[_ Old Earth _] What's the difference between apes and humans?

[Dave Slayer]

What's the difference between apes and humans? How do you tell them apart?

 

[Barbarian]

Apes are on the other side of the bars.

 

[lordkalvan]

Apes are on the other side of the bars.

Not always ;) .

 

[coelacanth]

What's the difference between apes and humans? How do you tell them apart?

Technically humans are apes in the scientific classification system. You can tell different species apart in a variety of ways, including looking at morphological (physical/structural) features or DNA analysis. The line is sometimes quite blurry, but when groups of sexually reproducing organisms cannot interbreed, and are mutually exclusive in that capability, it is generally agreed that they are different species. There are other definitions of species, however, that are more useful in certain situations, such as when something reproduces asexually or if they could interbreed but do not interbreed even when their territories overlap.

 

[Crying Rock]

Apes are on the other side of the bars.

Not always ;) .

To distinguish what a human is, a rather simple behavioral test has always been helpful to me:

Can the creature control fire AND make tools. That gets us back to Ergaster/Erectus, with the data at hand currently.

 

[Barbarian]

To distinguish what a human is, a rather simple behavioral test has always been helpful to me:

Can the creature control fire AND make tools. That gets us back to Ergaster/Erectus, with the data at hand currently.

So, if we could teach a chimp to control fire, he'd be human? You sure about that?

And that means that small children are not human, um?

 

[Crying Rock]

To distinguish what a human is, a rather simple behavioral test has always been helpful to me:

Can the creature control fire AND make tools. That gets us back to Ergaster/Erectus, with the data at hand currently.

So, if we could teach a chimp to control fire, he'd be human? You sure about that?

And that means that small children are not human, um?

Come on, B.: it's hard to take you seriously. Can a baby bird fly? Without human intervention, can a chimp control fire?

 

[lordkalvan]

[quote="The Barbarian":3nhkbdq4]

To distinguish what a human is, a rather simple behavioral test has always been helpful to me:

Can the creature control fire AND make tools. That gets us back to Ergaster/Erectus, with the data at hand currently.

So, if we could teach a chimp to control fire, he'd be human? You sure about that?

And that means that small children are not human, um?

Come on, B.: it's hard to take you seriously. Can a baby bird fly? Without human intervention, can a chimp control fire?[/quote:3nhkbdq4]
I think you make Barbarian's point for him. There is something other than the ability to control fire and make tools that determines whether a creature is human or not. Is a brain-damaged adult human who is no longer able to either make tools or control fire still a human being? I think most of us would say, of course. Therefore your definition has only a simplistic, narrow application. As Barbarian says, if a non-human creature could be taught to control fire (chimps can already make tools) would this creature therefore be definable as human?

 

[Crying Rock]

There is something other than the ability to control fire and make tools that determines whether a creature is human or not.

Is a brain-damaged adult human who is no longer able to either make tools or control fire still a human being?

Yes, but I said these are behavioral indicators. And, of course, they are generalized and minimal. But, during an archeological dig, if you came across a fire pit, charcoal, burnt bones and stone tools, you could bet your last dollar that humans occupied the site. I guess there's always the most improbable scenario: lightening struck; creating fire within a ring of stones; some animals that were hanging out with some chimps fell into the fire; and the chimps got scared, and dropped their tools right next to the fire. ;) You would have a hard time convincing any competent archeologist, who recovered stone tools and contolled fire in the same context, that anything but humans were responsible for the specimens/ features.

if a non-human creature could be taught to control fire (chimps can already make tools) would this creature therefore be definable as human?

Imo, no. The chimp would have to be taught by humans and couldn't communicate the skill to his descendants. So they too would have to be taught by humans. Think about it: do you see dogs teaching other dogs how to sit, lay, rollover, etc...

 

[lordkalvan]

There is something other than the ability to control fire and make tools that determines whether a creature is human or not.

[quote:1fxrorff]Is a brain-damaged adult human who is no longer able to either make tools or control fire still a human being?

Yes, but I said these are behavioral indicators. And, of course, they are generalized and minimal. But, during an archeological dig, if you came across a fire pit, charcoal, burnt bones and stone tools, you could bet your last dollar that humans occupied the site. I guess there's always the most improbable scenario: lightening struck; creating fire within a ring of stones; some animals that were hanging out with some chimps fell into the fire; and the chimps got scared, and dropped their tools right next to the fire. ;) You would have a hard time convincing any competent archeologist, who recovered stone tools and contolled fire in the same context, that anything but humans were responsible for the specimens/ features.[/quote:1fxrorff]
Thanks for that elaboration. It makes your argument clearer.

if a non-human creature could be taught to control fire (chimps can already make tools) would this creature therefore be definable as human?

Imo, no. The chimp would have to be taught by humans and couldn't communicate the skill to his descendants. So they too would have to be taught by humans. Think about it: do you see dogs teaching other dogs how to sit, lay, rollover, etc...[/quote][/quote]
I take your point about dogs, but chimps are clearly capable of using skills learned from other chimps:

Adrienne Zihlman, an anthropologist at the University of California at Santa Cruz, said the work supports other evidence that female chimps are more likely than males to use tools, are more proficient at it and are crucial to passing that cultural knowledge to others.

"Females are the teachers," Zihlman said, noting that juvenile chimps in Senegal were repeatedly seen watching their mothers make and hunt with spears.

Source: http://evolutionlist.blogspot.com/2007/ ... aking.html

 

[Crying Rock]

I take your point about dogs, but chimps are clearly capable of using skills learned from other chimps:

Adrienne Zihlman, an anthropologist at the University of California
at Santa Cruz, said the work supports other evidence that female chimps are more likely than males to use tools, are more proficient at it and are crucial to passing that cultural knowledge to others.

"Females are the teachers," Zihlman said, noting that juvenile chimps in Senegal were repeatedly seen watching their mothers make and hunt with spears.
Source: http://evolutionlist.blogspot.com/2007/ ... aking.html

I agree that chimps are very smart. And they certainly know how to make tools on their own (by watching their mothers and other chimps).

I guess all I can say is for now is humans are the only creatures that can make fire AND tools AND pass that knowledge down to their children. As either you or B said earlier, there's a lot more to being human than these minimal behavioral traits, but these traits are sufficient, at least with the data at hand currently, to separate humans from other creatures.