Chimps are human?

[*V Guyver]

http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn3744

Chimps are human, gene study implies

22:00 19 May 2003

NewScientist.com news service

Jeff Hecht

The latest twist in the debate over how much DNA separates humans from chimpanzees suggests we are so closely related that chimps should not only be part of the same taxonomic family, but also the same genus.

The new study found that 99.4 percent of the most critical DNA sites are identical in the corresponding human and chimp genes. With that close a relationship, the two living chimp species belong in the genus Homo, says Morris Goodman of Wayne State University in Detroit.

The closeness of relationship between chimps and humans has become an important issue outside taxonomy, becoming part of the debate over the use of chimps in laboratory experiments and over their conservation in the wild.

Traditionally chimps are classified with the other great apes, gorillas and orangutans, in the family Pongidae, separated from the human family Hominidae. Within Hominidae, most paleoanthropologists now class virtually all hominid fossils in three genera, Homo, Australopithecus, or Ardipithecus.

On the basis of the new study, Goodman would not only put modern humans and all fossils back to the human-chimp divergence into Homo, but would also include the common chimp (Pan troglodytes) and the bonobo (Pan paniscus).

"The third chimpanzee"

It is not the first time such a suggestion has been made - in 1991 physiologist and ecologist Jared Diamond called humans "the third chimpanzee". But subsequent genetic comparisons have yielded varying results, depending on how the genotypes are compared.

Goodman compared published sequences of 97 genes on six species, including humans, chimps, gorillas, orangutans, and Old World monkeys. He looked only at what he considered the most functional DNA, bases which cannot be changed without a consequent change in the amino acid coded for by the gene.

Among these, he found that 99.4 percent were identical in humans and chimps. He found a lower correspondence for bases that could be changed without affecting the amino acid, with 98.4 percent identical for chimps and humans and the same for the "junk" DNA outside coding regions. Goodman believes the differences are larger for non-coding DNA because their sequences are not biologically critical.

Split date

His correlations are much higher than the 95 per cent similarity reported in 2002 by Roy Britten of the California Institute of Technology. Goodman does not disagree with those results, he told New Scientist, but points out that the differences analysed by Britten are not important to gene function because 98 percent of the DNA did not code for proteins.

The small difference between genotypes reflects the recent split between chimps and humans, says Goodman, who dates the divergence to between five and six million years ago.

But Sandy Harcourt, an anthropologist at the University of California at Davis, believes chimps and humans split six to 10 million years ago. "That's an awful long time to be in the same genus," he told New Scientist.

Classifying chimps as human might raise their conservation profile, but Harcourt hopes that is not the only way to get people to worry about them. "I'd prefer to go the other way, and consider more things that aren't human" as important for conservation, he says.

Journal reference: Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1232172100)

It's 5 years old, this report I mean. Still I didn't come across it until today. It would be interesting to see people's reactions when (provided they do change it) they learn chimps are technically in the same species classification we are in instead of apes.

[*Jess♥]

what a load of crap...

excuse me.. but I just think this is a load of codswallop.

sure, the thing about the dna being similar etc is most likely true.. i'm not gonna argue any facts.. but when they dig up fossils, they don't have access to DNA so I don't believe they can use these classifications based on DNA.

to say a chimp is human is like saying a dog is a cat. or like saying a ball is a tree.

sure they can clasify is in 'homo' genus or whatever if it fits the classification... but they can't call it human.

they can't check the DNA of every single creature that exhists..

classifications have always been based on morphology and shuold remain so.

[*V Guyver]

Didn't someone say they had to be at a certain percentage of DNA that could classify and animal in the same Guinness? Not that Chimps are human, they clearly have major differences with us (incapable of teaching offspring any inventions or skills the parent may learn) and they sure as heck don't look like us. But genetically we are pretty similar. Not sure how this would change things in the way we look at them, but according to the article, some animal activists would have a field day using this saying "Don't hurt chimps, they are your fellow man" or something like that.

I'd rather be more interested in the research between Ainu DNA and Japanese Samurai then chimps, at least that can break down a few barriers.

