Are Apes People Too?

[Lotan]

Meet Chantek ...



Chantek isn't just any old orang, he knows ASL. Not only can he talk to humans, he can even talk to his buddy Koko, a signing gorilla.
Creationists will describe hominid fossils as entirely human or entirely ape. I'm curious what criteria they use to decide.
To put it another way - if these apes can communicate with humans, isn't it then the duty of good christians to see that they receive the gospel message?

(Here's Chantek's website in case the first link expires.)

[LillSnopp]

To put it another way - if these apes can communicate with humans, isn't it then the duty of good christians to see that they receive the gospel message?

*coughing*, Well.. erh.. i dont even know what to say, i guess no Creationist will answer this thread (obviously). But i can imagine what they would say

"Its an Ape".... End of story. God made us in His image (that would be the Sapiens you see today, as the Earth is only 6000 years old).

Seriously, you cant really debate this with Creationist, because they refuse to accept any facts of any kind that goes against there belief (that would be most of todays science). I know that 55% of americans believe the Earth to be less then 10 000 years, Which removes quite a deal of all the civilizations we had, and of course, all Homo SubGroups.



Personally, No, Chantek is an ordinary Pongo pygmaeus, a descendant to the Hominidae groups, but nonetheless an ape. I consider it to be a Animal (yes, we are all animals, but you get my point), but on the other hand, i consider Jews, Muslims and Christians to be animals to (but they would be lower then this ape if we talk about worth), so i guess my opinion does not really count.

[USIncognito]

I'm on dial-up so I'm not going to spend 30 minutes looking for something I can summarize in 20 seconds, but apart from the obvious examples of Chantek, Koko, tool use by chimps and crows, octopi solving mazes, etc., I'd mention the case of Oliver the retired performance chimpanzee. His origins are quite mysterious it seems, but he exhibited near human like behavior for most of his life. If someone with broadband cares to do a few selectively worded Google's I'm sure you'll find his story.

Of course the ceveat must be offered that similarities of behavior and appearance do not necessarily infer a direct evolutionary relationship (an example being a lazy cat who likes to be spoiled and a lazy child who appreciates similar treatment), but since, according to YECism, finding, in addition to our morphological, genetic and social similarities, the finding of a Chimp who virtually emulated human behaviors be further indication of shared ancestry, not shared Creation?

[Lotan]

Here's a nice article about Oliver.
Creationists sometimes use the argument that we are created in god's spiritual image, whatever that means. Maybe that leaves enough room to include Chantek. If apes are clever enough to use language then they are definitely ready to hear the healing message of salvation!

[USIncognito]

Lotan, thanks for the Oliver link. My introduction to him was in a Dallas Morning News article now probably 10 years old.

Somewhere in a ten year stack of National Geographics I have lies a story I haven't, in five years of active Creation/Evolution debate leafed all of them sufficiently to find, but I distinctly remember a brief article about a monkey troop exhibiting behavior supposedly only humans would.

One of the young monkeys (sorry, I forget the species) exhibited, what in humans, would be mental retardation, and, in fact, had the same genetic markers that a human would have for that condition. The article goes on to explain how the rest of the troop made special efforts to care for and assist the individual in question.

And as long as we're discussing behavior, how about those Elephants and the almost ritualistic activities they exhibit in what amount to ossuaries of their fallen kin?

I'm sorry, but I get strained muscles when rolling my eyes at the suggestion that humans alone exhibit certain behaviors, or that humans don't exhibit behaviors seen in many other species...

[QED]

Wonderful topic idea Lotan. Hubris seems all too pervasive amongst the religious types of this world. I often wonder what amount of effort goes into developing an understanding of animal intelligence? Like the economies that don't want to hear about problems such as global warming, do we not wish to hear the truth about our fellow creatures in case we discover uncomfortable truths about our status in life?

[axeplayer]

Meet Chantek ...



Chantek isn't just any old orang, he knows ASL. Not only can he talk to humans, he can even talk to his buddy Koko, a signing gorilla.
Creationists will describe hominid fossils as entirely human or entirely ape. I'm curious what criteria they use to decide.
To put it another way - if these apes can communicate with humans, isn't it then the duty of good christians to see that they receive the gospel message?

(Here's Chantek's website in case the first link expires.)

