I said persons, not humans.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WBEtw7esmvg

http://www.solarnavigator.net/animal_kingd...king_poster.jpg

http://scrapetv.com/News/News%20Pages/Heal...e-with-baby.jpg

http://www.funtim.com/wp-content/uploads/2...est-friends.jpg

http://scrapetv.com/News/News%20Pages/Heal...-chimpanzee.jpg

http://www.wildlife-pictures-online.com/im..._nzg-3230-b.jpg

http://www.wildlife-pictures-online.com/im...ee_nzg-3730.jpg

http://www.freakingnews.com/pictures/27000...nzee--27251.jpg

chimps share more than 90% genes with humans, so what's the point u are making??

Chimps share 100% of genes with humans. You must be talking about the nucleotide matching rate.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WBEtw7esmvg

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wh0F4FBLJRE...01582689E353E13

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GMHiOCD-0aI

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=266FV--FmGo

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-zlctrDKcwg

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dL5SGe7zSIc

Why are chimps not considered persons?



H mmm, do you really want a serious answer or are you just going to BS your way through this topic?
Persons are people who are similair to us ...
in that we look alike and think alike and have control over our emotions.

Chimps do not look like us (maybe like you? Serious question).
They do not think or learn the same way we do.
And, they have much less control over their emotions.

Experiment was done ... teaching chimps and human children how to get candy out of a box.
Poke this and move that and then pull out the candy.
After doin this a couple of time, the black coverings on the box was removed.
The chimps saw that poking and etc did nothing to help get the candy.
They went straight for the candy.
The children continued to go through the steps to get the candy.

It is more efficient to learn from adults than to try to learn everything from the beginning.
In other words, humans can learn from other humans.
But, chimps must figure things out for themselves.
So, they can't build upon previous learned knowledge.

I won't go into why humans and chimps control over emotions are different.
But, observations show that chimps tend to get angry easier and stay angry longer than humans.

In conclusion, chimps aren't considered persons because
the differences between humans and chimps are significant enough
to deem chimps as animals and not persons.

What if I empregnate a chimp will the outcome be human?

Are you human now?

Seriously, mixing of species is suppose to be impossible.
So if you are able to impregnate a chimp then you're not human

source or fail?


i once saw a documentary, and it said to be impossible for human and chimp to produce offspring as 1 sequence of chromosome is unmatched.

looks up "humanzee" lol

Really?.....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sf2ix1fL2kk

tha dave chappelle moneky skit lol. reminded me of this

If they were to choose between a banana or money.

What will the chimp choose?

What will the human choose?

Don't confuse genes with alleles. Even mice share 99% of genes with humans. http://archives.cnn.com/2002/TECH/science/...sc.mousegenome/

A gene is a portion of DNA that codes for one or more proteins. An allele is a version of a gene defined by a specific sequence of letters.



Members of the same species can interbreed, but this doesn't mean members of different species cannot interbreed. This is not an "if and only if" condition, if you know what I mean. Coyotes and wolves can interbreed, as coyotes are really just pygmy wolves, and yet they are considered different species.



This coming from a human who has never interacted with chimps on a personal level, perhaps never even seen one, and is also hang-up on the human / chimp labels differentiation and thinks that, because of the different labels, humans and chimps must be completely different. The same type of thinking can hold true with regards to humans with one another, which I won't go into but you should know what I mean.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn1299...emory-task.html

The way I see it, chimps have emotions, are intelligent, are thoughtful, can play / cry / be happy / be sad / love / hate, and therefore qualify as "persons".

Don't let the human / chimp labeling fool you.

If chimps have 100% of human genes then why are they not human????
They don't ... there is obviously a difference ... so please be careful when you use "100%".
You'll only confuse and alienate the audience that you're trying to convince.




You really are pitiful ... are you really going to prove your argument by insulting me????
Tests and studies and experiment have been done.
I don't need to take poison to know that it will kill.
Com'mon now, are you so arrogant as to believe that only your argument will really hold water?
Humans and chimps are different.
Get that through your thick head!!!
Do you like the insults? Does it make the medicine go down easier????

Really??? If you can't see the obvious differences between humans and chimps
then I suggest you go live in the jungle with them. Go prove me wrong.


Oh, have you been messing with the chimps???
Naughty, naughty

Same genes, different alleles. Just like eye color is a gene, and there are different alleles of that gene that produce different proteins and thus different phenotypes, such as blue eyes, brown eyes. 100% is the right figure. I am not aware of any human-specific genes that might exist, and both human and chimp genomes have been completely sequenced, both having 20 to 25 thousands genes over about 3 billion letters.

