Report: Humans, chimps should be in same genus

[garthoverman]

Report: Humans, chimps should be in same genus (http://www.cnn.com/2003/TECH/science/05/20/humans.chimps.ap/index.html)

Tuesday, May 20, 2003 Posted: 9:54 AM EDT (1354 GMT)

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Chimpanzees are more closely related to people than to gorillas or other monkeys and probably should be included in the human branch of the family tree, a research team says.

The idea, sure to spark renewed debate about evolution and the relationship between humans and animals, comes from a team led by Morris Goodman at Wayne State University School of Medicine in Detroit.

Currently, humans are alone in the genus Homo. But Goodman argues, "We humans appear as only slightly remodeled chimpanzee-like apes." He says humans and chimps share 99.4 percent of their DNA, the molecule that codes for life.

Some anthropologists were skeptical of the proposed classification.

The fact that chimps and humans are closely related and share a common ancestor about 7 million years ago is well known, said Richard J. Sherwood, an anthropologist at the University of Wisconsin. But that doesn't mean they belong in the same genus now, he said.

The report is being published in Tuesday's online issue of Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

The battle over how humans are related to chimps, gorillas and other monkeys has raged since 1859, when Charles Darwin described evolution in "On the Origin of Species."

The dispute between religious and scientific factions got its greatest publicity in 1925 when John Scopes, a schoolteacher from the southern state of Tennessee, was convicted of teaching evolution.

And it continues to this day: the state of Kansas reinstated the teaching of evolution in 2001, 18 months after the state school board voted to drop it from classes. Alabama's school board voted to put stickers on biology books warning that evolution is controversial.

Goodman's team didn't address evolution directly but proposed that humans and chimps be considered branches of the same genus because of their similarities.

A genus is a group of closely related species. The human species, Homo sapiens, stands alone in the genus Homo. But there have been other species on the branch, such as Homo neanderthalensis, or Neanderthal man.

Chimpanzees are in the genus Pan along with bonobos, or pygmy chimpanzees.

Goodman's proposal would establish three species under Homo. One would be Homo (Homo) sapiens, or humans; the second would be Homo (Pan) troglodytes, or common chimpanzees, and the third would be Homo (Pan) paniscus, or bonobo chimpanzees.

There is no official board in charge of placing animals in their various genera, and in some cases alternative classifications are available.

"If enough people get agitated by this and think it's something to be dealt with there may be a symposium that takes this as the central issue and determines if this is a reasonable proposal," Goodman said. "I think it's a reasonable proposal, of course, or I wouldn't have proposed it."

Goodman's paper cites a proposal by George Gaylord Simpson that chimps and gorillas be combined in one genus -- gorillas are in the genus Gorilla. Goodman says that, because chimps are more closely related to humans than to gorillas, they be added instead to Homo.

Sherwood says Simpson made that proposal in 1963 and no one is arguing today to put chimps and gorillas in the same genus.

"To go hunting for an historical reference like that and then use it as the sole criteria for suggesting a major shift in primate systematics is difficult to take seriously," Sherwood said.

Reclassification of chimpanzees would cause major changes in the way anthropology students learn the relationships between various types of animals, an area already involved in the debate between evolution and creationism.

Walt Brown of the Center for Scientific Creation in Phoenix, Arizona, argues that since the sequencing of human and chimpanzee DNA is not complete, saying people and chimps are that much alike is "baloney."

"We have similarities with chimpanzees, but there are a heck of a lot of differences too," Brown said.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Copyright 2003 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

[Socratism]

Some anthropologists were skeptical of the proposed classification

Which only goes to show how subjective such categories are.

I am still awaiting a definition of species that applies in virtually all cases and that is accepted by a reasonable majority of scientists. One university site someone linked to had seven different definitions, each championed by its own group of adherents.

Of course the word "evolution" suffers from this same multiplicity of definitions.

[Minnesota]

I am still awaiting a definition of species that applies in virtually all cases and that is accepted by a reasonable majority of scientists. One university site someone linked to had seven different definitions, each championed by its own group of adherents.

Unfortunately, you're going to have a long wait. Right now taxonomy is undergoing quite a revolution. Not only are there several definitions of species being employed, but the rank of Domain, which sits above Kingdom, is being tried out; and in some classification schemes as many as 35 kingdoms have been established. The various species concepts now in use have arisen out of the need to address classification issues often particular to only one branch or sphere of biology, and therefore are seldom widely applicable. These concepts include biological, biosystematic, evolutionary, genetic, morphological, paleontological, and phylogenetic definitions.

