Is there any difference between a chimpanzee and a human?"

[grannymh]

“Is there any difference between a chimpanzee and a human?"

In addition to looks?

Don’t laugh……

I have been doing some serious thinking about my cousin chilly chimp, the one related to humans on the evolutionary tree. During a previous discussion about humans and primates belonging to the same biological classification, a comment was made about what it would feel like to have the nature of a primate. I took that literally. Consequently, I imagined what an animal’s nature would be like; for example, the nature of a naked ape which of course is a chilly chimp.

Seriously……

The human species is being assaulted left and right. Beautiful human nature, both corporeal and rational soul intimately unified, is hammered in the fine print of posts. Here one finds that a person is strictly a biological animal, made of matter, which differs by degrees from the rest of the branches on the evolutionary tree.

In my humble opinion, one does not have to chop down the entire evolutionary tree to defend the glory of the human species. Some careful pruning here and there, as master gardeners know, will make a tree as strong as it is beautiful.

But first, one should recognize that the roots of the evolutionary tree are planted in the philosophical position that all reality is material. Naturally, the roots of science are in the material and physical realm. But that does not automatically eliminate the spiritual principle from inquiry as if it were non-existent. Unfortunately for human esteem and freedom, the crippled reasoning – that evolution occurs in living organisms; therefore all parts of living organisms have evolved – is unable to address the uniqueness of the human species.

Taking on the persona of cousin chilly chimp is only one sample of how one can pull the weeds out of current thinking. Consider raging forest fires as another example. What is the instinct of animal nature when faced with uncontrollable disaster? Would a chimpanzee deliberately set backfires? What do the actions of firefighters say about human nature?

Sincerely……

Do not let chilly chimp distract one from posting the serious questions about phylogenetic classification, assumptions, clades, hominids, beautiful music, founder effect, genetics, computer models, presumptions, intellect, and will.

The evolutionary tree needs the sunshine of reason, self reflection, logical evaluation, and analytical thought.

While I dearly love cousin chilly chimp, I sincerely believe that it is time to return Homo sapiens to its proper place at the pinnacle of creation. I flat out refuse membership in the brute animal kingdom.

This thread’s question remains. Is there any difference between a chimpanzee and a human?

Blessings,
granny

All human life is worthy of profound respect from the moment of conception.

 

[DOShea]

There is a difference.

If each of them approaches a closed door with two armloads of something, one of them can open the door with his foot, the other has to put his packages down and use his hand.

But first, one should recognize that the roots of the evolutionary tree are planted in the philosophical position that all reality is material.

Yes, and that statement is why claims that all we can know is through science is self-refuting. One cannot put that statement through the rigors of the scientific method, thus we cannot “know” it.

 

[Sailor_Kenshin]

“Is there any difference between a chimpanzee and a human?"

In addition to looks?

Don’t laugh……

I have been doing some serious thinking about my cousin chilly chimp, the one related to humans on the evolutionary tree. During a previous discussion about humans and primates belonging to the same biological classification, a comment was made about what it would feel like to have the nature of a primate. I took that literally. Consequently, I imagined what an animal’s nature would be like; for example, the nature of a naked ape which of course is a chilly chimp.

Seriously……

The human species is being assaulted left and right. Beautiful human nature, both corporeal and rational soul intimately unified, is hammered in the fine print of posts. Here one finds that a person is strictly a biological animal, made of matter, which differs by degrees from the rest of the branches on the evolutionary tree.

In my humble opinion, one does not have to chop down the entire evolutionary tree to defend the glory of the human species. Some careful pruning here and there, as master gardeners know, will make a tree as strong as it is beautiful.

But first, one should recognize that the roots of the evolutionary tree are planted in the philosophical position that all reality is material. Naturally, the roots of science are in the material and physical realm. But that does not automatically eliminate the spiritual principle from inquiry as if it were non-existent. Unfortunately for human esteem and freedom, the crippled reasoning – that evolution occurs in living organisms; therefore all parts of living organisms have evolved – is unable to address the uniqueness of the human species.

Taking on the persona of cousin chilly chimp is only one sample of how one can pull the weeds out of current thinking. Consider raging forest fires as another example. What is the instinct of animal nature when faced with uncontrollable disaster? Would a chimpanzee deliberately set backfires? What do the actions of firefighters say about human nature?

Sincerely……

Do not let chilly chimp distract one from posting the serious questions about phylogenetic classification, assumptions, clades, hominids, beautiful music, founder effect, genetics, computer models, presumptions, intellect, and will.

The evolutionary tree needs the sunshine of reason, self reflection, logical evaluation, and analytical thought.