But you have to admit, it's still an intresting little change and can lead to some great humor.

[*Youngtusk]

Nice find, but I don't like it. It makes me dislike CHimps even more. I mean, they're fascinating, but scarey. They make me think of humans with even fewer impulse constraints from ethics and prinicples. Screw that. I say figues out what we need from them and then kill em all.

[*zeo]

I don't agree with putting chimps under the homo genus category but it is true that they are remarkably like us. They in fact are capable of learning and passing on knowledge from one generation to the next, as well as use simple tools. We can even teach them simple sign language and they can count and do simple math to the extent they are about equal to a young human child in most mental capacity.

Where they excel is in pattern recognition, unlike humans chimp brains can practically instantly memorize a given pattern like sequential numbers and their location. So for test like flashing a series of numbers and then having you remember how they were layed out the chimps will always outperform the human because our evolution sacrificed that ability in exchange for more social interaction capacity for things like learning language, etc.

A human child for example is more prone to mimicry than a chimp, like a test with a see through box. A human child will continue to do the useless steps shown to open the box while a chimp will go straight for the prize. This makes us better at learning from adults but shows that we evolved certain ways of thinking different from similar species.

Genetically chimps are very close, in fact many scientist even believe it is possible for a hybrid of human and chimp to be born. The famous Humanzee was actually thought to be a hybrid until DNA tests proved otherwise. But it was remarkable how human like it was.

Socially chimps perform many of the same social interactions we do, on a basic level of course. They even form war parties to go out and kill other chimps from other groups and they use meat for trading in favors, like for sex, etc..

So we can see the similarities but I disagree that they are close enough to be put into the same genus as us.

But I agree we should respect all life more, needless suffering is just cruel, but we also have to be practical about it as well as I'd rather sacrifice a chimp than another human. Even though some humans may deserve it

[Salkafar]

what a load of crap...

excuse me.. but I just think this is a load of codswallop.

sure, the thing about the dna being similar etc is most likely true.. i'm not gonna argue any facts.. but when they dig up fossils, they don't have access to DNA so I don't believe they can use these classifications based on DNA.

Fossil DNA is not the issue here.

to say a chimp is human is like saying a dog is a cat. or like saying a ball is a tree.

No, absolutely not. This is about genetic closeness and genus. Cats and dogs are much more different from each other than humans and chimps. This research indicates that the similarity between humans and chimpanzees as regards critical loci is 99.4%. That is so close, he argues, that humans and chimps are three species of the same genus.

It's more like wolves and coyots, or tigers and lions.

We could call chimpanzees Homo Paniscus, or humans Pan Sapiens, I guess.

I doubt this will ever happen. It would be too much hassle.

sure they can clasify is in 'homo' genus or whatever if it fits the classification... but they can't call it human.

they can't check the DNA of every single creature that exhists..

classifications have always been based on morphology and shuold remain so.

I respectfully propose that your comment is colored by your personal spiritual convictions.

[*V Guyver]

Zeo, you are mostly right. But there is one thing you got wrong. Chimps though capable of learning are incapable of teaching to their offspring what they've learned.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/apegenius/human.html

Not only do we innovate more than the other great apes, we are vastly better at sharing ideas with one another. The majority of recent behavioral studies focus on information-transmission rather than invention. All of the great apes can learn new tricks by imitating a human or another ape. But only humans go one step further and routinely teach each other. Teaching may be the signature skill of our species, and researchers are now zeroing in on three particular mental talents that make it possible.

I invite everyone to read the new above link I posted. It lists all the differences between us and chimps. Oh and on a side note... Chimps though remarkably like us lack abilities that other animals have in common like us. A Dog for example can do things a chimp can't point at things to try and show us something, but a dog can. A Dog can lead us somewhere, but chimps don't. That's a big critical differences because pointing and leading is a quality that has helped humans teach offspring, and for offspring to learn fast. After all, it's this same quality that has made dogs the most reliable animal companion to a human.

