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.)

[Cathar1950]

I would have to concede on the one way street if you mean they can still adapt and do.
But you have to move along, adapt or die. In that sense I think it is a one way street. The Universe changes in all it's glory and life changes with it if it is life.
But then so does non-life. The distinction may break down at some point and still require change(evolution and adaptation).
It is a wonder that the universe has built into it this marvellous quality.
I think that is something Theist, Agnostics, and Atheist could agree one.

[Dilettante]

Any cat or dog owner cannot deny that their pets have some communicative ability beyond "I'm hungry" and "I need to tinkle, let me out."

Elephants do the whole graveyard thing with the bones, and they also paint, which might not produce Picassos, none the less demonstrates an enjoyment in something other than eating and pooping.

Ever seen an Otter create it's own personal tobaggan course, using it's fur as a sled?

All whales seem to have an incredibly complex language. 'Nuff said.

Well, the dolphin subset of whales seem to exhibit intelligence far beyond their supposed "brainless animal" lot in life as described by Creationists.

How do African Grey parrots not only mimic human speech, but perform abstract tricks based on things like shape and color?

Koko. Again 'nuff said.

And for those of you who want a real interesting mystery, Google for "Oliver-Chimpanzee," and let me know if you find any pages for an upright walking, human female flirting, 7 and Seven cocktail drinking chimp who presents some very interesting questions about our ape cousins.

I'm sorry Creationists, but the evidence for our fellow animals having intelligence and emotions beyond eat, poop, migrate and mate is just to overwhelming to deny.

I'm definitely not a Creationist, but I don't think we can equate animals and people either. I am a pet owner and I can attest that my pet's ear and sight are fine-tuned to perceive certain hints, but only at a very basic level. I am also aware that my dog doesn't "love" me: it's mere adaptation to his ecological niche. For animals to be persons they would have to be capable of developing moral thinking, which they are not. Koko and other "talking" primates turned out to be merely examples of the "Clever Hans" phenomenon (See http://www.skepdic.com/cleverhans.html )

[Lotan]

I am also aware that my dog doesn't "love" me: it's mere adaptation to his ecological niche.

How do you know that your own love isn't "mere adaptation" as well?

[QED]

For animals to be persons they would have to be capable of developing moral thinking, which they are not.

OK, we all know that this business of moral thinking is a bit of a minefield -- but how would you account for the two different kinds of mice that my cat bring in our house? The correlation between him having previously been scolded for bad behavior and the presentation of the kind of mouse that is given as a gift is very strong. I wouldn't hesitate in running it as a controlled scientific study on this phenomenon.

And we also have the numerous cases where not only dogs but cats have alerted humans to dangers - such as the cat that took its owners to a sheep that had fallen into their swimming pool. Does none of this suggest that a degree of moral judgment is going on inside their heads?

[Dilettante]

I am also aware that my dog doesn't "love" me: it's mere adaptation to his ecological niche.

How do you know that your own love isn't "mere adaptation" as well?

Hmm.. well, it's not the same. Humans don't absolutely need a wife and kids to survive the way dogs need humans (I have friends who are single and childless and yet seem to be doing OK). Dogs no longer have an eco-sysytem independently of us humans. Wolves do, but not dogs. If people and dogs stopped having this canine-human relationship, dogs would either become extinct or turn into wolves.

[Dilettante]

For animals to be persons they would have to be capable of developing moral thinking, which they are not.

OK, we all know that this business of moral thinking is a bit of a minefield -- but how would you account for the two different kinds of mice that my cat bring in our house? The correlation between him having previously been scolded for bad behavior and the presentation of the kind of mouse that is given as a gift is very strong. I wouldn't hesitate in running it as a controlled scientific study on this phenomenon.

And we also have the numerous cases where not only dogs but cats have alerted humans to dangers - such as the cat that took its owners to a sheep that had fallen into their swimming pool. Does none of this suggest that a degree of moral judgment is going on inside their heads?

It's hard to tell for sure. The examples you cite are isolated cases, while humans as a species seem to have this capacity--that is, not specific humans, but all humans. Of course, part of being a person (and developing moral thinking) is being raised by people. That's why feral children aren't usually considered persons. Maybe if the animals you cite are pets raised by humans something somehow has rubbed off on them, it's hard to say. But the issue merits further investigation. Even if "a degree of moral judgment is going on in their heads", how can we decide when it has reached the level we ascribe to personhood?

