Are Chimpanzees people?

Click here and disable ads!

I'm glad I escaped from this thread when I did

There is nothing wrong with simplifying science. There is something wrong with simplifying science for the sake of an argument, though. If the issue is deep, you can't really look only at its surface.

I can't speak for other people but I can speak for myself. Of course it's speculation in my part, I never said I have all the facts. Speculation is different from prediction though. Prediction implies some certainty, while I openly admit I'm not certain about most of these things (hell, not even the scientists are certain). So, I can only speculate about different possibilities.

What I said, to get the conversation going, is that sometimes, not all the facts are immediately visible and cannot be reduced to only the obvious differences and similarities. What I also said is, while I do believe we are a different genus, we shouldn't be so set in stone since in our world and even more in science, a lot of things are fluid.

Do you find the way I see the issue so wrong?

Right. And I already did. The genus homo (actually the word itself) means human ergo homo-anything would imply of a genus that lead directly to humans in evolutionary terms. Anything else is a misnomer for transparently trolling purposes. Science should not be about trolling the 'religious' or even the uninformed. It should be about discovering and presenting facts about nature in as clear and eloquent terminology as humanly possible.

I would brofist this post if I could.

It's pretty simple Vaarna, Chimpanzees aren't and never will be human. Homo is a genus defined by Homo Sapiens Sapiens. Every other member of the genus is relative to us, and even then, chimpanzees are speculated to have diverged prior to Homo Habilis. It isn't useful to reclassify them, and the similarities between us are already well recognized and accounted for.

The genus Pan diverged when it did, so it's operationally useful to keep that term around to refer to the species which evolved after that divergence. Getting rid of Pan altogether would be reductionist and just result in us having to invent a new semantical construct to refer to that group of species.

Yeah, no. Making a statement is not making a conclusion. Conclusion comes from statement, and then supporting details. I see no list of details that support your definition of the genus homo, or of how you think genus is defined.


But let's look at a source, Merriam-Webster:

Meaning, the Latin name is no more than a designator - it has no technical requirement to be correlate literally with its definition. If you find a source that contradicts this, fine, but link it, don't just throw an argument without support.

However, the definition from M-W does support a previous part of the argument - the phylogenetical part. To be in a genus does require both structural similarities and a closely related evolutionary history. So you are right to question when Chimps and homos diverged.

I think, though, that taxonomists have recently taken into account the similarities between humans and chimpanzees, as you can see in the modern family tree:



So the introduction of the hominini tribe seems to be the consensus solution.

You are talking about renaming an already defined genus. Throw all the jargon you like at me but you haven't even began to justify a reason for changing an already defined genus that serves as a very clear indicator especially to evolutionary biologists.
Yes, chimps are similar to us. This knowledge is nothing new and neither is the fact that as similar as they might be they arrived in their modern state as a result of a fairly drastic divergence in which all species designated as homo began developing ever increasing brain size (among other unique traits) while chimps and all other great ape species did not.

If you don't think this is significant enough difference to warrant a seperate genus I wonder what you think might be? But more importantly you are talking about reclassifying an already existing terminology and for what net gain?

Please explain where you think such a change will better serve biology or scientific understanding in general?

Actually there isn't a single truly "unique" trait about humans, with the possibility of human sex mania (humans are one of the most sexually active species on the planet). A key aspect that must be remembered about human evolution is that humans are barely evolved at all outside of brain size, human biological adaptations to their environment (African savannah, or possibly coasts if Aquatic Ape Hypothesis turns out to have weight to it after all) are rudimentary at best and mostly rooted in neoteny. The question is not about humans and chimpanzees diverging, it's about whether or not there is actually enough divergence (and each year we discover that there has been less divergence between us) and ever-increasing knowledge of similarities. The genus change would serve to reflect re-evaluation of an outdated position to one more in line with discovered facts. Keep in mind, originally the key definition of genus Homo was "man the tool-maker", but this was completely shattered in the late 60's with the publication of Jane Goodall's observations in Gombe valley and Hugo van Lawick's photographs of said observations of chimpanzees fashioning and using tools. Since then the gap has only grown smaller.

More importantly, being defined does not mean a genus should not be changed. Several genus have been changed over the years. Hell, the Red Pandas classification has been changed at least three times (don't remember if there were more), and in a far more drastic fashion to reflect new knowledge of the species.

