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

[grannymh]

Yes, whereas no chimp laughs at the idea his parents, grandparents, great grandparents etc., were chimps,
some humans do laugh their sides off at the idea their ancestors were chimps.

I’m all-the-way, no-doubt-about-it human because I have intellect and will which makes me different in kind – in other words, I belong to the human species which is completely separate from the brute animal kingdom.

 

[Sailor_Kenshin]

There are non-human animals that can count, using symbolic numbers. There’s even evidence for the transference of learned social behaviour, aka culture.

news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/02/0206_040206_tvmacaques.html

Elevating animals to the status of humans is a pagan ideal, and a heresy if one is Catholic.

Unhappily, far too many Catholics conduct themselves like pagans.

 

[LittleDeb]

So now I have a chance to return with a serious answer, not just one about ‘am I a monkey opening doors?’ (Still love that!)

I believe the difference between the chimp and the human is simply one thing: free will.

Animals have instinct and can be conditioned to respond. Humans, as we are animals, have instinct and can be conditioned to respond. But we have one thing that animals don’t have. We can *choose *whether or not to respond.

Many people say that animals are capable of love. This is a distortion of the definition of love. Many animals instinctively act in an affectionate manner with their same kind. It doesn’t mean they have made a choice to love. They haven’t had an act of the will.

Pets have been conditioned to act affectionate towards humans. That is part of the process of domestication is in convincing (conditioning) the animal that we are like them and therefore “safe” to include. In many domestications it is a case of actually dominating the animal into submission. The “Alpha Dog” as it were.

When a dog chews up a pillow, we say, “bad dog!” We don’t say, “sinful dog!” He didn’t choose to act in a way that we find wrong. He acted on his instinct. His instinct wasn’t compatible with our domestic sofa. He didn’t sit down and think to himself, “I am lonely and upset. I am going to chew up this pillow because I know it will hurt them.” He doesn’t have free will.

Now some people might think, “well with that definition one could say a baby doesn’t have free will.” I used to lean toward that thinking too. That was before I had kids of course. What kids develop around 7 years old is the ability to reason. But I can assure you that babies most certainly have free will.

And they exercise it with gusto!

 

[grannymh]

Notice of transfer to this thread.

A very interesting discussion regarding science and the immaterial realm developed on the thread “Materialism isn’t founded on scientific grounds” in Philosophy. See posts 19, 22, 23, and 37. However, the continuation of the discussion would be off topic so the discussion is transferred to this thread.

Both animals and humans are sentient but what distinguishes us is that we have the additional capabilities of intellect/reason and will. Science, which explores the material realm, locates reason and will in the physical brain. If this is correct, we would be in the same classification as chimpanzees.

The transferred discussion begins here post 19 by grannymh:

By all means, the realm of science is that of the material and physical world. But that does not automatically eliminate the immaterial or spiritual realm from inquiry as if it were non-existent. Ah, one says. Normally, the immaterial cannot be seen by natural eyes. True. But that does not exclude the reality of its existence which can be known by the tools of reason, self reflection, logical evaluation, and analytical thought.

Post 22 by Alec

OK - let me take you at your word. At the risk of being rather literal, can I ask you to lay out the rationale, the logical evaluation and the analysis that leads you to *know *the reality of the existence of an immaterial realm, seeing as it cannot be seen by our senses? If knowledge of its existence is that reasonable, logical and analytical, then surely you can persuade me to acknowledge it too.

Alec
evolutionpages.com

Post 23 by grannymh

OK - You can ask and I will be rather literal too. Since you are the one asking for the rationale, then you are the one who will have to use the tools of reason, self reflection, logical evaluation, and analytical thought. Do you have these tools? Will you be using these tools objectively, subjectively, or experientially? If I persuade you to acknowledge an immaterial realm, will you be free to do your own analysis?

Blessings,
granny

The search for knowledge is worthy of the adventures of the journey.

The last post 37 by Alec is key to the difference between ourselves and our cousin Chilly Chimp. Where are the intellectual tools of reason located? Physical brain or spiritual soul?

I will use my tools of reason, self-reflection, logical evaluation and analytical thought, originating in my physical brain, to consider the question of an immaterial realm when I am presented with evidence and a reasoned argument for its necessary existence, which would likely persuade me to acknowledge its existence.

Alec
evolutionpages.com

Are our intellectual tools of reason, self-reflection, logical evaluation and analytical thought only matter, for example the physical brain which evolved over centuries in the same manner that chimpanzees and other animals evolved?

Blessings,
granny

All human life is sacred.

 

[LittleDeb]

Are our intellectual tools of reason, self-reflection, logical evaluation and analytical thought only matter, for example the physical brain which evolved over centuries in the same manner that chimpanzees and other animals evolved?