The most widely used of these definitions, based upon the biological concept of species, usually takes a form akin to that formulated by biologist Ernst Mayr. He contends that a species is a "reproductively isolated aggregate of populations which can interbreed with one another because they share they same isolating mechanisms." Of course not all organisms interbreed, which is one reason the definition is not a universal one. And, anthropologists should be skeptical of the proposed reclassification. Skepticism, one of the healthier features of secular science, goes a long way in uncovering the truth. Would that other fields of endeavor be so blessed with the open mindedness to accept new views and evidence.

As for evolution suffering "from this same multiplicity of definitions;" this is simply not true. While various academic evolutionists may choose to define the term a bit differently, such definitions of "evolution" all come down to a single principle: Over time, organisms have and do give rise to new organisms.

[dolem98]

The difficulty in clearly defining the word species is an argument for evolution.

The difficulty for creationists to define a kind is a strike against them.

I can explain this further if you have trouble seeing why these two statements are true.

[boxy]

I hope Socrates stops by this thread and gives his opinion on this issue.

[Socratism]

Today @ 03:13 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=102939#post102939)
dolem98:

The difficulty in clearly defining the word species is an argument for evolution.

The difficulty for creationists to define a kind is a strike against them.

I can explain this further if you have trouble seeing why these two statements are true.

I am way ahead of you, for I already have read about the first one many, many years ago in John Maynard Smith's 1958 classic book, "The Theory of Evolution".

And of course the second one is simply hogwash.

But you miss my point, which is that there are multiple definitions of "species" as well as multiple definitions of "evolution" and thus any claim that one can use such terms as arguments is vacuous.

[Socratism]

As for evolution suffering "from this same multiplicity of definitions;" this is simply not true. While various academic evolutionists may choose to define the term a bit differently, such definitions of "evolution" all come down to a single principle:

And can you state this "principle" in other than trivial terms? (like the one that follows)


Over time, organisms have and do give rise to new organisms.

I know, my mom told me about the birds and the bees.

[Minnesota]

Socratism asks:

And can you state this "principle" [of evolution] in other than trivial terms? (like the one that follows)


“ Over time, organisms have and do give rise to new organisms. ”

"'Trivial' terms." Hmm, what an odd way to put it. Just which terms do you find "trivial," and why?

In answer to the question: Sure I can, but to what end? Of course the definition is succinct and pretty basic, it was meant to be: everyone here (excepting you, I guess) seems aware of the principle underlaying evolution. Or is it that you don't feel a definition has value unless it is finely couched in scientific argot? If so, I suggest that you to seek out a definition that suits your particular needs.

[DunnySaze]

Yesterday @ 09:31 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=102457#post102457)
Socratism:



Which only goes to show how subjective such categories are.

I am still awaiting a definition of species that applies in virtually all cases and that is accepted by a reasonable majority of scientists. One university site someone linked to had seven different definitions, each championed by its own group of adherents.

Of course the word "evolution" suffers from this same multiplicity of definitions.

Creationists often say that it's hypocritical to demand that they give a precise definition of 'Kind' when evolutionists give several definitions of 'Species'. This argument makes no sense at all for a very simple reason. Evolution means exactly that the boundries between divisions are not distinct. There must be some blurring there, otherwise organsms could not evolve. The evidence in this blurring can be seen in that organisms can have varying success at producing fertile young; from those fully fertile, to reduced fertility, through no fertility at all.This is why it's difficult for us to determine where the dividing line is. Because there is no real dividing line. At least not a biological barrier.

In this case we have defined species using the concept of bearing fertile young, but this has many obvious practical drawbacks, for example when considering extinct organisms. In this case, and in most instances, it's a question of determining whether the differences between two groups rise to the level of sub-species, species or genus. The very fact that these groups are difficult to put into neat boxes is actually evidence in favor of evolution. It's the expected result after all.

The creationist position of Kind on the other hand demands that there is definite separation, at least there was at some point in history. In this case, they should then be able to define clearly and unambigously what those borders are. They should also be able to propose a way to test this idea such that the results would be consistent with the separately created 'kind' concept and inconsistent with mainstream evolutionary theory. However, they offer no such tests. Why not?

[dolem98]

DunnySaze basically handled my response.