Actually, humans and chimps aren't that different if you think about it. Male chimps are about 4 feet tall and have a brain size of about 420 cc and human males are about 6 feet tall and have a brain size of about 1,400 cc. Humans males are about 1.5 times the height of chimp males, and correspondingly the heads of human males are about 1.5 times the height of those of male chimps, which translates to the given differences in brain volume, because if head length is x times larger, then the brain size is x to the power of 3 times larger. Thus, the head length / overall length ratio is constant between chimps and humans, which strongly suggests that humans are not more intelligent than chimps.



Of course, no two creatures are the same. How much is this difference? Answer: very very little.

We are on a higher "level" than chimps are (metaphorically speaking). Can't put it any simpler than that. We learn faster and can do more things. Until a chimp can match us with speech, learning, and knowledge, then maybe i can consider them being more similar to us.

And some wild chimps are cannibals because they are territorial. saw it on planet earth haha

I wouldn't be so sure about that, chump. http://dsc.discovery.com/news/2007/04/16/evolution_arc.html

Okay, so it has more genes? so it means it must be superior than us in some way as it says. But in fact they are "more evolved" animals with a smaller brain than us (if you want to see it in that way). So if you want to play with words trying to prove a point, I'm telling you that they still are not close to being considered humans and in the future they will not surpass us with intelligence.

If you talk about raw brain size, then obviously an elephant's brain is way bigger than a human's. If you talk about brain weight to body weight ratio, then of course the mouse is far superior to human. It's all relative. Humans are not the smartest, despite having "language".

http://www.highnorth.no/Library/Myths/br-si-bo.htm

Humans are simply apes, Hominoidea.

Sure you can make that comparison. But I'm comparing us and chimps. We do have a bigger brain size and we utilize it more efficiently than chimps (through education). Yea ok we are apes(homo sapiens) but if you want to put names/categories in a tree hierarchy then we should have our own sub category, chimps should Not be in it.

And arguing about Intelligence. You serious? I have a physics crazed French friend asking me what makes human intelligent? he is a huge atheist that believes that human beings does not have superior intelligence. I don't know how he defines intelligence but he argues something like, "if a baby is born and raised in the wild (away from society) he is NOT intelligent and will resembles more of an 'animal' characteristic." BUT i think our society is proof of our intelligence (compared to animals of course). Look what we have constructed, our way of living, our discoveries, our inventions, our teaching, and our language. When a child is born, he is educated (in some way: school or parenting) then this child grows up to be intelligent. If you can see that perspective then you can understand my argument.

Here is one simple answer to intelligence
Human Intelligence

Too late. Someone beat me to it:

http://www.animalliberationfront.com/ALFro...HiaslUpdate.htm

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21018502/

I disagree. I think human society came about as an accident. Human society remained stagnant for millions of years, only to jump-start within the last 10,000 years, a very short amount of time, due to agriculture. Furthermore, I believe, should all human society and knowledge be taken away, and humans erased of their history, then it might not be humans who dominate the world, if you get what I mean.

And, BTW, what do you mean by "our inventions"? Did you invent computer? I don't think so.

i said we/our not I, referring to "people" of past and present. Now you are driving your argument a bit crooked. Still chimps are not the same as humans. in your fantasy world if all of our history was to be erased and start over from the beginning (with no knowledge of anything), then maybe we wont be the superior being on earth, maybe we will get eaten by bears, how the hell should i know and how the hell can we assume that? we don't know how humans would do in that kind of world unless it actually happened.

According to the biologists the most intelligent animals according to IQ ranking
1. Elephants
2. Dolphins
3. Orang Utangs

So primates are not really the most intelligent.

Kind of a funny thread so lemme jump in. The MSN link you posted states:

Their upkeep costs $6,800 a month. Donors have offered to help, but under Austrian law, only a person can receive personal gifts.

So if you ask me, it sounds like they are more interested in getting money...since only a 'person' can receive gifts such as money. You say you want the chimp to be considered a 'person' and not necessarily a 'human.'

The definitions of a 'person' include:
1) a human being, whether man, woman, or child
2) a human being as distinguished from an animal or a thing.
3) Sociology. an individual human being, esp. with reference to his or her social relationships and behavioral patterns as conditioned by the culture.
4) Philosophy. a self-conscious or rational being.

So basically you're trying to push for a philosophical argument on the word 'person.' But that is too vague (especially considering the vast and main definition of 'person') I doubt animals will, or should, have the same legal rights as a human being. The philosophical definition of 'person' is more of a loose interpretation which I doubt was ever intended to be taken so literally---you ignore all the other definitions, so why pick the philosophical one? Sounds like a weak argument using weak loosely interpreted definitions.