So for me this question becomes, “According to the theory of evolution, will the Planet of the Apes actually happen?” It sounds silly, but I am curious as to their answer.

 

[vjtorley]

Hi everyone. Alec asked:

Originally Posted by hecd2 OK - let me take you at your word. At the risk of being rather literal, can I ask you to lay out the rationale, the logical evaluation and the analysis that leads you to know the reality of the existence of an immaterial realm, seeing as it cannot be seen by our senses? If knowledge of its existence is that reasonable, logical and analytical, then surely you can persuade me to acknowledge it too.
Alec
evolutionpages.com

Hi Alec. I’d be happy to oblige. You’ll find all the evidence you want here:

angelfire.com/linux/vjtorley/whybelieve2.html

You’ll also find answers to standard skeptical arguments by philosophers and scientists. The positive case for the immateriality of the soul can be found here:

angelfire.com/linux/vjtorley/whybelieve2.html#soul-arguments

Animals and their mental capacities are discussed here:

angelfire.com/linux/vjtorley/whybelieve2.html#soul-animals

Please feel free to peruse at your leisure.

 

[reggieM]

Hi everyone. Alec asked:

Originally Posted by hecd2 OK - let me take you at your word. At the risk of being rather literal, can I ask you to lay out the rationale, the logical evaluation and the analysis that leads you to know the reality of the existence of an immaterial realm, seeing as it cannot be seen by our senses? If knowledge of its existence is that reasonable, logical and analytical, then surely you can persuade me to acknowledge it too.
Alec
evolutionpages.com

Thanks for the excellent resources here.

 

[Mike_BioProf]

Thank you so much for all this.

Shi Huang’s paper regarding the molecular clock is quite extensive – so extensive that someone familiar with the topic needs to help me read it. This out of context sentence from the Abstract may hold the key to questions regarding the possibility of two sole parents of the human species. “Here, molecular data were analyzed based on the MGD [maximum genetic diversity] to resolve key questions of primate phylogeny.” In my humble opinion, genetic evidence, dating of divergence from the ancestor clade, and the probability of a founder effect needs to be reexamined in the light of the uniqueness of the human species.

The next thing is to have someone help with the reexamination – especially this important paper. Any ideas?

Blessings,
granny

All human life is sacred.

Hi Granny. I just downloaded the Huang paper (61 pages). Looks like I’ll have something to read while digesting the turkey. You should take note that the paper is not a peer-reviewed article. As they say, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Since it goes against a huge volume of published literature, the evidence better be overwhelming.

In regards to your original question, I am not sure what you are asking, other than the obvious (humans walk on two legs, have less body hair, bigger brains, smaller teeth, smaller testes, smaller ears, and a nonopposable big toe).

In response to some of the responses, I do agree that our mental capacities are qualitatively different, not just different in degree. I also don’t see how this in any way can be taken as an argument against evolution (as some seem to be doing). Nothing in evolution prohibits qualitative differences; not everything has to be just changes by degree. Bats fly. Rodents don’t. Bats don’t just fly better than mice, they truly fly while mice don’t.

Mike

 

[Mike_BioProf]

There is a big difference.

We are the 99% chimpanzee? Scratch that!

All of the arguments based on revising the human-chimp percent difference is a canard. Different ways of measuring the same thing give different results. Whether or not to include alignment gaps or insertion/deletions will affect the absolute value of the difference. But within any way of measuring that you choose, chimpanzees are the most similar to humans. Now matter how you measure, chimpanzees are more similar to humans than they are to gorillas or orangutans.

Mike

 

[grannymh]

Hi Granny. I just downloaded the Huang paper (61 pages). Looks like I’ll have something to read while digesting the turkey. You should take note that the paper is not a peer-reviewed article. As they say, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Since it goes against a huge volume of published literature, the evidence better be overwhelming.

In regards to your original question, I am not sure what you are asking, other than the obvious (humans walk on two legs, have less body hair, bigger brains, smaller teeth, smaller testes, smaller ears, and a nonopposable big toe).

In response to some of the responses, I do agree that our mental capacities are qualitatively different, not just different in degree. I also don’t see how this in any way can be taken as an argument against evolution (as some seem to be doing). Nothing in evolution prohibits qualitative differences; not everything has to be just changes by degree. Bats fly. Rodents don’t. Bats don’t just fly better than mice, they truly fly while mice don’t.

Mike

Hi Mike,

There has been some discussion on another thread regarding the Huang paper. When I gave the link for Huang’s paper, I specifically noted that it was on a site for pre-publication research and not peer reviewed. Of course the results were challenged. It is not so much the results but rather how the concept was reexamined which interested me. The mere thought that the position of the human species could be changed opens up an avenue of other possibilities. If the traditional molecular clock was not as accurate as maximum genetic diversity, would that throw off the time frame for a human bottleneck?

