Reclassification of Homo sapiens.

[LifeinTechnicolor]

So you look at a chimp and think Homo?

Yes >_>

 

[Idle Mind]

Why are we arguing about a classification system that is largely artificial and arbitrary anyway?

And why is it that every thread you're involved with, Enmos, reads like an instant messenger conversation.

 

[Enmos]

Why are we arguing about a classification system that is largely artificial and arbitrary anyway?

It was, and still largely is, but it is worked on. Genetic classification is the way it should be done, and is done nowadays. There is still a lot of work to do though.

And why is it that every thread you're involved with, Enmos, reads like an instant messenger conversation.

Have you seen the responses I got ? :bugeye:
Besides, if you don't like it you can stay out.
I take it you have nothing interesting to say anyway.. ?

 

[Idle Mind]

It was, and still largely is, but it is worked on. Genetic classification is the way it should be done, and is done nowadays. There is still a lot of work to do though.

Genetic classification is the way it should be done? Why? Taxonomy exists because of the human nature with classification. It is irrelevant where we as a species decide we want to group different organisms on our charts.

Have you seen the responses I got ? :bugeye:
Besides, if you don't like it you can stay out.
I take it you have nothing interesting to say anyway.. ?

Sure I have. I can read. But it's not just this particular thread, Enmos.

Although my interest in this discussion is modest at best, but it's a complete pain in that ass for anyone to have to sift through 80+ posts to find the 3 or 4 that actually say something useful.

 

[Enmos]

Genetic classification is the way it should be done? Why? Taxonomy exists because of the human nature with classification. It is irrelevant where we as a species decide we want to group different organisms on our charts.

So.. reality is relative then ?

Sure I have. I can read. But it's not just this particular thread, Enmos.

Although my interest in this discussion is modest at best, but it's a complete pain in that ass for anyone to have to sift through 80+ posts to find the 3 or 4 that actually say something useful.

Perhaps it a difference of perception then. I was trying to make SAM see my point. That's useful to me..
The alternative would be to just ignore anyone that doesn't immediately get the point.

 

[Idle Mind]

So.. reality is relative then ?

Of course it is.

But that's not what you were trying to say, I don't think. Does a bonobo stop being a bonobo if we call it something else?

 

[Asguard]

latter i must post all the similarities between humans and bonbons, the similarities in sexual behavor are VERY telling

 

[Enmos]

Of course it is.

But that's not what you were trying to say, I don't think.

What ? No, it's not. Perception is relative, reality is not.
If reality was relative, why are we wasting our time pursuing knowledge and truth through science ? Seems to me it would be a lost cause then..

Does a bonobo stop being a bonobo if we call it something else?

No, of course not. But something is making it a Bonobo. And science is finding out what that something is. I believe we have come a long way with genetics.

Don't you want to know the truth, don't you want knowledge ?
You can classify a banana as a species of rabbit, that won't change the banana..

 

[Idle Mind]

What ? No, it's not. Perception is relative, reality is not.
If reality was relative, why are we wasting our time pursuing knowledge and truth through science ? Seems to me it would be a lost cause then..

This is getting a little too philosophical for Biology. But we are pursuing knowledge of the universe as we perceive it. Perception is everything.

No, of course not. But something is making it a Bonobo. And science is finding out what that something is. I believe we have come a long way with genetics.

Agreed. My formal education is in molecular genetics, so this is something I would never dispute.

Don't you want to know the truth, don't you want knowledge ?

Classification of organisms in an arbitrary manner is not the pursuit of knowledge. It's application of knowledge. Genetics research is very important, and it is giving us a much better understanding of how organisms operate, and how they are what they are. I just don't see the point in bickering over a naming convention.