[Lotan]

Hmm.. well, it's not the same. Humans don't absolutely need a wife and kids to survive the way dogs need humans (I have friends who are single and childless and yet seem to be doing OK).

Sure it's the same, your analogy is just a little out of whack. Humans (every one of us) rely on other humans to survive. Wolves rely on each other too. Your pet dog is analogous to a child. He relies on you, but that doesn't mean that he can't love you too. Humans don't need dependents to survive, but our dependents need us.
Besides, dogs often show affection for those who cannot possibly benefit them. For example, I know a German Shepherd who is best friends with a duck. Most dogs are usually protective of children too, and of course there are examples of mother dogs adopting the strays of other species.

[Dilettante]

I think we are getting several things mixed up here. Of course humans need other humans to survive. It's only natural for us to rely on our own species. The difference is that dogs rely on a different species (us) to survive. That's why they need to adapt to us. Whether what dogs feel toward their owners can be called love or not seems to be debatable. When experts don't agree, perhaps it would be best for us non-experts to suspend judgement. But I can't help but sense a difference between human-dog "love" and the same emotion between two humans. If I gave my dog to the neighbor, my dog would soon adapt to him. However, if my neighbor's wife (or child) moved in with us, I don't think I could transfer the love I feel for my wife to her. Anyway, here's an interesting article:
http://www.physorg.com/news5011.html

Dogs may instinctively be protective of chidren and of the young of other species too. They can also become aggressive and attack them. Every year a handful of children are attacked (and sometimes killed) by pet dogs in my country--often their own pet dogs. Dogs can do wonderful things for us, but they can also hurt us. They lack the moral judgement most people acquire via socialization with other humans.

[USIncognito]

This will mostly be about interpretation and non-human semantics to please don't take it a personal, but disagree.

I'm definitely not a Creationist, but I don't think we can equate animals and people either. I am a pet owner and I can attest that my pet's ear and sight are fine-tuned to perceive certain hints, but only at a very basic level.

I really hate to get into the whole issue of primative v. advanced or more developed, but when it comes down to how smart cats and dogs are it really can't be avoided. I think for most pet owners it's not a question of "are" our pets smart, but "how" smart are they.

I'm not suggesting in any way that my cats could harness fire or figure out Calculus, but dogs can be trained to smell certain scents and comminicate that fact to thier handlers, and my cats know that fresh water comes from the spigot on the vanity. These are things that take both learning and discernment.

I am also aware that my dog doesn't "love" me: it's mere adaptation to his ecological niche.

As a cat person, I'm going to have to disagree based on the stereotype that cats don't "love" their companions, but instead "tolerate" them. Back when I used to let Scarlett out to roam my apartment compex, she was apparently taken in by some neighbors of mine 3 stairwells away. They decided to put her on their balcony and when I came home from work, she started plaintively meowing at me. I knocked on the door of the apartment with no reply and after about 10 minutes of trying to coax her off the balcony - she jumped nearly 30 feet. I think she migh have hurt herself in the attempt, but the vet said she was O.k.

For animals to be persons they would have to be capable of developing moral thinking, which they are not.

This is the crux of the issue. Many animals do exhibit moral thinking, but just on more base levels than humans do. They simply lack the more developed brain corticies to choose, say, a vegetarian lifestile despite being evolutionarily omnivores. This lack of, ugh... I hate to admit this - "free will" doesn't diminish their intellectual capacity in the gestalt in the least bit.

Koko and other "talking" primates turned out to be merely examples of the "Clever Hans" phenomenon (See http://www.skepdic.com/cleverhans.html )

I'll just step over the line from evidence to belief in seeing primates like Koko as actually being able to express thought and emotion (I'd ask that you check her reaction to "All Ball" being run over) rather than attribute them to simple autonomous reactions. Maybe I'm giving to much intellectual credence, but I don't see much difference between the cute redhead I saw from the OKC bombing mouring her children and the footage I've seen of a Cheetah mourning the loss of her cubs.

[Cathar1950]

I think there might be degrees of difference but not in kind.
Cats are weird and snobs unless they are hungry then they are all over you. I think you dog loves you.