While I dearly love cousin chilly chimp, I sincerely believe that it is time to return Homo sapiens to its proper place at the pinnacle of creation. I flat out refuse membership in the brute animal kingdom.

This thread’s question remains. Is there any difference between a chimpanzee and a human?

Blessings,
granny

All human life is worthy of profound respect from the moment of conception.

No. No difference. Let’s give them ‘rights,’ make them priests and marry them.

I can’t believe this. Seriously. We are NOT descended from the apes. The ‘science’ of evolution is a joke.

 

[Newbie2]

No. No difference. Let’s give them ‘rights,’ make them priests and marry them.

I can’t believe this. Seriously. We are NOT descended from the apes. The ‘science’ of evolution is a joke.

I get your point, but there is room in Catholic Theology for the theory of evolution; it’s not excluded.

 

[edwest2]

I get your point, but there is room in Catholic Theology for the theory of evolution; it’s not excluded.

Let’s be clear. If someone says the Bible is not a science book, don’t turn the biology text into a theology book. OK? The nonsense brought up here constantly by people trying to tell Catholics what “science” has to say about the Bible is just plain wrong. Unless these posters can produce peer reviewed, scientific papers that comment on this or that part of the Bible, then they should return to their other stated position: Science is silent about God/the supernatural.

There are huge differences between chimps and humans.

Peace,
Ed

 

[JimG]

Yes. Chimps don’t post on CAF.
At least, not to my knowledge.

 

[buffalo]

There is a big difference.

We are the 99% chimpanzee? Scratch that!

Here are some realistic stats from Brit expert Richard Buggs:
Looking closely at the chimpanzee-like 76% of the human genome, we find that to make an exact alignment, we often have to introduce artificial gaps in either the human or the chimp genome. These gaps give another 3% difference. So now we have a 73% similarity between the two genomes.
In the neatly aligned sequences we now find another form of difference, where a single ’letter’ is different between the human and chimp genomes. These provide another 1.23% difference between the two genomes. Thus, the percentage difference is now at around 72%.
We also find places where two pieces of human genome align with only one piece of chimp genome, or two pieces of chimp genome align with one piece of human genome. This ”copy number variation” causes another 2.7% difference between the two species. Therefore the total similarity of the genomes could be below 70%.
http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/we-are-the-99-chimpanzee-scratch-that/

more…

 

[redhen]

While I dearly love cousin chilly chimp, I sincerely believe that it is time to return Homo sapiens to its proper place at the pinnacle of creation. I flat out refuse membership in the brute animal kingdom.

Pinnacle of creation? Macro-evolution does not work like that. It has no end goal. You can refuse membership and tear up your card if you like, you are still an animal. Sorry.

“Is there any difference between a chimpanzee and a human?"

Biggest difference is speech/language. Give a chimp a hyoid bone, FOXP2 gene, descended larynx, broca and warnicke’s areas of the brain, and ask him yourself.

 

[rwoehmke]

There are huge differences between chimps and humans.

Peace,
Ed

Yes, for sure! Some chimps are smarter when it comes to knowing their place.

 

[buffalo]

Humans More Related To Orangutans Than Chimps, Study Suggests

 

[VociMike]

Science is silent about God/the supernatural.

Agreed.

There are huge differences between chimps and humans.

This does present an interesting problem to atheists, however, since we share 96% (give or take) of our DNA with them, and yet we (society, law) treat the one so differently from the other. How is that justified? In particular, how is it justified from the atheist perspective to treat a severely retarded human so much differently than a chimp?

 

[grannymh]

Agreed.

This does present an interesting problem to atheists, however, since we share 96% (give or take) of our DNA with them, and yet we (society, law) treat the one so differently from the other. How is that justified? In particular, how is it justified from the atheist perspective to treat a severely retarded human so much differently than a chimp?

Try looking at the difference between chimps and humans as being functions or abilities rather than similar physical matter. Regarding a severely retarded human (may we love him), the potential is there, but the physical body limits the actualizing.

 

[buffalo]

Try looking at the difference between chimps and humans as being functions or abilities rather than similar physical matter. Regarding a severely retarded human (may we love him), the potential is there, but the physical body limits the actualizing.

The human body is built for running

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

 

[grannymh]

The human body is built for running

http://www.bigfootencounters.com/images/anthropoid_feet.jpg

Here’s something interesting from your link. “In particular, one hypothesis that is held by a great many people but is not admitted to academic debate, is that the human body is a product of intelligent design.” May I turn that around to – the human person is designed to be intelligent.

I also noted the use of academic instead of scientific debate. That sounds so professional next to the OP “The evolutionary tree needs the sunshine of reason, self reflection, logical evaluation, and analytical thought.”

