brother is dead!" Maaraluisa sobbed, then collapsed into my arms.

Chimps are therefore proven to be entitled to human rights by application of the Bailey Mourning/Funeral Test.

😉

[consisto]

Mental capacity is too subjective a criteria for assigning rights. There are many cases were governments lock up dissidents by claiming they are mentally ill. Even in the US, hospitals lock up non-violent people with this claim. Assigning rights by species isn?t perfect, but it provides clearer boundaries, which makes it more difficult for people to move those boundaries arbitrarily.

Who said our moral systems have to be objective, non-arbitrary, or otherwise convenient? If mental capacity is what justifies rights, it does absolutely no good to argue for a different criteria just because its more convenient.

That's not to say that I disagree with you that setting up government to make such decisions routinely is setting us up for moral disaster--but lets keep morality distinct from pragmatics. "Slippery slopes" are a pragmatic concern, not a moral one.

[scape]

These are all dead now, but should suffice for joke purposes.

I was going to use Curious George, but I thought a homosexual, trans-species, pedophilic love story was going too far.

[wayne]

"Yeah, she was. How about ... Rosie O'Donnell and Koko?"

I know I am late to the discussion, as usual... Scape, I don't think that would work. Koko has certain minimal standards of attractiveness that a costar has to meet.

[scape]

Yep. That one's headed straight to video.