I posted in thread “Why evolution doesn’t matter” in philosophy. This particular discussion started in post 241. The discussion turned into one on the human bottleneck theory. It looks like that discussion is ending on post 301. Maybe not.

Huang’s paper made me realize how important the molecular clock is. A few days ago, I found some interesting comments by Francisco J. Ayala in “Molecular Clock Mirage”
BioEssays 1999; 21: 71-75. John Wiley & Sons, Inc. These are in post 301, “Why evolution doesn’t matter.”

The fact that human nature is body and soul unified is why my cousin Chilly Chimp matters and the human bottleneck matters. I am disagreeing with Richard Dawkins.

As for evolutionary theory itself, I am immersed in it and loving every minute. But when someone tries to claim that I am in the brute animal kingdom, I stamp my foot and say: No way will I accept that claim!"

Blessings,
granny

All human life is sacred.

 

[buffalo]

Hi Mike,

There has been some discussion on another thread regarding the Huang paper. When I gave the link for Huang’s paper, I specifically noted that it was on a site for pre-publication research and not peer reviewed. Of course the results were challenged. It is not so much the results but rather how the concept was reexamined which interested me. The mere thought that the position of the human species could be changed opens up an avenue of other possibilities. If the traditional molecular clock was not as accurate as maximum genetic diversity, would that throw off the time frame for a human bottleneck?

I posted in thread “Why evolution doesn’t matter” in philosophy. This particular discussion started in post 241. The discussion turned into one on the human bottleneck theory. It looks like that discussion is ending on post 301. Maybe not.

Huang’s paper made me realize how important the molecular clock is. A few days ago, I found some interesting comments by Francisco J. Ayala in “Molecular Clock Mirage”
BioEssays 1999; 21: 71-75. John Wiley & Sons, Inc. These are in post 301, “Why evolution doesn’t matter.”

The fact that human nature is body and soul unified is why my cousin Chilly Chimp matters and the human bottleneck matters. I am disagreeing with Richard Dawkins.

As for evolutionary theory itself, I am immersed in it and loving every minute. But when someone tries to claim that I am in the brute animal kingdom, I stamp my foot and say: No way will I accept that claim!"

Blessings,
granny

All human life is sacred.

Yes, grannyh thre are issues with the molecular clock.

Here are a few articles on it:

Molecular clock keeps good time - twice a day?

Dates from the molecular clock: how wrong can we be?

**Molecular clock really goes tick tock?
**

New ‘Molecular Clock’ Aids Dating Of Human Migration HistoryHow Steady is a Molecular Clock?

 

[mathematician]

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.

If biblical literalists interpret 1 Genesis as a scientific account of creation, then science can have something to say on the subject. If, on the other hand, it is interpreted as theology, science can have nothing to say on the subject.

 

[Peter_Dawson]

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

My wife would say, “Looking at my husband, I’m not sure.”

 

[grannymh]

Here is an informative quote from this thread’s post 46, vjtorley, link under 4. Human Uniqueness
bbsonline.org/Preprints/P…s-preprint.htm

Human animals—and no other—build fires and wheels, diagnose each other’s illnesses, communicate using symbols, navigate with maps, risk their lives for ideals, collaborate with each other, explain the world in terms of hypothetical causes, punish strangers for breaking rules, imagine impossible scenarios, and teach each other how to do all of the above. At first blush, it might appear obvious that human minds are qualitatively different from those of every other animal on the planet. Ever since Darwin, however, the dominant tendency in comparative cognitive psychology has been to emphasize the continuity between human and nonhuman minds and to downplay the differences as “one of degree and not of kind” (Darwin 1871).

Here’s a quote from a researcher who sees the intelligence difference as a fundamental one.

The division between humans and great apes is obviously a fundamental one in many respects, especially in the brain or intelligence. Anyone who discounts that and considers himself just a third chimpanzee deserves to be and can only logically hope to be treated like a stupid ape by real humans.

If one does not take his intelligence and hence his thoughts seriously in the first place, why should anyone else?

Added thought.
With all the evolutionary emphasis on humans being a part of the brute animal kingdom, how many people on this Thanksgiving Day holiday took five minutes to thank God for their immortal, eternal, spiritual soul which is the real difference.

 

[severus68]

I have been rading all the posts and am impressed with the thinking and the extensive eading that has been done. Just a small clarification, on the question of the primate closest to humans by dna, it i the bonobos. They have similaritaries to the chimp bt much less in numbrs and much less aggresive tha chimps.

I do agree with redhen that we are all come under the classificion of animals. Animals do not have fee will and so they cannot sin. Humans are unique, yes but I am not comfortable to the reference to animals as “brute animals”. Animals do not have agendas, they do not have free will. The brutes and monsters are those humans with their intellect and free will who indulge in violence and commit sickening acts.Yes, humans are different from chimps and other animals.