Since no other Christian/Creationist seems to be answering this post...I suppose i will.
Just because this chimpanzee can perform sign language and communicate with humans does not mean it can process thoughts like humans do. For example, many parents these days are teaching their babies sign language to indicate when they are hungry, tired, etc. This doesnt mean that the baby has anywhere near the thinking capacity of its 25-30 year old parent. Which is why we Christians believe that if babies die at (or hopefully not, but sometimes) before birth, they go to heaven. Children up to about 3 or 4 would go to heaven if they died at those ages because they are not at an age where they can fully understand the idea of religion or God. Same with chimps and other animals, even if they do know sign language.

[QED]

we Christians believe that if babies die at (or hopefully not, but sometimes) before birth, they go to heaven. Children up to about 3 or 4 would go to heaven if they died at those ages because they are not at an age where they can fully understand the idea of religion or God.

The very notion that I might think my 7 year-old daughter could possibly go to an eternal hell (assuming this is where Christians go if they fail to make it into heaven) for any thoughts or deeds she might have perpetrated is a total abomination. I find many implications of Christian thinking unabashedly monstrous. If you speak for the majority of Christians on this matter my disdain has just multiplied.

[USIncognito]

Just because this chimpanzee can perform sign language and communicate with humans does not mean it can process thoughts like humans do. For example, many parents these days are teaching their babies sign language to indicate when they are hungry, tired, etc. This doesnt mean that the baby has anywhere near the thinking capacity of its 25-30 year old parent.

This is a half expressed idea. First off could you cite some examples/studies of parents teaching their children sign language in order to convey hunger or a soiled diaper? The really sounds suspiciously like that Simpsons episode where Homer's half-brother invented a "baby translator." Second, and more importantly, why doesn't non-human animals exhibiting human actions and behaviors suggest a connection between our species (in light of the overwhelming morphological and genetic evidence)?

I'm sorry, but I reject your suggestion that infants are as cognatively aware as adults, but merely are linguistically and physiologically unable to respond to their needs. My cats are less cognitive than a toddler*, but, like myself, know that when they need to take a poop, look out an appropriate place to do so. If children needing to deficate are aware of this need, but cannot express that fact or crawl to the commode, why do they eliminate in their diapers, then cry to notify their parents ex post facto?

* Actually cats, dogs, squirrels, octopi, and a myriad of other species exhibit equal or greater cognition than an infant or toddler in some ways, but I think they exhibit enough abstract thought that our fellow animals can be considered slightly lower on the cognition gradient.

[CJO]

Hello. New here.

Staying well clear of the "soul" issue, since I do not believe in ape souls or human souls, or any souls at all, I would like to question the assumption that Chantek, or any other ape trained in this way, is actually "speaking" ASL in the sense that human children acquire and use language.

There is no question that these are remarkable animals, but a few things crop up every time I read an article or see a TV program about Koko et al. One is that they have all been raised by their trainers, in very close contact, from very early in life. Another is that the episodes are always anecdotal. Transcripts of long sessions are not forthcoming. All we get is a given reporter's "greatest hits" i.e. the most compelling string of signs an individual happened to witness, not reported in the context of days weeks and years worth of repetitive nonsense that is the great majority of the supposedly "linguistic" output of the animals. In a long string of garbage, one would expect the occasional neologism. Furthermore, a hallmark of open-ended human language is its variability. Speakers of language, even very young ones, are generators of novel utterances a majority of the times they open their mouths to speak.

It is telling, too, that the author of the article here doesn't sign. Neither do most of the researchers who claim to have trained apes to speak, at least not as fluent or native speakers. On the rare occasions when native, deaf speakers of ASL have been allowed to observe these animals they have commented on the "lenience" of the non-fluent transcribers in their willingness to assign discrete status to gestures that, to them, don't pass muster as signs. Carrying that notion a step further, Jane Goodall, who I believe observed Washoe and some other "signing" chimps, commented on how similar to native gestures chimps use in the wild the so-called "signs" were. The animals, in this analysis, have a great deal of native communicative ability which they are adapting slightly to the "format" of a sign language, without ever really internalizing syntax.

Taking account of all of this, as well as the great reticence that these researchers have shown to opening their research up to peer review or other careful scrutiny by linguists and primatologists, leads me to believe that we're witnessing the results of expert conditioning applied to admittedly phenomenally intelligent animals. A neat trick, but ultimately closer to Hans, the horse who could do arithmetic, than to language acquisition.