[_ Old Earth _] Chimps and humans: How similar are we really?

[Barbarian]

chimps do not demonstrate different morphological types,

Barbarian observes:
two actually. The forest/savanna chimps, and bonobos.

Once considered nothing more than a pygmy or gracile “chimpanzee”, the terminology was merely changed to indicate they are two different types (which you are categorizing as different “morphological types”),

Yes. More different than any of the three subspecies of H. sapiens (anatomically modern humans, Neandertals and Denisovans). Pan troglodytes is a species with four subspecies (which differ by about the same degree as the three sapiens populations). Pan paniscus (bonobos) differ genetically from Pan troglodytes by a much larger degree, and therefore are classified as a separate species.

H. sapiens (three subspecies) differs less than the genus Pan (four subspecies and two species)

but this is nothing more than like saying human dwarfs or pygmies constitute different “species” of Homo-Sapien (not that they really do).

See above. You're wrong about this, as you are about the three sapiens populations. They are not separate species.

So on the one hand it can shown that chimpanzee “morphological types”, differ much more than the subspecies of sapiens in both phenetic and genetic measurements. It's the creationist "bait and switch" using their own, flexible definitions, instead of scientific ones.

That being said, the borderline between subspecies and species can be difficult to draw, because there are no essential differences between "kinds." This was first noted by Darwin, and is one of the most difficult problems for creationists. If they were right, there would be easily-defined boundaries between species and subspecies. But of course, that's not the case. It wasn't until both species of chimpanzee were sequenced, was it realized that they differed enough to be considered separate species.

The creationist argument is a common logic fallacy called “the fallacy of equivocation” where one can shift the meaning of a word within an argument. Usually that catches the person responded to off guard and the speaker may not even realize they did this but it is one the common unintentional errors made in discussions like this.

"There are still many people, including many biologists, who believe that humans are superior to chimpanzees in all cognitive functions," said researcher Tetsuro Matsuzawa, director of the Primate Research Institute of Kyoto University in Japan. "No one can imagine that chimpanzees—young chimpanzees at the age of 5—have a better performance in a memory task than humans."

This one is interesting to me (and further exploration may change my mind) and may have indications of better memory, but there are unrevealed factors in this article. The chimps were motivated by getting food or not getting food (a non-motivator for humans) which is a very powerful conditioning tool in chimps... Why? Because success represented something significant from necessity.

Something you think is absent in humans? Isn't this yet another example of chimps thinking as we do?

Patterson also reports that she has documented Koko inventing new signs to communicate novel thoughts. For example, she says that nobody taught Koko the word for "ring", but to refer to it, Koko combined the words "finger" and "bracelet", hence "finger-bracelet."

Now this one was compelling. I really like this one…thanks! But note that this is a gorilla not a chimp (and that is our subject of comparison)!!! You must be careful for the fallacy of equivocation.

This merely points out the fact that such mental processes are part of the great ape mentality, not just the human/chimp clade. Notice that Washoe, a chimp, signed "water bird" for a waterfowl.

It turns out that all the great apes are capable of signing and inventing words by joining them. And they can all lie, which indicates they infer mental states in others.

No! Not even close…and also one can lie void of consideration of anyone else’s mental state

If you thought about it, you'd see why your statement makes no sense. Why would anyone lie, unless to deceive? And an attempt at deception requires a theory of mind, since there must be a mind to deceive.

Yes, they are lying (as we do) to gain some kind of advantage. But how? By deception, by convincing some other that something false is true. And as you surely see, no one would attempt to deceive unless they thought there was a thinker to deceive.

 

[brother Paul]

but this is nothing more than like saying human dwarfs or pygmies constitute different “species” of Homo-Sapien (not that they really do).
See above. You're wrong about this, as you are about the three sapiens populations. They are not separate species.

By taking this out of its context you predictably twisted what I had said (perhaps intentionally)...I was saying just the opposite. I was saying that chimps and bonobos are not separate species as in different creatures but are simply different varieties of the same creature (both are Chimpanzee, and of the genus Pan). You used the bait and switch multiple meaning technique....is this part of the program? You tried that in your last post also....

