Couple of points, Chimpanzees are NOT members of the Homo Branch and should not be referred to as such. The scientific names for Chimps are;

Pan Troglodytis (Chimpanzee)
Pan Paniscus (Bonobo)

The confusion often is introduced because the taxonomic classification is as follows;

Order: Primates
Suborder: Haplorrhini
Infraorder: Simiiformes
Superfamily: Hominoidea
Family: Pongidae
Genus: Pan
Species: Trogoditis / Paniscus
Subspecies:

Humans are similar but are as follows;

Order: Primates
Suborder: Haplorrhini
Infraorder: Simiiformes
Superfamily: Hominoidea
Family: Hominidae
Genus: Homo
Species: Sapien

The genetic percentage difference varies depending on how it is calculated, however an article in Sciencedaily back in August 2012 states;

Ninety-six percent of a chimpanzee's genome is the same as a human's. It's the other 4 percent, and the vast differences, that has intrigued researchers. For instance, why do humans have a high risk of cancer, even though chimps rarely develop the disease? In a new study, scientists have looked at brain samples of each species. They found that differences in certain DNA modifications, called methylation, may contribute to phenotypic changes. The results also hint that DNA methylation plays an important role for some disease-related phenotypes in humans, including cancer and autism.

Then an article in National Geographic states the follwoing in 2005;

Scientists have sequenced the genome of the chimpanzee and found that humans are 96 percent similar to the great ape species.

I believe that the confusion in percentages derives from the fact that on the Chromosome level the difference between Human and Chimp base pairs is as little as 2.7%, however when the chromosomes are examined and the full DNA is compared the actual differences are around the 4-5% difference mark.

The fact is that our closest relatives are dead, Homo Erectus, Homo Neanderthalis and Homo Floriensis all appear to be extinct species (Lets not get into the Yeti and Orang-Pendak debate here) so this will make Chimps our closest cousins, but this does not make then Human and they are not members of the Homo branch, as such they must not be given the same rights as Humans..but as I stated before all Great Apes should have rights and protections above other species on a sliding scale.[/quote]

---

As a follow-up, I have not read anything that addresses chimp mitochondrial
DNA, and a comparison with human mitochondrial DNA. It must have been
researched -- I don't begin to read all the literature. Perhaps, you can
come across something. A quick Google approach might work (I tend to avoid
Google, for my own reasons.).

James --

The added complexity of mitochondrial- and epigenetic-effects on an organism,
and their complex interactions with each other, are what prompt me to offer
my own surmisings on the subject. I read Scientific American, and related
literature, for thought-provoking articles on the general area of inheritance.

A 2% difference, between humans and chimpanzees, is probably a very large
difference. There's epigenetics, plus mitochondrial DNA, to factor in.
The spread between us could be astronomical. I'd be very surprised (as
would, probably, a lot of others), if -- in the future -- a change in a
handful of genes resulted in turning a chimp (offspring, of one, actually)
into a human (ethical obstacles, here, obviously).

Now there is a question that might be very relavent. What is the mitochondrial differance?

---

[/quote]

Old James

A 2% difference, between humans and chimpanzees, is probably a very large
difference. There's epigenetics, plus mitochondrial DNA, to factor in.
The spread between us could be astronomical. I'd be very surprised (as
would, probably, a lot of others), if -- in the future -- a change in a
handful of genes resulted in turning a chimp (offspring, of one, actually)
into a human (ethical obstacles, here, obviously).

We have about 98% commonality with chimps

This is correct TS.
Homo Sapiens and Homo Troglodytes (Chimpanzees) share the same DNA with a difference of only 2%, give or take a decimal point or two.

I have an easier time welcoming Homo Troglodytes into the inner circle of what defines humans than accepting corporations into personhood.

Me too. Much easier time. Get me on a bad day though and I'm liable to say it would be a step down for Homo Troglodytes.

I have an easier time welcoming Homo Troglodytes into the inner circle of what defines humans than accepting corporations into personhood.

But neither are homo sapiens. So a question is does one have to be a homo sapien to be a person?

---

We have about 98% commonality with chimps

This is correct TS.
Homo Sapiens and Homo Troglodytes (Chimpanzees) share the same DNA with a difference of only 2%, give or take a decimal point or two.

I have an easier time welcoming Homo Troglodytes into the inner circle of what defines humans than accepting corporations into personhood.

---

I do not fight fascists because I think I can win.
I fight them because they are fascists.
Chris Hedges

A riot is the language of the unheard. -Martin Luther King, Jr.

If someone is able to make a conclusion that a chimp is mentally insane, does that give someone a legal reason to put this chimp to sleep?

Yes it does. Dogs for example are constantly put to sleep. The ones who stay in asylums too long get put to sleep, pitbulls who attack humans are instantaniously put to sleep etc...

Humans have all the power over other creatures in this world, a well known fact.

---

rOZZ
Music
Pictures

We all should know that the main purpose of the justice system is to make a difference between right and wrong.

Which includes among other things the discussion of the right to live versus the right to die.

