Freethought & Rationalism Archive

gilly54 · 05-19-2003, 10:02 PM

Chimps are people too!

http://www.upi.com/view.cfm?StoryID=...9-121031-7196r

Tenek · 05-19-2003, 11:00 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by gilly54
Chimps are people too!

http://www.upi.com/view.cfm?StoryID=...9-121031-7196r

Hmm. Depending on how this turns out, we might have a new breed of bigot on our hands - the one who doesn't care if you're black, female, or gay, but has a bone to pick with those damn dirty apes... uh oh, I think I just said something politically incorrect. :P

Chimps are people too!

ps418 · 05-20-2003, 07:21 AM

Quote:

From the article:
In findings made public Monday and appearing this week in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, humans and chimpanzees are 99.4 percent genetically similar.

That is true if your looking only at genes themselves. The similarity drops to a "mere" ~95% if you consider noncoding DNA as well (some of which definitely has function). Either way, it is of course correct that gene-base for gene-base, we're very little different from chimps.

Quote:

Tenek:
Hmm. Depending on how this turns out, we might have a new breed of bigot on our hands - the one who doesn't care if you're black, female, or gay, but has a bone to pick with those damn dirty apes... uh oh, I think I just said something politically incorrect. :P

Don't worry, with sensitivity training, your irrational feelings can be overcome.

Patrick

Hubble head · 05-21-2003, 10:19 AM

I doubt much will come of it although I'm still waiting on the religious wackos' response.

I was more amazed by the news awhile back on how we know for a fact that there is absolutely no more difference between you and your 'same color' neighbors as you and your 'different color' neighbors. NOT ONE BIT.

In fact, if you and your different background neighbors have lived in the same region for a long enough time it's highly possible you will have more DNA in common with them than people from your ancestors' homeland.

A supremast has as much DNA in common with a Zulu tribal warrior as he has with his supremacy friends and Billy Graham is proven to be related to an ape. Now that�s good science.

Corwin · 05-21-2003, 11:02 AM

Personally I don't see it.

This would be a complete change to the entire basis of taxonomy. We don't currently use genetics to determine such things.... (and in some studies, like paleontology, we can't because there's no DNA to study.)

Chimps have a great deal in common with us genetically... but haven't all species in our genus been hominids? Chimps aren't.

ps418 · 05-21-2003, 11:07 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Hubble head
I doubt much will come of it although I'm still waiting on the religious wackos' response.

I was more amazed by the news awhile back on how we know for a fact that there is absolutely no more difference between you and your 'same color' neighbors as you and your 'different color' neighbors. NOT ONE BIT.

Really? Are you saying that there are no greater differences (genetic or phenotypic) on average between, say, two 'European Americans' on the one hand, and 'European Americans' and 'African Americans' on the other? That is a common, but clearly incorrect, misunderstanding of the genetic evidence. Risch (2002) for instance writes:

Quote:

Because of the large amount of variation observed within races versus between races, some commentators have denied genetic differentiation between the races; for example, �Genetic data � show that any two individuals within a particular population are as different genetically as any two people selected from any two populations in the world.� [18]. This assertion is both counter-intuitive and factually incorrect [12,13]. If it were true, it would be impossible to create discrete clusters of humans (that end up corresponding to the major races), for example as was done by Wilson et al. [2], with even as few as 20 randomly chosen genetic markers. Two Caucasians are more similar to each other genetically than a Caucasian and an Asian

Risch, N., 2002. Categorization of humans in biomedical research: genes, race and disease. Genome Biology 3(7):comment2007.1-2007.12.

Patrick

Hubble head · 05-21-2003, 11:53 AM

Overall, I'd say we are finding astonishing similarities all over genetics in the world right now. Humans and cats, Marsupials and dogs, Monkeys and apes, birds and fish and so on.

My source was BS or I misunderstood. I'm not a scientist, just a curious joe. Thanks for the correction of my 'urban myth'. Now you've really made me curious. If the questions are a hassle just point me to the latest best read, if possible.

Since genetic evolution is dependant on many variables, would it be accurate to say animals whose environments did not require as much effort to survive did not evolve as much? Or can a genetic code de-evolve if it's not given any variables that require adaptation?

