Conquer Club

We're 99.4 percent related to them so why not? they are capable of learning sign language but uncapable of talking human languages, so until they can speak a human language i'm not ready to call them humans.

I would say no. there is enough difference in the genetic code that they are not Homosapien.

black elk speaks wrote:I would say no. there is enough difference in the genetic code that they are not Homosapien.

Although they are able to talk to us through making sounds on a keyboard they are still not able to talk to us vocally.

The concept "They can even learn sign language, they're just like us!!" is so funny.

It's not like they are getting a full education here and learning valuble job skills. They're learning to sign LOL after throwing the contents of thier diaper at the so called scientists.

unless monkeys can succesfully produce offspring with humans they can never be classified as humans. intelligence isn't enough.

sure, using that logic who's to say jonny knoxville isn't a chimpanzee?

deepsouth wrote:unless monkeys can succesfully produce offspring with humans they can never be classified as humans. intelligence isn't enough.

sure, using that logic who's to say jonny knoxville isn't a chimpanzee?

even then it is unlikely that they could truly be classified Human (some geneticists hypothesise that Neanderthal man may have interbred with early homo sapien man but the 2 would still classified as separate as they evolved along 2 separate branches of our family tree)

Indeed Tigers can mate and produce offspring with lions but it is clearly not a lion ... or i would have called it a lion not a tiger.. wouldn't !?
Maybe it's all a hoax to boost zoo revenue! have you seen a Tiger and a lion together in the wild!? makes you wonder doesn't it!


Ok look! i'm up for anything.. if you get the chimp i will test out the hypothesis.

jiminski wrote:(Neanderthal man may have interbred with early homo sapien man but we are still classified as separate)

I've missed some past information here. You're which again?

Tiger + Lion = Liger / Tion (depending on the gender of the parents)

Also, monkeys can learn sign language - BUT! they cannot do what sets humans apart in terms of language; that is, to create entirely new sentences simply because we know the grammar of the language, rather than repeating a certain phrase.

2dimes wrote:

jiminski wrote:(Neanderthal man may have interbred with early homo sapien man but we are still classified as separate)

I've missed some past information here. You're which again?

hehe .. You remember how it was 2 dimes: I am half and half.. (mine and 2 Dimes ancestry is closely linked so we know about each others respective histories) his great great grandfather mated with a goat. he was a very frugal gentlemen; he wanted to have children with built in shoes, who he could make a hat out of if they died in childbirth. (The intellect of those sired did progressively suffer over the generations but the Dime family were never the most sparkling coin in the purse.)

Indeed, so succesful were old Grampy Dimes offspring that he sold them for a whole silver dollar a piece, each year at the county fare!

Sadly, due to the vaguely cross species nature of this fiscal endeavour, the quality garments reduced each year. Until today at the Newfoundland fish-hook and top-hat bazaar the offspring will only fetch 4 nickels Canadian!

Regretfully, due to the poor, almost worthless pelt and slow wittedness of this generation, the Dime family are considering branching out into a new trade all together.. Well if they stay in the goat fucking businness they'll have no cents at all!

2dimes wrote:The concept "They can even learn sign language, they're just like us!!" is so funny.

It's not like they are getting a full education here and learning valuble job skills. They're learning to sign LOL after throwing the contents of thier diaper at the so called scientists.

Sign em up for CC. No-one will be able to tell the difference.

Following the definition of species, monkeys would have to produce fertile offspring with humans to be able to be classified as homo sapiens...

This is also why lions and tigers are of a different species; they only produce non-fertile offspring.

chogori wrote:Following the definition of species, monkeys would have to produce fertile offspring with humans to be able to be classified as homo sapiens...

This is also why lions and tigers are of a different species; they only produce non-fertile offspring.

that is pretty much correct.

Dude, there are enough people walking around us RIGHT NOW that shouldn't be classified members of club homosapiens, with out recruiting fresh wellsprings of recruits. Lets work on evolving our current crop of throwbacks before bringing anyone new into the fold hmmmmm?

Stating with breeding permits. Man! Think of all the crap you have to go through to obtain a drivers permit or the paperwork and credit checks you get when buying a home. Yet anyone can have a kid.....without any bearing on their ability ( fiscally or education wise )

J

Ha jim. My great uncle slept with goats for warmth, there was no breeding. It's spelled "fair".

if they were to start being considered human, would it become legal to fornicate with them? if so, you have my full support for their entry to the human race

In answer to your question...NO

Why stop at classifying Chimps and Bonobos as human...just keep going down the evolutionary line:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=atOyGdNK ... re=related

ook ook i r a human LOL rofl

Classifying them as humans is an irrelevant question; it's a simple matter of genetics. What is interesting: should they be considered non-human people? They can communicate with us, and understand our speech. Physically they are incapable of making the vocal sounds that we are. But does intelligence and intercommunication imply that we should extend further rights to them than we do towards, say, a slug?

Ditocoaf wrote:Classifying them as humans is an irrelevant question; it's a simple matter of genetics. What is interesting: should they be considered non-human people? They can communicate with us, and understand our speech. Physically they are incapable of making the vocal sounds that we are. But does intelligence and intercommunication imply that we should extend further rights to them than we do towards, say, a slug?

as moral or at least emotive dilemmas go, that is quite an easy one... the slug gets it every time.

now if you swap 'slug' for 'blind puppy', i think you may be on to something!

jiminski wrote:

Ditocoaf wrote:Classifying them as humans is an irrelevant question; it's a simple matter of genetics. What is interesting: should they be considered non-human people? They can communicate with us, and understand our speech. Physically they are incapable of making the vocal sounds that we are. But does intelligence and intercommunication imply that we should extend further rights to them than we do towards, say, a slug?

as moral or at least emotive dilemmas go, that is quite an easy one... the slug gets it every time.

now if you swap 'slug' for 'blind puppy', i think you may be on to something!

...perhaps my question was flawed, but not on the cuteness factor. A better question:

Should they receive more rights than an endangered frog?

Ditocoaf wrote:

jiminski wrote:

Ditocoaf wrote:Classifying them as humans is an irrelevant question; it's a simple matter of genetics. What is interesting: should they be considered non-human people? They can communicate with us, and understand our speech. Physically they are incapable of making the vocal sounds that we are. But does intelligence and intercommunication imply that we should extend further rights to them than we do towards, say, a slug?

as moral or at least emotive dilemmas go, that is quite an easy one... the slug gets it every time.

now if you swap 'slug' for 'blind puppy', i think you may be on to something!

...perhaps my question was flawed, but not on the cuteness factor. A better question:

Should they receive more rights than an endangered frog?

hehahehaheh you have a flair for humour Dito!

So this is how the grassroots campaign to legalize man-monkey marriage gets started.

HapSmo19 wrote:So this is how the grassroots campaign to legalize man-monkey marriage gets started.

While I realize that you are joking, I feel I should clarify something:

I'm not questioning whether or not they should be considered humans; obviously they aren't. But should they be regarded as another intelligent species?