I do not want to have a discussion about this right now, but just as an example.

If someone is able to make a conclusion that a chimp is mentally insane, does that give someone a legal reason to put this chimp to sleep?

What is this happened to be a human being instead? Would it be so much easier to make up a decision about doing the same thing?

Anyway, reading through the most recent page in this thread reminds me that there always is an easy way of approaching a specific subject and also a more complex way of doing the same thing. The result of such an approach may be visible in the way these results are being documented.

Most of the time you will need more than one line or paragraph of text in order to prove a particular thing or demonstrate the principles or maybe reasoning for obtaining one particular such result.

Then there is something inherently wrong with the US legal system. A person IS a Homo Sapien, pure and simple. If they choose to change that definition for self serving purposes then they open a can of worm that is a slippery slope to a corruption of what we all recognise as HUMAN.

Meh, you are talking about the legal system that has defined corporations as people and money as free speech.

The issue over whether Chimps/Bonobos, Orang-Utans etc are our closed relatives is open for debate anyway. The statements often bounded about as too how close we are genetically is a moot point, we are only around 6% different from earth worms and only about 8% different from flowering plants, yet we are 4% different from the Great Apes, so percentage of genetic different is not and should not be a deciding factor in any decision with massive implications for society.

Again, no.

We have about 98% commonality with chimps, about 44% with a fruit fly, 26% with yeast and only about 18% with plants.

I would suggest you read the latest research then, because your figuires are wrong.

---

I would suggest that the US courts buy a new Dictionary if they even waste time hearing this case. There is no such word in English as "personhood". The word person is primarilly a noun used to descibe a HUMAN BEING (Homo Sapien) which is a distinct species seperate from any of the Apes.

Too late. The New York State Appeals Court has already heard the case.

The phrase I used was 'legal personhood'.

The legal definition of 'person':

Person Legal Definition:
An entity recognized by the law as separate and independent, with legal rights and existence including the ability to sue and be sued, to sign contracts, to receive gifts, to appear in court either by themselves or by lawyer and, generally, other powers incidental to the full expression of the entity in law.

Individuals are "persons" in law unless they are minors or under some kind of other incapacity such as a court finding of mental incapacity.

Many laws give certain powers to "persons" which, in almost all instances, includes business organizations that have been formally registered such as partnerships, corporations or associations.

Note that not all members of Homo sapiens *ARE* legal persons. Also note that some entities that are NOT members of Homo sapiens (indeed are not even living beings) *ARE* legal persons.

I asked a question earlier, and I will repeat it. What qualities would a non-Homo sapiens life form have to possess in order to qualify as a legal person? This question has relevance to this project.

This project is all about the Search for Extra-Terrestrial Intelligence (SETI). Lets say we find some, and they show up. Would *THEY* be legal persons?

Some here are willing to consider the concept, using my example of a Chimpanzee. They ARE a grey area. They possess many, perhaps most, of the qualities WE do. But are they People (that is to say, at least potentially a 'legal person')?

As I said, some are open to the idea. Others are adamant that 'people' is a "Homo sapiens only club".

Oh, and by the way, Homo sapiens *IS* a species of Great Ape. We did not stop being a Great Ape when we discovered how to make fire, invented agriculture and the wheel, and became... "civilized".

Then there is something inherently wrong with the US legal system. A person IS a Homo Sapien, pure and simple. If they choose to change that definition for self serving purposes then they open a can of worm that is a slippery slope to a corruption of what we all recognise as HUMAN.

But then the US also has idiots who want to ban evolution...!!

---

The issue over whether Chimps/Bonobos, Orang-Utans etc are our closed relatives is open for debate anyway. The statements often bounded about as too how close we are genetically is a moot point, we are only around 6% different from earth worms and only about 8% different from flowering plants, yet we are 4% different from the Great Apes, so percentage of genetic different is not and should not be a deciding factor in any decision with massive implications for society.

Again, no.

We have about 98% commonality with chimps, about 44% with a fruit fly, 26% with yeast and only about 18% with plants.

---

Life on earth is the global equivalent of not storing things in the fridge.

If such proteins become to similar with our body's own proteins, there may possibly become a misunderstanding between the food you are eating and the elements of your body and you may risk ending up with the possibilty of unwanted mutations and other similar things.

Erm, no.

The reason why we share so much DNA with other creatures (98% with a chimp, 92% with a mouse, generally >90% with all mammals) is because we're all built from the same proteins. Keratin in a mouse or cow or fruitbat is exactly the same as the keratin in a human. Same for collagen or elastin or the many other proteins that make up an organism.

---

Life on earth is the global equivalent of not storing things in the fridge.

I would suggest that the US courts buy a new Dictionary if they even waste time hearing this case. There is no such word in English as "personhood". The word person is primarilly a noun used to descibe a HUMAN BEING (Homo Sapien) which is a distinct species seperate from any of the Apes.

Too late. The New York State Appeals Court has already heard the case.

The phrase I used was 'legal personhood'.