If you had to choose between the last two mates on the planet and one was from a cold and barren farming region and the other was from a long (sometimes inbred) blue blooded line of lazy privilege what would you choose, all other things equal?

ps418 · 05-22-2003, 05:17 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Hubble head
If you had to choose between the last two mates on the planet and one was from a cold and barren farming region and the other was from a long (sometimes inbred) blue blooded line of lazy privilege what would you choose, all other things equal?

In that situation, I'd convert to polygamy. After all, if they were equal in all aspects except where and who they came from, then I'd have a very hard time picking one or the other!

Quote:

Since genetic evolution is dependant on many variables, would it be accurate to say animals whose environments did not require as much effort to survive did not evolve as much?

I wouldn't think so. Every animal exists in an environment. Every population of animals adapts to their environment over time. So, I dont know if I'd want to say that any population of animals is any less evolved than any other population.

Patrick

Wounded King · 05-22-2003, 07:06 AM

Populations with shorter generation times might be described as more evolved than long generational ones, but this certainly goes against the trend most people who seem to use progressive terms for evolution favour which usually has the unicellular organisms down at the bottom.

ps418 · 05-22-2003, 07:12 AM

That's a good point. Bacteria in a petri dish can evolve more (in terms of changes in gene frequencies) in a few weeks than humans can in millenia. Within a single species, though, I still wouldnt say that any population is more or less evolved than any other population.

Patrick

05-19-2003, 10:02 PM	#1
gilly54 Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: New Almaden, California Posts: 917	Hail to the Chimp! Chimps are people too! http://www.upi.com/view.cfm?StoryID=...9-121031-7196r

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

05-21-2003, 10:19 AM	#4
Hubble head Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: Corn rows Posts: 4,570	I doubt much will come of it although I'm still waiting on the religious wackos' response. I was more amazed by the news awhile back on how we know for a fact that there is absolutely no more difference between you and your 'same color' neighbors as you and your 'different color' neighbors. NOT ONE BIT. In fact, if you and your different background neighbors have lived in the same region for a long enough time it's highly possible you will have more DNA in common with them than people from your ancestors' homeland. A supremast has as much DNA in common with a Zulu tribal warrior as he has with his supremacy friends and Billy Graham is proven to be related to an ape. Now that�s good science.

05-21-2003, 11:02 AM	#5
Corwin Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2002 Posts: 4,369	Personally I don't see it. This would be a complete change to the entire basis of taxonomy. We don't currently use genetics to determine such things.... (and in some studies, like paleontology, we can't because there's no DNA to study.) Chimps have a great deal in common with us genetically... but haven't all species in our genus been hominids? Chimps aren't.

05-21-2003, 11:53 AM	#7
Hubble head Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: Corn rows Posts: 4,570	Overall, I'd say we are finding astonishing similarities all over genetics in the world right now. Humans and cats, Marsupials and dogs, Monkeys and apes, birds and fish and so on. My source was BS or I misunderstood. I'm not a scientist, just a curious joe. Thanks for the correction of my 'urban myth'. Now you've really made me curious. If the questions are a hassle just point me to the latest best read, if possible. Since genetic evolution is dependant on many variables, would it be accurate to say animals whose environments did not require as much effort to survive did not evolve as much? Or can a genetic code de-evolve if it's not given any variables that require adaptation? If you had to choose between the last two mates on the planet and one was from a cold and barren farming region and the other was from a long (sometimes inbred) blue blooded line of lazy privilege what would you choose, all other things equal?

05-22-2003, 07:06 AM	#9
Wounded King Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Edinburgh Posts: 1,211	Populations with shorter generation times might be described as more evolved than long generational ones, but this certainly goes against the trend most people who seem to use progressive terms for evolution favour which usually has the unicellular organisms down at the bottom.

05-22-2003, 07:12 AM	#10
ps418 Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2001 Location: Louisville, KY, USA Posts: 1,840	That's a good point. Bacteria in a petri dish can evolve more (in terms of changes in gene frequencies) in a few weeks than humans can in millenia. Within a single species, though, I still wouldnt say that any population is more or less evolved than any other population. Patrick

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.