[*Jess♥]

It's more like wolves and coyots, or tigers and lions.

actually i think maybe we could meet halfway as my comparisons were indeed grossly exaggerated. let's say it's more like a wolf and a bear.

or actually.. how about this :- calling a chimpanzee 'human', would be like calling an Okapi a 'giraffe'. by all means fit it in whatever genus if it fits that genus' criteria.. but let's not call something what it isn't.

I respectfully propose that your comment is colored by your personal spiritual convictions.

i don't see how it is linked to spiritual convictions. I don't use spirituality to explain things, i use my own instincts and common sense.

that's why i was referencing morphology.

yes I do sometimes have a dislike of how some people/scientists like to over complicate things.

Fossil DNA is not the issue here.

it is an issue when you classify a genus according to DNA when it is impossible to classify other genus' by DNA.

in order to have a classification system, you need to use criteria that all subjects can satisfy.

[*zeo]

Zeo, you are mostly right. But there is one thing you got wrong. Chimps though capable of learning are incapable of teaching to their offspring what they've learned.

Read more carefully please, I never said they were capable of teaching. I only said they are capable of passing on knowledge from one generation to the next, which they do by mimicking what they see. It's just not consistent and not done on purpose like we do. And I only stated we can teach them.

As your own quote pointed out the key word was "Routinely"! We teach our young on purpose and all the time, chimps just have to fend for themselves and learn it by example and hope they copy it right unless they got a human to teach them.

One of the points about the difference in memory was the fact we are built to teach and learn. While chimps usually have to figure things out for themselves, which is why they are better than us at pattern memorization.

Other than that good link...

[*V Guyver]

Passing on knowledge from one generation to the next? Doesn't that usually involve teaching?

I admit, I'm a bit dull of a lightbulb but that suggests teaching IMO. How else do you pass knowledge to the next generation? I understand genetically they could do so with encoded behaviour patterns, but I'm a bit confused by how else they can pass on what they learned without "teaching". Maybe one picks it up from mimicry from a parent using a tool it learned? But that is not often the case, and if it is the case then that means they aren't really purposely passing on that knowledge, and that means it's not a quality that they can claim or be attributed to them.

[*zeo]

I admit, I'm a bit dull of a lightbulb but that suggests teaching IMO. How else do you pass knowledge to the next generation?

You watch, you try it yourself, and learn to do it. . . There are more than one way to pass on knowledge besides direct teaching. Humans just perfected the process to the point we do it consistently and on purpose. While the chimps are more by chance, like learning to use a stick to fish for termites by watching another more experienced chimp do it first. Washoe, the first chimp to learn sign language even apparently passed it on to three other younger chimps before dying. . . Regardless, the point is they have the capacity, it doesn't really matter if it isn't anywhere near as developed as ours since they are clearly not as evolved as we are. It just shows there are some basic similarities between us, but like I said I disagreed with the idea of putting them under the same genus as us as the similarities aren't close enough to warrant that in my opinion.

A rhesus monkey for example is capable of abstract thought, like shown when one learned to control a robot arm that was wired to its brain. It quickly realized the robot arm was working like its own and started using it. They tied its own arms so the rhesus monkey used the robot arm to feed itself. But despite that capacity they are still a long way from being us and despite the similarities we share with chimps they aren't different enough from all the other primates to put them closer to us versus any of the others.

[*V Guyver]

Alright thanks for the explanation through I pointed out in my previous post that mimicry can't really be credited to a parent monkey as passing on knowledge to a new generation, that is entirely due to the offspring's interest. Also from what I understand, that interest doesn't show up often enough for it to allow them to develop anything, from what I remember in "What makes us Human?" whatever invention or discovery made by a chimp is rarely passed on, and if it does get passed on, usually it is eventually lost down the road.

That experiment, I remember it was in popular science a few years ago. It's listed here below for those who want to read about it.

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/discoblo...mechanical-arm/

It was a pretty nifty experiment, but there was actually a similar one predating that one. Instead of a robotic arm they simply used a computer screen an a mouse to move things about on screen. Eventually they unplugged the mouse later down the road and the monkey's still managed to control the cursor on screen despite the unplugged mouse (which they had no idea it was unplugged).