 

[Asguard]

ok similarities of bonobo's and humans:

Females have slightly more prominent breasts, in contrast to the flat breasts of other female apes, although not so prominent as those of humans

More human than ape

The Bonobo walks upright approximately 25% of the time during ground locomotion. Its quadrupedal ground locomotion generally is characterized by forelimb 'knuckle walking', similar to orangutans and in contrast to the predominant use of knuckles as characteristic of gorillas and the Common Chimpanzees. These physical characteristics and its posture, give the Bonobo an appearance more closely resembling humans than that of the Common Chimpanzee

The Bonobo also has highly-individuated facial features, as humans do, so that one individual may look significantly different from another, a characteristic adapted for visual facial recognition in social interaction.

again much more human than ape (even chimp)

Frans de Waal, one of the world's most popular primatologists, states that the Bonobo often is capable of altruism, compassion, empathy, kindness, patience, and sensitivity. Other scientists have disputed these characterizations, pointing out that de Waal has not in fact observed Bonobos not living in captivity.[6] The view that Bonobos are a more egalitarian species of primate has become controversial in recent years as more scientists have observe the Bonobo population in their natural habitat.[6]

Recent observations in the wild indicate that the males among the related Common Chimpanzee communities are extraordinarily hostile to males from outside of the community. Parties of males 'patrol' for the unfortunate neighbouring males who might be traveling alone, and attack those single males, often killing them. (Some researchers have suggested, however, that this behaviour has been caused by a combination of human contact and interference and massive environmental stress caused by deforestation and a corresponding home range reduction.[16]) This does not appear to be the behavior of the Bonobo males or females in their own tribes, where they seem to prefer sexual contact over violent confrontation with outsiders.

all very human, even the negitive sides (just look at israil palistine if you dont belive me)

Hohmann and Surbeck published in 2008 that Bonobos sometimes do hunt monkey species. Having observed a group of bonobos in Salonga National Park for five years they witnessed five incidents where Bonobos preyed on groups of monkeys. Their research indicates it was deliberate hunting, where a group of Bonobos would coordinate their actions—contrary to their normal hunting behaviour, which is quite solitary and less purposeful. In three occasions the hunt was successful and infant monkeys were captured, once a redtail monkey and twice a Cercopithecus wolfi. The spoils, however, were distributed quite peacefully among the members of the group.[17][18

group hunting is also very human though other pack animals do paticipate as well

Aggressive encounters between males and females are rare, and males are tolerant of infants and juveniles.

ok they sadly arnt rare in human sociaty but they ARE generally treated as something worse than male male violence or female female

Sexual intercourse plays a major role in bonobo society

do i even need to comment here?

With the exception of a pair of Cohan gorillas observed doing so,[19] Bonobos are the only non-human animal to have been observed engaging in all of the following sexual activities: face-to-face genital sex, tongue kissing, and oral sex.[20]

im a little puzzled by this one, i dont know if they mean they are the only species to do all three or if they are the only species to do ANY of the three. I belive dolphines have been known to give head jobs (even male male ones) and i THINK they mate face to face but i do doubt they kiss. Anyway, similar sexual behavor to humans rather than other chimps

there is a whole heep on male male and female female sex but i dont want to quote it for fear of starting a gay debate

The sexual activity happens within the immediate family as well as outside it.[21] Bonobos never form permanent relationships with individual partners. They also do not seem to discriminate in their sexual behavior by gender or age, with the possible exception of abstaining from sexual intercourse between mothers and their adult sons; some observers believe these pairings are taboo.

ok MOST humans DO form permanent or semi permanent bonds however we also do engage in sex outside. The issue of taboo's is also very human

When Bonobos come upon a new food source or feeding ground, the increased excitement will usually lead to communal sexual activity, presumably decreasing tension and allowing for peaceful feeding

food and sex, need i say more?

Bonobo reproductive rates are not any higher than that of the Common Chimpanzee. Female Bonobos carry and nurse their young for five years and can give birth every five to six years. Compared to Common Chimpanzees, Bonobo females resume the genital swelling cycle much sooner after giving birth, allowing them to rejoin the sexual activities of their society. Also, Bonobo females who are sterile or too young to reproduce still engage in sexual activity

humans who are sterile still engage in sexual activity

Bonobos are capable of passing the mirror-recognition test for self-awareness. They communicate primarily through vocal means, although the meanings of their vocalizations are not currently known. However, most humans do understand their facial expressions[10] and some of their natural hand gestures, such as their invitation to play.

how much closer can you get than actually understanding?

Two Bonobos at the Great Ape Trust, Kanzi and Panbanisha, have been taught how to communicate using a keyboard labeled with lexigrams (geometric symbols) and they can respond to spoken sentences. Kanzi's vocabulary consists of more than 500 English words[30] and he has comprehension of around 3,000 spoken English words.[31] Some, such as philosopher and bioethicist Peter Singer, argue that these results qualify them for the "rights to survival and life," rights that humans theoretically accord to all persons.

whats bush's vocabulary?