EDIT: You also misunderstand what Mangoose was talking about. He was talking about the Tribe unit, Hominini, which is the step up from Genus in species definition. Even this is not entirely agreed upon, which is largely ludicrous if you ask for my opinion.

Chimpanzees are AFRICAN-AMERICAN.

You're a fucking retard, Khor. What I wrote was in general agreement with you. I pointed out you were wrong in a specific part (that the Latin name is no more than a designation) but that you are correct in considering the phynogenetic (i.g. evolutionary) divergence. But you didn't read past the first line, did you? Did I mention anything about chimps being in the same genus?

Note that I said you didn't SUPPORT your definition, retard. Just because you tell me what you think evolutionary biologists believe doesn't mean I believe what you say. If you want to SUPPORT your definition, cite sources of evolutionary biologists defining the genus. Currently, in this discussion, the only SOURCE CITED that I see is myself citing the Merriam-Webster dictionary.

Edit: LOL. Or are you being even more dense and confusing tribe with genus. Homini isn't a genus, smart guy. In the tree I posted, chimps and humans are still in their respective pan and homo genera.

A guy arguing that chimps maybe should be considered human is calling me a retard for disagreeing with that. This place never gets old.

By the way, every source you will look at will have humans and their immediate ancestoral species listed as homo. Chimps are not.
Extra cool points for accusing me of not siting sources when they are the GENERAL CONSENSUS. Your idea challenges the general consensus. The burden of proof is on you. But you already knew that didn't you?

Observation: Khor completely misunderstands Mangoose twice in a row, despite clear language and emphasis. Conclusions: a) Khor does not know how to read. b) Khor does not read.

Wow, is that your thesis? I did understand him. I have been reading the whole thing. If he said anywhere that he retracted the idea that scientists should consider including chimps in the homo genus and I ignored this you might be able to say I wasn't reading closely enough.
Since he did not and even more hilariously since he called on me to 'cite a source' for my argument (which is the accepted scientific standard in this case) I can't be arsed to respond to anymore of this moronic poo slinging with any seriousness.

You can argue the Earth is flat or that chimps are actually human all day long. I reserve the right to decide which posts to take at all serious.

I was thinking of copy-pasting one of his posts to see if he will disagree with me.

Are you serious. Where did I say that chimps should even maybe be considered human?

Have you realized yet that I have been arguing YOUR fucking side, not the opposing side?

I am not disagreeing with you. The fact that you think I am disagreeing with you makes you dense.

By the way, telling me that such sources exist != listing the source. Link the source. Which, I did for you, by listing the M-W definition of 'genus.'

Secondly, how many times do I have to agree with the quoted statement anyway? Did you somehow miss me saying "you are correct in considering the phynogenetic (i.g. evolutionary) divergence"? What do you think "you are correct" means, Khor? That you're a fucking retard? Or perhaps that, oh man, I agree with you?

Now, note, Khor, just because I challenge you list a source doesn't mean I am disagreeing with you. I'm agreeing with you, but I fail to find such a source myself, thus I am putting the burden on you because you seem to already know such sources.

The reason I am challenging you to cite the source is not because of agreement or disagreement, but because I find it retarded how you guys are dancing in circles in the argument instead of just following a rigorous logical sequence. (A) Make your argument, (B) list your fucking reasons for that argument, (C) keep backing up those reasons until you reach valid sources.

Lol. What the fuck are you talking about. I specifically did not state my general idea, instead simply paraphrasing the general consensus. Tribe. Hominini. Not genus.

I never even proposed such an idea.

welcome to internet debate. you cannot lose if neither you nor your opponent know what the arguments are

Chimps reminds me of loud, annoying people with ADHD.
I much prefer the laidback, mellow orangutans.

AFAIK Chimps will only keep diverging from us (people) so there is no point to label them under the same genus as ours nor will there ever be in the future, quite the opposite actually. Khor is right.

Would you fuck a chimp? if you say no that should answer your question.

You know what? I confused you with another poster. Someone who doesn't even post in the same style or have remotely the same avatar. I could go on to say that a 90 hour work week was to blame blah blah but the fact is I should have checked when you first seemed confused as to what I was talking about. Sorry man.

I somehow overlooked this one:

tl;dr:

CF stating that ruby grapefruits have more in common with red supergiants than with lemons, because both are reddish and round, while lemons are not.



I won't even bother with Khor, TBH, because I CBA.

It's cool. :brofist:

Good for you. You didn't need the embarassment.