You also mention multiple times that chimps have 100% of the same genes, whereas others all claim 98-99%...and newer studies even suggest 94%. Check out this article: http://www.scientificamerican.com/article....p-gene-gap-wide

I actually do not find any proof anywhere for your claim, which I've never heard of before, of a 100% gene comparison. There may be a scientific argument flaw here (on top of a legal definition flaw)...just throwing that out there.

I don't mind if you downplay the importance of humans in the grand scheme of life in this universe. But to give any animal we feel has some form of rationality a 'person' is kind of confusing the signifier with the signified---at least legally.

The op of this thread has a serious chimp on his shoulder
Oops, I meant to say chip.

lol you are misinformed, there is NO 100% genetic similarity between human and chimpanzee. furthermore the >99% is, in fact, common misconception among evolutionary research.

furthermore, the comparative analysis of human and chimp in genetic similarity is already bias as researchers were hand-picking which region of genome to analyze and ignored other portion of genome that didn't mixed.

so if you account for a full range of genome analysis, including both the exons, the protein coding sequence, and introns, the non-coding sequence, the dissimilarity between us and chimp becomes apparent.

in addition, analyzers found at least millions differential coding sequences from 3 billion genetic coding were mismatched between two close species, and it's not even completely done yet. read here.

http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2070

http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v17/i1/DNA.asp


anyway, i acknowledge that chimp is our distant relative, coming from a close ancestor, hominidae family. however, at some point in the evolution about million of years ago, both split in their own evolutionary path.

one, hominid specie, became bipedal and developed neural complexity, that included our ability to communicated through verbal/written language.

also, the early evolutionary homo-sapiens expanded and adapted to the natural environment; soon later, incorporated spiritual aspects to their life, experienced camaraderie among kinship, developed different moral emotions, and realized conscience of our thought process, the brain became much more intelligent, flexible, and efficient than our close cousin, the chimp, who in their evolutionary path became stagnant.

hence, to claim we, as human, is not more intelligent than the chimp is absurdity.

it's true though, that chimp's short-term memory is better than us, but our long-term, comprehensive memorization put us ahead of all species.

like you, for instance, your thinking is way more advance to a chimp, but not to us, forum partners. lol

As far as I know, there is no gene that is unique to humans. Humans may have different versions of genes that produce different phenotypes (physical appearance, behavior, immunities to diseases, brain functions etc. ) as well as different regulatory regions, but I highly doubt that humans have any unique genes.

Alleles cancel each other which usually happens in interbreeding were only the good traits of both species would remain intact and the bad traits would cancel out which is also essential in the evolutionaty process. In inbreeding, Allele cancelation is less that in interbreeding.

I agree with the thread starter's sentiments. Why aren't chimps considered persons? I long for the day they finally get recognized, so that I may consummate my marriage with one and have crazy @$$ monkey sex for the rest of my life.

Why are chimps not considered persons?


Cuz they don't have the right to vote????

Why? Because they $hit on their hands and throw it at you.

Getting pelted by $hit is the least of your concerns when coming into contact with a chimpanzee.

I don't know about you people, but I'd run for my life if I ever came across a chimpanzee, or shoot the bastard in the face if I had a gun.

Has anyone read about chimpanzee attacks? I'd rather fight a tiger or a crocodile.

http://www.esquire.com/features/chimpanzee-attack-0409-3
http://www.cnn.com/2009/US/02/17/chimpanze...tack/index.html

These motherfu-kas are INSANE. They've got 4 times our strength, stop at nothing, and they ALWAYS go for the balls and nose first. fu-k.

can i see the source where you saw this?

always thought dolphin #1

You missed a point: a human being is not necessarily a Homo sapiens.

human being
 
Use human being in a Sentence
–noun
1. any individual of the genus Homo, esp. a member of the species Homo sapiens.
2. a person, esp. as distinguished from other animals or as representing the human species: living conditions not fit for human beings; a very generous human being.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/human+being

Just put chimps in the genus Homo, and they automatically become persons.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/Homo+sapiens
Homo sapien -
1) the name for modern man as a species

2) The modern species of humans. Archaic forms of Homo sapiens probably evolved around 300,000 years ago or earlier in Africa, and anatomically modern fossils are known from about 100,000 years ago. All humans now living belong to the subspecies Homo sapiens sapiens. The closest living relative of Homo sapiens is the chimpanzee.