It is a technique of switching the meaning applied in an argument with an alternate meaning not intended, in order to misrepresent an argument to look incorrect, when the point was valid in light of the original usage. The POINT once again IS/WAS that a bonobo's difference from the Savannah Chimp is like unto the difference between a Watusi and a Pygmy. The Bonobo is just a variety of Chimp ...they are both two VARIETIES of the same creature. Nothing more, no matter how men want to re-classify them to create the appearance of supporting their hypothesis.

If you thought about it, you'd see why your statement makes no sense. Why would anyone lie, unless to deceive? And an attempt at deception requires a theory of mind, since there must be a mind to deceive.

No it makes perfect sense. As an addendum I included the fact that one can also "lie" without inferring anything about another persons mind (self deception, justification, rationalization...are excellent examples....it is all about self). The ape receives a command word or hand signal which implies what equals their master's disapproval...they equate this with deprivation or punishment (from being conditioned)...not because they INFERRED IT (cognitively)

We are getting off topic....can you contribute anything other than the way EBs interpret what shared DNA means (which can be explained differently)...to show that we are most similar to chimps (the Savannah type or the bonobo)????

 

[Barbarian]

By taking this out of its context you predictably twisted what I had said (perhaps intentionally)...I was saying just the opposite. I was saying that chimps and bonobos are not separate species as in different creatures but are simply different varieties of the same creature (both are Chimpanzee, and of the genus Pan).

You still don't get it. A genus is a group of species. In the case of Pan, there is Pan troglodytes (what we usually call a chimpanzee) and Pan paniscus, which we usually call a bonobo. Two species in one genus. Like H. sapiens, H. erectus, H. ergaster, etc. One genus, a number of different species.

You used the bait and switch multiple meaning technique....is this part of the program? You tried that in your last post also....

No, you just confused "species" and "genus."

The POINT once again IS/WAS that a bonobo's difference from the Savannah Chimp is like unto the difference between a Watusi and a Pygmy.

No, that's wrong. There is practically no genetic difference between the two. In fact, there is more variation within any human population you can define, than there is between such groups. On the other hand, since chimp and bonobo genomes have been sequenced, the differences have been found to be much greater than human variation.

The Bonobo is just a variety of Chimp ...they are both two VARIETIES of the same creature.

No, you've been misled about that.

A comparative study of blood group serology concluded that not only were Pan paniscus and Pan troglodytes separate species, but that they "are even as distant from P. troglodytes as to be placed in a separate genus."
The Pygmy Chimpanzee Evolutionary Biology and Behavior
Susman, R.L.
Plenum Press, New York, USA and London, UK.
1984

Barbarian observes:
If you thought about it, you'd see why your statement makes no sense. Why would anyone lie, unless to deceive? And an attempt at deception requires a theory of mind, since there must be a mind to deceive.

No it makes perfect sense.

Sorry, no. There can be no attempt to deceive without the perception that there is someone to deceive.

As an addendum I included the fact that one can also "lie" without inferring anything about another persons mind (self deception, justification, rationalization...are excellent examples....it is all about self).

None of those involve an attempt to deceive.

The ape receives a command word or hand signal which implies what equals their master's disapproval...

We see it in the wild, with no trainer at all. Lower status chimps try to hide erect penises from higher status chimps, by covering with hands.

Moreover, when a chimp lies about who urinated on the floor, it is not trying to please anyone, it's trying to mislead someone to avoid trouble.

We are getting off topic....can you contribute anything other than the way EBs interpret what shared DNA means (which can be explained differently)

No, it can't. We can show that DNA relationships mean common descent, by analyzing organisms of known descent. Always works.

 

[brother Paul]

I confused nothing...Chimps and Bonobos are two varieties of the same creature (thus my definition used for species). Black bears, Polar bears, Grizzly bears...all bears. But skip this attempt at diversion...

Please show other qualifying characteristics that demonstrate Chimp and humans are similar (I can think of a few)....

The OP asks "How similar are we really?"

 

[Barbarian]

I confused nothing...Chimps and Bonobos are two varieties of the same creature (thus my definition used for species).

Same genus, different species. Your error was to suppose that they were so alike that they were like the three subspecies of H. sapiens. As you see, that is not correct; the two species are quite different.

Black bears, Polar bears, Grizzly bears...all bears.

