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

  • Thread starter Thread starter grannymh
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Marfran said:
Unless they rip your face off. You did hear about the woman who lost her eyes and her face to a chimpanzee attack. BUT I do believe that the blame for that incident falls on the misguided owner of that animal. The chimpanzee was given sedatives or other medication prior to the attack by the owner who was having difficulties with the behavior of the specific animal.

Yes I like animals too–BUT they are NOT human, and we really do have to take this into consideration in our exchanges and interactions with them. (But because they are different from us does not give us the right to be cruel to them, or to treat them as commodities.)
Click to expand...
I have pondered on the 98% sharing of DNA with humans and the aggressiveness of chimps. I then found out that the bonobos share 99% of DNA withhumans and they are less aggressive.

About that chimp who did that , I gather the victim does not blame the chimp. Who gives xanax to a chimp? Anti anxiety and anti depressants prescribd wrongly to adolescents hae caused them to act violently. You have the US examples. Chimps are pound for pound extraordinarily wrong. What was that that woman doing keeping a 200 lb chimp? I love animals but I know male chimps can become aggresive when they mature and would never keep one as a pet.

I do however understand how misery fence feels. I have never had an animal steal from me, cheat me or “stab me in the back”.

As you say while we are dfferent from animals, we have no right to abuse. They may be different but they are also God’s creatures.
 
grannymh said:
“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.
Click to expand...
From an anthropological point of view this is a non-nonsensical question. Humans developed along a whole different line than chimps…although it is thought that we share a common ancestor somewhere on the time continuum. Chimps don’t create religion or tough moral questions…or wonder why the stars shine …or seek to discover a cure for cancer…they do not have “culture”. They also don’t decide to have abortions, or make war, or do a hostile “takeover” of a company or decide to “lay off” thousands of workers to save money or euthanize those that are deemed “a burden” to society…or blow up airplanes in the name of “religion”. Given this list, are humans really the pinnacle of creation? Sometimes I wonder…:rolleyes:
CC
[SIGN]I love my German Shepherd[/SIGN]
 
Marfran said:
Unless they rip your face off. You did hear about the woman who lost her eyes and her face to a chimpanzee attack. BUT I do believe that the blame for that incident falls on the misguided owner of that animal. The chimpanzee was given sedatives or other medication prior to the attack by the owner who was having difficulties with the behavior of the specific animal.

Yes I like animals too–BUT they are NOT human, and we really do have to take this into consideration in our exchanges and interactions with them. (But because they are different from us does not give us the right to be cruel to them, or to treat them as commodities.)
Click to expand...
👍

Chimps are WILD animals…the key term here is WILD…meaning not domesticated…plus they can rip your arm off and a grown chimp can take a 150 lb man and drag him around like a rag doll…wild animals do not make good pets…no matter how “cute” they look as babies!
CC
 
ccolley said:
From an anthropological point of view this is a non-nonsensical question. Humans developed along a whole different line than chimps…although it is thought that we share a common ancestor somewhere on the time continuum. Chimps don’t create religion or tough moral questions…or wonder why the stars shine …or seek to discover a cure for cancer…they do not have “culture”. They also don’t decide to have abortions, or make war, or do a hostile “takeover” of a company or decide to “lay off” thousands of workers to save money or euthanize those that are deemed “a burden” to society…or blow up airplanes in the name of “religion”. Given this list, are humans really the pinnacle of creation? Sometimes I wonder…:rolleyes:
CC
[sign]I love my German Shepherd[/sign]
Click to expand...
Your post ties together some major points of this thread and ends in a question we all have to answer regardless if we are theists or non-theists.

In addition,
would you please expand on the anthropological point of view since I am not familiar with this? Thank you.

Christmas Blessings,
granny

The shepherds sing; and shall I silent be?
from the poem “Christmas” by George Herbert

The “Twelve Days of Christmas” is meant to be celebrated.

.
 
Marfran said:
Chimpanzees and other primates have been taught to use sign language and are very intellegent creatures. Verbal communication is the thing that separates us from the animal world–and I suspect that the reason for this is MORE than just biology.
Click to expand...
Please check these two links –

http://drbonnette.com/Ape-Language_Studies_Part_I.html

http://drbonnette.com/Ape-Language_Studies_Part_II.html

They are a fascinating two-part analysis of Ape Language studies.

Christmas Blessings,
granny

The shepherds sing; and shall I silent be?
from the poem “Christmas” by George Herbert
The “Twelve Days of Christmas” are meant to be celebrated.

www.CatholicsComeHomeRockford.org
 
grannymh said:
Please check these two links –

http://drbonnette.com/Ape-Language_Studies_Part_I.html

http://drbonnette.com/Ape-Language_Studies_Part_II.html

They are a fascinating two-part analysis of Ape Language studies.
Click to expand...
I just briefly looked at these–and at first glance was pretty unimpressed by this author–but am unfamiliar with him and who knows–maybe if I spent more time reviewing his work I might change my mind about him. He seems very biased–to the point that raises suspicion.

I do agree with the idea that science and the understanding of evolution do not have to negate the religious teaching of Creation, or relegate Adam and Eve to mythical status. This author seems to prefer to attack science, but in MHO science is wonderful and God IS it’s author, so there is no reason to argue with it’s findings.

I think we should marvel at science, and marvel at the idea that we are so closely related to animals, yet that we are markedly different, and that we have a different role to fulfill in God’s kingdom. I do not share this author’s disdain for the findings of science, and for science to be an illumination for us, we must be completely objective and not manipulative with the collected data. I also do not agree with those who do not see God’s hand in science. Science IS NOT God, but God IS science.
 