3)A human is a member of a species of bipedal primates in the family Hominidae (taxonomically Homo sapiens—Latin: "wise man" or "knowing man")

Can you please clarify your statement:"You missed a point: a human being is not necessarily a Homo sapiens."


Can you please clarify your statement: "Just put chimps in the genus Homo, and they automatically become persons."

Again:

The definitions of a 'person' include:
1) a human being, whether man, woman, or child
2) a human being as distinguished from an animal or a thing.
3) Sociology. an individual human being, esp. with reference to his or her social relationships and behavioral patterns as conditioned by the culture.
4) Philosophy. a self-conscious or rational being.

Semantics?
You want to play with words?

Just ask yourself ... can a chimp talk like other people or persons?
No? Then, they aren't people or persons.

Simple and direct. No!!!

Just as I explained.... human being means genus Homo, not species Homo sapiens. Some scientists put chimps into genus Homo as Homo niger, effectively making them human beings and thus persons.

http://books.google.ca/books?id=dBjHK4RLoq...;q=&f=false

Homo is a genus that encompasses modern humans and their close relatives. Human being itself is homo sapien. It seems you want to make the definition of human being as vague as possible, but you're only picking and choosing certain facts and displaying them to better fit your message. It just looks like a fallacy to me.

Humans are hominids of the species Homo sapiens.



Biologists classify human beings as Homo sapiens. A primate species of mammal with a highly developed brain, belonging to the family of great apes, along with chimpanzees, bonobos, gorillas, and orangutans .

Being in the same genus does not mean they are persons.

MORE DEFINITIONS OF "PERSON"

per·son (pûrsn)
n.
1. A living human. Often used in combination: chairperson; spokesperson; salesperson.
2. An individual of specified character: a person of importance.
3. The composite of characteristics that make up an individual personality; the self.
4. The living body of a human: searched the prisoner's person.
5. Physique and general appearance.
6. Law A human or organization with legal rights and duties.


I have found too much facts and definitions that prove otherwise to side with your statement that chimps are persons.

That's not correct. Human being itself is a genus called Homo. All Homo sapiens are humans, but not all humans are Homo sapiens.

1. any individual of the genus Homo, esp. a member of the species Homo sapiens.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/human+being

Chimps make up the genus: Pan. NOT Homo.


You left out the rest of the definition from your own link: a person, esp. as distinguished from other animals or as representing the human species

Genus is arbitrary. Some scientists very recently did in fact reclassify chimps as Homo niger.

http://books.google.ca/books?id=dBjHK4RLoq...;q=&f=false



There is no universal definition on what a species is. http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/evo1...esConcept.shtml

Of course, a species is simply the equivalent of a "kind", and the basic units of bio-diversity, much like the elements are the basics of the world of materials.

Some scientists have suggested that chimps be placed in the same genus as humans, as early as the 60s as your link suggests. It's been half a century since then and they are still classified under Pan. Chimps were never officially 're-classified' as you seem to suggest. In fact, using the same dictionary you used here (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/chimpanzee), the definition of chimpanzee is:

a large, somewhat arboreal anthropoid ape, Pan troglodytes, of equatorial Africa, having a brown-to-black coat, a relatively hairless face with a rounded muzzle, prominent ears, and hands adapted for knuckle-walking, noted for its intelligence and humanlike behavior: now greatly reduced in number and threatened with extinction in the wild.


We're talking about the definition of human being. You defined "human being" and edited the definition down to only the part that you liked.

1. any individual of the genus Homo, esp. a member of the species Homo sapiens.

But the rest of the definition you omitted states: a person, esp. as distinguished from other animals or as representing the human species

From what I see, you are mainly playing on words and omitting parts of less popular/vague definitions of words. Chimps are not persons, and certainly not human beings (which 'person' alludes to).
What is your goal in trying so hard to make it seem as if chimps are 'persons'?

even ant , could be intelligent by the time.
but that doesn't make chimp human.


chimp is not living fossill that we can claim as gramp or granny it is modern species. it is descendant of older primates ancestry .



yes we share 90% dna, but it is so far away from human, about kind of million years :p

Wow. 3 pages on why chimps aren't people.

Then what is a person? Some racists don't even consider Africans people.

Part of the answer to that is in the freaking excerpt you quoted~ >___<

Thanks, Gabba.

Which excerpt? The one from google booksearch?

Well, racists aren't normal and the opinion of a racist has nothing to do with whether Africans are actually human/people (which they are, clearly), which in turn has nothing to do with whether or not chimps are people. What you just did is the equivalent of the "Look over there, is that a mountain lion?!" tactic, albeit a poor one.