 

[Newbie2]

Let’s be clear. If someone says the Bible is not a science book, don’t turn the biology text into a theology book. OK? The nonsense brought up here constantly by people trying to tell Catholics what “science” has to say about the Bible is just plain wrong. Unless these posters can produce peer reviewed, scientific papers that comment on this or that part of the Bible, then they should return to their other stated position: Science is silent about God/the supernatural.

There are huge differences between chimps and humans.

Peace,
Ed

Good point.

BTW, did anyone see the Planet of the Apes marathon that was on TV this weekend?

 

[grannymh]

Pinnacle of creation? Macro-evolution does not work like that. It has no end goal. You can refuse membership and tear up your card if you like, you are still an animal. Sorry.

May I ask what does macroevolution have to do with one species being considered the highest developed species? Or was it the word creation which was disturbing the meaning of pinnacle? Would the top of the food chain be a better description of ourselves?

Obviously, many biologists accept the theory of evolution with its emphasis that species share common ancestors. They would like to know the how and why the current results happened. Macro or micro?

As a theory, macroevolution describes large-scale transformations within the process of evolving. It works in the same way as microevolution, i.e., through the ordinary mechanisms of mutation, migration, genetic drift, and natural selection. Frankly, when I consider brute animals and humans, it doesn’t make too much difference regarding the manner of evolving because both brute animals and humans consist of matter.

If what you meant by saying that I am still an animal is because I still consist of natural material the same as my cousin chilly chimp – then you and I are on the same page.
My cousin and I both exist in space and time.

On the other hand, I don’t want to be confused with a brute animal which, according to the dictionary, can be described as crude or insensitive, lacking or showing a lack of reason or intelligence.

This brings one back to the original question – what are the differences?

Would you consider that being able to reason is one difference between brute animals and humans?

 

[Sailor_Kenshin]

I get your point, but there is room in Catholic Theology for the theory of evolution; it’s not excluded.

Nor is it mandatory.

 

[vjtorley]

Dear grannymh,

Here are two recent scientific papers by reputable scientists, which make a solid case for the uniqueness of human beings:

scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=origin-of-the-mind&sc=CAT_MB_20090825
“The Origin of the Mind” by Professor Marc Hauser. In Scientific American, September 2009.

bbsonline.org/Preprints/Penn-01062006/Referees/Penn-01062006_bbs-preprint.htm
“Darwin’s mistake: Explaining the discontinuity between human and animal minds” by Derek Penn, Keith Holyoak and Daniel Povinelli. To be published in Behavioral and Brain Sciences (Cambridge University Press).

From Marc Hauser’s article:

"[M]ounting evidence indicates that, in contrast to Darwin’s theory of a continuity of mind between humans and other species, a profound gap separates our intellect from the animal kind. This is not to say that our mental faculties sprang fully formed out of nowhere. Researchers have found some of the building blocks of human cognition in other species. But these building blocks make up only the cement footprint of the skyscraper that is the human mind… Recently the author identified four unique aspects of human cognition… [These are:]

• “Generative computation,” that allows us to “create a virtual limitless variety of words, concepts and things.”
• “Promiscuous combination of ideas,” meaning the ability to mingle “different domains of knowledge,” e.g., art, sex, causality, etc.
• “Mental symbols” allow us to enjoy a “rich and complex system of communication.”
• “Abstract thought,” which “permits contemplation of things beyond what we can see, hear, touch, taste or smell.”

From Penn, Holyoak and Povinelli’s article:

“Over the last quarter-century, the dominant tendency in comparative cognitive psychology has been to emphasize the similarities between human and nonhuman minds and to downplay the differences as “one of degree and not of kind” (Darwin 1871). In the present paper, we argue that Darwin was mistaken: the profound biological continuity between human and nonhuman animals masks an equally profound discontinuity between human and nonhuman minds. To wit, there is a significant discontinuity in the degree to which human and nonhuman animals are able to approximate the higher-order, systematic, relational capabilities of a physical symbol system (Newell 1980). We show that this symbolic-relational discontinuity pervades nearly every domain of cognition and runs much deeper than even the spectacular scaffolding provided by language or culture alone can explain.”

“Our most important claim in this paper is simply that whatever “good trick” (Dennett 1996) was responsible for the advent of human beings’ ability to reinterpret the world in a symbolic-relational fashion, it only evolved in one lineage—ours. Nonhuman animals didn’t (and still don’t) get it.”

Unfortunately, the scientists who wrote these articles still feel compelled to acknowledge in writing that they believe the human mind evolved incrementally - even if we don’t know how. Still, it is immensely encouraging that scientists of this caliber - real heavyweights in the field - are coming out publicly now and saying that human beings are qualitatively different from other animals.