It appears that all Ursinae should be able to interbreed, but those outside of that subfamily so far have not been able to do so.

Please show other qualifying characteristics that demonstrate Chimp and humans are similar (I can think of a few)....

Most outstandingly, we are more genetically related to each other than either is to any other organism. And we know that indicates common descent, because we can check it with organisms of known descent.

As you know, Huxley showed Owen that human brains and chimp brains had all the same structures, albeit less developed.

And there's this, first noted by D'arcy Thompson in the early 1900s:

Humans, with slowed physical development, and a long childhood, are paedomorphic, that is they retain juvenile traits like a large cranium, small face, upright stance with foramen magnum under the cranium, and so on. Much of the differences are merely changes in developmental timing.

The OP asks "How similar are we really?"

The answer is "more than previously realized."

 

[brother Paul]

As you know, Huxley showed Owen that human brains and chimp brains had all the same structures, albeit less developed.

There you go....yes there are some anatomical similarities and some differences and at least this is in line with the OP.

The "less developed" however is the opinion or hypothesis based assumption. It is fully developed for chimps because they are different unrelated creatures)! There is nothing to imply they would or could have been MORE development in Chimps. Or developed FROM chimps to human. In chimps this IS full development (for that separate creature). In humans their's IS full development (for that separate creature).

Thus these mutually exclusive facts related to each creature does not necessitate a relationship or one coming from another and in fact show another clear distinction between humans and chimps. But we do share some anatomical parts of the brain (as many creatures do as part of God's design).

And there's this, first noted by D'arcy Thompson in the early 1900s:

Humans, with slowed physical development, and a long childhood, are paedomorphic, that is they retain juvenile traits like a large cranium, small face, upright stance with foramen magnum under the cranium, and so on. Much of the differences are merely changes in developmental timing.

Yes humans with these conditions retain anatomically more juvenile characteristics and these differences can be attributed to developmental problems. Chimps do not exhibit this regardless of the artistic contrivance. If chimps can be found that have the same developmental problems (the exception is not a rule), I am sure they would also vary from their normal healthy comrades. However, these unfortunate RARE exceptions in the human populations say nothing about similarity with or difference from chimps.

 

[Barbarian]

There you go....yes there are some anatomical similarities and some differences and at least this is in line with the OP.

The "less developed" however is the opinion or hypothesis based assumption.

No, it's a matter of measurement. For example, our Broca's and Warenke's areas (required for speech and comprehension of speech) are larger and more convoluted than those of other apes, but they still have them.

It is fully developed for chimps because they are different unrelated creatures)!

You assumption is refuted by the evidence. As you know, they are genetically more closely related to us, than either of us is to any other organism.

There is nothing to imply they would or could have been MORE development in Chimps. Or developed FROM chimps to human.

As you learned, the evidence shows that neither humans nor chimps evolved from each other. It shows them to have evolved from a common ancestor.

In chimps this IS full development

In humans, however, developmental timing is delayed, and we retain the juvenile form and growth patterns much longer, which leads to less-developed teeth and jaws, but more developed brain structure.

Thus these mutually exclusive facts related to each creature does not necessitate a relationship or one coming from another

To support that, you would need genetic data, showing a relationship. Which we do, of course.

Barbarian demonstrates why neotony can explain most human/chimp differences:

And there's this, first noted by D'arcy Thompson in the early 1900s:

Humans, with slowed physical development, and a long childhood, are paedomorphic, that is they retain juvenile traits like a large cranium, small face, upright stance with foramen magnum under the cranium, and so on. Much of the differences are merely changes in developmental timing.

Yes humans with these conditions retain anatomically more juvenile characteristics and these differences can be attributed to developmental problems.

You've been misled about that. Humans are neotonous with regard to other apes. We retain juvenile characteristics long after other apes grow out of them. Neotony is the normal human condition.

 

[Barbarian]

This is a particularly famous section of the brain so apologies if you’ve heard this summary before. It’s a small region found in the left hemisphere of the brain and was first identified in the 19th century by Dr Wernicke (as the name indicates) who noted a link between brain damage to that part of the brain and an inability/impairment to comprehend language.