[*Jess♥]

just to clarify things.. from my perspective, vguyver, you are referring to actively passing knowledge on, whereas Zeo is talkig about information being passively passed on.

the phrasig od 'passed on' does weight heavily on an active pattern of knowedge transfer. I think for the purposes of this discussion the phrasing sould be changed. 'transfer' would be a better verb.

[Salkafar]

Well... as regards chimpanzees teaching things...

Their brains are only a third the size of ours, and as I recall it is estimated their mental development is roughly the level of a three-year-old as regards cognition.

On the other hand, their short-term-memory and pattern recognition skills are apparently superior to ours. I wonder why.

[*V Guyver]

I guess I was being narrow minded in my thought process about that. So sorry for causing you the trouble of having to explain it to me guys.

I don't think brain size matters so much as how it functions. Scientists used to say that men were smarter then women because their brains tend to be smaller.

I've read about birds, and how in some experiments revealed them to be capable of problem solving. In one case a common black crow (or was it a Raven?) that had a small bird sized basket of food inside a hole. The bird couldn't reach it but the basket did have a handle. What it did was shocking, it took a piece of metal, a small paper clip to be exact and bent it using it's beak and feet. Once it was bent enough, the bird picked it up with the beak and in turn used the now hooked shape paper clip to pull the basket out of the hole to get at the food.

Some birds like pigeons have been used in tests to see them work on different shaped objects and boxes that had levers that would release food. Eventually they figured out how to use it too.

Now keep in mind that a birds like that have brains no bigger then a grape or peanut. Yet many larger animals haven't shown that same capacity. Nature has a way of making compact and incredibly efficient organs and traits. Animals also have proven to be smarter then humans in many occasions since I have yet to see a Darwin Awards for animals. XD

Edited August 7, 2008 by V Guyver

[*zeo]

The prevailing theory to explain intelligence is the Encephalization Quotient or EQ. which basically compares brain to body mass ratio with the underlining idea being you need a certain amount of brain power to run a certain sized body. So gauging the ratio gives you some idea whether there is enough brain power to both run the body and to be used for what we call intelligence.

Of course there are other factors but you can basically start from there and then consider the other factors to see how brain power is used by various species. Like what ratio are the sizes of the different parts of the brain, humans having developed a larger forebrain for example.

While other species like say an Eagle has Eyes about as large as ours (just with 5 times the number of cones and a 3x zoomable lens) but they take up a far larger ratio of their smaller skulls, similarly the optical processing part of their brain is larger in ratio than other similar size animals. So eagles have incredible vision compared to us as a example of how specialization can produce abilities greater than other species for a specific trait.

Many species also have the ability to increase or decrease their brain size as needed, http://www.pbs.org/wnet/nature/triumphoflife/episode5.html

Like some migrating birds can grow larger brains for when they need to migrate and then shrink back to normal once the migration is over.

This ability to increase brain power for a specific need also exist within us to an extent, http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/677048.stm

Mental excersize is also believed to be necessary to keep healthy minds into old age. So you can view our brains a bit like a muscle, use it or lose it!

Overall though it's good to consider that the law of conservation of energy applies to just about everything in nature, including brain power.

So we can deduce the reason why chimps have better pattern memorization skills than humans is because unlike us they need that skill to survive. After all they can't yell specific warnings to each other like we can. Like "Hey, look out behind you," is simply beyond their very limited vocabulary. So they have to be more aware of what is going around them and keep track of where everything is cause they got no one but themselves to depend on. The most another chimp can do for them is scream bloody murder to sound the basic alert but it's up to each to figure out where that threat is coming from.

We on the other hand developed other skills for survival so our pattern memorization skill is basically less prioritized for us. We can still memorize patterns, it just takes us a bit longer but of course there is so many other things we can do that a chimp can't.

If our brains were prioritized differently then we would probably trounce the chimps, like certain forms of autism grants similar mental abilities for example. So it's not just how much brain power you have but how it is used.