Just another point, I must disagree with the post that animals can’t feel love, that it is only instinct.

 

[grannymh]

I do agree with redhen that we are all come under the classificion of animals. Animals do not have fee will and so they cannot sin. Humans are unique, yes but I am not comfortable to the reference to animals as “brute animals”. Animals do not have agendas, they do not have free will. The brutes and monsters are those humans with their intellect and free will who indulge in violence and commit sickening acts.Yes, humans are different from chimps and other animals.

Just another point, I must disagree with the post that animals can’t feel love, that it is only instinct.

Speaking about redhen. I hope you followed the links in Post 20. The article is excellent for many different reasons.

From Post 20. 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/

I feel awful when I have to use the words “brute animal kingdom.” But brute when applied to animals means something entirely different than brute applied to humans. Brute in animals refers to their lack of reasoning powers, that is they are non-human.
The *American Heritage College Dictionary *lists as one of the meanings --“entirely physical.” This is the key difference between the chimps and human beings.

One can easily see the switch in meanings as humans who, as you say, “indulge in violence and commit sickening acts”, can also be described as acting in a non-human way.

Unfortunately, there is only one way that evolutionary theory can currently classify humans and that is to lump them in with all non-reasoning animals. You correctly pointed out “Animals do not have free will and so they cannot sin.” If this is really true, then why are we in the same classification?


Blessings,
granny

All creation is a joy to behold.

 

[severus68]

Speaking about redhen. I hope you followed the links in Post 20. The article is excellent for many different reasons.

I feel awful when I have to use the words “brute animal kingdom.” But brute when applied to animals means something entirely different than brute applied to humans. Brute in animals refers to their lack of reasoning powers, that is they are non-human.
The *American Heritage College Dictionary *lists as one of the meanings --“entirely physical.” This is the key difference between the chimps and human beings.

One can easily see the switch in meanings as humans who, as you say, “indulge in violence and commit sickening acts”, can also be described as acting in a non-human way.

Unfortunately, there is only one way that evolutionary theory can currently classify humans and that is to lump them in with all non-reasoning animals. You correctly pointed out “Animals do not have free will and so they cannot sin.” If this is really true, then why are we in the same classification?

Blessings,
granny

All creation is a joy to behold.

Thank you for the clarification. We come under the general classifiations of animals, minerals and…

Humans who act in brutal ways are unotunately acting in a very human manner, that of a human being who has turned cmpletely away from God or is just insane

A very Happy Thanksgiving to all in the US, God bless/

 

[grannymh]

A very Happy Thanksgiving to all in the US, God bless/

Thank you for your good wishes.

I wanted to reply to your earlier comment about the bonobos. I have been reading some research regarding relationships in the “evolutionary tree” and I expect there will be more clarifications. Look what happened to primate feet. See post 13 in this thread.

As I remember, the early general classifications of animals, plants, minerals, etc., consisted of differences in functions. Humans were considered the highest classification, that is separate from all, because of their intellect and will. Biology and related sciences have taken over and replaced those general classifications. Since these sciences deal only with the material realm, human nature is only half understood.

In Catholic circles, it is the spiritual soul which makes humans a separate classification. This is why Catholicism, with its insistence on the spiritual, is under stealth attack

Blessings,
granny

Al human beings are worthy of profound respect from the moment of their conception.

 

[LittleDeb]

Just another point, I must disagree with the post that animals can’t feel love, that it is only instinct.

What you classify as “love” is more rightly termed ‘affection.’ Love is an intellectual decision. That was exactly my point, that to say that animals “feel love” attempts to redefine love into a mere emotional expression. If you are prone to saying, “I love ice cream,” then I can see why you would believe that animals “feel love.” They feel love for us, the same way we “feel love” for ice cream. It is a conditioned affection.

To have love for someone requires intellectual consent, and discernment of the will. Animals can do neither.

 

[severus68]

Thank you for your good wishes.

I wanted to reply to your earlier comment about the bonobos. I have been reading some research regarding relationships in the “evolutionary tree” and I expect there will be more clarifications. Look what happened to primate feet. See post 13 in this thread.

As I remember, the early general classifications of animals, plants, minerals, etc., consisted of differences in functions. Humans were considered the highest classification, that is separate from all, because of their intellect and will. Biology and related sciences have taken over and replaced those general classifications. Since these sciences deal only with the material realm, human nature is only half understood.

In Catholic circles, it is the spiritual soul which makes humans a separate classification. This is why Catholicism, with its insistence on the spiritual, is under stealth attack

Blessings,
granny

Al human beings are worthy of profound respect from the moment of their conception.

I am very Catholic. I do agreee that human beings are unique. We have been given much by God. Saying that, we should use our specialness and gifts for the greater good and for ll of God’s creation.