Based on this link it was claimed to be the region of the brain responsible for language comprehension, however this view has now evolved somewhat. Language comprehension is now understood to be more dispersed throughout the left side of the brain with Wernicke’s area being an “epicentre” of this ability, rather than the sole location it occurs.

As such it isn’t quite as important as once believed but still very crucial. This has obviously prompted several studies trying to find an analogues area in chimps and other great apes. Surprisingly (given their lack of vocal language) the area of the chimp brain which should be the Wernicke’s area is assymetrical, like in humans. In other words, that region of the brain is larger in both humans and chimps on the left side.

Broca’s area is another assymetrical feature in the human brain associated with language, again being larger on the left than the right. Rather than language comprehension this region is linked to language production, with it being first discovered (again) by identifying damage to this area in patients unable to speak. Once again, it is now believe to be just one part of this process and, again, this assymetry is also seen in ape brain.

All of this suggests that the foundation for our brain structure – even parts associated with seemingly unique human abilities – was already laid in our ape ancestors.

http://www.evoanth.net/2012/07/08/wernickes-and-brocas-area-in-chimps-supplementary-sunday/

 

[brother Paul]

our Broca's and Warenke's areas (required for speech and comprehension of speech) are larger and more convoluted than those of other apes, but they still have them.

I agree but I would say it is an important DIFFERENCE between humans and apes…

It is fully developed for chimps because they are different unrelated creatures)!

You assumption is refuted by the evidence.


No theirs is just one way of interpreting the data that fits the hypothesis…argumentum ad populum does not make their “conclusion” true or even accurate. The data is great (the actual science) the conclusion is their way of interpreting what the data means (the stuff of human imagination)…you may believe it and accept it as true but I know the “what this means” is not “the truth” but their assessment in light of their hypothetical position.


As you learned, the evidence shows that neither humans nor chimps evolved from each other.


I did not learn it, I already knew it…


It shows them to have evolved from a common ancestor.


No! That’s the opinion based “what it means” according to the hypothesis…IF we believe in common descent from some totally different non-human creature, THEN this inferred conclusion MAY BE true.


In humans, however, developmental timing is delayed, and we retain the juvenile form and growth patterns much longer, which leads to less-developed teeth and jaws, but more developed brain structure.


Yup! But this has nothing to do with similarities or differences between chimps and humans.


To support that, you would need genetic data, showing a relationship. Which we do, of course.


“Relationship” there is one of those terms of ambiguity….I definitely see that genetic data shows similarity (one form of understanding “related”) but it does not demonstrate lineage (another usage of the concept of “related”)…we must not confuse the two.


Just because we share a lot of DNA in common (which we do even with fruit) is simply due to the fact that we PHYSICALLY are living creatures, mammals, primates, and so on….that is really the only thing the data shows. Who knows maybe one day we will find a creature with less DNA common to both and then one with more added bringing one toward chimp kind and another with more added that shows the same creature morphing over time into two creatures….but until then “what it means” is convenient to the hypothesis that this actually occurred.


The “idea” we evolved from a common ancestor is merely ONE (albeit IF the hypothesis is true) way of interpreting the data…it has been said this is what “scientists” have inferred from the data….cool…I get that….SCIENTISTS make INFERRENCES from the what the “science” shows us….no problem so long as they do not try and convince people their INFERRENCES are actually facts (being stuff of the imagination based on THEIR acceptance of the hypothesis)….


You've been misled about that. Humans are neotonous with regard to other apes. We retain juvenile characteristics long after other apes grow out of them. Neotony is the normal human condition.


No I have not…I made a legitimate hypothetical comparison….thanks for establishing another actual DIFFERENCE between humans and apes…

 

[Barbarian]

Barbarian mentions another way in which we and other apes differ from all other animals:
Our Broca's and Warenke's areas (required for speech and comprehension of speech) are larger and more convoluted than those of other apes, but they still have them.

I agree but I would say it is an important DIFFERENCE between humans and apes…

Of course. They have language skills unlike any non-ape, but their skills are much less developed than ours are. Again, because we are so closely related (as shown by genetic analysis, which we know indicates common descent) other apes even have these minor details of brain structure as we do.

Babarian observes:
Your assumption is refuted by the evidence.