Marfran said:
Chimpanzees and other primates have been taught to use sign language and are very intellegent creatures. Verbal communication is the thing that separates us from the animal world–and I suspect that the reason for this is MORE than just biology.
Click to expand...
Hi Marfran,

Your comment here in post 105 is crucial to this thread. The links which I posted actually demonstrate what you are saying that verbal communication is the thing that separates us from the animal world. The links are an honest critique of methods not an attack on science. This is an important difference.

The links contain a valuable overview of known methods regarding language experiments. If there is a bias, it is for the human species. I can see some of what is wrong with the methods in the animal/human research. But it is far better to use detailed studies of methods. There are 82 references used in this study of methods.

I have a related thread: “How do popular evolutionary biologists come up with their decisions about Adam & Eve?” in Apologetics. I am for evolutionary theory but I am questioning the methods used to eliminate Adam and Eve. Here, I am questioning the methods used to demonstrate that we are a member of the brute animal kingdom. It is crucial to understand methods when it comes to scientific conclusions which eliminate the spiritual.

I have read research papers which attempt to conclude that there is no difference between us and cousin chilly chimp. Animal studies and studies which match animals with humans appear to prove that humans and animals have different degrees of the same intellectual abilities and thus humans don’t have souls. :eek:

I flat out refuse to give up my soul just because someone puts me in the brute animal
kingdom.

Christmas Blessings,
granny

The shepherds sing; and shall I silent be?
from the poem “Christmas” by George Herbert

The “Twelve Days of Christmas” are meant to be celebrated.

www.CatholicsComeHomeRockford.org
 
A Chimp has a brain [Humans a brain and a mind [the mind is Spiritual not “matter” like the brain]

A monkey reponds by instinct [Humans by reason,[logic] intellect, and freewill ALSO Spiritual THINGS]

NOT EVEN CLOSE TO COMPARABLE:D
 
grannymh said:
Hi Marfran,

Your comment here in post 105 is crucial to this thread. The links which I posted actually demonstrate what you are saying that verbal communication is the thing that separates us from the animal world. The links are an honest critique of methods not an attack on science. This is an important difference.

The links contain a valuable overview of known methods regarding language experiments. If there is a bias, it is for the human species. I can see some of what is wrong with the methods in the animal/human research. But it is far better to use detailed studies of methods. There are 82 references used in this study of methods.
Click to expand...
I think the difficulty is that some scientists do not recognize God in the equation, and statistically it seems that many “scientists” are not religious. I think science is most accurate if one is “unbiased,” but the problem with that is that the individual scientists, in eliminating “God” from their work, lose God from their lives.

I think the opposite is also true of religious minded folks who wish to eliminate science from the equation. The author of the sites you posted seems to want to discredit or devalue language studies on primates. In MHO both are wrong. God created science, it is not evil (though it can be used for evil or destructive goals).

We ***are ***closely linked to the animal kingdom, and should recognize this and accept this. I don’t think accepting this detracts from our selves, our species, but actually should enhance our relationship and attitudes towards God’s other creation. God lovingly created ALL of existence–and we of ALL species are capable of loving and taking care of ALL that God created.

I think that studying primates is fascinating and in no way detracts from humans or lessens our relationship with God. We should be amazed at how closely we are biologically related to primates, yet how different our species are.

I understand that many people view science or use science to validate atheistic beliefs. I don’t personally get that–and am in awe of the intricacies and challenges that science brings to our lives. As we become more technologically advanced, our lives become physically easier, but often more spiritually challenging. (Do we utilize new found science to prolong life, create “designer” babies, etc.)

As far as primates go, I think it is to our advantage to understand their genetics and abilities, or lack of abilities with an unbiased eye. Do they suffer when we inflict experiments on them??? Is it ethical for us to use them this way, etc.

Now people say that only humans can contemplate God, etc., and that may be true but, some of the thoughts and goings on in our brains are the result of centuries and centuries of progressive thought, philosophy, etc.

If an unsocialized human were to grow up with savage beasts (be raised by apes or chimps) I wonder if he would be closer (intellectually) to the animal or to modern humans??? And what would be the status of his thoughts??? I imagine he would be non-verbal and not having philosophical thoughts. Would he wonder of his existence, of God, of a higher purpose???

I don’t think it is to our advantage to belittle the animal kingdom. We should yes, try to understand it, and appreciate it, and take care of it lovingly because all these animals, this entire planet–was created by God. Science does not stand alone, apart from God–and God is the author of science–so in studying science we must accept where it takes us, and use all information responsibly and to the glory of God.

So I guess I have trouble with folks who get on a soapbox and say that we are so much more intellegent than animals and so very superior and that animals are so inconsequential–because I think the whole purpose for this discourse is not to understand God or His design, or our purpose to fulfill while on Earth–but rather to validate the mistreatment and abuse of animals for selfish desires.

Give the chimp his proper place in science, his proper place in evolution–doing so does not detract at all from us and our special relationship to God. And no, I do not agree with atheist scientists who consider humans just a fraction higher on the evolutionary ladder. But we also don’t have to pat ourselves on the back constantly reassuring ourselves that we are so much more superior and advanced. Being made in the Image of God means that we are capable of love, charity, mercy, forgiveness… And we can extend our love, mercy and forgiveness to all the species on the planet in addition to our own (species).

We need not be afraid of the chimp or the ape, and his place on the evolutionary ladder. And we don’t have to arm wrestle him for the spot (or outdo him on an algebraic equation etc.)
 
For the foreseeable future, there shall be no discussion in the Apologetics Forum of evolution or atheism. Anyone who starts such a thread or revives an old thread on those topics will be banned. This ban is planned to be temporary, but there are to be no public or private petitions that the ban be lifted. It will be lifted only when the mod (yours truly) discerns that the atmosphere in this forum has sufficiently cooled.

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top