There are instances in which non-human primates have been reported to have expressed joy. One study analyzed and recorded sounds made by human babies and Bonobos when they were tickled.[32] It found although the Bonobo's laugh was a higher frequency, the laugh followed a similar spectrographic pattern to human babies

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bonobo

so sam, how much closer could you actually get?

 

[Enmos]

This is getting a little too philosophical for Biology. But we are pursuing knowledge of the universe as we perceive it. Perception is everything.

I agree, this is not the thread

Classification of organisms in an arbitrary manner is not the pursuit of knowledge. It's application of knowledge. Genetics research is very important, and it is giving us a much better understanding of how organisms operate, and how they are what they are. I just don't see the point in bickering over a naming convention.

There are rules by which organisms are assigned to taxa. The organisms within a particular taxon are grouped because of a particular level of genetic affinity to each other, which in turn signifies their evolutionary relationship.
What is arbitrary is to ignore these rules (and with it the genetic relations between various species) just because you don't like how reality turns out.

I see you didn't comment on my banana analogy..

 

[Idle Mind]

There are rules by which organisms are assigned to taxa. The organisms within a particular taxon are grouped because of a particular level of genetic affinity to each other, which in turn signifies their evolutionary relationship.
What is arbitrary is to ignore these rules (and with it the genetic relations between various species) just because you don't like how reality turns out.

But we decided what the rules were, didn't we? So it's still an arbitrary system.

I see you didn't comment on my banana analogy..

Because it's saying exactly the same thing as my bonobo comment about calling them something different. It's just a name and a category that we've given it, and it does nothing to change what the organism actually is. We are just naming and organizing things in a way that makes most sense to us at the current time.

 

[Enmos]

But we decided what the rules were, didn't we? So it's still an arbitrary system.

Not really. Taxas are groups of organisms that are closely related.
The lower the taxon the more closely related the organisms in it are.
It's not even like having a huge pile of cubes of varying sizes, and then grouping them according to their size, that would be arbitrary.
Species are closely related (and thus grouped together) because they had a relatively recent common ancestor. To ignore their descendance is to ignore evolution.

Because it's saying exactly the same thing as my bonobo comment about calling them something different. It's just a name and a category that we've given it, and it does nothing to change what the organism actually is. We are just naming and organizing things in a way that makes most sense to us at the current time.

So you wouldn't have a problem with it if they classified banana's as Lepus musa ?
My example was to show you how stupid it is to ignore genetic relationships between species when you're classifying them.

 

[John99]

how so?

 

[Naturelles]

I wonder what would happen if scientists propose to put us in the Pan genus. Those religious people might start getting onto about how humans are "superior" Just like the ridiculous debate on evolution.

Or maybe since we've drifted so far from nature, we shouldn't classify ourselves!

I'm joking

 

[Enmos]

I wonder what would happen if scientists propose to put us in the Pan genus. Those religious people might start getting onto about how humans are "superior" Just like the ridiculous debate on evolution.

Or maybe since we've drifted so far from nature, we shouldn't classify ourselves!

I'm joking

You might have been joking but there is truth in what you said. The majority of religious people will of course be against reclassifying Homo sapiens to Pan sapiens.

 

[John99]

Those religious people might start getting onto about how humans are "superior" Just like the ridiculous debate on evolution.

Or maybe since we've drifted so far from nature, we shouldn't classify ourselves!

I'm joking

but you think humans are superior. all humans think humans are superior except some admit it and some dont. or you were joking.

 

[Naturelles]

You might have been joking but there is truth in what you said. The majority of religious people will of course be against reclassifying Homo sapiens to Pan sapiens.

No, I'm serious about reclassifying, but I was joking about not classifying ourselves at all since we've drifted so far from nature.

 

[Naturelles]

but you think humans are superior. all humans think humans are superior except some admit it and some dont. or you were joking.

No way do i think humans are superior, there is nothing in the universe which is "superior" except the laws of physics which governs everything. We are just an insignificant group of creatures on this small speck of rock (our planet) in this huge Universe.

 

[John99]

that may or may not be true but still does not mean we arent superior to a cockroach.