[Socratism]

I agree that you have a clever rationalization as to why there should not be any classifications such as "species" because if evolution is true then it should be a continuous spectrum with no definable groupings at all.


The creationist position of Kind on the other hand demands that there is definite separation, at least there was at some point in history.

Of course.


In this case, they should then be able to define clearly and unambigously what those borders are.

Your conclusion does not follow from the previous premise. Just because there was once a clear separation does not automatically mean that it is possible, working only with present data to determine "clearly and unambigously" what the past situation was.


They should also be able to propose a way to test this idea such that the results would be consistent with the separately created 'kind' concept and inconsistent with mainstream evolutionary theory.

To me it is clear that it is more logical to expect diversity to be possible without a massive input of information if one starts from complex multicelled creatures in the first place. Thus, my belief that such a massive increase in information using "random mutation plus natural selection" is so totally off the wall, is what has led mee to favor the Genesis account as the far more practical scenario.


However, they offer no such tests. Why not?

Extrapolating backwards from the DNA of current lifeforms is frought with difficulties. I tried to do this with an extremely conserved molecule, cytochrome c, and got nothing but a whole bunch of subjective rationalizations why it was impractical. If one can't do it there, where could it be done?

[Socratism]

Today @ 01:00 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=103343#post103343)
Minnesota:

"'Trivial' terms." Hmm, what an odd way to put it. Just which terms do you find "trivial," and why?

In answer to the question: Sure I can, but to what end? Of course the definition is succinct and pretty basic, it was meant to be: everyone here (excepting you, I guess) seems aware of the principle underlaying evolution. Or is it that you don't feel a definition has value unless it is finely couched in scientific argot? If so, I suggest that you to seek out a definition that suits your particular needs.

Your squirming around over the lack of any serious science "underlaying" evolution is rather pathetic.

[SLPx]

05-21-2003 @ 08:24 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=103440#post103440)
Socratism:



Your squirming around over the lack of any serious science "underlaying" evolution is rather pathetic.

Your continued inability to support your claim that phylogentic methods
become "exponentially" less certain the farther back in time we go is rather pathetic.

Not to mention ludicrous. You have been presented with papers testing the methodologies on knowns. You blow them off. You cannot support your repeated assertions. Why should anyone really care, then, what your opinions are on any of these issues, when all you seem to do is make unsupportable assertions?

[SLPx]

05-26-2003 @ 04:40 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=108108#post108108)
SLPx:



Your continued inability to support your claim that phylogentic methods
become "exponentially" less certain the farther back in time we go is rather pathetic.

Not to mention ludicrous. You have been presented with papers testing the methodologies on knowns. You blow them off. You cannot support your repeated assertions. Why should anyone really care, then, what your opinions are on any of these issues, when all you seem to do is make unsupportable assertions?


It is not my intention to appear to be goading Socratism, but I think this query merits, if not deserves, a response.

Socratism used as justification for his denigration of molecular systematics the claim that such methods become less reliable - exponentially so - the farther back in time (or up the taxonomic hierarchy) we go.

I have asked repeatedly, and I believe a couple of other posters have as well, for some justification for this claim.

Socratism's inability or refusal to do so tells me - and should tell the interested reader - that Socratism simply has no justification or rationale whatsoever to make such a broad-based claim, and simply said it in a desperate attempt to justify his wish to ignore the clear implications for phylogenetic analyses.

[Minnesota]

Socratism's inability or refusal to do so tells me - and should tell the interested reader - that Socratism simply has no justification or rationale whatsoever to make such a broad-based claim.

I think it is good that you point this out. In my opinion, to Socratism, the forum is simply one big Anything-Goes game.

[John Boy]

Some anthropologists were skeptical of the proposed classification

Socratism:
Which only goes to show how subjective such categories are.
Yes, apparently SO subjective that YECists cannot tell a mammal from a reptile. :poke:

(Check out the "Simple Challenge for YECists" thread of mine to see what I mean. I may have to give that a bump in the near future.)

Take care. :smile:

[Socratism]

On the subject of extrapolation I feel that my critics are asking me to give them support for the obvious. Sort of like proving to them that 2 plus 2 equals 4.

Does anyone here NOT believe that the further one extrapolates from known data the greater is the margin of error?

[Queen]

Yes it is strange that we are Homo and chimps are Pan.....they are such close relatives!

Lots of love and sunshine,
Queen