Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Blinn · 05-20-2003, 03:44 AM

Chimps should be part of human genus, scientists say

05-20-2003, 04:17 AM

I'm not clear why this is "news". The idea has been around for a long time and Jared Diamond actually wrote a book The Third Chimpanzee whose title implies it.

Jabu Khan · 05-20-2003, 04:47 AM

I thought the move was to eliminate Pangea and put all apes in Homo. I think the museum of natural history and the Smithsonian already had. I could be wrong but I thought I read that in "Next of Kin", by Roger Fouts. That was a couple years ago though maybe im wrong.

By the way if you haven't read that book its great. One of my favorites anyways.

Oolon Colluphid · 05-20-2003, 04:52 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by DMB
I'm not clear why this is "news".

Well it just makes a change from trying to include Homo in the Pongidae!

Quote:

The idea has been around for a long time and Jared Diamond actually wrote a book The Third Chimpanzee whose title implies it.

Similarly, when Gribbin and Cherfas heavily revised their book The Monkey Puzzle, they changed the title toThe First Chimpanzee.

Cheers, Oolon

Oolon Colluphid · 05-20-2003, 05:02 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Jabu Khan
I thought the move was to eliminate Pangea

Erm, Pangea started to be eliminated around 245 million years ago...

Oolon

MrDarwin · 05-20-2003, 05:57 AM

Interesting that there is no mention of extinct hominids that are classified in other genera, such as Australopithecus. It's hard to believe that Goodman is ignorant of the fossil record so I have to wonder if the original article addressed the issue. The implication is that either Australopithecus should also be included in the genus Homo, or that chimpanzees are more closely related to humans than were the australopithecines. (Then again my own favorite theory is that chimpanzees are directly descended from australopithecines, rather than from an earlier evolutionary branch of the great apes.)

pangloss · 05-20-2003, 06:30 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by MrDarwin
Interesting that there is no mention of extinct hominids that are classified in other genera, such as Australopithecus. It's hard to believe that Goodman is ignorant of the fossil record so I have to wonder if the original article addressed the issue. The implication is that either Australopithecus should also be included in the genus Homo, or that chimpanzees are more closely related to humans than were the australopithecines. (Then again my own favorite theory is that chimpanzees are directly descended from australopithecines, rather than from an earlier evolutionary branch of the great apes.)

Having been Goodman's student, I can assure you that he is not ignorant of the fossil record.

Additonally, I find absurd that Sherwood would actually think that Goodman's only justification is the Simpson quote. It just goes to show you how cloistered anthropologists are. I doubt Sherwood has even read any of Goodman's papers.

Coragyps · 05-20-2003, 08:21 AM

From the link:

Quote:

Walt Brown of the Center for Scientific Creation in Phoenix, Ariz., argues that since the sequencing of human and chimpanzee DNA is not complete, saying people and chimps are that much alike is �baloney.�

Ooh, that's a shocker! I wonder what ol' Walt will say when sequencing is complete?

theyeti · 05-20-2003, 08:49 AM

Why on Earth did they quote Walt Brown? Even if there were a reason to get a creationist's opinion, they could have picked someone slightly less kooky.

I really don't understand why the media have tried to put a creation/evolution spin on this, other than for pure sensationalism. This really has nothing to do with creationism as far as I can tell, except for the fact that everytime someone mentions how closely related humans and chimps are, the creationists go... well, ape. This is a systematics debate. In other words, an actual scientific debate in which creationism simply has no relevance.

As much as anything, this points out how all classifications above the level of species are arbitrary. Given that the primary purpose of nomenclature is communication, I wouldn't want to stick every hominid from the last 6 million years into the same genus. Nor would I want to rename every hominid fossil just for the purpose of renaming the chimp.

theyeti

butswana · 05-20-2003, 09:27 AM

When I saw the story on MSNBC, I immediately thought of creationists going bat shit over this. Seeing that it's part of the evil atheist conspiracy and what not.
I found the poll results interesting. Not what I thought I would see. I hope Fox News puts this on thier site with a poll. I predict an outraged landslide for NO.

05-20-2003, 03:44 AM	#1
Blinn Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: Ohio, USA Posts: 1,162	Chimps in genus Homo? Chimps should be part of human genus, scientists say

05-20-2003, 05:57 AM	#6
MrDarwin Veteran Member Join Date: May 2001 Location: Washington, DC Posts: 4,140	Re: Chimps in genus Homo? Interesting that there is no mention of extinct hominids that are classified in other genera, such as Australopithecus. It's hard to believe that Goodman is ignorant of the fossil record so I have to wonder if the original article addressed the issue. The implication is that either Australopithecus should also be included in the genus Homo, or that chimpanzees are more closely related to humans than were the australopithecines. (Then again my own favorite theory is that chimpanzees are directly descended from australopithecines, rather than from an earlier evolutionary branch of the great apes.)

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

05-20-2003, 04:17 AM	#2
DMB Guest Posts: n/a	I'm not clear why this is "news". The idea has been around for a long time and Jared Diamond actually wrote a book The Third Chimpanzee whose title implies it.

05-20-2003, 04:47 AM	#3
Jabu Khan Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: the impenetrable fortress of the bubbleheads Posts: 1,308	I thought the move was to eliminate Pangea and put all apes in Homo. I think the museum of natural history and the Smithsonian already had. I could be wrong but I thought I read that in "Next of Kin", by Roger Fouts. That was a couple years ago though maybe im wrong. By the way if you haven't read that book its great. One of my favorites anyways.

05-20-2003, 08:49 AM	#9
theyeti Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2001 Location: Denver, CO, USA Posts: 9,747	Why on Earth did they quote Walt Brown? Even if there were a reason to get a creationist's opinion, they could have picked someone slightly less kooky. I really don't understand why the media have tried to put a creation/evolution spin on this, other than for pure sensationalism. This really has nothing to do with creationism as far as I can tell, except for the fact that everytime someone mentions how closely related humans and chimps are, the creationists go... well, ape. This is a systematics debate. In other words, an actual scientific debate in which creationism simply has no relevance. As much as anything, this points out how all classifications above the level of species are arbitrary. Given that the primary purpose of nomenclature is communication, I wouldn't want to stick every hominid from the last 6 million years into the same genus. Nor would I want to rename every hominid fossil just for the purpose of renaming the chimp. theyeti

05-20-2003, 09:27 AM	#10
butswana Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: Indianapolis, IN Posts: 1,804	When I saw the story on MSNBC, I immediately thought of creationists going bat shit over this. Seeing that it's part of the evil atheist conspiracy and what not. I found the poll results interesting. Not what I thought I would see. I hope Fox News puts this on thier site with a poll. I predict an outraged landslide for NO.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.