No theirs is just one way of interpreting the data that fits the hypothesis…

Sorry, I'm not a postmodernist, so I don't believe that reality is whatever we choose it to be. There is an objective reality, and we can learn about it by evidence. I understand that a lot of creationists have tried this dodge, but argumentum ad populum does not make their “conclusion” true or even accurate.

There is nothing to imply they would or could have been MORE development in Chimps. Or developed FROM chimps to human.

Barbarian observes:
As you learned, the evidence shows that neither humans nor chimps evolved from each other.

I did not learn it, I already knew it…

If so, your previous statement is rather puzzling.

Barbarian observes:
It shows them to have evolved from a common ancestor.

No!

Sorry, it does. Facts are what they are. You may have an opinion contrary to the facts, but that doesn't change the facts.

Barbarian observes:
In humans, however, developmental timing is delayed, and we retain the juvenile form and growth patterns much longer, which leads to less-developed teeth and jaws, but more developed brain structure.

Yup! But this has nothing to do with similarities or differences between chimps and humans.

No, that's wrong. In fact, we look more like juvenile apes than like adult apes, because we are unique among the apes in developing so slowly that we never actually assume adult features in many cases. So we retain the relatively large cranium, small face, forward foramen magnum, and so on.

Barbarian on the anatomical data showing human relationship to other apes:
To support that, you would need genetic data, showing a relationship. Which we do, of course.

“Relationship” there is one of those terms of ambiguity….

No ambiguity at all. Genetic, biochemical, anatomical, and embyrological data all show the same thing. Would you like to see some more of it?

I definitely see that genetic data shows similarity (one form of understanding “related”) but it does not demonstrate lineage (another usage of the concept of “related”)…we must not confuse the two.

In the sense that if genetic analysis shows a person to be related to you, it does not mean that you are descended from them or they from you. It merely means you have a common ancestor.

Just because we share a lot of DNA in common (which we do even with fruit)

As you may know, it sorts out neatly according to evolutionary phylogenies worked out based on anatomical and biochemical evidence. Hence, we and chimps are more closely related to each other than to anything else. But all mammals are more closely related to each other than anything else. And all animals are all more closely related to each other than anything else. And all eukaryotes are more closely related to each other than to anything else. I'm guessing you didn't know that, and did not intend to be deceptive about fruit.

is simply due to the fact that we PHYSICALLY are living creatures, mammals, primates, and so on….that is really the only thing the data shows.

See above. You'be been misled about that. It very nicely shows how DNA fits the other phylogenies. Every now and then, we get a little surprise, such as the revelation that New World and Old World vultures are not closely related. But not often. And given the extremely close relationship between humans and chimps, there isn't much room to fit another clade in there.

Who knows maybe one day we will find a creature with less DNA common to both and then one with more added bringing one toward chimp kind and another with more added that shows the same creature morphing over time into two creatures….

The word is "evolved." It's O.K. to say it. The problem, as I pointed out, is there isn't much room for such a clade. If we halve the genetic distance between chimps and humans, we are getting into the realm of Denisovans and humans.

The “idea” we evolved from a common ancestor is merely ONE (albeit IF the hypothesis is true) way of interpreting the data…

Sorry, I don't by arguments that evidence is whatever you want to make of it. The fact that we get the same objective phylogenies from such diverse information is compelling in itself. Understand that the phylogenies are obtained mathematically, and again, they can be tested with organisms of known decent.

it has been said this is what “scientists” have inferred from the data….cool…I get that….SCIENTISTS make INFERRENCES

Such as Newton "inferring" gravity by analyzing data, and making inferences,. or Koch inferring pathogens by analyzing data and making inferences, or Mendel inferring genes by analyzing data and making inferences, or Darwin inferring speciation by analyzing data and making inferences... However,. phylogenies are obtained mathematically, by making the most parsimonous trees. And so far, when we test the method on organisms of known descent, it always works.

Barbarian observes:
You've been misled about that. Humans are neotonous with regard to other apes. We retain juvenile characteristics long after other apes grow out of them. Neotony is the normal human condition.

I made a legitimate hypothetical comparison….

And I demonstrated to you why such tiny genetic differences can result in significant anatomical differences. We have all the structures of other apes, but neotony makes them less developed than in the others.

thanks for establishing another actual DIFFERENCE between humans and apes…

And as you now understand, they are so minor as to suggest humans and chimps to be in the same genus. We are, from the data you presented, firmly related to apes, and humans and chimps form a more closely related group with other apes in the outgroup.