I hope that helps.

Best wishes,

Vincent Torley

 

[grannymh]

Dear grannymh,

Here are two recent scientific papers by reputable scientists, which make a solid case for the uniqueness of human beings:

scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=origin-of-the-mind&sc=CAT_MB_20090825
“The Origin of the Mind” by Professor Marc Hauser. In Scientific American, September 2009.

bbsonline.org/Preprints/Penn-01062006/Referees/Penn-01062006_bbs-preprint.htm
“Darwin’s mistake: Explaining the discontinuity between human and animal minds” by Derek Penn, Keith Holyoak and Daniel Povinelli. To be published in Behavioral and Brain Sciences (Cambridge University Press).

From Marc Hauser’s article:

"[M]ounting evidence indicates that, in contrast to Darwin’s theory of a continuity of mind between humans and other species, a profound gap separates our intellect from the animal kind. This is not to say that our mental faculties sprang fully formed out of nowhere. Researchers have found some of the building blocks of human cognition in other species. But these building blocks make up only the cement footprint of the skyscraper that is the human mind… Recently the author identified four unique aspects of human cognition… [These are:]

• “Generative computation,” that allows us to “create a virtual limitless variety of words, concepts and things.”
• “Promiscuous combination of ideas,” meaning the ability to mingle “different domains of knowledge,” e.g., art, sex, causality, etc.
• “Mental symbols” allow us to enjoy a “rich and complex system of communication.”
• “Abstract thought,” which “permits contemplation of things beyond what we can see, hear, touch, taste or smell.”

From Penn, Holyoak and Povinelli’s article:

“Over the last quarter-century, the dominant tendency in comparative cognitive psychology has been to emphasize the similarities between human and nonhuman minds and to downplay the differences as “one of degree and not of kind” (Darwin 1871). In the present paper, we argue that Darwin was mistaken: the profound biological continuity between human and nonhuman animals masks an equally profound discontinuity between human and nonhuman minds. To wit, there is a significant discontinuity in the degree to which human and nonhuman animals are able to approximate the higher-order, systematic, relational capabilities of a physical symbol system (Newell 1980). We show that this symbolic-relational discontinuity pervades nearly every domain of cognition and runs much deeper than even the spectacular scaffolding provided by language or culture alone can explain.”

“Our most important claim in this paper is simply that whatever “good trick” (Dennett 1996) was responsible for the advent of human beings’ ability to reinterpret the world in a symbolic-relational fashion, it only evolved in one lineage—ours. Nonhuman animals didn’t (and still don’t) get it.”

Unfortunately, the scientists who wrote these articles still feel compelled to acknowledge in writing that they believe the human mind evolved incrementally - even if we don’t know how. Still, it is immensely encouraging that scientists of this caliber - real heavyweights in the field - are coming out publicly now and saying that human beings are qualitatively different from other animals.

I hope that helps.

Best wishes,

Vincent Torley

In the words of my favorite show, NCIS, I’m on it Boss.
You spotted the key – that human beings are qualitatively different from other animals. There is another good point which is that the approach is shifting…
Sorry, that time permits only a brief reply. Be assured that these sources are a big help. Don’t stop now.

 

[redhen]

May I ask what does macroevolution have to do with one species being considered the highest developed species? Or was it the word creation which was disturbing the meaning of pinnacle? Would the top of the food chain be a better description of ourselves?

I thought I clarified that by adding that evolution does not have an end-goal. Evolution is not striving towards any specific target. Top of the current food chain would be better, except that you go down a few notches in the ocean. How 'bout homo sapiens sapiens?

As a theory, macroevolution describes large-scale transformations within the process of evolving. It works in the same way as microevolution, i.e., through the ordinary mechanisms of mutation, migration, genetic drift, and natural selection. Agreed.
grannymh;5891895:

If what you meant by saying that I am still an animal is because I still consist of natural material the same as my cousin chilly chimp – then you and I are on the same page.

My cousin and I both exist in space and time.

No, I mean we are both part of the animal kingdom.

On the other hand, I don’t want to be confused with a brute animal which, according to the dictionary, can be described as crude or insensitive, lacking or showing a lack of reason or intelligence.

I would sincerely ask that you take a look at this essay by Andrew Linzey, Anglican theologian and director of the Oxford Centre for Animal Ethics.
humboldt.edu/~essays/linzey.html
oxfordanimalethics.com/who-we-are/director/

This brings one back to the original question – what are the differences?

I said what I thought was the main difference; speech/language.
edit: reading that essay again, I forgot add that non-human animals are not moral agents.

Would you consider that being able to reason is one difference between brute animals and humans?

I dunno, there are other species that use and make tools.