The legal definition of 'person':

Person Legal Definition:
An entity recognized by the law as separate and independent, with legal rights and existence including the ability to sue and be sued, to sign contracts, to receive gifts, to appear in court either by themselves or by lawyer and, generally, other powers incidental to the full expression of the entity in law.

Individuals are "persons" in law unless they are minors or under some kind of other incapacity such as a court finding of mental incapacity.

Many laws give certain powers to "persons" which, in almost all instances, includes business organizations that have been formally registered such as partnerships, corporations or associations.

Note that not all members of Homo sapiens *ARE* legal persons. Also note that some entities that are NOT members of Homo sapiens (indeed are not even living beings) *ARE* legal persons.

I asked a question earlier, and I will repeat it. What qualities would a non-Homo sapiens life form have to possess in order to qualify as a legal person? This question has relevance to this project.

This project is all about the Search for Extra-Terrestrial Intelligence (SETI). Lets say we find some, and they show up. Would *THEY* be legal persons?

Some here are willing to consider the concept, using my example of a Chimpanzee. They ARE a grey area. They possess many, perhaps most, of the qualities WE do. But are they People (that is to say, at least potentially a 'legal person')?

As I said, some are open to the idea. Others are adamant that 'people' is a "Homo sapiens only club".

Oh, and by the way, Homo sapiens *IS* a species of Great Ape. We did not stop being a Great Ape when we discovered how to make fire, invented agriculture and the wheel, and became... "civilized".

The question wasn't about making a chimp subject to human law. It was about giving it human rights.

You can't do one without the other. Human rights do not exist if they are not codified into laws. Thus giving the chimps human rights means the chimp becomes subject to human laws.

Also I think the question wasn't so much about applying human rights specifically on the chimp, but to give him the status of a person, which means he automatically gains access to those rights and again, becomes subject to our laws.

I would suggest that the US courts buy a new Dictionary if they even waste time hearing this case. There is no such word in English as "personhood". The word person is primarilly a noun used to descibe a HUMAN BEING (Homo Sapien) which is a distinct species seperate from any of the Apes.

It is dangerous to start ascribing human attributes to other species, would this mean that all Chimpanzee's, Bonobo's and Gorilla in the US are then US Citizens with all the comensuate rights and priviledges this encompasses? Well if that is the case keeping one in a cage in a zoo or otherwise "owning" one would be a criminal offense under human trafiking laws and false imprisonment..

It's simply ridiculous.

Should Apes have more rights that any other species, Yes they should, but then the rights and how we treat all animals should be on a sliding scale anyway. If you treated all animals equal then even killing an insect would be a crime, which is patently ridiculous.

Should any living species that is so far descibed in science have the same rights as Humans, no way, that is daft.

The issue over whether Chimps/Bonobos, Orang-Utans etc are our closed relatives is open for debate anyway. The statements often bounded about as too how close we are genetically is a moot point, we are only around 6% different from earth worms and only about 8% different from flowering plants, yet we are 4% different from the Great Apes, so percentage of genetic different is not and should not be a deciding factor in any decision with massive implications for society.

The genetics points a way forward for evolution and surely shows a roadmap that proves the case for evolution, but that is not the debate here, the real question is when did we stop being a member of the Great Ape family...genetics suggests that the last common ancester of the Homo branch and the Chimpanzee branch was between 6 and 8 million years ago. There is a question over this, and that will likely remain the case, however more importantly is the strongly held belief that the common ancestor of the Homo family was the Australopithicines, but here the fossil record is far from conclusive and is 90% interpretation rather than fact supported.

We have human footprints that are 3.69MYr old, more than 1 million years older than the oldest confirmed Australopithecine fossils (This is also debated) and the footprints have been scientifically shown to be that of a Homo species member, namely the design and use of the foot rules out any of the Ape family. Recently some have claimed the species that made the prints was Australopithecus Afarensis, but this has not been widely accepted and is open to debate.

What this demonstrates is that just because all other known species of the Homo family tree are no longer here and that Chimps etc are the closest living relatives does not mean they should be treated as members of the family and given the same rights. If all great apes died due to a disease unique to them does that mean we would then give the rights previously given to Chimps to the next "cousin" in line, which would be the Baboons? This would clealy be a nonsense.

---

If such proteins become to similar with our body's own proteins, there may possibly become a misunderstanding between the food you are eating and the elements of your body and you may risk ending up with the possibilty of unwanted mutations and other similar things.

OMG, just go to library and read what % of proteins are different between you and the frog for example (or whale or monkey, or dog...) You will be really surprized :)

The question wasn't about making a chimp subject to human law. It was about giving it human rights.

yep, "rights". Vote right, to marry on people right, what else human right they need? Just as I said, to give non-human human rights is ridiculous. Non-human needs are different. There is no objects they should have some own rights, but definitely not a human ones.

EDIT: and what is "to give some right"? How we define that right was given? Perhaps, if it fixed in law, not? Hence, to give right and to make subject to law not SO different things. Just formulate what is "to give right" is ?

EDIT2: from starting post:

lawsuit over legal

. To me these words assotiated with law, not right...