 

[brother Paul]

Glad I am not a post modernist...But I still disagree with the conclusion drawn (the human factor).

 

[Barbarian]

Glad I am not a post modernist...

Why advocate their philosophy, then?

But I still disagree with the conclusion drawn (the human factor).

Reason and evidence can show you the truth. If you doubt that, then postmodernism is your outlook.

 

[brother Paul]

Why advocate their philosophy, then?

I do not!!.Perhaps you need to look up what it means. I merely, by reason, detect a problem in the interpretation of the data. The science is fine, but what the scientists say it means is presumptive and based on what they already conjectued. Because I reason, I can see" the evidence", the science, though being interpreted to mean this (by humans) does not actually demonstrate it

In fact I am not saying it is not so, just that the evidence just really is not there

 

[Barbarian]

I do not!!.Perhaps you need to look up what it means. I merely, by reason, detect a problem in the interpretation of the data.

It must be a hard position where one must argue that the "interpretation" of the data is wrong, even though the people who understand it, overwhelmingly accept the data as it is.

The science is fine, but what the scientists say it means is presumptive and based on what they already conjectued. Because I reason, I can see" the evidence", the science, though being interpreted to mean this (by humans) does not actually demonstrate it

Sorry, not a credible argument. There is an objective reality, and we can learn about it by evidence.

 

[brother Paul]

I do not claim the interpretation of the data is "wrong', just not the only one! Thus, the argument IS credible.

God created human beings...and not one bit of evidence negates that possibility. "science" does not address "origins" though "scientists" having accepted the Hypothesis of cross genus and cross phyla morphological transitions do provide one possible explanation for origins. If we can ONLY rely on this one "method" of knowing the truth of reality we can easily be persuaded, but if we also accept observation and experience as "methods" of knowing the truth of reality it opens the mind to other possibilities science can never come to prove or disprove.

 

[Barbarian]

I do not claim the interpretation of the data is "wrong', just not the only one! Thus, the argument IS credible.

No. Highly unlikely things are not credible.

God created human beings...

Even creationists admit that much. They just don't approve of the way God did it.

"science" does not address "origins"

The origin of the moon... The origin of the Atlantic ocean... The origin of the French language... The origin of iron metallurgy... all of these are things that science addresses.

though "scientists" having accepted the Hypothesis of cross genus and cross phyla

That should be "cross-phylum."

morphological transitions do provide one possible explanation for origins.

Observed phentic (not morphological) change is only only one source if evidence. As you know, genetic and biochemical evidence also shows that evolution accounts for the diversity of living things. The lack of any theory that can account for all of these observations makes it clear that there is no credible alternative.

If we can ONLY rely on this one "method" of knowing the truth of reality we can easily be persuaded, but if we also accept observation and experience as "methods" of knowing the truth of reality it opens the mind to other possibilities science can never come to prove or disprove.

As you learned, it is precisely experience and observation that have ruled out all the other "explanations." Nothing else accounts for all the observed evidence.

 

[turnorburn]

When you say "Humans are clearly a form of ape" Where does Jesus fit into your model?

 

[Barbarian]

Why is it so embarrassing for you to imagine God becoming human? Would it be better for you if God became modified dirt?

Of course He took on all aspects of humanity, including our nature as animals. It was an amazing act of love for the Creator to have done so.

Remember, for anyone who thinks, "ape" isn't a disparaging term. It's just a word for the group of most intelligent and adaptable living things on this planet.

 

[Milk-Drops]

When you say "Humans are clearly a form of ape" Where does Jesus fit into your model?

Was Jesus ever Human?

 

[brother Paul]

Better yet, were apes ever humans? Some who are deluded or persuaded may think so...OR were any humans ever apes? Some deluded or persuaded may think so....some think apes are humans and should be given inalienable rights....others think humans are apes and oh well we can only feel sad for them and pray....

But yes MD Jesus was human....YHVH became flesh and tabernacled with men...and that MAN was named Jesus. Now though I doubt you believe that, to ask if a historically verified person was ever human is a little strange even for you